The morning call. [volume] (San Francisco [Calif.]) 1878-1895, 1894-06-05

ad valorem or specific duties, Mr.. Carlisle
said: 81 have always been in favor of an
ad valorem duty, but do not remember
that | gave them any such opinion then.
There was very little said about il. ] may
| say also that have always been in favor
| of a moderate duty on sugar as revenue
article, and l prepared the minority report
on the Mckinley bill against the provi-
siOns putting sugar on the free list"
Mr.. Carlisle said that he knew that ad
valorem duties were advocated by the
sugar-refining interests for both the re-
fners and the planters, as we'll as others
| interested in the tariff legislation who had
talked with him about their business.
With reference to the note of introdUc-
lion which he gave Mr.. Havemeyer TO
Senator Mills, he said that he wrote the
note for him as he wrote letters for others
interested in tariff legislation to other
members of the committee. and he hoped
ii the note was still in existence it would
be made public. He said he had known
Mr.. Havemeyer for number of years.
| and Mr.. Hayemeyer had stated that he
| also knew Senator Mills, but feared the
latter would not see him unless he had a
note. He had never refused to write such
quested it was worthy. Mr.. Havemeyer, he
said, had called to see him about the tariff
legislation on sugar. as had also Mr.. Searles
and Henry r. Reed of Boston, aud all had
talked about the matter, but lie could not
remember what they had said. There
had been, however. no intimation from
any of them that the Democratic party was
under obligations to the sugar trust
faH
he had ever made secret call upon the
Finance Committee or made demand
upon it TO protect sugar because Of the
Democratic party obligations to the sugar
trust.
Senator McPherson's testimony is de-
voted largely to an explanation of stock
purchases and the method of conducting
them. He said that he had agreed with
the Finance Committee as to the sugar
schedule
II did not" he said, flavor the sugar
schedule" but added that he had never
said anything about the Democratic party
being under obligations 10 the members
of the sugar trust. He said that if his
counsel had been taken the Wilson bill
would have been accepted by the Senate
| Committee without amendment. He be-
| lieved in free sugar, If it cOuld,be made free
and sufficient amount Of revenue secured.
Nevertheless, be had offered sugar amend
ments in the committee providing tor a
| specific duty Of l cent per pound on sugar
testing so degrees, and gradual increase
| of about mill additional for each degree
! for refined sugar. He said he had never
come in contact with any of the sugar re-
| iners except Mr.. Searles, who had called
on him in his house, and demonstrated
against the schedule he had presented in
COMMITTEES. He repeated that he never
knew of any obligations to the sugar trust
| but said he had heard the statement made
that the sugar reiners were in the habit
| of giving the Democratic side small con-
| tTibution and the Republicans large one.
! Mcpherson stated that while he kept an
| office on Wall street and had been in the
| habit in the past seven or eight years of
| buying stocks as an Investment and selling
them, be 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 Novem Der and had
| sold it in December when Congress con-
vened. q Questions put by Senators Allen
anG Davis developed the fact that Senator
McPherson's son had made a profit of
about $1,000 on the stock bought on the 22d
and sold on the 26th of February.
Closely questioned by Senator Allen of
Nebraska, Senator Mcpherson stated that
it was in favor OF the sugar trust 10 put
down the price of its stock. and he knew
this before his son bought the stock. He
also knew that putting tariff on sugar
would tend to increase the value of the
stock. He did not think it right to specu-
late in the stocks affected by legislation
and had never done so.
In the course Of his examination Sena-
tor McPh erson stated that it had been
very definitely decided between himself
and his son that the telegraphic order for
sugar stocks of February % was not TO
be sent, aud that his son went to New
York the night 1t was written. He thought
the order had been eaTelessly left on his
desk and had been inadvertently sent by
a servant
Representative John Dewitt Warner
was examined on the charge in a news
paper statement that an effort which had
been instigated d by men of great pr0mi-
nence in the Democratic party had been
made to cause Warner to cease his fight
for free suguar while the tariff bill was
pending in the House. Warner said that
t he suggestion had been made to him that
if there was not a duty on sugar the sugar
trust would defeat the bill, but he de-
clined to state from whom the suggestion
had como. 1t was from members of the
House of Representatives He had heard
very little about the sugar trust until the
day before the tariff bill passed the House.
and it had then become nOised abroad that
the interest was organized for the purpose
of defeating his amendment and carrying
duty on sugar.
Senator Davis asked witness how many
times in the course of the consideration of
the bill In the House it was intima ated to
him that persons in the sugar interest had
contributed to the success Of the Demo-
cratic party in New York.
Mr.. Warner answered that this phase of
the question had frequently been sug-
gested to him. not as Information but as
probability. Regarding the alleged cam
paign contributions by the sugar trust,
Mr.. Warner said he had often heard it
charged that there was one possibly
amounting to 100000 but he knew moth
ing about that. Mr.. Warner refused to
give the names of Representatives and
others with whom he had talked. saying
that he had conversed with these persons
in confidence, and that they had givea him
information rather than attempted in any