The Anaconda standard. [volume] (Anaconda, Mont.) 1889-1970, 1894-05-25
IT'S APRETTY BAD MESS
Tbs Senate Bribery Case Growing Very
Sensational.
THEY SAY MANY WERE IN 1T
A Newspaper Correspondent Who
Claims 70 Know q Heap About
This Whole Boodllng
Business.
Ely SAY MANY WERE IN 1T

bribery investigation committee to-day
began secret inquiry into the connection
of the sugar trust with tariff legislation.
F.. j. Edwards, author Of the Holland LETT
ter 10 the Philadelphia Press, was before
the committee several hours. II is known
that he presented a written memorandum
giving some of the sources of information
contained in his letter. He declined to
state his authority for the information
that Secretary Carlisle had appeared be-
fore the tariff subcommittee (Jones, Vest
and Mills) before tho original tariff bill
was reported aud insisted that sugar be
given protection because Of party pledges
made before election, or for the statement
that Carlisle had himself revised and writ
ten the sugar schedule. This schedule, as
prepared by Carlisle, he said was still in
existence. The fact could be definitely
ascertained by summoning the members
of the finance committee.
Other statements, authority for which
Edwards declined to give, wero that $780,
010 was contributed by the sugar trust 10
the democratic campaign fund of 1892,
and Moore and Seley who (he said we're
Senator Brice's brokers, had been in pos
sess on Of the latest amendments TO the
tariff bill when Voorhees, still insisted that
no amendments had been agreed 10.
This firm, he said, had representative
in Washington to whom the amendments
we're handed. Edward stated that ac-
cordng to his information the money was
not contributed directly 10 tho national
committee but given to other organiza-
tions nor was his Information positive that
tho sugar trust, as such, had made a contri-
button. II may have been made through
individuals with the understanding that
in case Of success tho trust be protected
against damaging legislation. Hc
instanced the statement by Governor
Waller of Connecticut, before the investi-
eating committee of that state that the
wealthy men Of New York had contributed
100000 towards democratic success in
Connecticut. Edwards said that half had
been contributed by Havemeyer and half
by Z. c. Benedict. lie said il was notori.
GUS that the leading members Of the dem
ocratic party in Colorado had been in con.
sultation with wealthy democrats in New
York prior to the election.
Edwards said his first information as to
the interest of the sugar trust in politics
had come to him in the spring of 1892,
when it had contributed $4,000 to tho
cause of the "anti-snappers" in New York
state; but he had thought comparatively
little OF this until he had heard Of its fur
ther large donations in the fall of that
year. His first intimation of Have.
meyers interest in tariff legislation had
been received from on interview with that
,,,,tIishnA in RracL Li,,,,
Eagle as early as January 25 last, in which
he said the tariff bill would be looked
after when ii should reach tho senate.
I'VE are not without influence in the
senate" Havemeyer is reported to have
said. ave are not impo;ent there"
Edwards also said Harper's Weekly, Of
which Secretary Schurz is editor, has as.
serted the sugar trust was not without
friends in the cabinet and In congress,
and he said he had obtained his informa-
ton about the reported meeting of Have.
meyer and Senators Brice and Smith at
the Arlington hotel in this city from news
paper publications.
With reference TO the speculation of
senators in sugar trust stock, he said il
was matter Of common report in New
gagged in this speculation, but he said, ow-
ing TO the fact that the dealings came un-
der the class known as privileges, puts
and calls" there was no record kept of
them. and the fact OF their trading would
be difficult of proof. He suggested that
Havemcyer, John Scarles. cX.Congress-
man Lefevre, Cord Meyer, II. NJ. Terrell
and Reed be summoned, as men who
would be able 10 throw light on the opera.
tons of the sugar trust.
The afternoon session was brought to
sudden halt by the committee demanding
that Edwards give his authority for the
statements made in his testimony con-
corning Secretary Carlisle's interview with
the subcommittee of the finance COM
nittee, and the committee drafting the
sugar schedule. This Edwards declined
10 do and the committee insisting, he
asked 10 be allowed TO consult his attorney,
Judge Dittenhoefer, who was in the city.
The request was granted and the COM
mittee took another recess while Edwards
went in search of the lawyer.
Edwards returned to the committee
room after IN absensce OF an hour, ac-
companied by Judge Dittenhoefer. After
a brief conference the committee decided
TO postpone further consideration Of the
question of excusing Edwards from
divulging his authority for certain of his
statements until 10 o'clock tomorrow. to
allow Judge Dittenhoefer TO consult
authorities bearing on the case.
John 5. Schriever, tho Washington cor
respondent of the New York Mdii and Err
press, was examined in regard TO dis
patch which appeared in his paper May
10, stating an, interview between certain
United States senators and the members
of the sugar trust had been held in the
parlor of the Arlington hotel, and had
been overheard by wire manufacturer
who occupied an adjoining room.
Schreyer was asked the name Of his
authority and also the name of the wire
manufacturer mentioned.
Schriever said tho story had been gived
10 him by a congressman, but he declined
20 give his name, or the name OF the wire
manufacturer. his reasons being the con-
gresham. while he gave him tho story for
publication. did not wish 10 he brought
into The scandal or be called upon to tes-
,ify. ard had made the witness promise
not to reveal his name. Schriever said
the wire manufacturer, on the morning
after tho conference, met the congress-