The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1894-06-05
them to protect sugar because OF the DEM
ocratic party's obligations to the Sugar
Trust
MPHERsoN's STATEMENT.

Senator McPhersonis testimony was de-
voted largely TO an explanation Of stock
purchases and the method OF conducting
them. He said that he nad agreed with
the finance committee as to the sugar
schedule. IT did not" he said, favor the
sugar schedule presented and did rave
som over It," but he added that he had
never said anything about the Democratic
party being under obligations to members
of the Sugar Trust. He caid that IL his
would have been accepted by the Senate
committee without amendment He be-
free and ! sufic;snt amount az Ter nnos
secured. Nevertheless he had offered sugar
amendments in committee providing for a
testing 50 degrees and a gradual increase
of about one mill additional for each de-
gree for refined sugar. He said he had
never come in contact with any OF the
sugar ~reiners except Mr.. Searles. who had
called on him at his house and remon-
strated against the schedule he had pre-
pared In committee. He repeated that ne
never knew OF any obligations to the Sugar
Trust. but said he had heard the state
ment made that the sugar rehners were in
the habit of giving the Democratic side a
small contribution and the Republicans a
Mr.. Mcpherson stated that while ne kept
an office In Wall street. and he had been
In the habit for the past seven or eight
and selling them. he mad not considered
himself an operator in the usual accep-
tation of the term. He said that in addi-
ton to the purchases OF sugar stock made
by his son in February he had purchased
some sugar stock in October and NOvem-
Der and had sold 1t In Dece nber when Con-
gress convened
Questions put by Senator's Allen and
Davis developed the fact that Senator Nc
Pherson's son had made a profit Of about
$1,000 on the stock bought on the Pad and
sold on the 18th OF February. Closely ques-
Senator Mcpherson stated that II was in
the power of the Sugar Trust 10 put up
or aoW shis ine f price e OF It's STOCK; ana ne
He also knew that putting a tariff on sugar
would tend TO Increase the value Of the
late in stocks affected by legislation and
had never done so. In the course OF his
it had been very definitely decided between
himself aud his son that the Geographic or
der for sugar stock of Feb. - was not to
York the night IL was written. He thought
the order had been carelessly left on the
desk and had been Inadvertently sent by q
servant.
WHAT MIR. VEST SAID.
Senator Vest also testified. He said that
Mr.. Carlisle was In the committee room
from time to time and consulted with the
members of the committee in regard TO tho
tariff bill; that he expressed anxiety that
the committee should agree upon some
measure and that 1t should become a law.
but he made no statement about party OBJ
legations to the Sugar Trust. Mr.. Vest
said he had an indistinct recollection OF Mr..
Carlisle drawing up a provision In regard 10
sugar, but he did not know who received
1t nor did he know that he had ever seen
Ii. At any rate, IL was not the schedule
tnasd WAS b adopted ted a ID II h he :, did Id. prepare epp cen a
nection with the reported scene in the COM
mittee room. which never occurred. He
pronounced as "a lie made out or whole
cloth the story that he had changed front
on sugar, and had said that he would be
compelled to cease associating. with Joe
might be aroused by the fact that Hickey
was a Spectator. Il was for free sugar.
favor / cent a pound on raw sugar and no
duty on refined sugar and no advance"
Mr.. Vest stated that he never exchanged
formation. Mr.. I1avemyer had come TO his
house and made an argument for what he
wanted, Just as any other manufactured
would. Closing his testimony, Mr.. Vest
said: 81 have never used my official posi-
ton for private purposes. Any statement
that i have is absolutely false, as is also
any statement that I ever gave any infor-
nation or had any connection with the
Sugar Trust-that Is also absolutely false.
If anybody can make the denial broader /
wish he would do So"
| Senator Harris's testimony consisted Of a
general and specific denial Of all the allega-
tons upon which the investigation is based.
He had never, he said, heard OF the report
ed secret visit Of Secretary Carlisle to the
i finance committee OF OF any SuSkcSlODS ne
had made with regard 70 a sugar bounty.
He also stated that he had never invested
in stocks Of any kind, and IL other Senator'S
had bought Sugar stocks he was awa
| of the fact.
Senator Jones, of Arkansas, testified as
to Secretary Carlisle's agency in the prepa-
| ration of the sugar schedule, and his state
ments conceded with those OF Mr.. Carlisle.
The Senator had met Mr.. Havemyer ct
Senator Camden's rooms and talked with
him about the cost of refining sugar in this
country and In Europe.
DENIAL FROM VOORHEES,.
Senator Voorhees, denied that Secretary
Carlisle had visited the finance
and demanded protection for the Sugar
Trust on the score of campaign ccntribu-
tons. Mr.. voorhees, also declared that
there was not a word of truth in the story
Of the Sunday meeting of the finance COM
mittee when it was alleged those interested
in sugar occupied an adjacent room and
| prepared the sugar schedule while the COM
mittee waited.
Representative John Dewitt Warner was
statement that an effort. instigated by men
of. great prominence in the Democratic
party. had been made to cause Mr.. Warner
to cease his fight for free sugar while the
tariff bin was pending in the House. Mr..
Warner said that the suggestion had been
o mao sugar n the s Sugar T r Would beat the
bill, but he declined TO state from whom
the suggestion came; 1t was from members
OF the House OF Representatives. ne sdlu
he had heard very little about the Sugar
Trust until the day before the tariff bill
passed the House and it had become noised
abroad that that interest was organized
for the purpose of defeating his amendment
and carrying a duty on sugar. Senator
Davis asked witness how many times in
the course Of consideration OF the bill In
the House IL was intimated 10 him that
persons in the sugar interest had contrib
uted to the success Of the Democratic party
In New York. Mr.. Warner answered that
this phase of the question had frequently
been suggested TO him, not as
but as a probability. In regard to the al
legged campaign contributions by the Sugar
Trust Mr.. Warner said he had often heard
n charged that there was one. possibly
amounting to 10000 but he knew nothing
about II. Mr.. Warner refused to give the
names of Representatives and others with
whom he had talked. saying that he had
conversed with these persons in confidence.
and that they had given him Information
rather than attempted In any improper way
to influence his. course He thought many
OF them Intended, in a general way. TO show
him the size Of the work he had UNDER
taken.
I0SS 0F Sl000 000.