The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1894-06-14
SEARLES' FRANK STATEMENT.
1t is His Business to Secure Favor
nbIe Sugar LEGISLATION.

Washington, D. c., June 13.-The vice
president today signed certificate to the
district attorney of the refusal of +. r.
Chapman, New York broker, TO answer
the questions of the Sugar trust investi-
eating committee.
Havemeyer, who expressed his willing
ness yesterday to give the amounts o. the
Sugar trusts contribution to campaign
funds, declined to do so TODAY, as he V as
advised that under the terms of tire rcso-
luton this was no part of the lnvestea-
ton.
The committee accepted this view as
the witness had sworn that no contribu-
tons were made to secure the eleetiCn of
United States senators
Mr.. Havemeyer stated that in the ia st
three years the profits of the rust had
been &c. per pound on refined sugar and
the increased cost to the consumer Under
the proposed bill would re cent
pound He admitted that the purpose of
the forma ton of the trust was TO increase
the cost to the American consumer
Senator Allen-And when you cid form
the trust you did advance the price to the
American consumer?
! Havemeyer-We did. 1t was an advance
of about &c. net.
day is paying Ss of a cent a pound on Ie-
fined sugars more than he would be COM
PEELED to pay under system of separate
refneries?
eff the trust were wiped out. the Ameri-
can consumer would be benefited to the
extent of Is of cent pound on ms
su9ar?'
81 will admit that, but ANYTHING that
will wine out the trust will wipe out the
industry.
urer of the American Sugar, Refining com
Tlanv. was the subject of the committee
/ questions from 8 to 6 o'clock.
He frankly admitted he had. made II
his business to influence legislation favor
/ able to the Sugar trust and that for this
purpose he had called upon and labored
! with many senators. The witness stood
upon his rights, however. when aske7
about campaign contributions end L
/ clired in several instances to answer ques-
| lions on this subject. He declined &c
state the, amount expended IN 1877, on thf
| ground that it was not within the prov
! ince of the inquiry.
! DO you not asked Senator Allen, ode
| cline to state simply because YOU know u
was disreputable and unlawful to con
/ tribute this money!"
mo, sir / do not admit anything of the
kind replied Mr.. Searles.
do you think it is perfectly laud'b {
for the American Sugar Refining company
to contribute large sums. of monev by
| the thousands of dollars for the purpose
| of influencing elections in this country? p
! at have always understood for many
years that it is the custom Of both parties
to solicit from corporations and individ
uals contributions for the carrying en- o.
their political campaigns. and that it i
the custom of corporations and indivd
uals TO respond to such invitations. AnC
with that understanding, ana what / be
lieve to be the general custom, the Amer
lean Sugar Refining company has mad.
such contributions at times
do you believe it is perfectly prope,
proper for a corporation said Senate
1 Allen, tine value of whose stocks NAV b.
affected by national legislation. to con
tribute its funds to the success or de
feat of one political party or the other?'
II think as parties are now managed
it is proper
"And the American Sugar Refining com
! pany. as q company. was actuated nv
Il high sense of patriotic duty in contribut
ing this money, / SUPPOSE
THAT is a pleasant way of putting it,
I responded Mr.. Searles.