The herald. [microfilm reel] (Los Angeles [Calif.]) 1893-1900, 1894-05-30
Report of the Investigating
Committee.
Are Reporters Stories Privi-
legged Communications?
The Committee Asks the Arrest Of
Reluctant Witnesses.
Senator Hill Defends the Newspaper
Man-Ths InvestigatiOn Brings In
the Names of Prominent re.
publican Politicians.


By the Associated Press.
WARRINGTON, May Ex-senator Gray.
chairman OF the senate committee to
investigate the alleged operations OF the
sugar trust in connection with tina tariff
legislation, today submitted a partial
report of the proceedings of that COM
mittee, bearing upon the refusal OF the
newspaper correspondents, Edwards,
Shriever and Walker, to answer oues-
tions propounded by members OF the
committee. The report, after reciting the
resolution by which the committee wss
authorized to sit, states that E. J. Ed
wards, whose "Holland' letter was one
of the melting causes of this investiga-
tion, had refused to reply to questions
OF the committee. The chairman read
to him that portion of his letter ia
which he stated that Seoratary Carlisia
had secretly visited the Democrati0
mem bers of the finance committee, and
had demanded that the sugar interest
be taken care of because the Democratic
party was under obligations to the sugar
interest.
When the part of this paragraph was
reached in which Ed wards had said that
what Carlisle had said was quoted from
remembrance. Senator Gray, chair
man of the committee, said:
"You say from remembrance. Is it
yours ?" To which Mr.. Edwards re-
piled:
Partly mine and partly my inform
ants"
The chairman-Do you mean to say
baf NOS, hao~d M Horliola
Mr.. Edwards-No.
The chairman-You say what he said
is quoted from remembrance.
Mr.. Edwards-My remembrance is of
what my informant said.
The chairman-Who was your in
formant?
Mr.. Edwards-That suppose l shall
have to decline to answer. do it with
the utmost respect to the committee
and the senate. The information was
given TO me under obligations of the
highest confidence by the one whom [
obtained the information from, so that
| do not feel at liberty to reveal his
name.
Alter the above detailed proceedings
were had the witness requested time in
which to consult counsel, which re.
quest was granted. The following day,
on the 25th OF May, Edwards reappesred
before the committee, accompanied by
his counsel, when the committee,
through their chairman, propounded to
the witness the following question:
Now. Mr.. Edwards, when you left
the room yesterday it was for the pur-
pose of consulting your counsel and
making up your mind. after having con-
suited him, whether you would answer
the question that was propounded to
you by the committee, which question
WAS, Who gave you the information upon
which you made the statement that the
secretary OF the treasury, Mr.. Carlisle,
made secret visit to the Democratic
members of the finance committee some
time in February and while there made
the certain appeal to them. The ques-
ton is now repeated, whereupon the
witness by his counsel filed his objec-
tions to answering the questions, which
have heretofore been given to the pub
lie. The several objections were
overruled. The report then gives
the various questions asked of
Mr.. Edwards aud which he de-
clned to answer. They include the
question about Mr.. Carlisle; also regard
ing the informant as to the meeting of
senators in a Washington hotel with
representatives of the sugar trust; also
the statement that the sugar schedule
was in the hands OF Moore and 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 q delegation of
sugar trust representatives at the capital
who dictated the sugar schedule. To
each OF these questions Edwards said
the same person gave him the informa-
ton, ann declined to give his name.
Therepo next cites the examination
of John s. Shriever, another Washing-
ton correspondent, who on being shown
a copy of dispatch to his paper ON the
10Th instant, relating to the particulars
of an alleged conference in the night
while the tariff bill WAS in committee at
tla Arlington, between certain senators
members of the sugar trust, which
been overheard by wire manulac-
or occupying an adjoining room, ad-
tied having sent the dispatch to the
paper but refused to give the name of
his informant or the manufacturer.
The committee dwet upon q para
graph from Mr.. Schriever's article,
reading as follows:
There are a number of senators that
will be glad If this investigation should
fail, simply because then they could
charge the correspondents with circulate
ing scandalous reports and have another
chance to denounce the press upon the
floor. But if the newspaper men are
given a chance to tell all they know,
some interesting developments will be
made.
Mr.. Schriever would not say morea
however, in response to the committee's
urging than that he had received his in
formation Ia confidence.
After these proceedings Mr.. Schrisver
requested time in which TO consult
counsel. The next day he reappeared
before the con- mittee and announced
that he had consulted lawyer and adj
hered to his decision not to reveal the
name Of his informant.
The recommendation of the COMMITTEES
Ia as follows:
In the opinion Of the committee sssA