The Salt Lake tribune. [volume] (Salt Lake City, Utah) 1890-current, 1910-04-20
Congress as a Body May Take
Up Question of His Re-
fusal to Explain.
ACCUSES C0NGRESSMEN
OF GRAFT AND PERJURY
Ship Subsidy Hearing Grows in
Interest as the Evidence
Develops.

W 'N'1i'l sNp IONr April l9s-N neither
a report to the house Will be made on
the rccalcitrancy Of John NJ. Maxwell
of indianapolis. who refused TO answer
questions about his source of informa-
ton for charges made in the "Ameri-
can Flag rejecting on members Of
congress, will be decided at an cxccu.
tive session Of the ship subsidy invcstl-
eating committee tomorrow,
This was decided today after Max
we'll s counsel questioned the power of
congress 10 force answers in such
proceeding.
Secretary John A Pcnton. of the
Merchant Marine league, recalled as
n witness today, testified that for the
last year he had drawn compensation
at the rate of $1,000 year. that he
stood responsible for the "American
Flag. but regretted some Of the un-
dlgnl6ed characterizations in the No
Vcmbcr issue. Maxwell edited that
number. Penton had differed with the
editor on the subject. He cccalled some
of the contributions to the league. in
cludIng $4,000 or $4,000 from former
Governor IIerrick of Ohio and q check
from John Hays Hammond.
Paid for ''Write-ups.''
"TeXas Farmer and other papers for
copies containing matter favorable TO
the league s propaganda, and such prac'
tlce was not uncommon. -Four bun
dred numbers Of the american Flag
were sent into Stceuersou s district IN
Minnesota, he said, without any par
ticular motive, and he had sent copies
10 many other districts. The league
had paid part OF the expenses of for.
4 Il
on n Chautauqua trip. and Of former
Representative McCleary of Minnesota
on speech making tour.
Asked whether the executive commit
tee of the league knew or approved OF
the publications and letters sent oul
bv him. he said the committee left hin
full authority. except on matters oi
general policy, He assumed response
biltv for letter sent into the district
of Representative Lenrott of Wiscon
sin, IN which the latter was referred
to AS guilty of falseboods.
At the afternoon session of the in
vestiCatinm committee. Chairman OlCoti
again asked John NJ. Maxwell to name
his informant as TO the published charge
that London conference of shipping
interests had been organized TO make
a pro rata assessment to carry on =
Washington b bood c campaign
against snip SOnSlNN ltelSldllOu-
Maxwell Still Silent.
"Do YOU still decline to give that
uame?'i asked Olcott.
eyes. sir; ] still decline, answered
Maxwell
Mr.. OIcoit explained this was com
mittCc question, by "A unanimous vote
and again directed him TO answer lie
still refused to answer.
The same course was pursued on cacG
of Yesterdays : queries which were rcad
hy fhc chairman When the question
whether he believed editorially his pub
lished statement regarding Wash
ingtou Doodle campaign was repeated
Mr. Maxwell conceded:
''l did believe II.
Asked as 10 his published attack ON
Representative Kustcrmau of Wisconsin
he said his informant was John \; Fen
ION of Cleveland, secretary OF the
Merchant Marine league.
T'Why did you reflect on Mr.. kuster'
mans"
.sRocausc I believed Mr.. Kustcrmau
represented the views of foreign SNIP
ma gazjncs and those views were OPP
noscJ to thc best interests of America,
views which no good American could
entertain.
The next point was as TO the reference
10 "subsidZlue OF certain congress
mon
"Who arc thcyl" repeated the chair
man.
"During my correction with the
League. - said Mr., Maxwell, 81 was IN.
formed certain congressman enjoyed
moro or less friendly relations with for
eign shipping interests.
Answer Is Vague.
The information, he said, was con-
tanned in private letter, 80 which n
private letter in reply was sent from Il
constituent of kustcrmau. No names
were mentioned in tho letter, but the
witness said he had had in mind sew
eral men whom he bad been led to be.
lieve "beId relations with foreign ship
interests. but | did not see fit 10 give
the names ut that time, My lnforma
tion was largely heresay,
The witness refused TO answer this
question further. His counsel made "a
statement us 10 prcccdcnts for the wit
ncsSes course IN not answering tins
question. He contcnded that congress
could not compel answers where the
matter does not contemplate proposed
Legislation or of tho misconduct. Neither
of which. hc said, was involved In the
question as 80 the London conference.