New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1906-03-03
CROMWELL FIGHTS ON.
Markell CONTRACT UP.
Committee to Decide about Forcing
La1cyer to Reply To-day.

c"heihued TO make evasive answers to questions
asked IN the committee. when he did not abso-
iuteiy refuse to answer. The question of COM
peilng replies was left for the consideration of
an executive session of the committee to-mor-
row.
The letter from Mr. Cromwell to Secretary
nay under date of December s. 1895 was taken
up Dy senator Morgan when the examination
VI MI cromwell began. The letter was written
"heh lhe Panama Canal Company was seeking
pi0Ioiisatloh or It's concessions on the isthmus.
II referred to an inclosure and Mr. Cromwell
repeatedly declined to tell the nature of the in
closure or to discuss the correspondence in any
way referred to in the letter. Mr. Morgan asked
the witness whether he felt that he was obliged
10 conceal any actions that were against the in
terests of the United States
l refuse to answer such hypothetical and i'm
pertinent questions" said Mr. Cromwell
am compelled by the attitude of this COM
illttee TO accept your unusual and indecent re-
Plies, said Mr. Morgan
Ihey are no more unusual or indecent than
your questions" asserted the witness
senator Taliaferro interrupted and demanded
- KNOW wherein the question was indecent Mr.
SFoh"eIl said the indecency was in the assump-
tlon that he had been employed to do anything
against the interests of the United States Mr.
Iahaferro then demanded that the witness be
instructed not to make insulting replies TO in
quiries
MT Morgan said he entertained no resentment
Tor insults from the witness; that he had too
mucn self-respect for that He counselled his
colleagues not to concern themselves in his be-
half.
IN resumlng the examination Mr.. Morgan said
ne mad 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 the canal project
10 the United States Mr.. Cromwell refused TO
IesC1y on this subject. because of his profess
sional relations TO the company
PLANS TO AMERICANIzE CANAL.
AS Mr., Morgan construed the testimony of
this secretary, Mr.. Lampre, he said the con,
pany planned to take the canal project ont or
the reach of Colombia and Americanize it. Mr.
cromwell at first refused to answer any oues-
tons on the subject. but Mr.. Morgan pursued
the inquiry. asking the witness if he had not
himself drawn the plan. Mr.. Cromwell said he
had outlined different plan to the Rivers and
Harbors Committee of the House, but he re-
fused to state the difference
After considerable discussion between MEM
bers of the committee, the witness outlined the
House Committee plan briefly. 1t was deter
mined that the question of compelling the wit
ness to answer should be considered by the COM
mittee in executive session.
Mr.. Morgan then had read the manifesto of
the Liberal party in Colombia, dated April 20.
1900, precipitatng the civil war. Several ques-
tons were asked concerning that period TO which
the witness replied that he supposed the Sem
ator was stating historical facts.
THE date of the manifesto is April 20. 1907
Mr. Morgan said. WAS that the date, about
the date. when the money paid by the Pan
anna Canal Company for the concession from
1904 to 1902"
Senator Kittredge objected 10 the question and
to others on the same line the grounds that
they were not pertinent to the inquiry nor within
the terms Of the Senate resolution authorizing
the inquiry 1t was agreed that the pertinency
of the questions should be determined at the
executive session tomorrow.
In the controversy Mr.. Morgan said: This
man has been thrust in here for some purpose
that do not understand and l propose to get
to the bottom of it,
Mr. Cromwell said he had come at the invi-
taton of the committee. Not by my invita-
ton" said Mr. Morgan.
Throughout the examination Mr.. Morgan kept
close to the civil war in Colombia. He appeared
to be trying TO connect Mr.. Cromwell with the
disturbances in this South American republic
Mr. Kittredge's objections disturbed this exami-
nation.
Markell CONIRACT UP.
At the afternoon session j. E. Markell. OF
Omaha Neb was examined concerning the
cancelled contract he had with the Canal Com
mission TO establish a commssary on the 18TH
mus.
Mr. Markell declared that no political influence
had aided him in getting the contract. Mr.
Taliaferro examined the witness at length con-
corning the protest of Hudgins & Dumas, OF
tbay no
ders for the concession.
Mr. Markell said that there had been no
promise of damages made to him at the time he
consented 10 the cancellation of the, contract.
He was asked about his expense bill allowed by
the Canal Commission, with particular reference
to an item of $3.50 paid to w. B. Willard. He
said w. B. Willard the of Senator MIL
lard. and that his employment began Septem-
Der 1S 1906 eleven days after the contract had
been made. He declared that the relationship of
young Willard to the Senator had had nothing To
do with the employment. Mr.. Markell said he
knew Paul Morton. but had not discussed 18TH
milan affairs with him
At the outset of the examination Chairman
MiIlard asked the witness a number of questions
saying he had a personal interest in them. They
related particularly to the subjects whether
political influences had been brought to bear to
get him the contract Mr.. Markell answered
from a typewriter sheet. and cross exam
ination Mr.. Talaferro demanded that the wit
ness be compelled file his statement. The
witness protested against il. but he was made TO
file the statement. He said he had had no
understanding with the chairman. Mr.. ITALIA
ferro said he would examine the papers at his
leisure to determine the truth of that statement,
The examination of Mr.. Markell was not finished.
FUNERAL OF PROFESSOR S. P LANGLEY.