The Indiana State sentinel. [volume] (Indianapolis) 1868-1895, 1894-06-06

senator German afterWaTd came IN
No Original suggestions.
After talking some time" said Mr..
Carlisle. lit was suggested by some one
and [ am not able now to state by
whom. but certainly not by me. for /
made no original suggestions about it
that instead of having 40 per cent. ad
valorem upon all sugars and one-eighth
of l cent ad valorem upon> all sugars
testing above 16 Dutch standard in
color. there should be a duty of
40 per cent. upon all sugars be-
low No. is Dutch standard in color,
the additional per cent being. as you
will observe, equal to one-eighth of the
40 per cent. on the other grades.
That was talked about and while 1t
was not agreed to. because. as 1 say,
there were only two members of the
finance committee present-Senators Jones
and Nest-it seemed to be the impression
that they would submit that kind Of
proposition to The committee. Thereupon
some one asked IL / would not write 1t.
/ said: 1 will just take this amendment
which / have in my mind and interline
It, In addition to that they said they
wanted to put into the amendment a
clause in relation to the Hawaiian treaty.
They wanted to insert a clause that this
schedule should not abrOgate. or in any
manner impair the provisions of the
Hawaiian treaty, and asked me If / could
not write that also. I said: I will just
take this paper and interline it ! took
out the part which provided for one
eighth of l cent per pound additional
and put in the provision for 40 per cent
ad valorem. Then 1 added to it in my
own handwriting-thes interineations
being also in my own handwriting-all
the provisions now contained in it with
regard to the Hawaiian treaty just as It
is today"
His visit to the Capitol.
Secretary Carlisle then told of his visit
to the capitol the next day, which was
Sunday. and explained how this visit
came to be made-to correct a discrep-
ancy in the sugar schedule which, if it
had not been corrected, would have left
sugar without either a duty or a bounty
between the 1st of July, 1894, and the list
of January. 1895. This error had oc-
CURED to him. and, not finding Senator
Jones in his home. he had driven to the
capitol TO make the suggestion that the
hiatus should be provided for, when, to
his surprise, he had found Senators
Jones, Vest and Mcpherson and Repre-
sentative Breckenridge on the tariff
amendments which were to be introduced
on the following day. He was then told
that the amendment which he had in
terlined changing the duty on refined
sugar from the compound rate Of 40 per
cent. had been abandoned, and he had
simply said, All right" and come away.
Closing this part OF what may be called
his direct testimony, Mr.. Carlisle said:
THE amendment which I prepared by
interlineations I handed TO Senator Jones
as / passed through, going out of the
capitol on that Saturday and I have
never seen it since. Now, It seems to me
that some person. do not know who 1t
is-has seen that amendment in my hand
writing, undoubtedly, from The statement
which the senator has just read to me,
and as far as l am concerned it may be
published to the whole world and read
in the senate or anywhere else. Tt was
simply a compliance with the request OF
Senator Jones and the others present,
and on that the writer has based all this
statement. / presume, though he fixes
the time in February 1t was on the 5th
day of May"
Upon being asked by Senator Lodge
whether he had advised the finance COM
mittee as to whether it was better to
have ad valorem or specific duties, Car
Isle said: 81 have always been in favor
Of ad valorem duty, but do not remem-
Der that I gave them any such opinion
then. There was very little said about it.
I may say also that I have always been
in favor of a moderate duty on sugar as
a revenue article, and l prepared the
minority report on the Mckinley bill,
against provisions putting sugar on the
free list"
Mr.. Carlisle said that he knew that ad
valorem duties were. advocated by the
sugar-refining interest, for both the re-
finers and the planters, as well as others
interested in tariff legislation, had talked
with him about their business.
The Havemeyer Note.
With reference to the note of introduce
ton which he gave Mr. Havemeyer to
Senator Mills. he said that he wrote the
letter for him as he wrote letters for
others interested in tariff legislation to
other members Of the committee, and he
hoped If the note was still In existence
it would be made public. He said he had
known Mr.. Havemeyer for a number of
years, and Mr.. Havemeyer had stated
that he also knew Senator Mills, but
feared the latter would not see him unless
he had the note. He had never refused
to write such a letter If he thought the
man who requested it was a gentleman.
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, and all had
talked about this matter, but he 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.
Mr.. Carlisle denied in emphatic terms
that he had ever made secret call upon
the nDdnCe committee, or nldde a demand
on them to protect sugar because Of the
democratic party's obligation TO the sugar
trust.
McPherson's Testimony.
Senator McPherson's testimony was 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, favor
the sugar schedule presented, and / did
rave some over it, but he added that
he had never said anything about the
democratic party being under obligations
to members Of the sugar trust. He said
that if his counsel had been taken the
Wilson bin would have been accepted By
the senate committee without amendment.
He believed in free sugar if it could be
made free and a sufficient amount of
revenue secured. Nevertheless, he had Of
fered sugar amendments in committee.
providing for a specific duty Of L cent. per
pound on sugar testing eighty degrees
and a gradual increase of about one mill
additional for each degree of refined
sugar. He said he had never come in
contact with any of the sugar refiners ex-
cept Mr.. Searles who had called on him
at his house and demonstrated against
the schedule he had prepared in commit
tee. He repeated that he never knew of
any obligations to the sugar trust, but
said he had heard the statement made
that the sugar refners were in the habit
of giving the democratic side small con-