The enterprise. [volume] (Wellington, Ohio) 188?-1899, 1894-08-08
EXONERAT'ED.
The Senate Sugar Investigating
Committee Makes It's Report.
No Evidence Was Found That Senators
Had Been Improperly Influenced by
the Trust-The Latter Con-
domned for Making Cam.
paign Contributions.

| UAShlNdIUN, aug o,-lne report Ol
the special committee appointed by the
senate to investigate the alleged sugar
scandal, was made to the senate yes
terday. The report was signed by every
member of the committee and a supple
mental report was also submitted by
Messrs. Lodge and Davis, republicans.
The committee simply refers to its
previous report on the alleged attempt
to bride Senators Hunton and Kyle and
say there remain four other distinct
matters with the in investigation of
which the committee was charged by
the senate:
First-That it had been stated in the
Philadelphia Press that the sugar
schedule had beentmade up-and it then
stood in the proposed amendment to
the tariff bill as it came from the house
OF representatives. consideration of
large sums of money paid for cam
paign purposes of the democratic party.
Second-Whether any contributions
had been made by the sugar trust, or
any person connected Herewith, to any
political party for campaign or election
purposes, or to secure or defeat legis-
lation.
Third-Whether any senator has
been or is speculating in sugar stocks
during the consideration of the tariff
bill then before the senate.
Fourth-To investigate and report
upon any charge or charges which
might be filed before the committee al
leging that the action of any senator
has been corruptly or improperly iIflu-
enced in the consideration of said bill,
or that any attempt had been made to
so influence legislation.
The committee says it has been un-
able to find any evidence tending to
show that the sugar schedule was made
up in consideration of any sum of
money paid for campaign purposes of
the democratic party. 1t is also stated
that the testimony showed that the
charge that President Cleveland had
an interview with one of the Have
meyers on E. c. Benedict's yacht in re-
gard to sugar interests was untrue.
There is also no evidence to support
the allegations that members of the
trust used other than proper arguments
with senators whom they saw with
reference to the sugar schedule, nor
tending to show improper conduct on
the part of those engaged in making
it. Occasion is taken by the committee,
however, to deprecate the importantly
of pressure to which congress and it's
members are subjected by the reports
, OF great industrial combinations
whose enormous wealth tends to sug-
gest undue influences and create in the
public mind demoralizing belief in
the existence of corrupt practices.
The report exonerates Mr.. Camden
and says there is no testimony tending
to prove that the supposed order was
ever executed by any firm or any sugar
stock has been bought or sold by or for
Senator Camden at any time during the
present session of congress. As to the
third branch of the inquiry, whether
any senator has been or is speculating
in what are known as sugar stocks dur
ing the consideration of the tariff bill
the committee say that the declination
of brokers to state the facts made it
necessary to ask each senator to testify
in that respect. In response to such re-
quest the sworn statement of each SEN
ator was taken and is made part Of
the report.
BY these statements it appears that
two senators, Hon. John R. Mcpherson,
of New Jersey, and Hon. Matthew S.
Quay, of Pennsylvania, have held and
sold sugar certificates during the pend
ency of the present tariff bill. Their
testimony further shows that before
the voting on the bill began each had
entirely closed out his holdings
"The sugar trust, by the evidence of
its president and treasurer, has con-
tributed freely to the state and city
campaign funds of both parties, and
these contributions have been made in
years when national elections were
held. This is thoroughly corrupt
form of campaign contributions, for
such contributions-being given to two
opposing parties--are not for the pur-
pose of promoting certain political
principles, but to establish an obliga-
ton to the giver on the part of which
ever party comes into power. The
trust does not give to political parties
for the promotion of political princi-
pies in which it believes, but for the
protection of its own interests. The
fact that it gives to both political par
ties is sufficient proof of the purposes