Waterbury evening Democrat., 1894-05-30
A Moral Question.

A Moral Question.
Not exactly. replied Mr.. Hill, but
have grave doubts. if a senator should
come before a committee and refuse to an
swrr questions relating 10 his private bust
ness. whether the committee could compel
him to do SO. The decisions OF the courts
arc against it.
Does the senator believe "a senator
could invest in sugar stock without that
investment influencing his vote" in
quired Mr.. Allen.
tion,' replied Mr.. Hill, with the qucs
ton of propricty. y senator who spccu-
latcs in sugar stock violates the law"
But, interrupted Mr. Allen, it would
not be more proper for a senator to invest
money in any enterprise to he affected by
his vote than ii would be for a judge on
the bench to render Il decision in a case in
which he was interested. This question
of public morality goes TO the foundation
of the integrity of the government.
A senator has a legal right to do what
is not prohibited" answered Mr.. Hill.
A legal, returned Mr. Allen. but
no moral right.
"One question at Il time, said Mr.. Hill.
He would have as much right as a SEN
ator who being an owner of silver mining
property, would vote on the silver qucS
ton. If, pending action on the sugar
schedule, senator should speculate in
sugar, it might be an act Of improperly.
but it would not constitute a crime"
Mr. Allen then asked if Mr.. Hill did not
believe the senate had power to Cxpcl spec
ulating senators. The constitution of
the United States" replied Mr.. Hill,
gives the senate power to pass upon the
election and qualifications of its members
nd no ~, :,
the committee desired to get at the facts,
why did they not call the senators whose
names had been connected with these
charges instead of prosecuting newspaper
men who had no personal knowledge and
whose information was obtained from con-
GdcDtial sources
But" interjcctcd Mr. Allen. If the
questions asked the newspaper men We're
relevant, they should not be exempt from
tcstifying. -
why call the newspaper men instead
of the men themselves rctortcd Hill.
Mr.. Gray, chairman of the committee,
here interrupted to compare the invcstiga-
ton to corOncr's inquest, and he wanted
to know of Mr.. Hill if a witness having
statement that he had heard that one
man had been killed by another could re
fuse to give his authority.
Suggests a General Investigation.
Mr.. Hill parted this interrogatory. A
trial in court, a legal investigation, he
said, was n very different thing from n
congressional inquiry. There eycwitneSses
were wanted.
That is just about what we want, " said
Mr.. Gray.
Well, you are going long way around
the horn to look for them, - retortcd Mr..
Hill, with some irony in his tone.
70, fhnV1 L Cd Nv
Gray.
Call the senator's" replied Mr.. Hill
tmpulsively; that is the best way"
How are we to tell who the senators
arel" asked Mr.. Allen.
If you don't know said Mr.. Hill,
with great emphasis, call them oil. So
long as you have, foolishly as think, en-
tered upon this investigation it is your du-
ty to exhaust it.
Would the senator be satisfied with q
statement of every scnator!' asked Mr.
Gray.
Call anybody else," replied Mr.. Hill,
whom you have reason to believe has any
knowledge of the subject, but don't try to
hound newspaper men whose Information
is necessarily second hand.
Then, after some wrangling between
Mr.. Harris and Mr.. Hill, during which
the interchange of courtesies was quite
acrimonious, and after an Intellectual effort
on Mr.. Hills part to introduce a resolu-
ton declaring that the questions asked
the newspaper men for which they were
to be held in contempt We're not pertinent,
and that the facts should not be certified
to the district attorney, Mr.. Harris NOV
ed to table the appeal, and it was carried
without division.
No action by the senate itself was nee
essary upon the report, as, according to
the statute, when witnesses were reported
contumacious the vice president must GER
tify the facts to the district attorney.