St. Paul daily globe., 1894-07-22
now at Demorest, Ca; David Fl. Holms,
private Company B, Eighty-third Indi-
ana, now at Hillsboro. Ind.
SHOULD BE PROHIBITED.
Allen Condemns Speculation by
Senators and Representatives..

Allen Condemns speculation by
Senators and Representatives.
WASHINGTON. July 81. = Senator
Allen, of Nebraska. who was member
of the sugar Investigating committee,
has made an additional report to the
sen ate, supplementiDg that of the CON-
mittee. He says:
In view Of the fact that the report of
Senators Gray and Lindsay, In which
| concur. does not set forth the facts
in this case as fully as l think they
should be stated, | have deemed it per
pectly proper to file separate and ad
ditional report. The testimony shows
to my mind quite cOnclusively that con-
tributiens were made by the sugar trust
to buy the Republican and Democratic
parties for campaign purposes. The
testimony Of Henry o. Havemeyer and
Theodore llavemeyer and John E.
Searles leaves 10 doubt of the fact that
the sugar trust in the state Of New
York in 1892 contributed money
to the Democratic party for cam
paign purposes, and at the same
time and for Nthe same purpose.
contributed money to the Republican
party in the state of Massachusetts. 1t
Is true that these witnesses testified
that their contributions were made for
local and state purposes, but there is 10
doubt i'll my mind that the money went
into the general campaign funds OF
those states, and was used as much for
national as for state and local purposes.
l think the American Sugar Refining
company, popularity aud more properly
known as the American Sugar Trust,
has been in the habit of contributing
money to this national campaign funds
OF both the Democratic and Republican
parties through its president, with the
expectation. if not the implied promise,
that whichever party succeeded to
power. the interests of the company
should be "cafed fOr' by it. This
deduction is fully warranted by the
testim ony taken by us. A wisely drawn
and judicious law looking to a prompt
and efficient remedy for this growing
approved by the president.
The testimony shows that two sena-
tors, John r. Mcpherson, of New Jer-
sey, and Matthew S. Quay, of Pennsyl-
vanla, did engage IN specializing in
what are known as sugar stocks or GER
tiicateS during the pendency of the
present tariff bill before the senate. AS
their testimony accompanies this report
and is self-eXplanatory, l will do no
more than to say that l think 1t fully
diSeloseS the necessity for a law pro.
hibiting this practice. 1t is delicate
matter for me to speak upon this sub
ject, but sense OF public duty requires
me to condemn the practice as uuwise
and fraught with danger, and as one
which, if INDUCED in to any considerable
extent by senators and representatives,
will Inevitably lead to the defeat of
needed rafarm in layislAti0u
The evidence does not show that the
sugar trust had any direct influence in
procuring the presentation to the senate
of the committee amendment to the
sugar schedule, although | think that
schedule, i'll so far as 1t prescribed an ad
ValOrem system OF taxation, is entirely
satisfactory to the trust. There is moth
ing in the evidence to show that Secre-
tary Carlisle had any improper inter-
views with any representative of the
trust, or that amy advice he may have
given, or assistance he may have rem
dered the tiuance committee was at all
improper or out of place. L am we'll cOu-
vinced that i'll what Senator Jones did
in the premises he was actuated by hon
orable motives, and had no desire to un-
duly favor the sugar trust in any re-
spect. | believe it to be due to ali of
these officers to say that the evidence
does not cast a suspicion upon their
conduct. l am thoroughly convinced,
however, that no senator or representa-
tive should ever permit himself to be
approached upon any subject connected
with legislati0nsby the representatives
private or special interests, except Oh
such occasions when such persons may
be heard by the committee of which he
is member, exactly as they would be
heard in court of justice, in case there
pending and to be determined.
1t is proper to call attention TO the
reckless and open defiance of the
authority of the senate to require wit.
neSSes to answer questions that may be
put to them, or make disclosures ger
name to the subject matter of inYesti-
CATION. The defiance OF our authority
by witnesses demonstrates to ME that if
the senate ever expects to arrive at the
truth of any matter under investigation
by committee appointed by it. IL must
promptly take contumacious witnesses
in hand. and deal with them without
delay as they would be dealt with in a
court of juStlce under like circum-
stances. But so long as partisan poli-
tics enters into the discussion and cou-
acter, the people can expect such wit
one knows this truth better than the
witnesses themselves.
In conclusion, Senator Allen urges
the passage of a law prohibiting spec
ulatiOn by senators and representatives, =,
and law to require witnesses before
an Investigating committee to answer