The Portland daily press., 1894-06-04


No. 16 Dutch standard in color. and OF
| all tank bottoms, syrups of cane juice
| or OF beet juice, concentrated melada.
concrete and concentrated molasses, a
duty of 30 per cent adj valorem, and up.
on all sugars above No. 16 Dutch stand.
| ard in color there shall be collected q
duty of IS per cent ad valorem, etc."
1t will be seen that Mr. CarlisIe's mem.
orandum suggests several very important
changes. Under the finance committee's
schedule the new duties were to go into
effect on June 80, 1894. This memorandum
postpones the time to January 1, 1895.
Under the committees schedule the du-
ties were to be specific. The memoran-
dunn changes them to ad vaiorem, and
makes the duty on raw sugars 40 per cent
ad valorem, and on refined sugar As per
cent ad valorem. Now here is the sugar
schedule finally adopted, one which
is now before the Senate:
"On and after January l., 1895, there
shall be levied, collected and paid on all
sugars not above No. 16 Dutch standard
in color, and on all tank bottoms, svrups
OF cane juice or of beet juice, melada.
concentrated melada, concrete or coz
centrated molasses, duty of 40 per cent
ad valorem, and upon all sugars above
No. 16 Dutch standard in color, there
shall be levied, collected and paid du-
ty of one-eighth of one per cent per
pound, in addition to the said duty OF
40 per cent ad valorem, etc."
In his testimony before the commute
Mr.. Carlisle said his schedule was not
adopted. The postponement of the time
from June 80. 1894, to January i, 1895,
was adopted. The change from specific to
ad valorem duties was adopted. The 40
per cent duty on raw sugar was adopted.
The only thing that was not adopted
was the duty of 45 per cen t on refined
sugar. That was changed to 90 per cent
ad valorem, with an additional specific
duty of an eighth of a cent a pound.
That change which is so slight that ex-
perts cannot say whether it will yield
more or less protection to the refined
product constitutes the only difference
between Mr. Carlisle's memorandum and
the schedule finally adopted. 1t is enough
to enable Mn. Carlisle to say, without per-
juring himself, that his memorandum was
not adopted, but it is evident to every
body who compares the two schedules
that it WAS Mr.. Carlisle's memorandum
that dictated in all important partic-
ulars the schedule that was finally adopt
ed. The second specification of the in
dictment therefore, namely, that Mr.. Car
isles memorandum was substituted for
the original schedule of the finance COM
mittee is substantially proven.
The third specification is that Mr.. Car
Isle prepared the memorandum to salts
fly the Sugar Trust. Absolute proof of
that can come only from an admis-
sion by the Secretary himself. AS
a rule, motive is matter of inference,
and it must be in his case 1t is a mat
ter of general knowledge that the sched-
ule originally prepared by the finance
committee was not satisfactory to the
Sugar Trust. The duty in that schedule
was specific. Senator Cafferey has testi-
fed that at conference at which he was
present, and which President Havemey-
er attended, the sugar people" made
argument for change from specific to
advalorem duties. This change is made
in Secretary Carlisle's memorandum, 1t
needs no argument to show that that the
postponement of the time in which the
n w schedule is to take effect to Janua-
ry /, 1895, would be of great benefit to
the Trust because it would give it many
months to stock up on free raw sugar.
Mr.. Carlisle's memorandum suggested the
change. All the changes in his men,
orandum benefited the Trust. ana their
adoption sent sugar STOCK I'D 80 points.
Mr.. Carlisle prepared this memorandum.
Every sane man is presumed to know and
understand the consequences of his own
act. While, therefore, the proof that Sec
rotary Carlisle suggested the change for
the benefit of the Trust is not so conclu-
sive as is the proof that he prepared the
memorandum, and that it was adopted,
it is very strong~-strong enough to need
rebuttal from him.
So much for Secretary Carlisle. An
other allegation of the correspondents
was that certain Senators had been spec-
ulating in sugar stocks while the sugar
duties were under consid Grafton in the
Senate. This is substantially proven
by the testimony of Senator Mcpherson,
who says he purchased 1UOO shares of
sugar stock, and netted profit of 81 500.
To be sure, Mr.. McP herson says he trans
ferred his stock to his son, and that he
didn't speculate in the sense in which
the word is gensrally used, meaning ap-
parently that he didn't speculate on
margins, but bought his stock outright;
But these qualifications are not sufficient
to change the quality of the transaction.
The allegation of the correspondent tn at
Senators had been specula ting in stocks
is absolutely proven as far as one Sena-
tor is concerned.
But besides substantiating the two
principal charges of the correspondents
the inquiry has incidentally thrown a
good deal of light upon the veracity of
the Hon. Daniel Webster Voorhees, of
Indiana. When the story was first pub
lished that MIR. Carlisle had submitted
memorandum to the finance committee,