New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1894-06-05
SENATOR GRAT MANto 4 MI WI
THE sTENOGRAPHER'S NOTES or TESTIMONY
IN THE SUGAR INVESTIGATION GIVEN
TN TIE SENATE

THE sTENoGRAPHER's NOTES or TESTIMONY
IN THE SUGAR INVESTIGATION GIVEN
TO TIE SENATE
Washington June 4-Senator Gray. chairman OF
the Sugar Trust Investigation Committee. laid be
fore the Senate to-day the official sienographer >
report of the testimony given by senators NC
Pherson. Harris. Jones. Mills. Vest. Voorhees, Sec
rotary Carlisle and Representative Warner a
svnops,s OF which has already been given In the
United Press dispatches Nothing ia added by the
full reoort 10 the essential facts In the testimony
Of Messrs Carlisle. VOORHEES,, Harris or Mcfhersoh
except that the latter swore he did not kno"
whether he made or lost money by his Transactions
in Sugar.
Representative Warner Dem. y. y was ex-
amlned by the Committee at length, but declined 70
mention names make specific statements ne
said suggestions were made 20 him by his colleagues
Indicating their fear for the fate OF the Dill An
other suggestion was also made to him by man
mot a member OF the House at the time the DI'
was nerdlng in the House" This man. whom Mr.
Warner said he did not know. approached him IN
s,reet-car and asked him II he recognized pohilcal
obligations When Mr.. Warner asked him wnat ne
meant the man said he wanted to kno" "he'her d"
he could bring to him (Warner) proof That they
had contributed at critical moment 10 Demo
cratic success IN New-York. he wOul'. consider H.
Mr. Warner said he replied hot,y that he dd MOI
think he would. Although Mr.. Warner could not
MACE the man. he sad he had an impression tha
he was a lobbyist
Mr. Warner in declining to give names. sad he
G,d f. ION the ground. among others mat c'Al'"
nv privilege absolutely against any interrogation py
This committee; on the ground in addition that me
friendly conversation between members OF the House
,non the basis OF assumed mutual confidence IS
something which cannot be gone into| ana tnat me
pract,ce In that regard has made precedent "nch
Is to the public Interest invo.ate
Toward the close. OF his somewhat long eXAh'ha-
tlon. and after declining 70 give any names MI.
Warner SAID: III | believed that anything cou.H
10 mr. cay would lead 70 this committee finding out
tho facts about which Il is investigating, would 90
anything shor; Of perjury or murder 10 60 H.
senator's Jones. Voorhees, and Vest denied aoso-
,u,e.v any knowledge Of any meeting such az was
aroeaI 10 have taken place on Il sunday afternoon
IN the Capitol Building between Democrauc MEM
he-s of the Finance Committee and representatives.
Of the Sugar Trust They also denied tha Secrs 'ay
C.riele Fad told the Democratic members OF the
,,nr,i,tee that the party was under obligations 10
the Sugar Trust. and must be proV'cep io' III '"'
Wr tones said he called Mr.. Havemeyer az sen
ator Camdens room, opposite the Arlington lVor,
and the witness made notes OF answers 10 dues'J II
he asked Mr.. Havemeyer about refined sugar r a. ~
also said that number OF Sena,1rs WI" mare was no
lax nlaced on sugar were Invited to tne fIhhloe
SenaroIs Brce' smith German Gallery and White
da) present but Mr. Jones saia ,na ,h nr orr or
nor Mr. Jones and the other Senator's examined
said they had never seen any paper p TTPnt and
y,
sent To- the Finance Committees room -. ..o,,
SENATOR Vest said there was great deal or uo on.
bic in the bill over the sugar hteresI ooti AZ.
louisiana Senators and the refiners. we Ins may
ap,eed m ~ per and One-elghth, Dul ut I'l'I
ers asked quarter and at last we turncd mem Vus
OF the committee room, and made mis- Dill as II Is
Tn. witness told OF how Mr. Havemeyer' the lou
ts,sna de,eRation and others Interested IN sugar
cepne IN his house about the sugar schedu.e, My
house was full Of them all the time ne sad,
Ibid other persons interested In the scheduIe7
cone 10 s yTot every night and morning before
S N@s Mills denied any knowledge Of the star-
mems made IN the papers. and said Scctetary Cai
,rnrk,nV with H. The letter from Carlisle lntrouuC-
inc Wr Uavemeyer simple letter OF miro
di;ctjon but Mr. Mills said ne declined 10 see MN,
Referring 70 The way NI IN s wnc" '''' '0'
ri was the first Of the three 10 propose uu
on sugar IL was unwelcome thlnS 70 me 70 uo
revenues and something had TO be zone. M We
one reason Another reason was AZ you Ren,lri, ,;
know have always advocate Pu'.mfS ,h ,h.,,
dufable list as "A revenue article. ana tou rn'IIl
~ 80 cot 10 have more money than the Wilson
! ,Wl rnskes and we have TO have a duty on sugar
| do not want II. do not Ike to 20 back Sf i
and mi IL on the free list IL mas Deeii uoie anu
~" don't ike TO put anything back on the ddtab,e
ar motto take 1t back from the free list ana put u
back on the dutiable list said: We nave fot ~ ~
do and you may well make up your minds about
IT, We have to have more m S b,d o,, ,or GOV.
oral DAYS and insisted that there should be no duty
on sugar and they tried to nSnre IL 2nt ,nat Tg
4 get through and look and see what our estimate,
| ywouid be and and we kept II on a gool
long while Finally they reluctantly agreed Tor a
NJ Nils added that he did not propose differ
initial rate on refined sugar. He proposed nothing
| he said for a compensating duty.