St. Paul daily globe. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1884-1896, 1894-05-30

cenSo Defense of the News.
paper Men -Pettigrew Talks.
WASHINGTON, May 2S.-Tne right of
newspaper correspondents to refuse to
give Senator Gray's bribery and sugar
investigating committee the source of
their information was brought before
the senate today in the shape Of a re-
port from that committee. In the
morning hour Senator Kyle PopuIist).
South Dakota, in order TO avoid further
conflict owe the passage OF a resolution
declaring the sense of the senate against
non-interference with the affairs of the
Hawaiian islands. agreed to waive a
vote on his resolution, if a vote could be
secured on the Turpie resolution, re-
ported from the committee on foreign
relations.
Senator Vest Dem., Mo- offered as a
substitute for the Turpie resolution one
declaring that from the facts and papers
before the seuate 1t would be unwise
n ln~eXpedlent to consider a project of
annexation; that the highest interna.
tionai interests require that the people
OF the Sandwich islands should choose
their W form of government and line
of policy, and that
FOREIGN INTERFERENCE
with the affairs of these islands would
be regarded as all act u%nfriendly to the
United States.
A motion by Senator Hoar to lay the
Vest amendment on the table was
defeated-1S ayes to sc noes.
The tariff bill was taken up, and Sem
aior Proctor. of Vermont. addressed the
senate in opposition. Senator Petit
grew, Of South Dakota, followed. speak
ing at considerable length, also in
opposition to the bill.
MIR. Pettigrew (Rep.. S. d. said he
voted for the tariff bill of 1890 as it was
amended by the senate, but refused to
vote for the conference report because
it had receded from its amendments
reducing duties and providing for a
tariff commission. He was not against
protection, but against"excessive duties,
which enabled the formation of trusts
and combinations to rob the people,"
He then advocated the creation of a
tariff commission, non-par!isan, and
with full power to thoroughly investi-
gate the whole tariff question and report
at the next congress. He then discussed
the sugar trust. and said that the propo-
sition to place refined sugar on the free
list in the Mckinley bill was met with
great opposition. and q demand of one
half cen a pound on all refined sugar
was granted.
Senator Gray, at the close of the
speech on the tariff by Senator Petit
grew, presented to the senate the report
of the committee delegated to investi.
gate the charges of improperly in the
framing of the
SUGAR SCHEDULE.
Senator Hill objected to its presenta-
ton. Senator Gray called for its read
ing, saying it was privileged.
Senator Lodge said this was a ques-
ton of general parliamentary law.
The report of the contumacy of a wit
ness was a question of highest privi-
lege. The only thing before the senate
was for the chair to decide whether the
matter was a privileged report.
Vice President Stevenson ruled that
it was a privileged report. The effect
of the decision would be TO shut off de-
bate upon the report.
Mr.. Hill appealed from the decision
of the chair and asked to be heard.
Mr.. hill proceeded to discuss the
questions involved IN the decision. He
argued that the senate could not lose
jurisdiction simply because a committee
NADIA a rQn0rf. that If ctiII nod a WINNIE
to recommit the report, and If recon-
mitted. in law it was as if the report
never had been made.
Mr.. Hill said he had no personal in
terest in the investigation. He thought
it proper enough to Investigate the
charges of attempted bribery. but he
doubted the wisdom and propriety of
this proceeding. Whether newspaper
men always told the truth or eyer told
the truth was a question which, ii The
senate entered upon. would keep it
busy until the end of time. The senate
smiled audibly at this statement of the
New York senator, but it led to a very
interesting debate between Mr.. Hill
and Mr.. Allen Pop, Neb.),a member of
the
BRIBERY COMMITTEE.
Mr.. Allen interrupted Mr.. Hill to say
it was not the truthfulness of the cor
respondents that the committee was
charged to investigate. 1t WAS whether
attempts had been made to bride SEN
ators, whether the sugar trust had
made the large political contributions
for the purpose Of influencing legis-
lation, and whether senators had been
specializing in sugar stocks. He asked
Mr.. Hill if he commended that the senate
had no right to investigate the charge
that senators had specialized in sugar
stocks.
Mot exactly" replied Mr.. Hill. "but
l have grave doubt if senator should
come before a committee and refuse to
answer questions relating to his private
business. whether the committee could
compel him 20 do so. ThesdeciSionS of
the courts are against it,"
docs the senator believe a senator
could invest in sugar stock without that
investment influencing his vote?'
inquired Mr.. Allen.
1.-The senator eonfounds the legal !
question with the question of propriety.
A senator who s%peculates in sugar
stock violates no law" said Mr.. Hill.
But" interrupted Mr.. Allen, at
would not be more proper for a senator
to invest money in any enterprise to be
affected by his vote than it would be
lOl d JuukC Ou LILO UCtCu W iGtluCE d |
decision in a case in which he was in
terested. This question of
PUBLI MORALITY
goes to the foundation Of the integrity of
the government"
ga senator has a legal right to do
what is not prohibited"
"a legal" returned Mr.. Allen, ''but
no moral right"
Zone question at a time" said Mr..
Hill. He would have as much right as
a senator who, being an owner of silver
mining property. would vote on the sill
yer question. If pending action on the
sugar schedule, a senator should specu-
late ip sugar it might be an act of i'm
propriety, but it would not constitute a
crime"
IF the committee desired to get at !
-