The Washington times., 1894-06-05

iety that the committee should agree upon
some measure and that It should become q
law, but he made NO statement about party
obligations to the sugar trust Mr.. Vest said
he had an indistinct recollection Of Mr.. Car
Isle drawing up provision in regard to
sugar. but he did not know who received 1t,
nor did he know that he had ever seen It.
He said that on refined sugar the first de-
mand was for quarter OF cent on refined
sugar and 331< per cent. ad valorem. Mr.. Have
meyer he said. fled that In the committee,
and he (yest) had It in his drawer, as It was
rejected. He said the sugar people had been
very aggressive and had made great deal OF
difficulty. The planters and reflners had
been alike importunate, "but at last" he
said, 1--WE just turned them out Of the COM
mittee room and made this bill as it is now. :"
He said he had never exchanged a word with
Hickey about sugar, and never gave him any
information. He said Hickey came to his
house several times. but he did not see him.
He also said he never gave any person the
slightest intimation what the committee was
DOING aud that he had no interest either re-
mote, contingent, or otherwise, in giving out
information. Mr.. Hickey had never tried to
get any Information from him. "All that" :"
he said, sis n willful pack Of lies"
He said that the reflners wanted an ad va
loren duty and the planters specific.
Mr.. Vest said that while the bill was in COM
mittee Mr.. Havemeyer had come to his house
and had brought him samples and spread
them out and had explained the difference
between the ad ralorem and specific systens,
but there was no secrecy or concealment
about his visit. He had come rs any other
manufacturer would and had made an argu-
ment for what he wanted. Delegations repre-
senting the Louisiana interest had called on
him.
Closing his testimony, Mr.. Vest said: II
have never used my official position for pri-
vate purposes. Any statement that have is
absolutely false, as ls also any statement that
ever gave any information or had any con-
nection with the sugar trust. that is also
absolutely false If anybody can make the
denial broader l wish he would do So"
Mr.. Mcpherson, after giving his opinion on
sugar duties, stated that while he had kept
an oflcs in Wall street and had been in the
habit for the past seven or eight years OF
buying stocks as an investment and selling
them. he had not considered himself an
operator in the usual acceptation OF the
term. He said that in addition to the pur-
chases Of sugar stock made by his son in
February he had purchased some sugar stock
In October and November and had sold it in
December. when Congress convened. Cues
tions put by Senators Allen and Davis de-
veloped the fact that Senator Mcpherson had
made profit Of about $1,000 on the stock
bought on the 22d and sold on the 26th OF
February.
s..Representative John Dewitt Warner was
examined on the basis OF a newspaper state
ment that an effort, which had been instituted
by men Of great prominence in the Demo-
cratic party, had been made to cause Mr..
Warner to cease his fight for free sugar while
the tariff bill was pending in the House.
Mr.. Warner said that the suggestion had
been made to him that If there was not duty
on sugar the sugar trust would beat the bill,
but he declined to state from whom the sug-
&c stion had come. that it was from members
OF the House Of Representatives.
He said he had heard very little about the
sugar trust until the day before the tariff bill
passed the House, and it had there become
uosed about that that interest was organized
for the purpose of defeating his amendment
and carrying duty on sugar. Senator Davis
asked the witness how many times in the
course Of the consideration of the bill in the
House it was intimated to him that persons
interested in the sugar interest had con-
tributed TO the success of the Democratic
party in New York. Mr.. Warner answered
that this phase Of the question has frequently
been suggested to him. not as information.
but as probability. In regard to the alleged
contributions by the sugar trust,
Mr.. Warner said he had often heard it charged
that there was one, possibly amounting to
$500, 900, but he knew nothing about 1t.