The Iola register. [volume] (Iola, Allen County, Kansas) 1875-1902, 1894-06-08
THE INVESTIGATION.
The Committee Make Public the
Testimony Taken.
SECRETARY CARLISLE'S STATEMENT
He Denies EmphaticaIly That He Made q
Demand Upon the Finance Committee
to Protect the Sugar Trust-Testi-
mony of Other Witnesses.

WASHINGTON, June 5.-The senate
sugar scandal investigating committee
made public yesterday most of the
testimony SO far taken by it. Senator
Mills denied all knowledge of the Sc
cret interview of Secretary Carlisle on
the sugar question, and said that he
and Senator Jones and Senator Vest
had prepared the sugar schedule as
first reported, and he knew moth
ing of any memorandum for the
schedule from the secretary. He
also denied all knowledge Of
the alleged Sunday conference
of the finance committee with those in
terested in securing legislation. He
said he had never heard of the sugar
trust being in the capitol while he was
acting as member of the finance COM
mittee and that he had never met any
of the members of the trust. The let
ter of introduction was merely a formal
note containing two or three lines. He
declined to see Mr.. Havemeyer. Mr..
Mills also denied any knowledge OF
contributions to the democratic cam
paign.
Mr.. Carlisle stated that Mr.. Jones
had requested him to have the sugar
schedule prepared on the morning OF
Saturday, May 5, and had come to his
house for that purpose, and had handed
him a memorandum, stating what he
wanted done. He had agreed to do
this, as the service was one the treas
ury department was in the habit of
rendering the members of the finance
committee. After he went to his Office
he dictated the schedule providing
for the ad valorem duty of 40 per
cent, and the additional one-eighth of
l cent on sugars above No. 16 Dutch
standard. At o'clock that day he
went to the capitol in response to a
telephone message requesting his pres
ence, taking the sugar schedule, which
he had put in shape, with him. He
found Senators Jones, Vest and Nc
Pherson and Representative BreclSin-
ridge in the room of the senate COM
mittee on appropriations, and Senator
German came in afterward.
Mr.. Carlisle then told of his visit to
the capitol next day, which was Sun
day, explaining how this visit came to
be made. to correct the discrepancy in
the schedule, which, had it not been
corrected, would have left sugar with
out either duty or bounty between
July /, 1894, and July L, 1895. This oc-
Cured to him, and not finding Senator
Jones in his home, he had driven to
the capitol to make the sugges-
tion that the hiatus should be
provided for, when to his
surprise he found Senators Jones, Vest
and Mcpherson and Representative
Breckenridge at work on the tariff
amendments which were to be intro
told that the amendment which he
had interlined, changing the duty on
refined sugar from the compound rate
of 40 per cent. had been abandoned,
and he had simply said 'All right"
and came away.
Upon being asked by Senator Lodge
whether he had advised the finance
committee as to whether it was better
to have ad valorem or specific duties,
Mr. Carlisle said: II have always been
in favor of an ad valorem duty, but
uO ItOt tiidt thChi any
such opinion then. There was very
little said about it. | may say also
that l have always been in favor of a
moderate duty on sugar as revenue
article, and | prepared the minority
report on the Mckinley bill against the
provisions putting sugar on the free
list"
With reference to the note of intro
duction which he gave Mr.. Havemeyer
to Senator Mills, he said that he wrote
the note for him as he wrote letters for
others interested in tariff legislation to
other members of the committee, and
he hoped if the note was still in exist
ence it would be made public. Mr..
Havemeyer, he said, had called to see
him about the tariff legislation
on sugar, as had also Mr.. Searles and
Henry K. Reed, of Boston, and all had
talked about this matter, but he could
not remember what they had said.
There had been, however, no intima- |
tion from any of them that the demo- |
cratic party was under obligations to
the sugar trust.
Mr.. Carlisle denied enphatically that
he had ever made a secret call upon the |
finance committee or made demand
upon them to protect sugar because of
the democratic party's obligations to
the sugar trust.
Senator McPherson's testimony is de- |
voted largely to an explanation of stock
purchases and the method of conduct |
ing them.
Representative John Dewitt Warner |
was examined on the basis of news |
paper statement that an effort, which |
had been instigated by men of great |
prominence in the democratic party, /
had been made to cause Mr.. Warner to |
cease his fight for free sugar while the /
tariff bill was pending in the house. /
Mr.. Warner said that the suggestion I
had been made to him that if there was |
not duty on sugar, the sugar trust /
would beat the bill. but he declined tc |
state from whom the suggestion had
come; it was from a member of the /
house of representatives. He said he
had heard very little about the sugar
trust until the day before the tariff bill |
passed the house, and it had then be-
come noised abroad that that interest |
was organized for the purpose of de-
feating his amendment and carrying |
duty on sugar.
Mr.. Vest said he had an indistinct |
recollection of Mr.. Carlisle drawing up /
a provision in regard to sugar. but he
did not know who received it, nor did /
he know that he had ever seen it. At
any rate it was not the schedule that
was adopted,