Morning journal and courier., 1894-05-30
auaAnrRusr soAnpAL.

Report of the Select Investigating Committee-senator Hill Centendi There Was No Question of Privilege In the Report-MOtion made for ths Arrest of E. J. Edwards.
 WAsH1NeroN, May 29.-Ths printed re
 port of the senate select committee made
 to the senate this morning consists of hvs
 printed pages, some of 1t being quotations
 from that part of the testimony where an.
 swers were refused. A portion of the tes'
 timony Is also submitted to the senate. II
 relates that Elisha J. Edwards appeared
 before the committee on May 24 and stated that hs was correspondent of the Phils. delphia Press and wrote the letter signed
 "Holland" relative to the doings of the su- gar trust and certain senator's.
 It appears from this report that the spe- cifio questions Mir. Edwards declined to answer were those asking him who in- formed him of Mr. Csrlisle's recent visit to the committee on finance when he, as MT. Edwards alleged, made an appeal to the democratic members, in February, that appeal being supposed to have reference to a duty on sugar. The committee states that 1t overruled the objections of Judge Dittenhoefer, Edwards counsel, and insist ed on an answer to the questions. These questions sought to ascertain the authority for the statement that Carlisle signifed his willingness himself to prepare an amend ment to the sugar schedule which he thought would be fair to the government and yet just to the sugar interests; who gave the information concerning the al- legged interview between the officers of the Sugar truet, MT. Hsvemeyer, Senator Brice and Senator Smith, who was his in- denied any amendments were proposed to the bill ss originally reported to the senate, the list of 400 amendments, as prepared by Senator Jones, was in the hands of one of the members of the brokerage firm of Moore 6 Sohley; that the draft of the sugar schedule ss finally adopted was the result of . conference between Senator Csffery and representatives of the trust meeting in one room of the Capitol build ing, while the committee was in session in another. All of these questions, the com- mittee say, Edwards, acting upon the ad- vice of his counsel, refused to answer.
 Referring to the testimony of John Shriver, correspondent of the New York
 
 from MT. Shriver's letter detailing what a prominent wire manufacturer was alleged to have overheard at the Arlington hotel in @ talk between certain senators and repre-. sentatives of the sugar trust. Mir. Shriver said member of congress gave him the and the committee say that in response to the direct question he declined to give the name of either the congressman or the wire manufacturer to whom he re- ferred in his news dispatch.
 In conclusion the committee say: "In the opinion of the committee each of the questions put to said witnesses was proper question and pertinent to the question un- der inquiry before the committee, and was necessary to make the examination ordered by said resolution of the senate and merits to be dealt with for his misconduct; and that each of these witnesses, by his various to answer the questions as herein set forth, has violated the provisions of that certain act of congress in such cases made and provided, being chapter of the revised statutes of the United States"
 The committee quotes in full sections 102. 103 and 104 ot the revised etatutes, being the act of 1857. The closing words of the report are as follows:
 "Wherefore, the committee report and request that the president of the senate certify ss 10 each witness his aforesaid fail ure to testify and his aforesaid refussls to answer, and all the facts herein, under the seal of the senate to the United States dis to the end that each of said witnesses may bs proceeded against in manner and form provided by law"
 It will be seen that there Is no reference to the case of MT. Walker, correspondent of the New York Daily America.
 The report of the eeleot committee hay ing been read in full, Mir. Hill contended that there was no question of privilege involved In the report-that if 1t had been as to the alleged bribery of senators, the report would be privlleged; but that 1t wac simply ss to the question whether senators had speculsted in Sugar stock. That, he argued, might be an impropriety, but could not be @ crime.
 The vice president ruled that the report required no action on the part of the sen ate, but the vice president vas directed under 1t alone to act. From that decision MT. Hill appealed and spoke of his conten ton. In his remarks he said he took the broad prosition that any statute which @ witness to answer questions without providing that he shall not bs com pelled to give testimony against himself, was violation of the broad principle of the constitution on the subject. The law which the committee brought in recom- msndation against the recslcitrant wit nesses sought to placs the whole senate under the domination of one commit tee. Although three-fourths, nearly the whole of the senate, might be against al- lowing this matter to go further, the sugar trust committee held that the senate had nothing to do with the matter-nothing to do with one of It's committees. The stat ute was loosely, csrelessly drawn. The senate had complete jurisdiction, and If the senate decided that the certificates for 8 warrant should not be transmitted to the district attorney, 1t should not be sent.
 Mir. Hill said, in answer to Mr. Allen, pop, of Neb., that he had grave doubts whether the senate had jurisdiction over 8 senator who refused to answer questions before the committee ss to his connection with the sugar trust. A senator could speculate In sugar, in silver or any other stocks and not violate any law.
 He admitted that speculation by sena tors in sugar stocks pending the question of the tariff was improper.
 Mrs. Rills appeal from the decision of the chair was, on motion of Mir. Harris, dem., of Tennessee. laid on the table. -
 Then MT. Dolph, rep, of Oregon, moved that a warrant be issued for the arrest of MT. Edwards and for bringing him before the bar of the senate to answer for his contempt. MT. Dolph argued in support
 of 1t.