The Washington times., 1894-05-30

l
was quoted from memory, but he declined to
| give the name of the witness. He stated.
| however, that he had obtaind the information
in Washington from a gentleman to whom
Bradford Merrill. editor Of the New York
Press, had directed him. He said he had the
same authority for the statement that it was
Mr.. Carlisle who had prepared the sugar
| schedule.
With reference to his statement about
Senator Brice's reported operations in sugar
stocks, Mr.. Edwards said: Everybody know
that Moore 4 Schley. of New York, the
brokers with whom Senator Brice has by COM
| mon report q common understanding III all
his business. were the largest operators in
sugar. know it rs matter OF public under
| standing on the stock exchange"
He said that he had the same authority that
he had for other statements concerning iegis-
| lation and Secretary Carlisle's efforts In be-
half Of sugar for the statement that the New
| York agent OF this firm had known OF the
latest amendments to tho tariff bill when Sem
| ator Voorhees, had denied on the floor of the
| Senate that the amendments We're in exist
ence, and also for the statement that Senator
| Caffery had prepared sugar schedule for
submission to the Finance Committee while
Mr.. Havemeyer leaned over his shoulder in Il
| room in the Capitol adjacent to the Finance
| Committee room, but he declined to divulge
the authority in either case.
He said that his authority had informed
| him that he had been present when these
events occurred, but had not stated in what
| capacity.
The report next cites the examination Of
| John S. Schriver, Washington correspondent
| of the New York Mail and Express, who, upon
being shown copy of a dispatchto his paper
| OF the 18th instant relating to the particulars
| OF an alleged conference one night while the
| tariff bill was in committee at the Arlington
| Hotel between certain Senators ana MEM
! bers OF the sugar trust. which had been over
| heard by a wire manufacturer occupying an
adjoining room, Schriver admitted to hav-
ing sent the dispatch to the paper.
| Mr.. Shriver stated that he did not know
! the facts OF this occurrence upon his own
knowledge, but that they had been given to
! him by member OF Congress, who had the
facts from the wire manufacturer referred to,
I but said that the Congressman had requested
| that his namo be not given, and he could not,
| therefore. state more definitely the source OF
| his Information.
Mr.. Edwards said further it was also upon
common report that he had stated that Sem
ator Brice was SO closely connected with H.
| L. Terrell, of the sugar trust as to cause the
! latter to be known as Brice's Terrell. He
knew that their Offices adjoined. and knew
OF this connection as well as he knew
| anything of similar character.
| The law, which provides that a witness
who refuses to answer questions put by a
| congressional committee shall be deemed
| guilty OF a nisdemeanor, punishable by fine
! of not more than 1000 nor less than 500,
| and by Imprisonment in common jail Tor not
more than one year or less than month, and
which especially provides that no witness
| shall be excused from testifying on the
| ground that said testimony would disgrace
| him, and directs that in such cases the Presi-
| dent of the Senate or the Speaker
of the House shall certify the facts
| TO the district attorney OF the
Other testimony presented with the report
was that OF Senator Caffery. Representative
| Bourke Cochran. eN-Represen'ative Ben Le-
| fevre The paragraph i'll Mr.. Edwards letter
| to the philadelphia Press in which ne had re-
! ferred to Mr.. Gallery in connection with the
! preparation of the sugar schedule was read
| to Mr.. Gallery, and he said:
"In SO far as this statement connects me
with the men named here rs belonging to the
sugar trust Havemeyer. Terrell, and Meyer,
| the last two of whom 1 do not know. it is un-
oualifedly false. In so far as the statement
makes me the craftsman OF a schedule which
Mr.. Havemeyer accepted, and which / wrote
| while he was looking over my shoulder.
that is unqualifiedly false. l had no con-
ference with Mr.. Havemeyer nor any one
Of the sugar trust"
Mr.. Calfery said he had met Mr.. Have
meyer one day going out OF the Capitol and
was introduced 10 him. and had hal one con-
ference with him which was held two or
three weeks before the Finance Committee re-
ported the specific sugar schedule. That
conference was held AT Senator Brices house.
Il was asked" +" he said, ito Mr.. Have
meyer. he commenced an argument in favor
OF the ad vaicrem rate on sugar il preference
to the specific rate, and a number OF figures
were presented to show or attempt TO show
the correctness OF his argument
In reply 10 question as TO whether there
hat senator
Brice-s house when ne met Mr.. Havemeyer
there he said that there were several other
Senators present. Among them were Senator
White, OF Louisiana. and Senator Hill. and
his recollection was that Senator German had
also been present, but Mr. Havemeyer did
not meet any of the gentlemen but himself.
Asked if he had ever been present at
meeting Of the Finance Committee at the
Capitol on a Sunday, Mr.. Gallery sa ne had
stepped into the building cnce on Sunday,
the sunday before the bill was reported on
the following Monday. and had met Senators
Jones and Vest, of the committee, there Oh
that day.
Ex-Congressman Lefeyre denied explicitly
the statement in Mr.. Edwards letter concern
ing the Sunday meeting at the Capitol. He
SAID he had not been in the employ of the
sugar trust, and had not been at the Capitol
with any of its members. During the course
of his testimony Mr.. Walker stated that be
seen Senators the Arlington so upstairs
with gentlemen whom he was told were men,
bers OF the sugar trust and gofo Mr.. Have
mevers room, He said he had seen Senator
Brce go to Havemeyer 8 room in the Airing
ton hotel repeatedly while the tariff bill was
pending in committee. He said he had heard
Mr. Roessle. proprietor OF the Arlington. talk
of slipping the Senators up the back way.
He had also seen Senators come in at the
ladies' entrance, and also representatives of
the trust. He had, he said. in his reports
mentioned Joe Hickey as a go-between be-
tween Senator Vest and the sugar trust.
Il have seen," he said, Joe Hickey with
Mr.. Vest and in a little while go with Mr..
Reed or Mr.. TerriIl ami get in quiet
spot and talk" He had, however, only once
seen Hickey with MIR. Vest. and on that occa-
sion he had also seen him within an hour in
conversation with Dir. Terrili. He had also
seen Hickey around the Finance Committee
room doors.
Hon. Bourke Cochran said Walker had
asked him upon one occasion whether no was
the attorney for the sugar trust, and be told
him that he had never been the attorney for
that organization, but that he had declined
to represent the trust in the courts in New
York in 1886 or 1887. He also denied having
told Walker that he favored n duty on sugar
The report closed as follows:
wherefore, the committee report and re-
quest that the President OF the Senate certify
as to each witness his aforesaid failure to tss-
tify and his aforesaid refusal to answer, and
all the facts herein. under the seal OF the Sen
ate. to the United States District Attorney for
the District of Columbia, to the end that each