Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1894-08-02
THE SUGAR REPORT
Result Of the Investigation of the
Senate Committee.
MAJORITY REPORT EAONERAfES ALL
Supplemental Report Signed by
Messrs. Davis and Lodge.
JORITY REPORT EIONERAfES ALL
CORRUPT CONTRIBUTIONS

rtstiga,ing committee, prest nted the report
OF the committee TO the Senate today. and
asked that the committee be discharged.
The ma in report is signed by all the Sem
ators of the committee, but Senators Lodge
and Davis present supplemental report,
and Senator Allen also presents hts own
views some features of the case. The
report. which has the approval Of the full
committee. recites the causes which led up
to the investigation. and quotes the article
from TIE Philadelphia Press upon which the
charges against Senators were based. II
also -ecites the facts, which have been pub
nshed already, as to the refusal of the cor
respondent Edwards to answer queries put
by the committee.
Secretary Carlisle ExOnerated.
Secretary Carlisle Is exonerated, and the
Parts of tire article rejecting on him are de-
ciared to be without founds ton, except that
IL is fact. according to Secretary Carlisle's
testimony, that he did, at the request of
Senator Jones of the finance committee.
draft an amendment TO the sugar schedule
O copy of which, described by Mr.. Car
Isle, is attached as an exhibit to the testi-
moIy.
The conduct Of Mr.. Edwards. says the re-
port. in publishing specific charges against
public men without his personal knowledge,
calls for serious reprobaticn of the Senate.
Did Not Result From Campaign Con-
tributfons.
The committee also say: There has been
no testimony presented before your COM
mittee. and your committee have been unable
TO discover any. tending to show that the
sugar schedule made up. as 1t then
stood In the proposed amendment to the
tariff bill. In considera ton of large or any,
sums of money paid for campaign purposes
OF the democratic party. No witness has
testnled before your committee that such
was the fact. end all the democratic men,
perS or the hnarce committee, and all the
EtnatCrs whose names have been mentioned
In the public press especially interested in
protecting the sugar refining industries or
" whtse states sugar refineries existed,
have under oath ienied that such was the
truth. or that they had any knowledge or
Information as to any sums of money, large
or otherwise. having been paid for campaign
purposes of the democratic party by the
sugar trust. by hose connected with ii, or
by anybody, as consideration for favorable
treatment of It's interests by said party"
The committee also report the substance
sertfng that its campaign contributions
were made only to the local committees
and not for the purpose of influencing ma
tlonal campaigns, or for the purpose of Sc
curing or defeating national legislation.
No Interview With Cleveland.
No other testimony has. the committee
say, been offered, suggested or discovered
which would tend to support the statements
Of Edwards In this regard. Nor is there
they unite In saying. any evidence in sup
port Of the statement that either of the
Messrs. Havemeyer had an interview with
mer OF 1892. Of 1893, In regard to the
sugar interests Of the Hawaiian Islands, or
any other sugar interests, or the policy of
the administration in regard to them. 'On
the contrary, il has been affirma lively
shown, they say, that the statement is
untrue as to any such interview having oc-
CURED"
1t is. the committee say, shown by the
evidence that one or more officers Of the
sugar trust were in Washington and that
they saw several Senator's. generally those
representing states in which sugar retin-
cries were located, with the view of infiu-
encing legislation, but these gentlemen
deny the use OF any improper means to that
end Both the members of the trust and of
the finance committee denied that any
meeting took place between them at the
Capitol or elsewhere, as was stated in the
Holland letter to have taken place, and
there IL no evidence IN support of the
statements in this regard.
No Evidence TO show Improper Con-
duct.
The committee also unite m saying that
no eviderce has been adduced tending to
show improper conduct on the part of those
engaged in the framing of the sugar sched-
ule in the tariff bill
Though perhaps outside the scope Of the
duty imposed upon your committee" they
say, they take occasion to strongly depre-
cate the Importantly and pressure TO which
Congress and it's members are subjected by
the representatives Of great Industrial COM
binatons, whose enormous wealth tends to
suggest undue influence and to create in the
public mind dennoralizing belief in the ex-
istence of corrupt politics."
As to Sugar Speculation.
As to the third branch OF the inquiry,
whether any Senator has been speculating
In sugar stocks during the consideration of
the tariff bill." the committee deem 1t only
necessary to refer to the testimony.
Referring to the testimony Of Senators,
this. they say. shows that Senator's McPher-
son and Quay have held and sold sugar
stocks during the tendency of the tariff bill;
but their testimony shows that before the
voting began they closed out their holdings
Referring to the more recent branch Of the
inquiry which brought a Photographic CODY
Of an order to buy sugar stocks, dated
March 2, purporting to be signed by Senator
j. n. Camden of W est Virginia, the commit
tee say: IT Is shown by the evidence that
the original order was written in lead pen
Gil on what purpOrted to be an old envelope
The order was not addressed. or directed to
any firm or brokers, or to any one. The
original paper was destroyed, as appears by
the evidence, after the Photographic copy
was taken, upon the appearance of the ar
ticle in the New York Herald calling atten-
tiOn to il. The order was first found IN the
hands of one Battershall, who has eluded
every effort of the committee to serve a
subpoena upon him. and who it is under
stood. fled to Canada. From the evidence of
one witness and the circumstances dis
closed by the testimony, Battershall ap-
pears to be a man of doubtful character.
which. with the fact of the destruction OF
the original. tends to dscredt the original
paper. and there is testimony tending to
show that the party who had the photo
graph taken. contemplated using it for
improper purpose.
senator Camdcn's Denial.
Upon an examination of the photograp phic
copy. Senator Camden said that the pur-
ported signature reserntled, in some re-
spects. his genuine signature. and that the
body of the paper has some resemblance to
his own handwriting. He stated it as his
belief and best Judgment that the paper Is
fictitious. or a forgery, but he does not, in
express terms. declare II to be forgery,
and declines to swear positively that II is
not Lis handwriting.
He denies, however, substantially, that
any such orde- ever executed. or that
any sugar stock has been bough. or sold for
him since the tariff bill has been under con-
federation, and there is no testimony tend