Fort Worth gazette. [volume] (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1891-1898, 1894-06-05

TO IT In my own handwriting all the
provisions now contained IN It with re.
gard to the Hawaiian treaty just as IT
is today"
sunday visit Explained.
Secretary Carlisle then told OF his
visit to the capitol the next day. which
VAS Sunday. and explained how this
visit came to be made. to correct
discrepancy in the sugar schedule.
which II II had not been corrected
would have left sugar without either
q duty or bounty between the ist of
July, 1894 and the LIST OF January. 1895.
This error had occurred 20 him, and
not finding Senator Jones in his home.
he had driven TO the capitol TO make
the suggestion that the hiatus should
be provided for, when to his surprise.
he had found Jones. Vest and McPher-
son and Representative Breckenridge
at work on the tnriff amendments.
which was to be introduced the follow
ing day. He was then told that the
amendment which he had interlined
changing the duty on refined sugar
from the compound rate Of 40 per cent,
had been abandoned, and he had
simply said; IAN right" and come
away
Cnriisie's Prepared Amendment.
Closing this part OF what may he
called direct testimony Mr.. Carlisle
said THE amendment which l pre-
pared by interlineotlons. In the com
mittee on finance. l handed to Senator
Jones as | passed through, going out
OF the capitol on that Saturday and
have never seen II since Now 1t seems
10 me tfat some person--I do not know
who It is-has seen that amendment
in my handwriting undoubtedly frors
the statement which the senator has
just rend TO me and as far MS I am
concerned Il may be published TO the
whole world and read In the senate or
anywhere else. It was simply COM
pllance with the request of Senator
Jones and the others present upon which
writer has based all this statement. l
February. II was on the goth OF May"
Z ad
Upon being asked by Senator Lodge
whether he had advised the finance
committee as to whether II was better
! to have ad valorem or specific duties,
MIR. Carlisle said 81 have always
been in favor Of an nd yalorem duty,
but do not remember that gave
them any such opinion then. There was
very little said about It. may say
/ also that I have always been in favor
Z OF moderate duty on sugar as a
revenue article and prepared the
minority report on the Mckinley bill
against provisions. putting sugar on
the free list.
Mr.. Carlisle said that he knew that
\ ad valorem duties were advocated by
the sugar refining interest for both the
refners and the planters as well as
others Interested in tariff LEGISLATION
had talked with him about their tusl-
ness.
The Hnvcmeyer Note.
with reference to the note Of intro
/ duction which he gave Mr.. Have
meyer to Senator Mills he said that he
I wrote the letter for him as he wrote
letters for others Interested in tariii
I legislation to other members OF the
committee and he hoped II the note
was sim IN existence II would be made
\ public. He said he had known MIR
Havemeyer for number OF years and
Mr.. Havemeycr had STATED mat he
already knew Senator Mills but feared
the letter would not see him unless be
had the note. He had never retsfcd
to write such letter II he thought
the man who requested 1t was a gen
t,eman. Mr.. Havemcyer, he said. hal
! called to see him about the tnrin leg
islation on sugar as had also Mr
searles and Henry Reed ~ Boston
and all had talked about tirt mattel
but he could not remember what they
had said There. had been. however
no intimation from any OF them that
the Democratic party was I.ader ohIl
cations TO the sugar trust Alr. Car
isle denied IN emphatic terms that h'
had ever made L secret call upon tbs
finance committee or made demnnt
on them to project sugar bscau use o.