The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1894-05-30

Meyer, Jr., said at the Manhattan Club
was frequent visitor of Secretary La
monts. Ii was common report, Edwards
said, that Senator MCPHERSON had declared
tnat the Democratic party was preparing
to stab the man who had saved ii.
THE SCHRIVER CASE.
The report next cites the examination OF
John S. Schriver another Washington cor
respondent, who, on being shown a copy
of the dispatch to his paper on the 18th
inst, relating to the particulars of al
legged conference one night while the tariff
bill was in committee, at the Arlington
Hotel, between certain Senator's and MEM
bers Of the Sugar Trust, which had been
ing an adjoining room, admitted having
sent the dispatch to his paper, but refused
to give the name of his informant or the
manufactures. The committee dwelt upon
one paragraph from Mr.. Schriver's article.
reading as follows: There are a NUMBER
OF Senator's who will be glad If this inves-
they could charge the correspondents with
circulating scandalcus reports and have an
ether chance TO denounce the press upon the
men are given a chance TO tell all they
know some interesting developments will
be made" Mr.. Schriver would not say more.
however, in response to the committees
urging than that he had received his in
formation in confidence. After these pro-
which to consult counsel. The next day
he reappeared before the committee and
announced that he had consulted a lawyer
and adhered to his decision not to reveal
the name of his informant
The recommendation of the committee is:
I'm the opinion of the committee each or
the questions put to each of said witnesses
was a proper question and pertinent 10
the question under inquiry before the COM
examination ordered by said resolution OF
the Senate. and that each of said witnesses
Is n tenn @ OF the ana ansnt .3
each of the said witnesses, by his various
refusals to answer the questions as herein
set forth. has violated the provisions OF
and provided for in the Revised Statutes
OF the United States"
provides that witness who refuses to an
swer questions put by a congressional COM
meaner Is s1a punisSabie i5 by sine fine Of not more
than $1,000 nor less than 500, and by Inn
prisonment in common jail OF not more
than one year nor less than a month: The
law especially provides that no witness
shall be excused from testifying on the
ground that such testimony would disgrace
President of the Senate and the Speaker
of the House shall certify the facts to the
district attorney Of the District of Column
bia.
The report closes as follows: Where
fore, the committee reports and requests
to each witness his aforesaid failure to
testify and his aforesaid refusals to answer.
and all the facts herein; under the seal OF
torney for the District of Columbia, TO
the end that each of said witnesses may
be proceeded against in manner and form
provided by law
SENATOR'S WHO MET HAVEMYER.
Other testimony presented with the re-
port besides that of the newspaper cor
respondents was that of Senator Caffery,
Representative Bourke Cochran and ex-
Representative Lefevre- Senator Caffery
denied that he had any conference with
Havemyer, Terrell and Meyer, or with
any one of the Sugar Trust and that
when he wrote the sugar schedule Have
myer was looking over his shoulder. Mr..
Caffery said that he had met Mr.. Have
myer one day going out or the Capitoi, and
was introduced to him, and had had one
conference with him, which was held two
or three weeks before the finance commit
That conference was held at Senator
Brice's house. 'I was asked, he said, Ito
see Mr. Havemyer. He commenced an ar
gument in favor of the ad valorem rate
on sugar in preference to the specific rate,
and q number Of figures were presented to
show, or attempt to show, the correctness
of his argument" In reply to q question
as to whether there had been other Sem
ators present at Senator Brice's house
when he met Mr. Hayemyer there he said
there were several other Senator's present
Among them were Senator White and SEN
ator Hill, and his recollection was that
Senator German had also been present, but
Mr.. Haverhyer did not meet any Of the gen.
tlemen but himself.
Ex-Congressman Lefevre denied the state
ment in Mr.. Edwardss letter concerning
the Sunday meeting at the Capitol. He said
he had not been in the employ of the Sugar
Trust, and had not been at the Capitol
with any of it's members.
During the course of his testimony Mr.
Walker stated that he had mentioned Joe
Hickey as a go-between between Senator
Vest and the Sugar Trust. II have seen, :
he said, Joe Hickey with Mr. Vest, and
in a little while go with Mr.. Reed or Mr.
Terrell and get in quiet spot and talk"
He had, however. only once seen hickey
with Mr.. Vest, and ON that occasion he
had seen him within hour in conversa-
ton with Mr.. Terrell. He had also seen
Hickey around the finance committee DOORS
Hon Bourke Cochran said Walker had
asked him upon one occasion whether he
was the attorney for the Sugar Trust, and
he told him that he had never been the
attorney for that organization, but that he
had declined to represent the trust in the
courts in New York in 1886 or 1887. He also
denied having told Walker that he IA
Vored a duty on sugar.