The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1894-08-03

signature.
Senator Gray. chairman of the sugar in
vestigating committee, who presented the
report of the committee to the Senate to-
day, asked that the committee be cis-
tb Inc II main I'M report s signea ht ey All
tors Lodge and Davis present supple
mental report and Senator Allen also pre-
sents MS own views on some features or
the case. The report which has the ap-
proval of the full committee recites the
causes which led up to the investigation
and quotes the article from the Philadel-
phia Press which the charges against
Senators was based. 1t also recites the
facts which have been published already
as to the refusal of the correspondent, Ed
wards, to answer queries put by the COM
mlttee. Secretary Carlisle is exonerated
and the parts of tie article rejecting
him are declared TO be without founda-
tion, except that it is a fact, according
TO Secretary CaTlisle's testimony, that he
iinance committee, draft an amendment to
the sugar schedule, a copy of which, as
ueserlped by Mr.. Carlisle, is attached as
The conduct of NJ. Edwards" says the
report, lin publishing specific charges
against public men without having per-
sonal knowledge of the facts, calls for the
serious reprobation of the Senate" The
committee also says; There has been no
testimony presented before your commit
tee and your committee has been unable
to discover any tending to show that the
sugar schedule was made up as it then
stood In the proposed amendment to the
tariff bill. in consideration of large or any
sums of money paid for campaign pur-
poses of the Democratic party. No wit
ness has testified before your committee
that such was the fact and all the Demo-
ATTIC members of the finance committee
and the Senator'S whose names have been
mentioned in the public press as especially
interested in protecting the sugar refining
industries, or in whose States sugar
finerieS existed, have, under oath, denied
chat such was the truth or that thev had
any knowledge or information as to any
sums of money. large or otherwise, hav-
the Democratic party by the Sugar Trust,
by those connected with iC or by anybody
as consideration for favorable treatment
of it's interests by said party"
The committee also reports the substance
OF the testimony of the sugar refiners as
serting that its campaign contributions
and not for the purpose of influencing ma
tional campaigns or for the purpose Of Sc
curing or defeating national legislation.
NOT ALL SUPPORTED.
mo other testimony" the committee
says, 'has been offered, suggested or dis
covered which would tend to support the
statements of Edwards in this regard.
Nor is there any evidence in support of the
statement that either of the Messrs. Have
meyer had an interview with President
Cleveland on yacht, in the summer of
1892 or of 1898, in regard to the sugar inter-
ests of the Hawaiian Islands or any other
sugar interests. the policy of the ad-
ministration in regard to them. On the
contrary, it has been affirmatively shown
that the statement is untrue as to any such
interview having occurred.
1T is shown by the evidence that one or
more officers of the Sugar Trust were in
Washington ard that they saw sew
eral Senators representing States in
with the view of influencing Iegisla-
ton, but these gentlemen deny the use of
any improper means to that end. Both the
committee denied that any meeting took
place between them at the Capitol or else
where was stated in the Holland let
ter to have taken place, and there Is no
evidence in support of the statements In
The Committee also unite in saying that
no evidence has been adduced tending TO
show improper conduct on the part of
those engaged in the framing of the sugar
schedule in the tariff bill
Though perhaps outside the scope or the
duty imposed on your committee" they
say, "they take occasion to strongly depre-
cate the Importantly and pressure TO which
Congress and it's members are subjected by
the representatives of great industrial COM
binations whose enormous wealth tends 10
suggest undue influence and to create in
the public mind demoraIzing peiieI III the
existence of corruption.
The committee reports in the negative
on the question whether any Senator has
been specializing in Sugar stock during the
consideration of the tariff bill"
AS to the latter branch or the inquiry,
which brought out a Photographic copy of
an order to buy Sugar stocks. dated March
9 and purporting to be signed by Senator
Camden, the committee gives credence to
the denial of Senator Camden, and says
that Battershall, whose evidence was ex-
pected to bear up the inference from the
Photographic copy, is a of doubtful
character. Senator Smith is also exoner-
ated from blame.
NO CHARGE OF CORRUPTION.
Summing up, the committee says that mo
charge or charges have been filed alleging
that the action of any Senator has been
corruptly or improperly influenced in the
consideration of the tariff bill and no at
tempt has been made to SO influence legis-
lation'
All the testimony taken by the committee
is submitted as part of the report.
Messrs. Davis and Lodge, Republicans, sub
mitted a supplemental report devoted en-
trely to the subject of the influence of the
Sugar Trust, so-called on the making of
the sugar schedule as it now stands in the
tariff bill They say:
mo evidence has been submitted to the
committee which proves that the sugar
schedule was made UP in order to fulfill
obliga lions to the Sugar Trust for cam
paign contributions, but we consider 1t our
duty 70 go into some detail to the
method employed in making up the sugar
schedule. for which the Democratic MEM
bers of the finance committee are pub
Hcly responsible IT is admitted and it is
proved by the sworn testimony of every
witness called that the present form of
the schedule was that desired by the rep
resentativeS of the refiners or the Sugar
Trust The three interests concerned in
the sugar schedule are those, with no local
or pecunary interest, who believed in free
sugar. the producers of raw sugar and
the refiners-
''It soon became evident after the House
bill came to the Senate that no bill could
pass that body which did not regard both
the latter interests. The interests of the
producers and refiners then came into con-
flict the refiners favoring ad valorem
duty on raw sugar. as now embodied in
the bill"
1t is pointed out that Messrs. Havemyer
Sea-les Henry r. Reed, Cord Meyer and
II. l.. Terrell, of the Sugar Trust, all testi-
fled that they sought 10 secure an ad va
lorem duty. The report says:
"It appears by the testimony of Senator
Vest that Senators Brice of Ohio, Gorme n
of Maryland, Smith of New Jersey, Hill of
New York and Senators White and Caffery
of Louisiana, after said conference (of
Democratic Senatorsl came to the rooms
of the finance committee in regard to the
sugar schedule. Senator Vest testified that
Mr.. German urged that a duty of 40 per
cent ad valorem and quarter of a cent
per pound differential in favor of refined
sugars as the proper schedule. This was
opposed by the Senat tors from louisiana
representing the producers as against the
refiners of sugar. Afterward the specific
schedule was changed by the finance COM
mttee and was reported as il now stands
with a duty of 40 per cent. ad valorem and
one-eghth of a cent per pound differen-
tial."