The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1894-05-30
THE DISCUSSION.
Mr.. Hill Defends the Correspondents
but Receives Little support.

At the conclusion of the reading of the
report there was warm discussion as to
whether or not it was a privileged one.
Mr.. Hill said that the matter of specula-
ton in Sugar stock would involve only
question of proprety. Senator Lodge said t.
was a question of general parliamentary law.
The report of the contumacy of a witness
was a question of highest privilege. The
only thing before the Senate was for the
Chair to decide whether the matter was
a privileged report Vice President Steven
son ruled that 1t was a privileged report
The effect of the decision would be to shut
off debate upon the report.
Mr.. Hill appealed from the decision of
the Chair and asked TO be heard. He made
a vigorous speech against the decision. and
proceeded to discuss the questions involved
in the decision. He argued that the Sem
ate could not lose jurisdiction simply be-
cause a committee made report; that il
still had a right to recommit the report
and, If recommitted in law, Ii was as IL
the report had never been made Mr. Hill
said he had no personal interest in the in
vestigation. He thought it proper enough
bribery, but he doubted the wisdom and
propriety Of this proceeding. Whether news
paper men told the truth was question
which. If the Senate entered upon il, would
keep il busy until the end of time The
Senate smiled audibly at this statement of
the New York Senator, but 1T led to a very
interesting debate between Mr. Hill and
Mr.. Allen, a member OF the bribery COM
mittee.
Mr. Allen interrupted Mr.. Hill to say that
1t was not the truthfulness of the CORE
spondents that the committee was charged
TO investigate 1T was whether attempts had
been made TO bribe Senators; whether the
Sugar Trust had made large political con-
tributionS for the purpose of influencing
legislation, and whether Senators had been
speculating in Sugar stocks. He asked Mr..
COntended
no right to investigate the charge that
Senators had speculated In Sugar stocks
mot exactly" replied Mr.. Hill. "But I
have grave doubt If q Senator should come
before a committee and refuse to answer
questions relating to his private business
whether the committee could compel him
TO do so. The decisions Of the courts are
against it"
Does the Senator believe a Senator could
invest in Sugar stocks without that invest
ment influencing his voter inquired Mr.
Allen.
''The Senator compounds the legal ques-
tion." replied Mr. Hill, with the question
of propriety. Senator who ,speculates in
Sugar stock violates no law
But" Interrupted Mr.. Allen. "it would
not be more proper for Senator to invest
money in any enterprise TO be affected by
his vote than Ii would be for a Judge on
the bench to render a decision in a case in
which he was interested. This question of
public morality goes TO the foundation of
the integrity OF the government"
"A Senator has legal right TO do what
"A legal" returned Mr.. Allen. "but no
moral right"
SHOULD EXAMINE SENATORS.
zone question at a time" said Mr.. Hill.
"He would have as much right as Sena-
tor who. being an owner OF silver mining