The Kimball graphic. (Kimball, Brule County, Dakota [S.D.]) 1883-1905, 1894-06-09
MCPHERSON in 4 BAD LIGHT
Stenographic Report Of the Sugar
Trust Investigation.
The New Jersey Senator Had an Enter
prlsing Son Who Would In
Sugar stocks-The ROUTING
Proceeding. ~


Sugar Stocks-The Routine
Proceedings .
WASHINGTON, June THE senate this
morning passed q joint resolution appro.
priating 1000 for the expenses of inquir-
les az to the Investigations ordered by tho
senate. The tariff bill was then taken up
and the amendments to paragraph 1873, Of
fered by the finance committee, changing
the time when the repeal OF the sugar
bounty IS to take effect from July /. 1891,
to January /, 1898, were agreed to. Subse-
quently by unanimous consent that action
still ROMAN open.
MIR. Allison, rep. Iowa, took the floor
and argued against the repeal Of the
sugar bounty and against placing sugar
on the dutiable list. He declared
thnt the sugar schedule as now pro-
posed was in its essence a cspitation
tax and that 1t taxed every man
and woman aud child in the United States
81 q year, while 1t allowed the sugar crop
Of the whole world to come into tho
United States free of duty up to January
J, 1895.
Mr.. Jones, dem, Arkansas. replied to
Mr.. Allison and defended the schedule as
proposed by the finance committee. ,
Senator Gray, chairman of the sugar
trust investigation committee, aid before
the senate today the official ~stenograpb,
er's report OF the testimony given by Sem
ators MCPHERSON, Harris, Jones, Mills,
Vest, Voorhees, and Secretary Carlisle and
Representative Warner, u synopsis Of
which has already been given in the
United Press dispatches. Mr.. Mcpherson
said that 80 far as he knew there was
no trut. in any of the charges published
concerning Secretary Carlisle and the do.
inYs Of the sugar trust. The witness said
Mr.. searlcs, secretary of the Am.ricss
Sugar Refining company, came to his
house and argued that . proposition Of
Tered by Mr.. Mcpherson would give th&
sugar retincrs nothing. Mr.. Searles was
the only person he ever saw on the sub
jsct.
r. most interesting part of Mr. Nc.
Phsrson's testimony related to his own
Investments in sugar stock, 800 shares of
which he purchased In November, 1893,
which he had recently transferred TO his
son. Continuing, he said: All that to
him and on our return here on the 9Th OF
February after the house had sent q bill
over here without any tax on sugar what.
ever, and Is We supposed there could be
no possibility OF any tax on sugar, my son
purchased, Is he had a right to do, own
Ing these stocks, although they were still
IN my name on the books, 500 shares of
q oSAs \ PNAcuAbou IL LOT AD IN
~vestment, intending 10 sell his railroad
stocks and put tho proceeds into sugar"
Senator Davls-Did your son make this
purchase upon consultation with you, or
on his own motionl
Senater McPherson-I consented TO the
purchase OF this stock, but whether be-
fore or after the purchase 1 cannot say
because OF the fact thnt 1t did not seem to
me there could be any such Legislation
with regard to sugar. However, l said to
him: III there be any then | want you to
sell your stock Mt once" On the 24th of
had been 1000 shares Of sugar
stock bought on my account on
tho 23d. | could not under.tand
how that could be and Immediately. the
same moment that l received the notice,
teleRraphcd to New YORK to sell tho
stock at once. Well, tho 18th was on
Saturday. OF course, 1t 10 a half holi.
day, and the notice, or rather my order,
got there too late to do anything. The
next day was Sunday, and early on Mon.
day morning 1t was sold.
Senator Dnvis-Did that operation re-
suit in profit or loss3
Senator MCPHERSON have neve,
looked into that. There might have beer
n little loss or u littla gain.
Senator Allen-Did your son know from
you Or otherwise Of the agitation of thu
question OF taxing sugar by the finance
COl1lI
Senator McPherson-We talked abou,
Senator Allen-Did you give him at thai
time, or At any other time, tho most ae
curate information you could gain upon
the subjecti
Senator McPherson-1do not know tn.
l gave him any information. l found b,
enough information of his own.
Senate A!len-You thought II natural
TO give him the best advice you could AM,
the best Information that you could.
Senator McPherson-I tried to r~estraii
him at all times from buying any stock.
Senator Mills denied any knowledge n
the statements made in: the papers ant
said Secretary Carlisle was never befor
the while he was working viii
1t. The letter from Carlisle introduc,n,
Mr.. Havemeycr was a simple letter of in
PRODUCTION. Mr.. Mills added that he di,
not propose a differential rate on refined
He proposed nothing, he said.
Mr.. Jones testified that before tho las
amendments to the sugar schedule wcr,
reported there was some talk of maxim,
the duty ON refined sugar 40 per cent In
stead OF q cent. There was some talk
said Mr.. Jones, '.in the presence q
Senator Vest and me of making a sebed
dle OF 40 or 45 per cent, and asked Mr.
Carlisle to prepare u schedule. aske.
Mr.. Carlisle II he would AVE II drawn
giving him the points, and he said h,
would. | asked him merely to save my
self tho labor OF 1t. because the data be
thought he would be sure to have Mi thu
points covered" Whatever Mr.. Carlisle
did in tho matter. Mr.. Jones said, he wa,
responsible for.
Senator Carlisle's testimony Is rat The,
brief and pointed. He denied in toto the
to the finance committee, or that he had
ever made any statement to any
human being that the sugar trust
or any one acting tor it had made any con.
to the democratic campaign
fund, and that the trust must be cared
schedule, tho secretary said: "On the
NJ forming OF the 9Th of May Senator Jones
OF Arkansas told me that the committee,
or the subcommittee had agreed upon
a certain rate Of duties for sugar
TO be incorporated in the bill. in lieu Of
the paragraph upon that subject which
was alraady in tho bill rs reported to the
senate by Senator Voorhees, and he either
gave me on q piece of paper a brief mem.
orandum OF the new schedule or para.
graph or he stated it to me, 1 will not oe
which. AT amy rate he informed
me what 1t was and he asked me If /
In, proper form or have IL done al
the treasury department. I said
certainly l would. 1t was a ser.
vice that we had been doing very
and a service which, according to INV
knowledge, the secretary of the treasury
has always done heretofore when tarih
pills were pending, 1 went down to tho
department and dictated to my s%,cnorra.
phor the paragraph containing exactly
the provisions which Mr.. Jones asked me
to put in it.n
senator Lodge-You did not advise =,
TO whether it was better to have al yalo-
rom or specific duticsf
Mr, Carlisle-I have always been in
favor of ad va.orem duty. but I do not re.
member that l gave any such opinion
then. There was very little said about it.
! may say also, shat l rave ALWAYS been
In favor of q moderate duty on z as
revenue article and l prepared the minor.
ity report on the Mckinley bill and tho
provisions putting sugar on the free list
The House.
WARRINGTON, June 4.-The house this
morning renewed the consideration OF thc