The Providence news. (Providence [R.I.]) 1891-1906, 1894-05-29
SUGAR SCANDAL.
Committee Trying to Force
the Newspaper Men
10 Reveal the Sources From Whence
They Derived Their Information.

ieBislhtlOn, To-Day suDmftteu paftlAl re-
port OF tho proceedings OF that commit
tee bearing upon the refusal of the
newspaper correspondents, Edwards and
Shriver, To answer questions propounded
by members of the committees. The re-
port, after reciting the resolution by
which the COMMITTEES was authorized Ia
SIT, states that II. j. Edwards was sum-
moned to and did appear before The COM
mittee, and that he confessed that he had
written the letter over the nom de plume
of "Holland" which was printed In the
Philadelphia Press of the 18th inst. The
report then cites the proceedings OF the
committee and Mrs Edwards refusal to
reply to questions. The chairman
read to him the portion OF
his letter in which he stated
that Secretary Carlisle had secretly visited
the Democratic members OF the finance
sugar interest be taken care OF because the
Democratic party was under obligations
to that interest.
When the part OF this paragraph was
reached in which Mr.. Edwards had said
that what Mr.. Carlisle had said was
Gray, chairman OF the committee, said:
"You say from remembrance, Is 1t
yours?"
To which Mr.. Edwards replied:
Partly mine and partly my inform
ants"
you heard Mr.. Carlisle 2"
Mr.. Edwards-"No."
The Chairman-"You say what he said
or quoted from remembrance"
Mr.. Edwards-"My remembrance OF
what my informant said"
The Chairman-"Who was your in
formantw
Mr.. Edwards -"That, suppose shall
have TO decline TO answer. 4 do it with
the utmost respect to the committee and
theSenate. The information was given TO
me under obligations Of the highest CON
fidence by the one who cntailed that OBJ
legation, SO that do not feel at liberty to
reveal his name"
After the above detailed proceedings
were had, the witness requested time
In which TO consult counsel which request
was granted. The following day,
on the 18th of May, Edwards reappeared
before the committee, accompanied by
his counsel, when the committee, through
their chairman, propounded to the wit
ness the question:
snow, Mr.. Edwards, when you left the
room yesterday 1t was for the purpose of
consulting your counsel and making
up your mind, after having consulted
him, whether you would answer the
question that was propounded to you by
the committee, which was who gave YOU
the information upon which you made
the statement that the Secretary of
secrt visit to the Democratic members OF
the finance committee some time I'm Feb
ruary, and while there made a ceat lin an
peal to them?' The question is now re-
peated."
Whereupon the witness by his counsel
nied MS objections to answering the ques-
tion, which has heretofore been given to
the public.
The several objections were overruled.
The report then gives in detail the various
questions asked OF Mr.. Edwards and
which he declined to answer. They
included the question about Mr..
Carlisle, also regarding their informant rs
10 the meeting of Senators in Washing
ton Hotel with representative OF the
Sugar Trust; also the statement that
the sugar schedule was in the hands
of Moore d Schley, brokers, before being
reported to the Senate, and also as TO the
statement that the Sunday before the
tariff bill was reported there
had been delegation OF sugar trust
representatives at the Capitol who die
tated the sugar schedule. To each of
these questions Edwards said the same
person gave him the information and de-
clined 10 give his name.
The report next cites the examination
OF John 8. Shriver, Washington CORES
pondent OF the New York Mail and Ex-
press, who on being shown a copy of a
dispatch to his paper on the 18th, inst,
ftihtinB 10 tnt OF alleged
conference one night while the tariff bill
was in committee at the Arlington Hotel.
between certain Senators and MEM
bers OF the Sugar Trust, which
had been overheard by wire manufacturer
occupying an adjoining #eom, admitted
having sent the dispatch to the paper, buo
refused TO give the name OF his infor-
mant or the manufacturer.
The committee dwelt upon one para
graph from Mr.. Shriver's article reading
as follows
"There are number OF Senators who
Will be glad II this investigation should
fail. simply because then they
could charge the correspondents with
circulating scanda.ous reports, and
have another chance to dennuaee the
press upon the floor of the senate. But il
the newspaper men are given chance to
opments will be made"
But Mr. Shriver would not say more in
response to the committees urging, than
that he had received his information in
confidence.
The recommendation OF the committee
Is as follows:
"ln the opinion OF the committee
each OF the questions to each of said |
witnesses was proper question |
and pertinent TO question under |
inquiry before the committee and was |
necessary to make the examination or |
ucreu -Dy salu resolution OF the Senate |
and that each of said witnesses is in con- |
tempt of the Senate, and ought TO be dealt |
with for his misconduct; and thn each |
OF baid witnesses by his various refusals
TO answer the questions as herein set |
forth, his violated the provisions OF the
act OF Congress in such cases made and
provided, being chapter 4, OF the Revised
OF the United States.n
Here the report recites this old law
which provides that witness who re-
fuses to answer questions put by Con-
gressional committee shall be
deemed guilty OF misde-
punishable by fine of
not more than one thousand dollars, nor
less than one hundred dollars and by
Imprisonment In common jail OF
not more than one year nor
less than one month. The law
provides that no witt
ness shall be excused from testifying on
The ground that such testimony would
disgrace him and directs that in such cases,
/ he President OF the senate and the
Speaker of the House shall certify 10 the
facts TO the District Attorney OF the Dis-