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

body who, in making tariff speeches, have
shown a silver lining to the dark cloud of
their insincerity. For twenty years and
up TO date they have voted on every
occasion TO destroy silver and put the
country on a gold basis; and having
accomplished their object and ruined the
silver, cOttO and wheat producers,
and, in fact, all other producers, they
now turn TO US and say, We are friends of
silver want to say to you, gentlemen
of the Senate, we are going to vote with
yon against the Wilson fraud from prin-
ciple, because we believe in protection to
American laborers and American industry.
Your smiles and your talk about silver
does not fool US one particle; we see your
cunning and your duplicity. l am con-
WINGED that the only people who hold
logical position in this controversy are the
silver men of the West. who insist that the
free coinage OF silver and protective
tariff 90 hand in hand; that this is the
true doctrine Of the Republican party. and
that upon this platform alone can the Re-
publican party remain In power"
GRAY, at the close Of the speech by Pet
tigrew, presented the report of the COM
mittea delegated TO investigate the charges
of improperly in framing the sugar
schedule. Hill objected. Gray said ii was
privileged. 10 which the Senate agreed. and
the report was read.
The committee, after reciting the testi-
mony Of Edwards and Schriver and the
questions they had refused to answer.
says: These witnesses are in contempt of
the Senate ard ought 10 be dealt with
under the law providing for a fine OF 500
to $1,000 and Imprisonment from one
month to one year"
Senator Gray submitted to the Vice
President q warrant directing the DstriCt
Attorney to proceed against the witnesses.
This led to a renewal Of the dissensiOn as
to whether the report Of the committee
was privileged. Hill claiming that il was
not and the Vice-President ruling that it
was. From this decision Hill appealed and
proceeded TO discuss the questions in
volyed in the decision. He argued that
the Senate could not lose jurisdiction
simply because a commit ee made a report;
that II still had a right to recommit the
report and if recommitted in law it was
if the report never had been made. Hill
said be had no personal interest IN the in
Vestigation. lie thought it proper enough
TO investigate the charges of attempted
bribery, but he doubted the wisdom and
news paper men always told the truth or
ever told the truth was question which,
if the Senate entered upon il, could
keep it busy until the end Of the session.
The Senate smiled audibly at this state.
ment of the New York Senator. but it led
to a very interesting debate between Hill
and Alien of Nebraska. member of the
Bribery Committee
Allen interrup,ed Hill to say that it was
not the truihfulness of the correspondents
the committee was charged to investigate;
it was whether attempts had been made
TO bride Senators, whether the sugar trust
had made large olitIcal cOntri buttons for
the purpose of influencing legislation, and
whether Senators had been speculating in
sugar stocks. He asked Hill if be con-
tended that the Senate had been right to
investigate the charge that Senators had
specialized in sugar stocks.
Not exactly" replied Hill, "but Ihave
grave doubt if a Senator should come be-
fore a committee and refuse to answer
questions relating TO his private business.
and whether the committee could compel
him to do so. The decisions of the courts
are against it,"
docs the Senator believe a Senator
could invest in sugar stock without that
investment Influencing his vote ?" inquired
Allen.
"The Senator confounds the legal ques-
ton" replied Hill. with the question Of
pTOpriety. A Senator who speculales in
sugar stock violates no law"
But" Interrupted Allen. sit would not
be more proper for n Senator to invest
money il any enterprise to be affected by
his vote than it would DE for Judge on
the bench to render decision in case in
which he was interested. The question Of
public morality goes to the foundation of
the integrity of the Government"
"a Senator has legal right to do what
is not prohibited"
"a legal" returned Allen, "butno moral
right"
''One question at a time" said Hill.
'He would have as much right as a Sena-
tor who, being an owner of silver mining
property, would vote on the silver ques-
ton. If. pending action On the sugar
schedule. a Senator should speculate in
sugar it might be an act of improperly.
but 1t would not constitute a crime. If the
committee desired to get at the facts why
did it not call the Senators whose names
had been connected with these charges
instead Of prosecuting newspaper men,
who had no personal knowledge and
whose information was obtained from
confidential sources"
But" interjected Allen, ''if the Ques
tons asked the newspaper men were irTel
evant they should be exempted from testi
flying"
why call the newspaper men instead
of the men themselves ?" retorted fill.
Gray, chairman of the special commit
tee. here Interrupted TO compare the IN
vesligation to a CorOner's inquest. and
wanted to know of Hill if a witness. hav
ing made a statement that he had heard
that one man haG been killed by another
could refuse to give his authority. Hill
parted this question. a trial in cOur
was legal investigation. he said, and verl
different from a Congressional inquiry
The eye-wItnesses were wanted.
That is just about what we want" SAT-
Gray.
We'll, you're going a long way arount
the horn to look for them,' retorted Hill
with some irony in his tone.
''How are we to gei them?" asked Gray
Call the Senator'S replied Hill i'm
pulsively; that is the best way"
How are we to tell who the Senator
are?" asked Allen.
Il don't know" said Hill with emphasis
'eall them all. So long as you have en-