The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1894-08-03

S@Aa4. AtteT ward she Epecino
sehedHle Nas Changed hy the Enanee
eoas 'ai1tee aud Vas reported as il
new siandS With ~ PER cent. ad
vasorein taty and = Of cent Per round
a'ucFehssaG he report concludes: ~Is
I = a mNter ofeomplete fnsiaerence 10 the
trust what dssflss are levied upon sugar -
long as the form i al valorem and a suf-
neten' dtifsreetal Is levied in favor ~
refned sugar y
Speaking Of the contribution 10 the
campaign eIna by tue sugar trust. ths
report SAYS.
The faet thsf il gives % both par
ties Is sufficient pfo6l af the pur-
taeAr danErt0Ss nature. For these
reasons tho undersigned have felt
u Important, 10 lay before che senate and
the country theGaet thatthe sugar sches-
n.e, as u DOW. d aeasC ls.o according To the
testimony, IN the form aeslbsd by the
trust. aad TO point out also the methods
~ which the trust reached what it de-
sired ana obtained, substantial victory
Ihe supplemental report OF senator
Al!eas Of Nebraska which was published
some days ago, aad who submitted with
that report the supplemental testimony
taken by the eommitGse, bat kept secret
heretofore u sahmittedo with the report.
IL contained the statements of AL
bert NJ. Seip. Emil "a. Guiliadeau.
Senators Camden. Smith and others.
Seip said in his testimony that he was
more or less in the Office of carson h. Nc
CaFtney of this city, and That hrs pur-
ehases OF sugar stock had been largely in-
daeed by seeing senator's in the Office, and
hy tbs common talk that they were
dealing IN sugar stock lie said he
had seen Senators 3rice. Quay and
Smith there frequently. but he had
never seen either of them give an order Tor
sugar stock. lie produced letters from
Emil Gallladeau, OF the New York broker
age firm of Wheeler & Co., the first bear
ing date OF June "a. and reading: 81 sec
Smith Of New Jersey, and Camden OF
West Virginia, both swear they had not
speculAted IN sugar stock. | could pro-
duce ma1i, or, that is, | know
man, but do not think he
would 20 back on them, who was in
my Office and who received orders in sugar
from both OF thea. and no had Canden's
written order. Ioshould think that wren
a senator Fwore falsely Ii is pretty seri-
Gus matter. DO they swear 60 these ques-
tions under oath7" In the next letter,
dated June -, Emil Guilladeau says;
II have bad a talk with my friend ana
he could not IN honor use the Information,
as che orders and the business were given
to bin. kthink you know the man. /
have before me now the written order for
coo shares OF sugar TO buy at s3X and Sst<,
or less, under date OF March 2, and
signed h6y the senator in question.
The orders from the other senators were
verbal. There is no way that can see,
without bis direct testimomv against these
people. that the information can be used,
and that would be dishonorahle. as be ra-
fused TO do i and | applaud him In il.
Could You suggest any way that would
leave him ont entirely that il could be
used -
Mr.. Seip said no understood Samuel
BatteFshal TO be the. man referred to by
Guiiladeaa as having receiyed these orders.
Guilladeau. when questioned. said Batter
shall had left with him what purported to
Be an order Tor sugar stccks, signed j. N.
Camden, written inc lead pencil on the
back OF a much soiled envelope for safe
keeping. but that he Ctiniliadeau) Mt Bat
tsrshaA's request, hnt destroyed it.
Edward A. Levy. another witness,
furnished the photographs copy of
tho order which reads: buy me go
shares of sugar at S234 or less, and 800
shares ut s3bs or less. ]. N. Camden"
Senator Smith, when he was recalled
and the letter aud testimony of Guiila-
deau read 10 him, said the statement was
absolutely false and that he did not know
Mr.. Battershall and had never given him
an order for the purchase of sugar.
The Chairman-Do you erecollect any
transaction IN sugar stock since tho meet
ing of congress7
Senator Smith-My impression was that
/ bought 600 shares of sugar stock about
the last OF January or the first of Febrn-
airy, as nearly as can recoliect, Il won't
swear positively that did buy / 900 sh ares
of sugar, but rather nave the impression
in my mind that at that time did.
Senator Smith added that friend asked
him TO buy something of him. and ha
gave On order for loo shares lie did nos
know whether IL was sugar or not, but
thought il was whisky. The question an
TO the purchase Of sugar, which Sem
ator Smith had answered by saying he
had not purchased sugar. Was repeated to
him, and he said he was positive about
that To the best Of his recollection hs
had not, and he could not say whether
the transaction was whisky or sugar. lie
never kept an account of his transactions.
lie had written to find out whether IL Was
whisky or sugar. and expected an answer
soon.
This testimony Was taksn yesterday.
This morning august - Senator Smith
appeared before the committee and said hs
had ascertained that he had not bought or
sold any sugar certificates during tho
pending of the tariff bill in the senate.
Senator Camden. who was recalled, said
tie signature on the photograph Of ths
alleged order resenbled hts Handwriting.
aud he would not swear 1t was not his.
but he had no recollection of ever having
written ID. aud had not given such an or
der The body Of the order looked less