The times. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1890-1903, 1894-05-29
THOSE LOCK.JAW REPORTERS
Senators Worrying Because CorleSpon-
dents Refuse 10 TAX.
SUGAR TRUST RELOCATED TO REAR,
While the August Committee Is Making
War Upon Correspondents - What
the District Attorney Nay Do.

subjects treated in the report which the
Senate committee now engaged in investi-
eating the sugar question will make TO
the Senate tomorrow be taken as basis
for judgment Il looks as II the COM
mittee had lost sight Of the main issue
and were trying the case Of the three
newspaper men, with the ultimate object
In view of ascertaining how far their
authority extends in compelling news
paper men to tell the source of informa-
ton upon which their news matter is
founded.
10 RECOMMEND CHANGE OF LAW.
The committee in its report will recon-
mend change in the existing law for
the reason that the present statute IS
lame and not sufficient 10 cover AL cases
They will also urge that the amendment
TO the statute be passed at once SO they
can proceed I'm satisfactory manner In
the examination OF witnesses.
Under section 1Oi Of the Revised Stat
utes, the act Of 1891. the committee Will
report the failure of these witnesses to
testify. and it will become the duty of
the President Of the Senate to at once
certify this fact to the District Attorney,
who must proceed before the grand jury.
The witnesses Will not be called before
the bar OF the Senate All these witnesses
will remain firm in their determination
not TO answer the question. Judge Dit
tenhcefer said tonight before any pro-
ceedingS were taken under indictments
he would raise the question of jurisdic-
tiOn. and fight the case i'm that line from
court TO court as he has before the COM
mittee.
Whether the investigating committee
will continue i'm other branches Of the
inquiry pending the prosecution OF the
cases against these three witnesses has
not yet been determined. No testimony
was taken to-day
TBE ACT CF 1857.
1t was the refusal OF James W. Simon
ton. Washington correspondent Of the
New York Times. to answer question
in an alleged bribery case that caused
the act of 1871 to be passed. He was
placed in jail January q, 1891, and dis
charged February 9Th without having an
swered February Sth he was expelled py
the House from the press gallery on ac-
count of his failure TO give the nt0rma~
tiOn sought. The law of 1881 makes the
offence Of the three recaicitrant witness
es a msdemeanOr and provides maxi
mum penalty OF thousand dollars me
and q years Imprisonment. and a mini
mum penalty Of one hundred dollars
fine and one month In prison.
Mr. Harris Walker, correspondent Tor
the Daily American. New YORK, was
the only witness called O-day. Mr..
W diktr refused TO Fiht the Hdiitt va tttN
person who had given him certain al
legged information concerning the sugar
Trust
NAY PROSECUTE sMENT wITSi ssfs.
The report Of Sugar investigating Com
mittee that will he made 10 the senate
tomorrow will disclose procedure on
the part Of the committee e1trely unlock
ed for. and some testimony that appears
to have an important bearing upon the
subject OF conferences between tnaIurs
and members of the Sugar Trust The
committee will report, 1t Is said tuat they
have directed the United states District
1 Attorney to proceed against witnesses
Shriver. Edwards, and Walker before
/ the grand Jury and have them indictel
/ for the commission Of crime; the com
mittee holding that under an almost
+ forgotten act Of 1891 their refusal 10
| testify before the Senate committee Is
an offence 50 punishable.
SENATOR cAFTrRY's ADMISSIONS.
The committee viii also submit the
testimony Of Senator Caifery, which IS
/ said TO admit that number OF con
ferences were held between senator's and
| representatives OF the sugar Trust. III
! il SAID that In his evidence Mr.. Caffery
| admitted that he had been present al two
conferences, and, i'm repy TO questions
snid that one OF them was held at the
! residence Of Senator Brice. II Is under
stood that at this conference Mr, Cai-
fry said there were present beside
himself Messrs. Brice, Corman, and
! Hill. and Havemeyer, president OF the
Sugar Trust; and other gentlemen IN
tprested in sugar. whose names the
reporter could not ascertain. Mr. Caffery
| also told the committee that at thls
conference the sur-r peop.e made the
| argument In favor Of a change from a
| specific rate Of duty, which rad az that
! time been agreed upon TO the ad valo-
rem rate. which was subsequently adopt
| cd. but that ne (Afr. Caffery). oppose
this change, believing that the specific
! sugar in this country.