Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1894-05-29
TO BE CERTIFIED
To the United States District At
torney for Prosecution.
JOURNALISTS EDWARDS and SHRIVER
Recommendation of the Senate
Investigating Committee.
Observation-Disclosures

Senator Gray, chairman of the select COM
mittee to investigate the alleged operations
Of the sugar trust in connection with tariff
legislation, today submitted a partial report
Of the proceedings Of that committee bear
ing upon .he refusal of the newspaper cor
respondents. Edwards. Shriver and Walker.
to answer questions propounded by mem
Ezrs Of the committee.
The report, after reciting the resolution
by which the committee was authorized to
sit. states that E. ]. Edwards was sum-
moned to and did appear before the COM
nittee. and that he confessed that he had
written the letter over the nom de plume of
Holland which was printed in the Phila-
delphia Press of the 14th instant. The re-
port then cites the proceedings of the COM
mittee. and Mr.. Edwards refused to reply
to questions. The chairman read to him
the portion of his letter in which he stated
the Secretary Carlisle had secretly visited
the democratic members of the finance COM
Inittee and had demanded that the sugar in
tereSt be taken care of, because the demo-
cratic party was under Obligations to that
interest
The Refusal to Answer.
When the part Of this paragraph was
reached in which Mr.. Edwards had said
that what Mr.. Carlisle had said was quoted
from remembrance" Senator Gray. chair
remembrance. Is it yours?'' To which Mr..
Edwards replied: Partly mine and partly
my informants-"
The chairman: You mean to say that you
heard Mr.. Carlisle2
Mr.. Edwards: No.
The chairman: You say what he said IS
quoted from remembrance?
Mr.. Edwards: My remembrance of what
my Informant said.
The chairman: Who was your informant:
Mr.. Edwards: That, l suppose, L shall
have to decline to answer. / do 1t with the
utmost respect to the committee and the
Senate. The information was given to me
under obligations of the highest confidence
by the one who entailed that obligation. so
that I do not feel at liberty to reveal his
name.
After the above detailed proceedings We're
had the witness requested time in which to
consult counsel, which request was granted
The following day, on the 10Th OF May,
Edwards reappeared before the committee.
accompanied by his counsel, when the COM
mittee, through their chairman, propounded
TO the witness the question::
Now, Mr.. Edwards, when you left the
room on yesterday il was for the purpose of
consulting your counsel and making up
your mind. after having consulted him,
whether you would answer the question that
was propounded to you by the committee.
which question was, Who gave you the in
formation upon which you made the state
ment that the Secretary OF the Treasury,
MIR. Carlisle. made secret visit to the dem
ocratic members of the finance committee
some time in February. and while there
made certain appeal to them
The question is now repeated.
WhereupOn the witness. by his counsel.
hled his objections to answering the ques-
ton. which have heretofore been given to
the public
The several objections were overruled
The report then gives. in detail. the various
questions asked of Mr.. Edwards. and which
he declined to answer. They included the
question about Mr.. Carlisle also regarding
the informant as to the meeting of-Senators
In Washington hotel with representatives
or the sugar trust; also the statement that
the sugar schedule was in the hands Of
Moore and Schley. brokers. before being re-
ported to the Senate. ard also as to the
statement that the Sunday before the tariff
Dill was reported there had been a delega-
ton of sugar trust representatives at the
capitol, who dictated the sugar schedule
TO each OF these questions Edwards said the
same person gave him the information and
declined to give his name.
M. Sbriver's Case.
The report next cites the examination of
John s. Shriver. Washington correspondent
Of the New York Mail and Express. who, be-
ing shown copy OF a dispatch to his pa
per of the 10th instant relating to the par
uculars Of an alleged conference one night
wniie the tariff bill was in committee at
me Arlington Hotel between certain Sem
eeors and members of the sugar trust which
nad been overheard by wire manufac-
,ases tas occupylng an adjoining room, admit
put refused to give the name of his inform
ant or Of the manufacturer.
I: Snriver stated that he did not know
tne 1actS or this occurrence upon his own
knowledge, but that they had been given
10 MN by member of Congress- who had
She IactS from the wire manufacturer re-
terreo 10. but said that the Congressman
mad requested that his name be NOT given
and ne could not therefore state more def
htely the source OF his information The
NJ iiIIttee iiIs Qwelt upon one paragraph from
T.
Ihere are a number of Senators who will
De glad If this Investigation should fail
simply because then they could charge the
correspondents with circulating scanda Ions
reports, and have another chance 10 de-
nouhce the press upon the floor of the
senate But II the newspaper men are
Sven chance 10 tell all they know. some
interesting developments will be made
But Mr.. Shriver would not saw more in
NsPonSe 10 the committees urging than
tnat he had received his Information in
confidence "
After these proceedings Mr.. Shrfver 10
auested time IN which to consult counsel
The next day he reappeared before the
conmlttee and announced that he had con-
suited lawyer and adhered to his decis-
Ion not TO reveal the name of his informant
uhe recommendation of the committee IS as
follows: - 90
The Committees Recommendation
In the opinion Of the committee each
OF the questions put TO each of said wit
JnesseS was a proper question, and peril
neut to the question under inquiry before
The committee, and was necessary to make
the examination ordered by said resolution
ol the Senate, and that each Of said wit
pesses is IN contempt of the Senate and
ought to be dealt with for his miscon-
ptct; and that each of said witnesses by
ms various refusalS to answer the Cues-
tlons as herein set forth has violated the
PROVISIONS of the act of Congress in such
cases made and provided, being chapter 7
DI tne Revised Statutes of the United
States"
here the committee quotes the law,
"nich povideS that witness who
reIuses TO answer questions put by a
CONGRESSIONAL committee shall be DEEM
ed guilty of a misdemeanor punisha BILE
py nne OF not more than $1,000 nor
Isss tnan 800, and by Imprisonment in a
SomHon Jail or not more than one year nor
Iess than month, and which especially
provinces that no witness shall be excused
from tesufying on the ground that such
tesumony would disgrace him, and directs
mat In such cases the President of the