The Indiana State sentinel. [volume] (Indianapolis) 1868-1895, 1894-08-08

tee. it is pointed out, are publicly re-
spOnsble.
1T is also admitted" says the report
and it Is proved by the sworn testimony
OF every witness called. that the present
form of the schedule was that desired by
the representatives, Of the refiners or the
sugar trust"
The three interests concerned in the
sugar schedule are stated to be those
with no local or pecuuiary interest who
believed in free sugar, the producers Of
raw sugar and the refners Ii soon be-
came evident after the house bin came
TO the senate. says the report, that no
bill could pass that body which did not
regard both the latter interests. The in
teTests of the producers and refiners then,
IL is said, came into conflict, the re-
finers faVoring an ad valorem duty on
raw sugar as now embodied in the bill
II is pointed out that Messrs Have
meyer. Searles, Henry r. Reed, Cord
Never and H. i. Terrell Of the sugar
trust all testified that they sought 20
secure an al valorem duty.
The report says: 1T appears by the
testimony Of Senator Vest that Senators
Brice Of Ohio, German of Maryland.
Smith OF New Jersey, Hill of New York
and Senators White and Caffrey of
Louisiana. after said conference (of dem
ocratic senatorsl came TO the rooms Of
the finance committee In regard to the
sugar schedule. Senator Vest testified
that Mr.. German urged duty Of 40 per
cent. ad yal0rem and quarter of
cent per pound differential I'm favor Of
refined sugars the proper schedule.
This was opposed oy the senator's from
Louisiana, representing the producers as
against the refiners Of sugar. After
ward the specific schedule was changed
by the finance committee and was re-
ported as it now stands-with a 40 per
cent ad vaiorem duty and one-eighth of
a cent per pound dinerential'"
The supplemental report Of Senator
Allen OF Nebraska. which was published
some days ago, is also submitted with
the report.
some Inside Testimony.
The supplemental testimony taken by
the committee, but kept secret heretofore,
is submitted with the reports. 1t con-
tains the statements Of Albert NJ. Seipe,
Emil Gillaudeau. Senators Camden,
Smith and others.
seipe said in his testimony that he was
in the office OF Carson & Mccartney Of
this city more or less and that his pur-
chase Of sugar stock had been largely In
iuenced by seeing senator's in the Office
and by the common talk that they were
dealing IN sugar stocks, He said he had
seen Senator'S Brice, Quay and Smith
never heard either of them give an order
for sugar stock,
He produced letters from Emil Gill
laudeau OF the New York brokerage firm
of Wheeler 4 Co, the first bearing date
June 10, and reading II see that Smith
Of New Jersey and Camden of West Vir-
ginia both swear that they had not spec
ulated In sugar stocks ] could produce
a man, or that is, l know man Q do
not think he would go back on them)
who WAS I'm my office this morning, that
received orders I'm sugar from both OF
them, md he has Camden's written or
der. I should think that II a senator
swore falsely it was pretty serious
matter. DO they swear 70 these ques-
tlons under oath?'
In the next letter. dated June q, Gil
laudeau says: II have had a talk with
my friend and he could not In honor use
the Information, as the orders and the
business were glven to him. think you