St. Paul daily globe. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1884-1896, 1894-06-13
HAVEMEYER NOT PLEASED.
SUGAR SCHEDULE DOES NOT GIVE
HIN ENOUGH PROTECTION


THE PART HE PLAYED
German and Smith Promised to
Aid Him, but Hill Would Give
No Satisfaction-Hc Never Saw
MIR. Cleveland in His Life-The
Trust Contributes Equally to
Both Political Parties.
WASHINGTON. June 12.-H. 0. Have
meyer, president of the American Sugar
refinery. has responded to the summons
of Senator Gray's Investigating com
mittee, and appeared before the COM
mittee today to give his testimony. The
doors were closed against the press, as
usual, and the proceedings were of a
strictly private character. 1t is known.i
however, that Mr.. Hayemeyer was SUBJ
jected to very rigid examination con;
cerning his visits to Washington last
spring, while the tariff bill was in its.
formative process in the finance com-;
mittee. and in regard to his interviews
with senators. Mr.. Havemeyer denied
the published statements upon which
the investigation is based, both as to
the contributions to campaign funds
and the demands of the trust that 1t
should have protection in the tariff bill
for past favors. Mr.. Havemeyer talked
quite freely about his visit to Washing
ton while the tariff bill was pending be-
fore the finance committee, and he said
that he had talked with several senators
in the interest of protection of the re-
fining interests. among them Senators
Hill, German 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 un-
satisfactory one to the refners because
the differential of one-eighth of cent
was not sufficient to afford all the pro-.
lection which the interest should have
received. He confessed that he had
advocated the ad valorem system. ands
was gratified that it had been adopted
to the extent that it was, but, even with
this concession, ne declared the sched-,
ule was far from satisfactory. Mr.. Have
meyer denied all knowledge of specula-s
tiolI in sugar stocks by United States
senators. Mr.. Havemeyer was asked
about the published statement that he
had. either on E. c. Benedict's yacht OF
at Greenwich. Conn.,, been in consulta>
ton with Mr.. Cleveland and Mr.. Benes
dict in 1892. after Mr.. ClevelanG's NOM
ination for the presidency, about the
sugar interests as affected by the Ha-
waiiau treaty. 10 this Mr.. Havetneyer
SAID there was not one word of truth.
He also declared that 10 such consulta.
tiOn had ever occurred at any time or
place. He added that he did not knew
Mr.. Cleveland and had never seen him.
Furthermore. he had not exchanged
word @se -
WITH MIR. BENEDICT :
on the subject OF sugar or any other
business matter. He said he had come to
Washington early i'll March. after the
tariff bill had passed the house, with
| the hope of getting a hearing before the
finance committee, and had gone to
| Senator Vest to ask him If it would not
be possible 10 secure a hearing by the
committee. Mr. Vest had said no, but
had agreed to allow him to explain the
| sugaryquestion to him (Vestl individ-
ually, and he had done SO, meeting Vest
twice. In this interview he had
| opposed any duty on raw sugar, but had
| said if there were to be duty it should
be an ad yaioren. and had represented
that difTerential of one-quarter of
| a ae cent : ON refined sugar was
indispensable to the existence.
of the sugar-refning interest in this.
| country. He had not been particular
! whether this differential' should be ad
yalorem or specific, but wanted the duty
on raw ad yalorelD. He then explained
| his Interview with Senator Jones at
| Senator Camden's rooms, and with Seu-
ator Caffery at Senator Brice's house.
He had talked with Jones about three
| quarters of all hour about the different
systems of levying duty and about the
| cost of refining sugar III this and other
| countries.
He said that he had been invited to
| Senator Brice'S by the senator to meet
| Senator Caffery, and when he met him
| merely went over the argument for an
ad yalorem duty.
| MIR. HAvEMEYER SAID 49,;
| he had gone to the capitol with Mr.. Ter
rell, but not for the purpose OF seeing
senators and representatives. 1--WE
we're idling around" he said, ''sort of
| spectators" Mr.. Havemeyer made
some rather startling statements toward
the close of his testimony. He was
| asked about the contributions of the
| sugar trust to the campaign funds of
political parties. and said that the
records of the trust show that such
! contributions were made, but that they
| had been made to the state committees
ana not to the national committees. He
was asked if the contributions of the
trust were given to both parties i'll the
same state, and replied: Oh. no. ..How
do you arrange it?" he was asked.
| "Well, New York is Democratic
state, we give to the Democrats there
and TO the Republicans in Massachu-
setts. We never give to the minority"
| Ibid you contribute to the anti-snap-
pers?" asked Senator Lodge.
"Oh, no. l am quite sure on that
point, nothing to the anti-snappers."
| Havemeyer could not remember the
amounts contributed by the sugar trust
to the different campaign funds, but he
promised to furnish them if he could
get them.
Cord Meyer was called after Mr..
Havemeyer finished.
He gave the committee little or no
information. He had conyersed with
Senator Smith on tie subject Of sugar,
| and perhaps other senators. He was
asked II the sugar trust or any of its
agents had employed any senator or
representative as all attorney. or in any
other capacity during the time the bill
was pending in either house, and he
answered i'll the negative.
| This question was put in several
! forms, but each time answered the same
way. -.