Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1906-03-02
LITTLE IS REVEALED
Examination of William N.
Cromwell Resumed.
ANOTHER LIVELY SESSION
Replies of the Witness Criticised by
Senator'S.
MR.. M0RGANS APPARENT AIM
Questions Relate to Civil Turmoil in
Colombia-objection Made as
to Their Relevancy.
MR.. MoRGAN's APPARENT AIM

n. Cromwell today before the Senate COM
mittee on interoceanic canals Mr.. Morgan
kept close to the civil war in Colombia
which was the forerunner of the organiZa-
tion of the Panama republic He appeared
to be trying to connect Mr.. Cromwell with
the internal disturbances of this South
American republic. Objection by Mr.. Kit
tredge disturbed this examination.
The letter from Mr.. Cromwell to the late
Secretary of State Hay, under date of De-
cember 5, 1898, was taken up first by Mr..
Morgan. The period covered by the letter
was when the Panama Canal Company was
seeking a prolongation of its concessions on
the isthmus. The letter referred to an in
closure, and Mr.. Cromwell repeatedly de-
slfned to state the nature of the inclosure
or to discuss the correspondence In any
manner. Extraordinary political conditions
In Bogota were referred to in the letter
and Mr.. Morgan asked concerning this ref
erence, and when the witness declined to
discuss 1t. the senator asked whether the
witness felt that he obliged to conceal
any actions that We're against the inter-
ests of the United States
Il refuse to answer such hypothetical and
impertinent questions said Mr.. Cromwell.
i am compelled, by the attitude of this
committee to accept your usual and inde
cent replies. said Mr. Morgan
They are no more unusual or Indecent
than your questions asserted the witness
Senator Taiiaferro Interrupted and de-
manded to know wherein the question was
lncecent ard the witness said the indecency
was IN the assumption that he had been
employed to do anything against the in
terests of the United States Mr. Taliaferro
then demanded that the witness be instruct
ed not TO make insulting replies to in
quiries.
Chairman Millard said he thought the
character of the reply by the witness was
uncaIled for, and Senator Kittredge sug-
gested that the questions should be couched
In different language
This is not the first time I have noticed
an inclination on the part of the witness to
insult his interrogators, said Mr. Taia-
ferro.
committee was brought to close by Mr.
Morgan, who said he entertained no resent
ment of insults from the witness; that he
had too much self-respect for that. He
counseled his colleagues not to concern
themselves in his behalf
Proposed Americanization.
In resuming the examination Mr.. Morgan
had read the testimony of the secretary OF
the Panama Canal Company before the
canal committee four years ago, discussing
the desire of the company to surrender tho
It.
Cromwell refused to testify on this subject,
taking shelter behind his professional rela-
tions to the company.
AS Mr.. Morgan construed the testimony
Of this secretary, Mr.. Lampre, he said the
company planned to take the canal project
out of the reach of Colombia and Amerf-
canize It.
Mr.. Cromwell refused to answer any cues
tions on the subject but Mr.. Morgan pur-
sued the inquiry, asking the witness if he
had not himself drawn the plan. Again the
Senator asked Mr.. Cromwell If he had not
shown this plan to a number of persons.
Mr.. Cromwell said he had outlined differ
ent plan to the rivers and harbors commit
tee Of the House. but he refused to state
the difference between the Lampre scheme
and that submitted to the House committee.
Mr.. Tallaferro appealed to the chairman
to know whether the witness could refer to
the plan offered to the House committee
and then refuse to explain its provisions on
the ground that professional secrets were
involved
Mr.. Cromwell said the document would
speak for itself. but Mr.. Taliaferro insisted
that the witness should not dictate the man.
ner In which the committee gets its infor-
nation. After considerable discussion be-
tween members of the committee the wit
ness outlined the House committee plan
briefly. 1t was determined that the ques-
tlon of compelling the witness to answer
should be considered by the committee at
an executive session
Mr. Morgan then had gead the manifesto
of the liberal party OF Colombia, dated
April 20. 1900. precipitating the civil war
that resulted from difference of policy be-
tween two factions in that republic. Sew
eraI questions were asked concerning that
period, to which the witness replied that he
supposed the Senator was stating historical
facts Mr.. Morgan asked:
'4The date of the manifesto Is April ~,
1900 Was that the date or ABOUT the date
when the money was paid by the Panama
Canal Company for the concession from
1904 to 1907
Mr.. Kittredge's Objections.
Senator I<ittredge objected to the ques-
zion on the grounds that 1t was not pert:-