The representative. [volume] (St. Paul, Minn.) 1893-1901, 1894-08-01
THAT SUGAR TRJ ST.
POpulist Allen Has Something to Say
AbOut It,

About 1t.
WASHINGTON, d. c., July Ex-senator
Allen Nebraska, who was a. member of
the senate sugar Investigating committee
has made an additional report to the SEN
ate experimenting that Of the committee
He says: In view of the fact that the
report of Senators Gray and Lindsay, in
which l concur, does not set forth the facts
in this case as fully I think they should
be stated, l have deemed it perfectly proper
to file separate and additional report
The testimony shows to my mind quite con-
clusively that contributions We're made by
the Sugar Trust to both the Republican and
Democratic parties for campaign purposes
The testimony of Henry O. Havemeyer and
Theodore Havemeyer and John e. Searles
leaves no doubt of the fact that the Sugar
Trust in the state of New York in 1892
contributed money to the Democratic party
Ior campaign purposes, and at the same
time and for the same purpose contributed
money to the Republican party in the state
of Massachusetts. 1t is true that these
witnesses testified that their contributions
were made for local and state purposes, but
there is doubt in my mind that the
money went into the general campaign
fund of those states, and was used as much
for national as for state and local pur-
poses. l think the American Sugar Refin-
ing Company, popularity and more properly
known as the American Sugar Trust, has
been in the habit of contributing money to
the national campaign funds of both the
Democratic and Republican parties through
their presidents, with the expectation, if
not the implied promise, that whichever
party succeeded to power, the interests of
the company should be "cared for by it.
This deduction is fully warranted by the
testimony taken by us. A wisely drawn
and judicious law looking to a prompt and
efficient remedy for this growing evil should
be passed by congress and approved by the
president.
SPECIALIZING SENATORS.
The testimony shows that two senator's,
John r. Mcpherson, of New Jersey, and
Matthew S. Quay, of Pennsylvania, did en-
gage in specializing in what are known as
sugar stocks or certificates during the pen
dency of the present tariff bill before the
senate. AS their testimony accompanies
this report and is self-explanatory, 1 will
do no more than to say that l think it
fully discloses the necessity for law pro-
hibitng this practice. 1t is delicate matter
for me to speak upon this subject but a
sense of public duty requires me to con-
denim the practice unwiSe and fraught
with danger and as one which, if INDUCED
in to any considerable extent by senators
and representa- tives, will inevitably lead to
the defeat of needed reform in legislation.
The evidence does not show that the sugar
trust had any direct influence in procuring
the presentation to the senate of the COM
mittee amendment to the sugar schedule,
although l think that schedule in so far as
1t prescribes and ad valorem system of
taxation is entirely satisfactory to the
trust There is nothing in the evidence to
show that Secretary Carlisle had any i'm
proper interviews with any representative
of the trust or that any advice he may
nave given, or assistance he may have rem
dered the finance committee was at all i'm
proper or out of place. l am we'll con-
Vlnced that in what Senator Jones did in
the premises he was actuated by honorable
motives and had no desire to unduly favor
the sugar trust
IN ANY RESPECT.
l believe it to be due to all of these Of
hcers to say that the evidence does not
cast a suspicion upon their conduct l am
thoroughly convinced, however, that no
senator or representative should ever per-
NIT himself
TO BE APPROACHED
upon any subject connected with legislation
by those representing private special
interests, except on such occasions when
such persons may be heard by the COM
m1ttee of which he is a member, exactly
as they would be heard in a court of JUS
tice in cases there pending and to be de-
termined
1t is proper to call attention to the reck-
less and open defiance of the authority of
the senate to require witnesses to answer
questions that may be put to them, or
make disclosures germane to the subject
matter of investigation The defiance of
our authority by witnesses demonstrates to
me that if the senate ever expected to ar
rive at the truth of any matter under in
vestigation by a committee appointed by
it, it must promptly take contumacious
witnesses in hand and deal with them with
out delay as they would be dealt with in a
court of justice under like circumstances
But 50 long as partisan politics enters into