The Pickens sentinel. [volume] (Pickens, S.C.) 1871-1903, 1894-06-07
y. "A BREEZY DAY.
THE SENATE FRAUD COMMITTEE
Ss r. MAKES IT'S REPORT.
3Htll Was Anxious to Prevent Any Fur
cher Invt stigatlon Of Tho Sugar Trus'
DolnRp, but His Plans Miscarrieo.

.53Ga{ a{WASHINGTON, May 3O.-AC one
r O'Clock p. m. Ill the Sen ate yesterday,
] Gray rose and said that he had been
directed by the select committee ap.
partial report and he asked that it be
read.
s Hill said that before making any OBJ
y Sjecuon, he would like to know from the
Senator from Delaware what the pro
gramme was.
Gray replied that he had no pro.
2gramme other than indicated in the
( report. The committee had submitted
81 report which 1t considered as one Of
the highest privileges, and he supposed
there was no question that the report
war In order at any time. 1t concerned
the privileges Of the Senate and he
that the Senate might determine
1 whether 1t was question of privilege
OrSnot.
: Hill: In the light of the explanation
OF the Senator from Delaware, or
rather in tte light Of the explanation
4 which be does not give,I am compelled
at this time to object to the reception
of that report.
Gray: make the point of order that
q report concerning the privileges Of
the Senate Is one entitled to present
consideration and Is not subject to OBJ j..
jection.
Mar derson coincided with the view
expressed by Gray and argued that the
chair or the Senate could lot determine
whether 1t was a question Of privilege
unless the report WAS read
The presiding officer (FanlkneT) ex.
pressed the opinion that the Senator
from Nebraska was right.
The report was then read. 1t con-
sists Of tive printed pages, some of it
being quotations from That part Of the
testimony where answers were refused.
a portion of the testimony was also
submitted to the Senate. 1t relates
thai Elisha j. Edwards appeared before
the committee May 24th, and stated
That he was 4 correspondent of the
Philadelphia Press and wrote the letter
signed "H olland, ,"relative TO the doings
OF the sugar trust and certain Senators.
1t appears from this report that the
specific questions Mr.. Ed wards refused
to answer were those asking him who
Informed him of Mr.. C"rlise's recent
visit to the committee on finance, when
he, as Mr.. Edwards alleged, made an
appeal to the Democratic members IL.
February, that appeal being supposed
to have reference to duty on sugar.
The committee states that it over.
ruled the objections Of Judge Often
hot fer, Edwards counsel and tnsisted
upon an answer to the questions.
These Questions sought to ascertain
the authority for the statement that
Carlisle sigDiied his Willingness himself
TO prepare an amendment to the sugar
schedule,| which he thought would be
fair to the government and yet just to
the sugar interests; who gave the in
formation concerning the alleged in
tervleNs between officers of the sugar
trust-Havemeyer, the New York sur
gar IT finer, Senator Brice and Senate
Smith; who was his informant that on
the day VOORHEES, denied any amend
ments were proposed to the bill as
originally reported to the Senate, the
list OF 400 amendments as prepared by
Senator Jones, was III the hands of one
of the mt mbers Of the brokerage firm
of Moore & ochley; that the draft Of
the sugar schedule as finally adopted
was the result Of conference between
Senator Gallery and representatives of
the trust meeting in ore room of the
Capitol building, while the committee
was In session IN another. All of these
questions, the committee says, Ell.
wards, acting upon the advice of his
counsel, refused to answer.
Referring to the testimony of John
Shriver. correspondent of the New
York Mail and Express, the committee
quote from Sh1iver's letter detailing
what q prominent wire manufacturer
was alleged 10 have overheard at the
Arlington Hotel In q talk between cor
tain Senators and representatives. of
thesugar trust. Shriver said q member
of Congress gave him the Information
and the committee say that in rt sponse
to the direct question, he declined to
give the name of either the Congress.
man or the wire manufacturer, to
whom he referred in his news dis
patches.
In conclusion the committee say: In
the opinion of the committee each
question put to these witnesses was O.
proper question and pertinent to the
question under inquiry before the com.
mittee and was necessary to n AXE the
examination ordered by said resolution
OF the Senate, and that each of the said
witnesses 1s In contempt of the Senate
and merits to be dealt with for his mis-
conduct, and that each of said witness
'es by his various refusals to answer
these questions as herein set forth has
violated the provisions of that certain
acC OF congress IN such cases made and
provided ,being chapter z of the revised
statutes of the United States.
The committee quotes In full sections
1O2. lob and 1O4 OF the revise d statutea
being the act of 1867 as published in
these dispatches of yesterday.
The closing words Of the report are
as follows:
wherefore tho committee reuupst
that the pre- sident of the Senate certify
as to each witness his aforesaid fa1lu re-
to testify and his aforesaid refusals to
answer all the facts herein, under the
seal OF the Senate to the United Stat ca
District Att ttorney for the District ofCo
lumbla.to the end that eacn of said wit.
nesses may be proceeded against In
mannea and form provided by law"
There: 10 no reference to the case of
larry walker. correspondent of the
rev York Daily America.
When the reading of the report was
concluded, Hill took the floor and ar.
guea that the report did not present
such question Of privilege as ahouId
dlspiiace the pending bill. If the renort
nad been on the part of the inuhn,r, np,
(the attempt to bribe the two Senttorsi,
It would have been a question % Of th9.
hlghest privilege, but that report had
Deen already made and disnnaed mf