The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1894-07-22
SUGAR TRUST INQUIRY
ANOTHER REPORT ON THE SENATE
COMMITTEES INVESTIGATION.
BE Prohibited from Specializing
New Witnesses Examined.

WASHINGTON, July Ex-senator Allen,
of Nebraska, who is a member of the
sugar investigating committee, has made
additional report TO the Senate supple
menting 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 as l think they should
be stated, 1 have deemed il perfectly
proper to file separate and additional re-
port. The testimony shows to my mind
quite conclusively that contributions were
made by the Sugar Trust to both the Re-
publican and Democratic parties for cam
paign purposes. The testimony of Henry
o. and Theodore Havemyer and John L.
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 for campaign purposes
and at the same time and for the same
purpose contributed money to the Repub-
lican 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
no 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 purposes. 1 think
the American Sugar Refining 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 Demo-
cratic and Republican parties through it's
president with the expectation, if not the
implied promise, that whichever party sue
ceeded to power the interests of the COM
pany should be cared for by it. This
deduction is fully warranted by the tes-
timony taken by us. wisely drawn and
judicious law looking to a prompt and
efficient remedy for this growing evil
should be passed by Congress and ap-
proved by the President.
1.-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 is known as
sugar stocks or certificates during the
tendency Of the present tariff bill before
the Senate AS their testimony accom-
panies this report and is self-eXplanatory,
1 will do no more than to say that think
it fully discloseS the necessity for law
prohibiting this practice. 1t is delicate
matter for me to speak upon his subject,
but sense of public duty requires me to
condemn the practice as unwise and
fraught with danger. and as one which, IL
INDUCED In 10 any conslderaoie extent py
itably lead TO the defeat OF the needed re-
form in legislation. The evidence does not
show that the Sugar Trust had any direct
influence in procuring the presentation to
the Senate of the committee amendment
60 the sugar schedule, although l think
that schedule, in so far as IL prescribed an
ad valorem system of taxation, is entirely
satisfactory to the trust.
There is nothing in the evidence to show
that Secretary Carlisle had any improper
interviews with any representative of the
trust, that any advice he may have
given or assistance he may have rendered
the finance committee at all improper
or out of place. / am we'll convinced 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 1t 10 be
due TO all of these officers to say that the
evidence does not cast a suspicion upon
their conduct. / am thoroughly convinced,
however, that no Senator or Representative
should ever permit himself to be APP
preached upon any subject connected with
legislation by those representing private or
special interests, except on such occasion
when such persons may be heard by the
committee of which he is member, eX-
actly as they would be heard in a court
of justice in case there pending, and to
be determined.
cit 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 or our au-
thority by witnesses demonstrates to me
tnat II the senate ever expects 10 arrive
at the truth of any matter under investiga-
ton by a committee appointed by 1t, 1t
must promptly take contumaciouS wit
nesses in hand and deal with them without
delay as they would be dealt with in a
court of justice under like circumstances.
But so long partisan politics enters into
the discussion and consideration of in
vestigations of this character the people
can expect such witnesses to escape un-
punished, and no one knows this truth bet
ter than the witnesses themselves" In
conclusion, Senator Allen urges the passage
of law prohibiting speculation by Sena-
tors and Representatives and a law re-
curing witnesses before committees to
answer questions.