The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1894-08-03

and quarter of a cent per pound diff
ferential in favor of refined sugars as
the proper schedule. This was opposed
by the senators from Louisiana, repre-
senting the producers as against the
refiners of sugar. Afterward the spe-
cific schedule was changed by the
finance committee and was reported as
it now stands-with a 40 per cent ad
valorem duty and one-eighth of cent
per pound differential."
The report concludes:
1T is a matter of complete indif-
ference to the trusts what duties are
levied upon sugar as long as the form
is ad valorem and a sufficient differ
entail is given in favor of refined SUI
gar
Speaking of the contribution to the
campaign fund of the Sugar trust, the
report says:
The fact that it gives to both polit-
ical parties is sufficient proof of the
purpose of its contributions, and of
their dangerous nature. For these rea-
sons the undersigned have felt it i'm
Dortant to lay before the Senate and
the country the fact that the sugar
schedule as it now stands, is, according
to the testimony, in the form desired
by the trust, and to point out also the
methods by which the trust reached
what it desired and obtained, a sub
stantial victory"
BY Common Talk.
The supplemental report of Senator
Allen. of Nebraska, which was pub
lished some days ago, and who sub
mitted with the report the supplement
tai testimony taken by the commit
tee. but secret heretofore, is submit
ted with the report. 1t contained the
statement of Albert NJ Seip, Emil G..
emilia adam Senators Camden SO0it n
and others.
Seip said in his testimony that he
was in the Office of Carson B. Mozart
ney, of this city, more or less and that
his purchases of sugar stock had been
largely influenced by seeing senators
in the office and by the common talk
that they were dealing in sugar stock.
Ee said he had seen Senators Brice,
Quay and Smith there frequently, but
he had never seen either of them give
an order for sugar stock. He produced
letters from Guillaudeau. of the New
York brokerage firm of Wheeler & Co.
the first bearing date June 10, and
reading:
81 see Smith. of New Jersey, and
Camden. of West Virginia both swear
they had not speculated in sugar
stock. 1 could produce a man, or that
is. I know a man, but L do not think
he would go back on them, who was in
nv office this morning. that received
orders in sugar from both of them and
he had Camden's written order. L
should think that when a senator
swore falsely it is pretty serious mat
ter. Do they swear to these questions
under oath?'
In the next letter, dated June 20,
Guillaudeau says:
81 have had talk with my friend
and he could not in honor use the in
formation, as the orders and the bust
ness were given to him. / think you
know the man. I have before me now
the written order for 500 shares of
sugar to buy at 1874 and 1872 or less,
under date of March 2, and signed by
the senator in question. The orders
the other senators were verbal. There
is no way I can see, without his direct
testimony against these people, that
the information can be used, and that
would be dishonorable, and he refused
to do it and I applaud him in it. Could
you suggest any way that would leave
him out entirely that it could be
used?"
Mr.. Seip said he understood Samuel
Battershan to be the man referred to
by Guillaudeau as having received
these orders. GuiIlaudeau, when ques-
toned said Battershall had left with
him what purported to be an order for
sugar stock signed by j. N. Camden,
written in lead pencil on the back Of a
much-soiled envelope for safe keeping,
but that he CGuillaudeeu) at Batter
shalPs request. had destroyed it.
Edward A. Levy, another witness,
furnished the Photographic copy of the
order which reads:
BUY me 200 shares of sugar at 82A
or less and 800 shares 831A or less.
81. N. CAMDEN"
Senator Smith, when recalled and
the letter and testimony of Guillau-
deau was read to him, said the state
ment was absolutely false, and that he
did not know Mr.. Battershall, and had
never given him an order for the pur-
chase of sugar.
The Chairman-Do you recollect any
transaction in sugar stock since the
meeting of Congress?
| Senator Smith-My impression was
| that I bought a thousand shares of sug-
lar along last January or the first of
February, as nearly as l can recollect.
II won't swear positively that I did buy
IL thousand shares of sugar. but rather
| have the impression in my mind that
at that time I did.
Senator Smith added that a friend
asked him to buy something of him,
and that he gave an order for q thou
lsand shares. He did not know whether
lit was sugar or not. but thought it
was WHISKY. Inc question as TO the
purchase of sugar which Senator Smith
had answered by saying he had not
purchased sugar, was repeated to him,
land he said he was positive about that.
The best of his recollection was he had
+ not and he could not say whether the
transaction was whisky or sugar; he
never kept an account of his transac-
| tons. He had written to find out wheth-
er it was whisky or sugar, and expected
an answer soon.
This testimony was taken yesterday.
This morning august p Senator Smith
appeared before the committee and said
he had ascertained that he had not
bought or sold any sugar certificates
during the pending of the tariff bill in
| the Senate.
Senator Camden, who was recalled.
said the signature on the photograph of
| the alleged order resembled his hand
writing, and he would not swear it was
not his, but he had no recollection of
ever having written it. and had not
given such an order. The body of the
order looked less like his handwriting
than the signature.