The herald., 1894-05-30

Very Slight Progress Made In the Tariff
Dabata.

Very Slight Progress Made In the Tariff
Debate.
WAsH1NGToN, May 29.-The question
OF the right OF newspaper correnpond-
ents to refuse to give Senator Gray's
bribery and sugar investigation commit
tee the sources OF their information was
brought before the senate today in re-
port from the committee concerning the
refusal of Correspondents Edwards and
Shriver to answer questions.
In the morning hour, Kyle, in order
to avoid further conflict over the pass
age of the resolution declaring against
non-interference with affairs in the Ha-
waiisp islands, agreed to waive vote
on his resolution il the vote could be
secured on the Turpie resolution report
ed from the committee on foreign rela-
tione.
Vest offered az a substitute for Tur-
pies resolution one declaring that from
the facts and progress before the senate,
it would be unwise and inexpedient 20
consider the project OF annexation that
the highest International interests re-
ouired the people OF the Sandwich ISL
ment and line of policy; that foreign in
terference with the affairs of these
islands would be regarded as an act
unfriendly to us.
A motion by Hoar TO lay the amend
ment on the table was deieated-lS
ayes, So nays.
The tariff bill was then taken up.
Proctor addressed the senate in opposi-
ton. Pettigrew followed in opposition
to the bill. He eaid he had feeling OF
contempt for the eastern senators who
were trying to deceive the people now
by protesting friendship for silver. In
mis- opinion the western senators who
advocated the free coinage OF silver and
protection were right.
Senator Gray, at the close OF the
speech by Senator Pettigrew, presented
a report from the committee delegated
to investigate the charges Of improperly
in framing the sugar schedule. Senator
Hill objected, but Senator Gray said it
was privileged and the senate agreed
and the report was read.
The committee, in reciting the testi-
mony OF Edwards and Schriever and the
questions they refused to answer, says
the witnesses are in contempt OF the
senate and ought to be dealt with under
the law providing for fine Of from 500
to $1,000 and imprisonment from one
month to one year.
Senator Gray submitted to the vice.
president a warrant directing the district
attorney to proceed against the wit
nessee.
The discussion was renewed as to
whether the report was privileged, Sem
ator Hill claiming it was not. The vice.
president, however, ruled that it was.
Senator Hill appealed and made vigor-
GUS speech.
Mr.. Hill proceeded to discuss the
questions involved in the decision. He
argued that the senate could not lose
jurisdiction simply because committee
made report; that it still had right
to recommit the report, and If recommit'
ted in law, it was as if the report never
had been made.
Mr.. Hill said he had no personal in.
terest in the investigation. He thought
il proper enough to investigate the
charges of attempted bribery, but he
doubted the wisdom and propriety OF
this proceeding. Whether newspaper
men always told the truth or never told
the truth was question, if the senate
entered upon, it could be kept busy
until the end oil the session. The cen
ate smiled audibly at this statement OF
the New York senator, and it led to a
very interesting debate between Mr..
Hill and Mr.. Allen (Populist, Nebras-
ks), q member OF the bribery com mittee.
Mr.. Allen interrupted Mr.. Hill to gay 1t
was not the truthfulneHs OF the CORE
spondents whom the committee WAS
charged to investigate; it was whether
attempts had been made to bride soma
tors; whether the sugar trust had made
the large political contributions for the
purpose of influencing legislation, and
whether senators had been specializing
in sugar stocks. He asked Mr.. Hill if
he contended that the senate had been
right to investigate the charge that SEN
ators had epeculated in sugar stocks.
"Not exactly" replied Mr.. Hill, "bui
I have grave doubts II senator should
come before q committee and refuse to
answer questions relating to his private
business, whether the committee could
compel him to do 30. The decisions o.
the courts are against it"
"Does the senator believe a senator
could invest in sugar stock without thai
investment influencing his vote?' in
quired Mr.. Allen.
1.-THE senator confounds the legal
question:" replied Mr.. Hill, with the
question of propriety. A senator WHIT
speculates in sugar stock violates nc
law"
But" interrupted Mr.. Allen, sit
would it not be more proper for SEN
ator to invest money in any enterprise
to be affected by his vote than it would
be for a Judge on bench to render de-
cision in q case in which he was inter
eated. This question OF public morality
goes to the foundation OF the Integrity O.
the government"
"a senator has legal right to d.
what is not prohibited"
"a legal" returned Mr.. Allen, "bu
no moral right"
zone question at time" said Mr.
Hill. "He would have as much right
as q senator, who being an owner of sill
yer mining property, would vote on the
silver question. If, pending action or
the sugar schedule, senator should
speculate in sugar, it might be an act
of improperly, but it would not consti
tute crime"
IF the committee desired to get al
the facts, why did they not call the
senators whose names had been con.
nected with these charges, instead OF
prosecuting newspaper men, who had
no personal knowledge and whose in.
formation was obtained from confden-
tial sources"
But" interjected MIR. Allen, ''if the
questions asked the newspaper men
were irrelevant, they should be ex-
empted from testifying."