New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1894-05-30
MR. HILL WILL HAVE NONE OF IT.

MR. HILL WILL HAN r N'.Nh 'r -
prsGrsrrp WITH THE TACTICS or THE GRAY
coMMrr-rEE-THE LATrERs REPORT
U,.h,ngton. May 2.-A, the close Of Mr.. Pe,ti-
grows speech on the tarin Mr.. Gray (pen. Del)
roso and said ne had been directed by select com
n,,,,o. anponted on May L to make partial re-
mort md he asked that IT be read
w. I'm Dem y " said that before making
o,. objection ne would like TO know from the Sena-
tor from Delaware what the programme was
w GRAY rnpliel that ne had no programme
o,he- than Indicated 70 report The committee had
subn,ttei a report which Il considered as one OF
the highest privilege, and he supposed there was
M question that the report was in order any time
II concerned the privileges Of the Senate, and ne
asked that the report be read. in order that the
Senate might determine II II was question OF
privilege or not
Mr. Ull said: I'm the light OF the explanation
~ the Senator from Delaware, or rather IN the
uont NJ the explanation which he does not give. |
am compelled at this time to object to the recep-
ton of that report
subsequently,. however Mr. Hi admitted that
the chair was right In directing the report 70 be
read go that the Senate might see whether the
report presented a question OF privilege.
The presiding officer ruled that the report should
no road. and he directed the clerk to read t.
WHAT THE COMMITTEE FAILED TO LEARN.
7, arnears from this report that the specific ques-
,,ons Mr. Edwards declined to answer were those
ask,ng him who Informed him Of Mr. Carlisle's re-
cent visit to the Committee on Finance when ne
az Mr. Edwards alleged made an appeal to me
Democratic members In February, that appeal
belng supposed 20 have reference 70 duty on
eug,r The committee states that II overruled the
objections OF Judge Dttenhoefer Edwards's coun-
sci and Insisted upon an answer to the questions
Those questions sought TO ascertain the authority
for the statement that Mr. Carlisle signihed MS
willingness himself 10 prepare an amendment to
-. uratafl he
20 the Government and yet Just to the sugar in
,erosts: who gave the Information concerning the
alleged interview between officers OF the Sugar
rrust Mr. Havemeyer. Senator Brice and Senator
Smith; who was his informant that on the day Mr.
voorhees, denied any amendments were proposed 10
the bill as originally reported TO the Senate the list
OF 400 amendments. as prepared by Senator Jones
was In the hands OF one OF the members or the
brokerage firm OF Moore & schley. and that the
draft Of the sugar schedule finally adopted was
tho resul, OF a conference between Senator Cafrery
and representatives Of the trust meeting In one
room, OF the Capitol building while the committee
was I'm session In another. All OF these questions
the committee say Edwards. acting upon the ad-
wise Of his counsel. refused to answer
SOME INTERESTING TESTIMONY.
There are some Interesting passages in the testi-
mony OF Mr. Edwards. He appears to nave been
unable bv positive statements as to individuals to
a,,,sfv the committee regarding his statement
that the Sugar Trust instrumental In In
snlrlng Mr. Cleveand's policy OF antagonism TO the
provisional Government OF Hawaii Concerning the
alleged contributions to the campaign committees.
Mr.. Edwards said:
.Nv recollectlon OF that is was at the Republi-
can headquarters a great deal during the campaign
saw a good many people. and 1t is impossible for
me 10 identify the people who told me particular
things But DO remember this: Somebody told