The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1894-05-25
They All Refuse to Reveal Names of Per-
sons Who Gave Information Regard
ing Brides offered by the Trust.
MANY SERIOUS CHARGES
Big Contributions to the Demo-
cratic Campaign Funds.
Carlisle's Alleged ntercession-Basiso of
the Speculation" Story-Witnesse
Given Time to Consult Attorneys.

uTlOery investigating committee to-day be-
gan the inquiry into the connection of the
Sugar Trust with tariff legislation. e. ].
Edwards. the author of the .Holland' let
ter in the Philadelphia Press, was before
the committee for several hours. Owing
to the fact that the committee sat behind
closed doors, and the additional fact that,
after emerging from the committee room,
Mr.. Edwards was unwilling to discuss the
proceedings. details Of the inquiry cannot
be had. 1t is known. however, that Mr..
Edwards presented a written memorandum
giving some of the sources of the informa-
ton contained in his letter and stating that
he could not give his authority in other
cases, and why he could not. He declined
to state his authority for the information
contained in his letter TO the effect that
Secretary Carlisle had appeared before the
tariff subcommittee, consisting OF Senators
Jones, Vest and Mills, before the original
Senate bill was reported, and had insisted
that sugar be given protection because of
the party pledges made previous to election
or for the statement that Mr.. Carlisle had
himself revised and written the sugar
schedule. This schedule as prepared by
Mr.. Carlisle, is still In existence and might
be obtained. The fact could be definitely
asoertained by summoning members of the
finance committee
Other statements in his letter, the au-
thority for which Mr.. Edwards declined to
give, were those that $4,000 was the
amount contributed by the Sugar Trust to
the Democratic campaign fund in 1892, and
that a member of the firm of Moore &
Schley. who he said in his letters were Sen
ator Brices brokers. had been in posses
sion of the latest amendments which had
been agreed upon TO the tariff bill before
the time when Senator Voorhees, still in
sisted on the floor of the Senate that no
amendments had been agreed TO. 1t was
his information that this firm had a repre-
sentative in Washington who was the man
to whom the amendments were handed. He
could not recall this mans name but he
suggested that it would be a comparatively
easy matter for the committee to establish
his identity.
HALF-MILLION CONTRIBUTION
With reference to the contribution of
five hundred thousand dollars to the
campaign fund in the last presidential cleo
ton. Mr.. Edwards said that IL would be a
breach OF faith to reveal the name of his
authority. He also stated that il was his
Information that that money had not been
contributed directly to the national COM
mittee, but had been given to other organ
izations, where it was understood the
money would be used in ways TO result to
the benefit of the national campaign Nor
was his information positive that the Sugar
Trust. as such, had made the contribution;
IL may have been made by or through in
dividual members of this trust with the
understanding that In case of Democratic
success the trust should be protected
against damaging legislation. He instanced
in support of this informa ton a statement
made by Governor Waller, of Connecticut,
before an investigating committee in that
State. In which he said Governor Waller
had stated that wealthy men in New York
had contributed 100000 towards Democratic
success in Connecticut. Mr.. Edwards said
1T was his Information that half of this
amount had been contributed by Mr. Have
myer and the other half had been raised
by T.. c. Benedict. In the case OF Colorado,
which had been stated in his letter had
of money thus obtained, ne said that 1t was
a notorious fact that leading members of
IN the %tS IN the 6v had been
Gratis of New York prior to the election
Mr. Edwards said that his first informa-
ton as to the, interest OF tbs. Sugar Trust
in politics had come to him in the spring
Of 1892. when II had contributed 5000 to
the cause of the "anti,saappers" in Nv
lively little of this until he had heard of
its far larger donations in the fall OF that
year. His first intimation of Mr.. Have
myers interest in the tariff legislation had
been received from interview with that
gentleman published in the Brooklyn Eagle
which he had said that the tariff bill would
be looked after when il should reach the
Senate. We are not without influence in
sented TO have said. I'VE are not impotent
there" Mr.. Edwards. also said that Har-
peT's Weekly, of which exISecretary Of the
Interior Schurz is editor. had asserted that
the Sugar Trust was not without friends
in the Cabinet and In Congress. and he said
the reported meeting of Mr.. Havemyer with
Senators Brice and Smith at the Arlington
tions.
With reference 10 the speculation of SEN
ators in the stock OF the Sugar Trust, he
Nav York that four or I'VE Senator's had
engaged In this specu aron, but. he said,
owing TO the fact that their DEALINGS came
under the class known as privileges, puts
and calls. there was no record kent of
them. and the fact o. their transa CT ons
would be difficult of proof. He suggested
that Messrs. Havemyer. Iohn e. Searles,
ex-Congressman Lefevre, Cord Me ser, u. l..
Terrell and Mr.. Reed be summoned as mel
who. would be able to throw light on the op-
eratlons of the Sugar Trust.
TIME To CONSULT AN ATTORNEY
The afternoon session was brought to a
sudden halt by the committee dea a ding
that Mr.. Edwards give his authority for the
statements made in his testimony concern
ing Secretary Carlisles interview with the
subcommittee of the finance committee and
the committee drafting the sugar schedule.
This Mr.. Edwards declined to do, and the
committee insisting, he asked TO be allowed
to consult his attorney. Judge Dittenhoefer,
who in the city. The request was
granted. and the committee took another re-
cess while Mr.. Edwards went in search of
his lawyer. Mr.. Edwards returned to the
committee room after an absence of an
hour accompanied by Judge Ditts snhoefer.
After a brief conference the committee de-
cided TO postpone further consideration Of
the question of excusing Mr.. Edwards from
divulging his authority for &c tain of his
statements until 10 o'clock tomorrow TO
allow Judge Dittenhoefer 10 consult the
authorities bearing upon the case.
John :. Shriver, the Washington cor
respondent Of the New York Mail and Ex-
press was examined in regard 10 a dis
patch which appeared in his paper on May
l9 stating that an interview between GER
tain United States Senators and members
of the Sugar Trust, held in a parior of
the Arlington Hotel. had been overheard by
a wire manufacturer who occupied the ad-
Joining room. Mr.. Shriver was asked the
name OF his authority and also the name
OF the wire manufacturer mentioned. Mr.
Shriver said the story had been given him
by Congressman, but he declined either
TO give his name the name of the wire
manufactures, his reasons being that the
Congressman, while he gave him the story
a ..L