The morning call. [volume] (San Francisco [Calif.]) 1878-1895, 1894-05-30


is in contempt of the Senate and ought to
be dealt with for his misconduct. and that
such of said witnesses. by his various re-
fusals to answer the questions as herein
set forth. has violated the provisions IN the
act of Congress of such cases made and
provided. being chapter seven of the Re-
vised Statutes Of the United States"
Here the report cites this old law which
provides that a witness who refuses to an
swer questions put by a competent COM
mittee shall be considered guilty of mis-
demeanor. punished by fine of not more
than $1,000 nor less that 500 and by i'm
prisonment In a common jail for not more
than one year nor less than ono month
The law expressly provides that no wit
ness shall be excused from testifying on
the ground that such testimony would dis
grace him, and directs that in such cases
the President or the Senate and the
Speaker Of the House shall certify the
facts to the District Attorney of the Dis
trict of Columbia. The report closes as
follows:
"Whererore the committee request that
the President of the Senate certify as 10
each witness his failure to testify and his
aforesaid refusals to answer, and all the
to the United States District Attorney Of
the District of Columbia, to the end that
each of the witnesses may be proceeded
against in manner and form provided by
law"
Senator Gray had prepared and submit
ted to the Vlee-President a warrant di-
rectng the District-Attorney to proceed
against the witnesses, Edwards and
nh Of
warrant certified the facts set forth in the
reporl, and was signed by the Vice-Presi-
dent. Senator Gray had a consultation
with the President when the written
document was first presented to him. and
explained that it was 10 be used when the
Senate authorized it.
At the conclusion of the reading of the
report of the Investigation Committee.
| discussion was renewed as to whether or
not it was privileged one. Mr.. Hill said
the matter of speculation in sugar stock
would not involve any enhancement of
property.
Senator Lodge said this was question
of general parliamentary law. The report
of contumacy of a witness was q question
of highest privilege. The only thing be-
| fore the Senate was for the chair to decide
whether the matter was private. Vice
| President Stevenson ruled that it was
| privileged report. The effect of the deci-
sion would be to shut off debate on they're
port. MIR. Hill appealed from the decision
| of the chair and asked to be heard. He
made vigorous speech against the deci-
| sion.
In the report of Mr.. Edwards testi-
mony, which is not quoted specifically to
the cOmmitte, but has been printed by the
committee, the part of his letter referring
| to the Presidents alleged interest ia the
Hawaiian question as to the sugar interest
is given. Referring to this Mr.. Edwards
said: "In September Of last year [ met a
gentleman who spoke % me about an
article which l had written concerning an
operation on Mr.. Cleveland's jaw for can
Ger or malignant growth, which operation
had taken place somewhere on Benedict's
yacht. This gentleman said to me: AS
important as the news is. there is some
thing much more important to this coun-
try than the fatal disease is now becom-
ing l asked him if it was something that
he could give me. He said not then. as he
was under confidence. Later, when We had
the information that an attempt had been
made to restore the Queen of Hawaii and 1t
failed, the gentleman stated that that was
the news which he had spoken Of. My
recollection is that he either told me it was
on Mr.. Beuedict'S yacht at some resort or
pleasure excursion of some kind. Mr..
Hayemeyer, Mr.. Benedict, Mr.. Cleveland
and some others were present. There was
a general conversation about Hawaiian
Island sugar interests, and L think Mr..
Havemeyer said, or at all events it was
said Dy some one. that there would be a
sensation in the country before Congress
met"
"Who said it?" asked the chairman.
EITHER Havemeyer, Benedict or some
one in the party said it would be found
there was peace in Hawaii and the Queen
would be restored. This gentleman who
told me was a Colonel w. r. Hoyt of
Greenwich. He had been Speaker of the
Connecticut Legislature"
Edwards said he had not talked with
Colonel Hoyt since. but had written him a
letter and that the colonel is now dead.
Edwards said Colonel Hoyt did not tell
him where he got the information, but his
impression was that he had received il from
members of the party. Edwards admitted
that some of the conclusions were his own
and we're mere conjecture.
Edwards stated that it was a matter of
common report that Stephen B. Elkins
was interested in the sugar trust, and that
he and German. being related by marriage.
had very great business interests in COM
mon. Also that it was common report that
Brice was closely related to II. l.. Terrell
of the sugar trust Edwards could not
recolect from whom he had received the
inflammation that S50O 0O0 had heen con-
tributed TO the campaign fund by persons
connected with the trust. He had heard
that Cord Meyer Jr. said at the Manhatten
Club that the trust owned the Senate and
that Mr.. Meyer was frequent visitor of
Secretary Lamont 1t was common report,
Edwards said, that Mcpherson had de-
clared in the presence of the Finance CON-
mittee that the Democratic party was pre-
pairing 10 stab the men who had saved it,
Other testimony presented with the re-
port besides that of the newspaper cor
respondents was that of r. A. Caffery,
Bourke Cochran and eX-RepresentatiVe
BENJAMIN lie FeVre. Senator Caffery de-
MED that he had any conference with
Havemeyer or with any of the others OF
the trust, and also that when he wrote the
sugar schedule Havemeyer was looking
over his shoulder. Mr.. Caffery said he
had met Mr.. Havsmeyer one day going out
of the Capitol, and was introduced to him