The Austin weekly statesman. (Austin, Tex.) 1883-1898, 1894-06-21
BRIBERY INVESTIGATION.
THE NEW YORK BANKER FUR
NISHES NO INFORMATION.
Knows Nothing of Senators Specializing
In Sugar Stocks-Senator Allen In
sists on Knowing Amounts Paid
by the Trust to the Cam.
paign Funds.

WASHINGTON, June 14.-The sugar
trust investigation committee will be-
gin to question senators tomorrow and
it is understood will have every mem.
Der of the senate before them before
ceasing this line Of inquiry. The
idea OF the committee is to have every
senator answer for himself as to
whether he has bought OF sold sugar
stock, furnished information concern
ing the tariff Legislation on sugar or
has been in any way improperly in
fluenced in his official actions by the
trust. 1t is not known yet what
senators will be called first.
There was but one witness before
the committee today and his examln-
alton did not consume more than 10
minutes time. The witness was
Charles Coster, of the firm of Drexel,
Morgan o. Co. of New York, and he
was summoned because of the reports
that mis- firm had bought and sold
large quantities OF sugar stock. Mr..
Coster said he knew OF no speculation
in the stock business by senators nor
any effort to influence Legislation in
any manner by the sugar trust, and
with this statement he was excused,
Before the committee adjourned
Yesterday. while Mr.. Searles was ties
tifying, Senator Allen said: GAS d
memOe OF this committee, insist
that this witness answer, also
that the witness, Mr.. Havemeyer,
shall be required to state the amount
of funds contributed by the American
Sugar Refining company for political
purposes in the years 1892 and 1898,
and that upon failure to testify upon
that subject they shall be reported to
the senate as other witnesses have
been reported. Mr.. Searles told the
committee the circumstances under
which he met Senator Jones and dis
cussed with him the sugar schedule
Of the tariff bill. Mr.. Se&rles' posi-
ton was that at IL cents pound, or
40 per cent the rate was excessive
For refined sugar he argued that
the tax should be 100 per pound
instead of 40. "That is true"
Mr.. Searles quoted the senator
as replying, "buT orr committee will
not give more than 81 40 per 100. That
cannot be done. The committee will
not tax refined sugar at 81 40"
81 said" continued the witness,
"the only other thing to do is to be-
gin with eighty degrees and tax that
sugar at eigbt-tenths of cent. That
will bring you 81 40 on refined sugar. +"
Senator Jones replied: "Yes but the
Louisiana senators will not take S'l0c
for eighty degrees sugar. They want
a cent protection on that. They have
put in ahead eighty degrees cent
per pound, the committee have put
another on refined at 40 and there
we are"
every well,D 1 said, "if that is the
case you are simply guilty OF putting
before the senate sche dule which IL
iDdefinable and indefensible to your
admissions and it does not seem to
me right that great industry like
the sugar refining industry should be
put in any such position as that, " ana
with, that cur interview closed.
Senator Lodge-WOuld you prefer
| the present schedule TO a schedule
which carried 40 per cent ad valorem
on raw and As per cent ad vaIorem on
| refined?
Mr.. Searles-I would prefer the AZ
per cent.
Senator Lindsay-Is it to he inter
est of the sugar refiners to have this
bill take effect at once in view of this
fact or to postpone it u.til the LIST Of
July?
MIR. Searles-My own view is that
there would be nothing gained by
postpouing it, [ have always supp
posed THAI ,he cOnce ssiOp Of the 1st o.
January was tor the benefit of the
producers of this country.
| Senator Allen-You may state
briefly what difference, in your judg
ment, there is oetweeI the Mckinley
and the pending act as the senate pro
poses to amend it, to the American
Sugar Refining company. Which il
the better act for you?
Mr.. Sealles-The Mckinley act by
far.
Mr.. Searles-I think one half. Tha
is, 1 think the protection in the mar
gin to the refiuer in the proposed
Schedule 10 nor one-half OF what it i
in the Mckinley DILL.