The morning call. [volume] (San Francisco [Calif.]) 1878-1895, 1894-05-30
SHIFT THE SIN.
Scapegoats for the
Senate.
DAVE HILL PROTESTS.
Let the Newspaper Men
Alone.
ASK SENATORS To TALK.
Have Every One of Them Called
Upon.
ASK SENATORS To TALK
GOING AROUND FOR THE TRUTH.
Why Should Correspondents Be Bad
gered When Facts Can Be
More Easily Obtained

WASHINGTON, May Ex-senator Gray,
Chairman of the Senate committee to in
vestigate the alleged operations Of the
sugar trust in connection with the tariff
legislation, to-day submitted partial re-
port Of the proceedings of that committee
bearing upon the refusal of the newspaper
correspondents, Edwards, Schriver and
Walker, to answer questions propounded
by members OF the committee. The re-
port, after reciiing the resolution by which
the committee was authorized to sit, states
that Z. j. Edwards, whose Holland let
ter was one of the melting causes of this
investigation, had refused 10 reply to ques-
tionS of the committee. The chairman
read to him that portion of his letter in
which he stated that Secretary Carlisle
had secretly visited the Democratic mem
bers of the Finance Committee and had
demanded that the sugar interest be taken
Gaze of because the Democratic party was
under obligations to the sugar interest.
When the part of this paragraph was
reached in which Mr.. Edwards had said
that what Mr.. Carlisle had said was quoted
from remembrance, Senator Gray, chair
man of the committee. said: You say
Partly mine and partly my inform
ants" replied Mr.. Edwards.
"Do you mean to say that you heard Mr..
Carlisle?" asked the chairman.
mo"
You say what he said Is quoted from
remembrance ?'
"My remem brance is of what my Ia
formant said"
"Who was your Informant"
That L suppose 1 shall have to decline
to answer. 1 do tIwitn the utmost respect
to the committee and the Senate. The in
formation was given to me under oblga-
tons of the highest con fidence by the one
l obtained the information from, so that l
do not feel at liberty to reveal his name''
After the above-detailed proceedings
were had the witness requested time in
which to consult counsel, which request
was granted. The following day, on the
25th of May, Edwards reappeared before
the committee accompanied by his coun-
sci, when the committee. through its
chairman. propounded to the witness the
following question:
Now, MIR. Edwards. when you left the
room on yesterday it was for the purpose
of consulting your counsel and making up
your mind, after having consulted him.
whether you would answer the question
that was propounded to you by the COM
mittee, which question was, Who gave
you the information upon which you made
the statement that the Secretary of the
Treasury. Mr.. Carlisle. made a secret visit
to the Democratic members of the Finance
Committee some time in February and
while there made the certain appeal 10
them? The question is now repeated"
Whereupon the witness. by his counsel,
| fled his objections to answering the ques-
ton, which have heretofore been given TO
the public. The several objections were
overruled.
The report then gives the various ques-
tions asked of Mr.. Edwards and which be
declined to answer. They include the
question about Mr.. Carlisle, also regarding
! the informant as to the meeting of Sena-
| tors in Washington hotel with represen-
tatives of the sugar trust, the statement
| that the sugar schedule was in the hands
| of Moore s. Schley. brokers, before being
reported to the Senate, and the questions
as to the statement that on the Sunday be-
fore the tariff bill was reported there had
| been a delegation of sugar-trust represen-
|
sugar schedule. In answer to each OF these
! questions Edwards said the same person
gave him the information, and declined to
| give that persons name.
The report next cites the exa mination oil
John S. SchriVer. another Washington
| correspondent. VINO, on being shown a
copy OF dispatch to his paper on the 18th
inst, relating to the particulars of an al.
legged conference on the night while the
| taIiff bill was in committee at the Airing.
ton between certain Senators and members
| of the sugar trust, which had been over
| heard by a wire-manufacturer occupying
an adjoining room. admitted having sem
the dispatch to the paper, but refused tC
give the name Of his informant or of the
manufacturer.
The committee dwelt upon q paragraph
! from Mr.. Schriyer's article reading as fol-
| lows: "There are a number of Senator:
that will be glad if this investigation should
| fail, simply because then they could charge
the correspondents with circulating scan
| dalous reports and have another chance Il
den ounce the press upon the floor But il
the newspaper men are given chance Il
tell all they know some interesting deVel
opments will be made"
Mr.. Schriver would not say more, how
ever, in response to the committees urgins
than that he had received his Information
in confidence. After these proceedings Mr.
Schriver requested time in which to con
suit coun sci. The next day he reappeareC
before the committee and announced tina
he had consulted a lawyer and adhered Il
his decision not TO reveal the name of hi
| informant.
The recommendation of the committee il
as follows: "In the opinion Of the commit
tee each question put TO each of said wit
nesses was a proper question and peril
nent to the question under inquiry befor
the committee and necessary to make th