The Washington times., 1909-11-16

quiry into the sugar frauds. In the
course Of his statement, Mr.. Reynolds
said:
1T should be remembered that It was
while ! was Assistant Secretary of the
Treasury that the investigation of the
Sugar trust was made and the trial held
which resulted in the-convictiOn Of the
company in court
Mr.. Reynolds takes the position that
It is because he barred Parr from get
ting a bonus for being informer that
Parr is now alleging that he, Reynolds,
shifted him about from one place to
another 50 as to cripple his investiga-
tons into the sugar frauds. Mr.. Rey-
nolds shows that Parr was sent by him
TO San Francisco at the request Of Dis
trict Attorney Stimson, of New York
Parsons a Director.
Representative Herbert Parsons, whose
father, John Z. Parsons, IS a director or
the American Sugar Refining Company
and general counsel for the company, is
IN washington. His presence at the
White House yesterday aroused more
or less comment. Mr. Parsons was
asked whether he favored an investiga-
ton of the customs frauds by Congress
He said that in view Of the relations
of his family 20 the American Sugar Re
hning Company he would take no part
IN the matter and that all along he had
refused to take any hand in any ques-
ton coming up in Congress that might
concern the company.
Mr. Parsons denied that any Of ms po-
litical friends in New York have been
touoheS BY the sugar scandal
Not a single Republican politician in
New York has been touched by the
sugar scandal: all reports 10 the con
trary are malicious fabrioations-
This is the manner IN which Repre-
sentative Parsons dismissed the charse
that Collector Losb had removed sew
eraI well-knovn Republican workers
from the pay roll Tor cause
Representative Explains.
The only possible foundation for the |
story thai 'well-knoWu Republicans /
had been removed continued Parsons, /
was the fact that three G. A R. vet |
Grams who had been employed as assist /
ant we!zhers for a year and halr were |
reduced IN rank and wages on account |
of their work not being quite up TO /
standard. These men were not promi- /
nent in political affairs in the city. One /
of them was IN Bennet's district. an /
other was IN Olcott's, and the third |
while not in my district came TO me Tor /
assistance 10 regain his lost position, /
and 1 made a request that he De rem /
stated il possible. That was al the /
rolitics there was in the case as far as !
/ know. As 10 whether there VIII be a |
Congressional investigation OF the sugar !
frauds, know nothing whatever. You
may also say that the rumOr that
dominate the Customs Bureau Is pretty /
far-fetched. Out Of thirteen appraisers
appointed in New York. I was able to
secure but three-not even my proper
tomato share of places
It developed today that most Of this
alleged law breaking by the Sugar trust
is covered by the statute OF limitations.
There are plenty of proofs Of guilt up
TO the time that Henry .. HavemeyeT /
died IN 1907, but since that time the
proofs which would convict are scarce. /
There is plenty of moral proof Of guilt /
since that time" Stimson is reported 20 |
have declared, but very little that could /
be considered legal. or which would be /
admitted at criminal uifsi
Cabinets Predicament.
And this is what the Cabinet must |
decide. It must go over the evidence |
that Stimson and his agents have Sc
cured. and then must decide what form
OF prosecution viii be likely TO result |
IN real punishment for the men respon- /
sibIe.
Business interests are wondering to-
day what VIII result from the Congress /
sional investigation which IS believed in /
eV.table and which viii certainly crOss /
the trail Of the trust and trace ii hack 1
10 the day OF the first American sugar /
refining company's Incorporation.
II is a certainty that both of the /
big political parties viii be involved. /
The administrations OF Grover CleVe- /
land. Benjamin Harrison, Cleveland 1
again, William Mckinley, and also Of /
Theodore Roosevelt VIII be brought /
themselves will not be smirched, but /
prominent mem bers of their official /
families may be shown TO have been |
YER close to the Sugar trust officials 1
aHC TO have much TO explain IL the |
opinion Of the Oldtimers in the /
street" goes for anything.
In 1894 Elisha Jay Edwards pub
lished charges against the Sugar /
trust, alleging that IL had interfered /
with Congress, and had secured favOrs /
at the hands Of the leaders The /
resulted IN the prosecution of she /
president of the Sugar trust and FIVE /
others for contumacy.
Gets First linking.
This was the first real knowledge |
the public had of the strength Of the /
trust The allegation was openly made /
and not denied that the protective fea-
ture Of the WiIson-Gorman tariff bill.
which contained a provision giving
the Sugar trust the limit Of protection.
was drafted by John c. Carlisle, then
Secretary OF the Treasury. This bsIl
became a law without the signature Of /
President Cleveland, who blieved the
Senate had betrayed the people.
From that time on the Sugar trust
has been much in the public eve. but
has never been criminsIly prosecuted.
In their order here are a few of the
Developments OF the last fifteen years.
In 1S94-COmplaint filed by shippers at
the port OF New York that the Sugar
trust was benehting Ia an "Inconpre-
nensible" manner by impOrtatiOns OF
sugar. Collector Jacob Gilbraith, investi-
gated. No result on record.
IN lsS5-CToVernment Weighers began to
certify that weights OF cargoes uuloaded
at Williamsburg docks of the Sugar
1.-.st were TO 8 per cent less than the
bslls OF lading called for Scandal re-
suited, vessel owners complained that
they were being cheated out Of the
fFeights. admitted themselves powerless.
claiming trusts influence was due TO its
contribution OF $4,000 TO he Cleveland
campaign fund.
In 1S96-Bryan charged the Sugar trust
was heaviest contributor 10 McKinley's
campaign fund. Charge ignored. Ia
OCTOBER the independent sugar operators
attempted 70 prove the short weighing
2he collector of the port of New York
FSfused TO permit access to the records
Without the request being cOncurred IN