New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1894-05-30
SOME OLE TIE TESTIMONY.
WHAT SENATOR cAFFERY AND OTHERS TOLL
THE COMMITTEE.

WHAT SENATOR CAFFERY AND OTHERS TOLD
THE COMMITTEE.
Washington Nav 29.-The following are the salient
points ~ the testimony OF Senator Caffery Dem,
Lao as lad before the Senate to-day:
After reading the Holland" letter whore ref
erence was made 70 Canery's making a schedule
Mr.. Canery said: In 50 far AS any part Of this
statement connects me with any conference with
the named as belonging to the Sugar Trust
Havemcyer Terrcl. and Meyer whom don't know
nor have / ever seen CIR. lie Feyre / DO know
casually. in far as It connects with any con-
ference with these people Il Is unqua..neily false
In so far al the statement makes me the draughis-
man OF a schedule which Mr. Havemeyer accepted
AMI when / wrote Il was looking my shoulder
that is unquaHed.y false had conference
with Mr. Havemcyer nor any one OF the sugar
Trust"
Mr.. Canery said he had two conversations with
Mr. Havemeyer. one Of which before tn re-
port % the frs, sugar schedule. and the second
subsequently. The interview with Mr.. Havemeyer
at Senator Brce's was some two or three weeks
prior TO the adoption by the Senate Finance Com
mittee Of the specific schcdu.e-that schedule be
ginning cent pound and running up 70 ISL 2.
The second day or two after the reporting
OF the schedule when Mr.. Hayemeyer expressed his
Indignation at the specific duty in connection with
nc Interview al Senator Brice's. Mr. Cafery said
there were present his then colleague Mr. White.
Of Louisiana. and continuing he said:
Il think Senator Hill YVES there. 7 do not re-
member whether German was there not. but I
think he was"
There were no members Of the Finance Commit
tee there, and those who came met by invitation
OF Senator Brice TO talk over the general egisla-
ton sugar.
Mr.. Havemeyer, Mr.. Caffery said, did not meet
any of these gentlemen he named but himself.
Mr.. Cafery said he was requested to Mr..
| HaVemeycr who happended to be in the House
He was not IN the room with the others and
| the conversation not held in Brices presence.
| OF Mr.. Havemeyer. he said ii that an al
valorem rate OF 40 per cent upon the sugars
and so per cent upon the refined sugars above No.
10. Dutch standard. was the best possible schedule
upon which to levy a tariff on sugar Mr. Have
meyer cited the prices OF sugar. and held that the
Germans raised sugar cheap. and gave a export
bounty amounting 10 perhaps 2 per cent that the
| nners. He was. Mr.. Caffery said. arguing from the
attempt to convince him (Carery) that that stand
ard was more favorable 10 the producers than Il
Mr. Canery stated that there nothing in the
conversation OF Havemeyer that was Improper IT
was simply statement Of his Views Of what was
Mr. Wase5 the SSmsS n of he D ally
witnessed upon which he based his dispatches, sucl
and going up TO the rooms OF The members of thu
Sugar Trust, etc Among I,o other things he said;
little " While 's 60 with Mr. Reed or M Terre am and
in 2 quiet spot and talk" Mr. Hickey. Mr. Walker
more or less proud Of 1t. When asked what par
ticuar in,sres, he was representing with Senator
latlng. he did not understand that he was lobbyns
| at all.
| IN response TO question whether ne understood
| that he was operating with Senate Vest, the wit
/ ness said: THAT the supposition. yes"
| Bourke Cochran testified that no had never mad,
| arv statement which could furnish a basis for the
| published stories which gave him an authority
| Az soon as the debate the report OF N,
committee 10 the Senate had ceased the committe,
| came together again and examined Senators Vest
Committee. These Senators denied in toto th'
| They denied that there had been any schedul,
| submitted to them by the Trust any one acting
| for them fixing the rate Of duty on sugar. They