The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1894-06-13
In New York State 1t Gave Money to
Democrats for Political Purposes and
in Massachusetts to Republicans.
ALWAYS TO THE MAJORITY
He Is Sure the "Anti- Snappers"
Never Received Anything.
His Testimony Regarding Conferences
with SenatOrs-He Never Consulted
with President Cleveland.

Rennery, responded 10 the SummOn Oh
Senator Gray's investigating committee,
and appeared before the to-day
TO give his testimony. The doors were
closed against the press as usual. and the
proceedings were of a strictly private char
acter. 1t is known, however, that Mr..
Havemyer was subjected to a very rigid
examination concerning his visits to Wash
ington last spring while the tariff bill
was in it's formative process in the Senate
finance committee, and In regard to his
interviews with Senators. Havemyer de-
MED the published statement upon which
the investigation is based. both as to con-
tributions to campaign funds and the de-
mands of the trust that 1t should nave
protection in the tariff bill for past favors.
Mr.. Havemyer talked quite freely about
his visits to Washington while the tariff
bill was pending before the finance COM
mittee, and he said that he had talked
with several Senators in the interest OF
the proper protection of the refining In
terest, among them Senator'S Hill, Cor
man and Smith. The two latter, he said,
had promised to help him, but Senator
Hill, had given him no satisfaction at all.
He said the present tariff bill was an
unsatisfactory one to the refiners because
the differential of one-eighth of q cent
was not sufficient to afford all the protec-
ton which their interests should have re-
ceived. He confessed that he had advo-
Gated the ad valorem system, and was
gratified that 1t had been adopted 20 the
extent that it was, but even with this
concession he declared the schedule was
far from being satisfactory. Mr.. Havemyer
denied lAll knowledge Of speculation In
sugar stocks by United States Senators.
Mr.. Havemyer was asked about the pub
lishedi statement that he had, either on
Mr. (. C. Benedict's yacht or at Green
wich, Conn.,. been in consultation with Mr..
Cleveland and Mr.. Benedict, In 1892, after Mr..
Cleveland's nomination for the presidency
about the sugar interests as affected by the
Hawaiian treaty. To this Mr.. Havemyer
said there was mot one word of truth" He
also declared that no such consultation had
ever occurred at any time or place. He
added that he did not know Mr.. Cleveland,
and had never seen him. Furthermore, he
bad never exchanged a word with Mr.. Bene-
dict on the subject of sugar, or on any other
Mr.. Havemyer said he had come to Wash
ington early in March after the tariff bill
had passed the House with the hope Of
mittee, and had gone TO Senator Vest TO
ask him If 1t would not be possible to Sc
cure a hearing by the committee. Mr.. Vest
had said no, but had agreed to allow him
to explain the sugar question to him (VesD
Individually, and he had done so, meeting
Vest twice. In this interview he had OPP
posed any duty onsraw sugar, but had said
If there was to be a duty 1t should be an
ad valorem, and had represented that q
differential Of o~ne-quarter of a cent on re-
fined sugar was Indispensable to the exist
ence Of the sugar refining interests in this
country. He had not been particular
whether this differential should be ad va
loren or specific, but wanted the duty on
raw ad valorem.
He then explained his interview with Sem
ator Jones, at Senator Camden's rooms.
Brice's house. He had talked with Jones
about three-quarters of an hour about the
different systems of levying duty and about
the cost of refining sugar In this and other
countries. He said that he had been In
vited to Senator Brice's house to meet Sen
ator Caffery, and when he met him merely
went over the argumen for an ad valorem
duty. Mr.. Havemyer said he had gone to
the Capitol with Mr.. Terrill, but not for
the purpose Of seeing Senator's or Repre-,
said, sort of spectators"
Mr.. Havemyer made some rather startling
statements toward the close Of his testi-
mony. He was asked about the contribu-
tons of the Sugar Trust to the campaign
funds of political parties, and said that the
records, of the trust showed that such con-
tributions were made, but that they We're
made to the State committee, not to the
national committee. He was then asked
if the contributions of the trust were given
S1,e both !.6 parties hes in the same State and re
'sHow do you arrange it?' he was asked.
We'll. New York is a Democratic State.
We give to the Democrats there and to the
Republicans in Massachusetts. We never
give to the minority"
'Did you contribute to the a~nti-snapperS?"
asked Senator Lodge.
."oh, no, l am quite sure on that point;
nothing to the anti-snappers."
mittee the amounts contributed by the
Sugar Trust to the different campaign funds
but he promised to furnish them If he could
In his interrogatories, Senator Allen
sought to develop the fact that there was
an understanding between the trust and
Claus Spreckles for a division of territory,
and while Mr.. Havemyer admitted that his
company did not ship beyond the Missouri
river, he commended that it was because of
physical difficulties and not on account of
Senator Allen asked whether the trust
had not endeavored to control legislation
interests and with a view of making money
out of such legislation as might be enacted
here. to which Mr.. Havemyer replied: I'm.
doubtedly. That is what l have been down
here for" He said the trust had made about
$15,GO0.OO0 by the purchase or the other re-
fneries.
Asked as to whether the contributions
TO political parties amounted TO 100000 In
ay one campaign. Mr.. Havemyer said: "Oh
no." He said nothing was contributed &c
influence presidential nominations in 1892.
The money so spent was charged on the
books of the trust as expenses" Mr.
Havemyer said In reply TO further question
ing, that If the committee desired 1t he
could produce the figures from the books
Of his company, showing what contributions
had been made for political purposes. and
then. upon the committee making such g
request, he asked the privilege of consult
ing his counsel and was excused, after 6
question had been put which was not an;
severed as to the money the company hao
been enabled 10 make upder the Mckinley
act.
While no one in the district attorneys
office will talk about the proceedings OF the
grand jury further than to say that nc
true bill has yet been reported against
Messrs. Edwards and Schriver, IL is known
that the grand jury has informed Mr.. Biz.
ney that it would report a true bill and thai
il was in consequence of this Information
that Mr.. Birney notified the two news
paper men to be prepared with bail next
Saturday If they did not wish TO be inn
prlsoned under an Indictment which he will
frame between now and Saturday. The in.
tention Is to arrest the two correspond.
ents and notice was given them In order
that they might be prepared TO secure
their release on bond and thus avoid the
unDleasantness of detention behind the
bars. Their cases will be test ones. The
same action will be taken In the case OF
Broker Chapman, as has been taken In
Edwards's and Schriver's cases, and IL 1:
quite likely that the New York stock brok.
furnish bail for his appearance wher
uya nta1