New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1894-05-30
THE INVESTIGATION A FARCE
Continued from First Pnrc.

The Republican headquarters gentleman Voi-
nected with the Sugar Trust AT that 'li'e "e
Trust had given the RepubhcanS S-''V"'
think as a first subscription, i'll rememp'I dIlS'''
and they wanted more; and Subsequently 'mei1
was $4,000 more raised, which made Si0V. Inns
gentleman Of the Sugar Trust am not sure VINO
:, was: nv impression Is that IT was MT Se'rIeS'
as he is the only Republican In the trust S'.u ia
the presence Of Mr. Belden: We have given co.,
COO or $500 900 20 the Democratic c2mIaSh' Wv
not say that i. was Mir. Searlos' ii was cohJrC,-
u-e Of mine because he was a prominent l''P'O'-
can do not remember any other RepuDhCah III
the Trust That is all the informa ion thAt nave
ever received directly 20 the contribution OF '"'
Sugar people And when say Sugar Trust o's
Il 10 be understood that do not mean sugar trust
as a corporation; use the WORD col''q"""H' ' '''
ing persons connected with It.
pofcrring to the agency" by which German was
brought into close association with the sugar trust
Mr. Edwards admitted that that agency was 80,
rhen r. Elkns Concerning TIE money "S' "
connecticut Mr. Edwards said; I'm S'p''H"-
Colonel Hovt said thero had been s'i.i INTO '""-
nectcut 100000; that Mr.. Havemeyor had EN'
one-half and Z. c. Benedict and associates h''
raised the other half" In corroboration OF 'hl9
AFR Edwards referred the committee TO eN-uoV-
ernor Waller. of Connecticut.
TIE TRUST OWNED TIE WHITE Ho' So
The witness said further that it was reported 10
him that Cord Meyer jr.. of the Sugar Trust. was
controlled the people lat the other end OF 'ne
avenue" This statement was made. Dc SAID al
the Manhattan Club. il was cora MeNe' VINO
visited Secretary LamOn, and reported tha' '"e
Administration would see that Domocrauc p'V'H
IN tho Sugar Trust were not regulated; but th'
witness did not know this personally In ms eNl-
dance relating TO the interview Carlisle haH WIN
the committee although the witness d''hl'u -
give the name he said he was sontlemoh "' 'is
highest character. and was, he thought 'hil"Hc"
in some capacity by the Senate. ana was P''''"
of the interview. Witness was instructed TO 50 10
him by Bradford MerrlIi, Eu''o' %
York Press"
Mr. Edwards admitted that all the material fac's
in regard to which he refused to disclose me "'"
tity of his informant came from the same H'"'
Referring 10 the testimony Of John ScnrN''' ,..'
epondent Of THE New-York Mail and Express inc
committee quote from Mr.. Schrivers e''e'' ue-
railing what A prominent wire manufacturer was
alleged 10 have overheard at the Arlington -i'.e'
in a talk between certain Senators ana Kepfes'"''
tives Of the Sugar Trust Mr.. Schriver siid mem
her OF Congress gave him the information anu ."V
committee say that in response to the direct question
he declined to give the OF either the CONGRESS
man or the wire manufacturer % whom b" roieffe'
in his news dispatch In conclusion the commute
say:
in the opinion Of the committee each Of The ques-
tons put TO each OF said witnesses WAS proper
question and pertinent 20 the question under IN
mako the examination ordered by said resolution OF
the Senate and thai each Of said witnesses Is III
contempt Of the Senate and merits 10 be deiN VIII
for his misconduct and that each OF SAID "''"e''''
nv his various refusals 20 answer the questions d
herein set forth has violated the provisions Oh t''
certain act of Congress in such cases made anl
provided being Chapter Of the Revised statutes
OF the United States
REFERRED TO THE pIsTRICT-NTOHNEY
The committee quotes in full Sections TO- Jos ana
1O4 OF the Revised Statutes. being the Act OF lN''
as published In these dispatches OF yesterday 4He
closing words OF the report are as Io.ioNs.
.'Wherefore the committee repor, and request tha'
the President Of the Senate certify as 10 each VII
ness his aforesaid failure TO testify and his aiore
said refusals 10 answer, and al the facts herein
under the seal of the Senate to the United states
Dstrict-Attorney for the District OF Columbia TO
the end that each of said witnesses may be pro-
ceeded against in manner and form provided by
law"
II will be seen that there Is no reference to the
case Of Harry Walker. correspondent If The New
York Daily America
When the reading OF the report was finished MI
Hin took the floor and argued that the report uu
not present such a question Of privilege as should
displace the pending bill II the report had been on
the first part Of the inquiry the attempt 10 DID
two Senator'S It would have been question OF the
highest privilege, but that report had Deeh a'e"pS
made and disposed of. But the second part oil inc
tnouiry-as TO whether Senators had been si-cu
latne In sugar stocls-did not involve a question OIL
crime although IL might involve question o. I'm
prYSR r Harris Dem. Tenn interrupted Mr. ~
with a question of order and argued mat thefe WA
no question for the Senate to vote upon anu 'n''e
ioSs No H rsgardless Of Mr. Harrs point Of order
Se on arS Th hT f by Mr a VINO
the rung q n na 5w Gm had resumed the
made the following ruling This is Iryl4,s 5 re
he o Senate
called for by this report Is the action OF tne pIe.l
amsendment Of the Senator from kansas CMr. PEI
fer 10 the lumber schedule OF the Tariff bill
MIR HILL TAKES AN APPEAL.
Mr. Hill appealed and argued that the Senate ma
right to direct the presiding officer not to proceed
further In the matter until after further action o
the Senate. The statute in question was loosely an'
carelessly drawn. The Senate might see III 10 drec
that the certificate provided for in the statute Shout
had Complete Jurisdiction over the matter.
He had no sort OF interest persona or otherw So
that the senate should investigate the charge Q
bribery but the report on ths quesoR h hsd pee
substantially completed He doubted me wis1om o
the other proceeding o he batber me- @
always told the truth. II the Senate undertook ina
lime. Senator'S could speculate in sugar stock or q
silver. or in any other Kind Of stock and wouI
Mr. Allen GoPr Neb} asked Nj, I'M whether
Won" EN- the Pe first "G paee Mr H replied "a Senate
has legal right TO do anything that IS not pro
"But he has no moral right" Mr.: Allen Insisted
Talk about thing at a time said MI Hi
'In the first place II there Is statute which pre-
vents it. a Senator who does SO violates no lay
and is guilty of crime When the Senator from
Nebraska votes for silver in the Senate. 1t make
no difference how many silver mines he owns. an
when ne votes a question affecting Natona
banks IL makes no legal difference how much Ma
tional bank stock he owns
Does the Senator from New-York." Mr.. Ale
asked, contend that Senator can indulge in con
duct OF that kind. because there is no statute :
punish him? Does he mean to say that the Scnat
cannot purge Itself OF such a man? do not believ
IT,"
WHY NOT EXAMINE THE SENATOR'S?
THE Constitution OF the United States" Mr.. HI
replied makes the Senate the Judge Of the cleo