The Manning times. [volume] (Manning, Clarendon County, S.C.) 1884-current, 1894-06-06

o'clock p. N. ID the Sen ate yesterday,
Gray rose and said that he had been
directed by the select committee ap-
pointed on the 18th of May, to make a
partial report and be asked thatlt be
read.
Hill said that before making any OBJ
lscsion,he would like to know from the
Senator from Delaware what the pro
gramme was.
Gray replied that be had no pro.
gramme other than indicated IN the
report. The committee had submitted
a report which it considered as one OF
the highest privileges, and he supposed
there was no question that the report
was in order at any time. It concerned
the privileges OF the Senate and he
asked that the report be read IN order
that the Senate might determine
whether it was question OF privilege
or not.
Hill: in the light of the explanation
of the Senator from Delaware, or
rather in the light of the explanation
which be does not give an compelled
at this time to object to the reception
of that report.
Gray: make the point OF order that
a report concerning the privileges OF
the Senate is one entitled to present
consideration and is not subject to OBJ
lection.
Manderson conceded with the view
expressed by Gray and argued that tne
chair or the Senate could not determine
whether it was a question OF privilege
unless the report was read.
The presiding officer (Faulkner) ex-
pressed the opinion that the Senator
from Nebraska was right.
= The report was then read. 1t con-
sists of five printed pages, some OF 1t
being quotations from that part OF the
testimony where answers were refused.
a portion of the testimony was also
submitted to the Senate. It relates
that Elisha J. Edwards appeared before
the committee May 24th, and stated
that he was correspondent OF the
Philadelphia Press and wrote the letter
signed Holland, relative to the dolngs
of the sugar trust and certain Senators.
It appears from this report that the
specific questions Mr.. Edwards refused
to answer were those asking him who
Informed him of MIR. Carlisle's recent
visit to the committee on finance, when
he, as Mr.. Edwards alleged, made an
appeal to the Democratic members IN
February, that appeal being supposed
to have reference to duty on sugar.
The committee states that it over.
ruled the objections Of Judge Often
hoefer, Edwards counsel and insisted
upon an answer to the questions.
These questions sought to ascertain
the authority for the statement that
Carlisle signfed his Willingness himself
to prepare an amendment to the sugar
schedule, which he thought would be
fair to the government and yet just to
the sugar interests; who gave the IL
formation concerning the alleged IN
tervsews between officers Of the sugar
trust-Hayemeyer, the New York sur
gar refner, Senator Brice and Senate
Smith: who was bis informant that on
the day VOORHEES, denied any amend
ments were proposed 10 the bill as
originally reported to the Senate, the
list of 400 amendments as prepared oy
Senator Jones. was in the hands OF ene
of the members Of the brokerage firm
of Moore Sc Schley; that the draft OF
the sugar schedule as finally adopted
was the result of conference between
Senator Caffery and representatives OF
the trust meeting in one room OF the
CAPITOL building, while the committee
was in session in another. All OF these
questions, the committee says, E1-
wards, acting upon the advice OF his
nouneal refr1Sn6 t0 answer.
Referring to the testimony Of John
Shriver, correspondent Of the New
York Mail and Express, the committee
quote from Shriver's letter detailing
what prominent wire manufacturer
was alleged 10 have overheard a. the
Arlington Hotel in talk between Ger
tain Senators and representatives OF
thesugar trust. ShriVer said member
of Congress gave MIN the information
and the committee say that IN response
to the direct question, he decliued to
give the name of either the Congress.
man or the wire manufacturer, to
whom he referred in his news dis
patches.
In conclusion the committee say: In
ths opinion of the committee each
question pnt to these witnesses was
proper question and pertinent to the
question under inq ulry before the com.
mittee and was necessary to make the
examination ordered by said resolution
of the Senate, and that each Of the said
witnesses is in contempt Of the Senate
and merits to be dealt with for his mis-
conduct, and that each of said witness.
es bv his various TefuSaiS to answer
these questions as herein set forth has
violated the provisions of that certain
act of Congress ia such cases made aud
provided, being chapter Z of the revised
statutes of the United States.
The committee quotes in full sections
1O2. 1O3 and 104 OF the revised statutes,
being the act OF 1857 as published IN
these dispatches Of yesterday.
The closing words Of the report are
as follows:
aWherefore the committee request
that the president of the Senate certify
as to each witness his aforesaid failure
to testify an6his aforesaid refusals to
answer all the facts herein, under the
seal Of the Senate to the United States
District Attorney for the District otCo-
lumbia,t to the end that each Of said wit
nesses may be proceeded against in
mannea and form provided by law
There is no reference tothe case Of
Harry Walker, correspondent Of the
New York Daily America.
When the reading of the report was
concluded, Hill took the floor and ar
gued that the report did not present
such question of privilege as should
displsee the pending bill. 1.-THE report
had been on the part of the inquiry,
(she attempt to bribe the two Senators)
it would have been question of the
highest privilege, but that report had
been already made and disposed Of.
But the second part of the lnguIry-as
to whether Senator'S had been specula-
ting in sugar stock-dld not involve a
question Of crime, although 1t might
involve question Of fimpropTiety.
Harris interrupted Hill with ques'
ton of order and argued that the re-
port presented nc question for any ac-
ton by the Senate. There was no cues.