The Birmingham age-herald. [volume] (Birmingham, Ala.) 1902-1950, 1906-03-03
CROMWELL GROWS
MORE INSULTING
But Senator Morgan is Above
Getting Mad
POURS IN THE QUESTIONS
Says He Means to Find Out Something
About Cromwell Since He Has
Thrust Himself Upon the
Committee.
POURS IN THE QUESTIONS

Washington, March 1.-The letter from
William Nelson Cromwell. to the late
Secretary of State Hay. under date OF
December 5, 1885, was taken up by SEN
ator Morgan today in Ethe examination
of Mr.. Cromwell before the Senate conn
mittee on interoceanic canals.
The period covered by the letter was
when the Panama Canal company was
seeking a prolongation of It's concessions
in the Isthmus. The letter referred TO
an incosure and Mr.. Cromwell repeatedly
declined to state the nature of the in
closure or to discuss the correspondence
in any manner. Extraordinary political
conditions in Bogota were referred to
in the letter and Mr.. Morgan asked con-
corning this reference and when the
witness declined to discuss it, the Senator
asked whether the witnesse felt COM
PEELED to conceal any action that was
in the interest of the United States.
81 refuse to answer such hypothetical
and impairment questions. lssid Mr..
Cromwell
Il am compelled by the attitude of this
committee to accept your unusual and
indecent replies" replied Mr.. Morgan.
They are no more unusual or indecent
than your questions" asserted the wit
ness.
TaIiaferro Asks Question.
Senator Taliaferro interrupted and de-
manded to know wherein the question
was indecent, and the witness said the
indecency was in the assumption that he
had been employed to do anything against
the interests of the United States Mr..
Taliaferro then demanded that the wit
ness be instructed not to make insult
ing replies,
Chairman Willard said he thought the
character of the reply by the witness
was uncalled for and Senator Kittridge
suggested that the questions should be
eouched in different language. This Is
not the first time | have noticed an
inclination on the part of the witness
to insult the interrogators said Mr. Tai
iaferro.
The coloouy between the members of
the committee was brought to a close
by Mr. Morgan, who said he entertained
no resentment Of insults from the wit
ness, that he had too much self-respeet
for that He eounselled his colleagues not
to concern themselves in his behalf.
In resuming the examination, Mr.. Nor
gan reviewed the testimony of the sec
rotary of the Panama Canal company
before the canal committee four years
ago. discussing the desire of the conf
pany to surrender the canal project to
the United States. Mr.. Cromwell refused
to testify on this subject, taking shelter
behind his professional relations to the
company.
Plan for Americanlzation.
AS Mr.. Morgan construed the testimony
of the secretary, Mr. Lampre he said the
company planned to take the canal
proiect out of the reach of Colombia and
Americanize it. Mr.. Cromwell refused
to answer any questions on the subject,
but Mr.. Morgan pursued the inquiry,
asking the witness IL he had not him.
self drawn the plan. Again the sena-
tor asked Mr.. Cromwell If he had not
shown this plan to a number of persons.
Mr.. Cromwell said he had outlined
different plan to the rivers and harbors
committee of the House, but he refused
to state the difference between the Lam
pre- scheme and that submitted to the
House committee Mr.. Taliaferro appeal
ed to the chair to know whether the
witness could refer to the plan offered
to the House committee and then refused
to explain it's provisions on the ground
that professional secrets were involved.
Mr.. Cromwell said the document would
speak for itself, but Mr.. Taliaferro in
sisted that the witness should not die
tate the manner In which the commit
tee gets its information. After a con-
siderable discussion of the committee the
witness outlined the House committee
plan briefly. 1t was determined that
the question of compelling the witness
to answer should be considered by the
committee at an executive session.
Mr. Morgan then had read the mani
festo of the liberal party in Colombia
dated April 90 1900 precipitating the civil
war that resulted from a difference of
policy between two factions In that re-
public. Several questions We're asked con-
corning that period to which the wit
ness replied that he supposed the sena-
tor was stating theoretical facts.
Mr.. Morgan said the date of the mani
festo is April 90,
What was the date. or about the date.
when the money was paid by the Panama
Canal company for the concession from
1904 to 19l0?'
kittrdee Objects.
Senator Kittridge objected to the ques-
ton on the ground that 1t was not per-
tinent to the inquiry and after consid-
cradle discussion 1t was agreed that thJ
perttnency of the questions should be de-
termined at an executive session OF the
committee tomorrow
During the controversy Mr.. Morgan said
mat he did not propose to give the wit
ness the benefit of his purpose in asking
the questions ana finally said
This man has been thrust in here for
some purpose that l do not understand,
and | propose TO get to the bottom of
it,"
Mr.. Cromwell said he had come at tn,
invitation of the committee
Not by my invitation" said Mr. Nor
gan.
Chairman Willard said he thought this
matter ought to be understood and asked
Mr.. Morgan If he did not recall that he
the chairman had asked Mr. Morgan
II he did not think Mr.. Cromwell should
be suhponaed and he (Mr Morgan) had
said in reply: 81 do not want him sub
poenaed but think he has been written
to and asked to appear"
Mr.. Morgan said his answer was that
he did not object to writing Mr. Cromwell
to come.
Throughout the examination of MIR
Cromwell today Mr.. Morgan kept close
to the civil war in Colombia which was
the fore runner of the organization of
the Panama republic. He appeared to be
trying to connect Mr.. Cromwell with the
civil disturbances of the South American
republic. Mr. Kittridges objections dis