The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1911-08-10
PERKINS NOT IN CONTEMPT
STANLEY COMMITTEE DECIDES
NOT TO COERCE MN.
Lawyer Tells of steel Corporations Con.
tribution NJ @IO.OOO In 1904 and
Promises to Give Details Later
-IittletOn Gains Committee Down.

Lawyer IeIIs ~ StNFt y WIZ
tribution NJ @IO,MpO In 1904 and
Promises to Give Details Later
--Iittieton Gains Committee Down.
WASHINGTON. Aug. o George W. Per-
kins, formerly Of j. =. Morgan 4 Co..
will not he hauled To- the bar Of the House
on charge Of contempt. "a was threat
ened yesterday bv Chairman Stanley
cf the steel investigating committee
because of MIR. Perkins's refusal to answer
certain questions relative to campaign
contributions. IL looks very much a.
II the committee. after beating the TOM
toms loudly. marched right up to the
Perkins contempt question. then turned
around and marched right back again.
Chairman Stanley and his Democratic
associates insist. however, that a state
! ment by X. V. Lindabury. counsel for
the Steel Corporation. yielded in part
the information sought by the committee
and that promise made bv him. II full
filed, will place in the hands of the in
vestigators complete information relative
to political contributions by the Steel
Corporation.
| After a day of executive sessions by
the committee. at which full considera-
| ton was given TO the charge Of Chairman
Stanley that MIR. Perkins was guilty Of
contumacy and contempt. Mr. Lindabury
made n statement in open session that
the Steel Corporation contributed $40, 0oO
! in 1904 either to a State or national com
mittee,- he could not recall which. That
was the Roosevelt Presidential campaign
year.
Mr., Lindabury assured the committee
that the corporations record bearing
a notation of this expenditure would
/ be placed in evidence in due season. He
further told the committee that he had
no doubt the Steel Corporation would
be willing to submit Il statement in detail
showing the amounts disbursed for l'o-
litical purposes by the corporation since
the date Of it's organization.
Il think | can assUre the committee
that we will give this information but
before making a definite promise | want
to consult Others said MIR. Lindabury.
I'm view of the frank statement of
counsel says Representative Beall of
, Texas. who put the oue'tions yesterday
that prompted Chairman Stanley to make
the threat that he would proceed against
Mr.. Perkins for contempt, Il want to
say that that assurance obviates the
/ necessity for further inquiries along this
line
/ The committee concurred in Mr.. Beall's q
view Of the case.
; Several reasons are advanced by crit
ics of the Democratic members Of the
, committee for their alleged change OF
front II is said in the first place that
Representatives Bartlett: of Georgia and
Littleton of New York refused to uphold
the ruling Of Chairman Stanley that Mr..
Perkins be required to answer the Ques-
ton calling for information relative TO
campaign contributions made by the
New York life Insurance Company and
the Steel Corporation. The question that
provoked Yesterdays nareup WAS put
in this way:
of the methods of tho New Sorr Life
utes a. contrasted with the methods Of
the Steel Corporat,on;"
Behind this was the intimaticn that the
life insurance company years ago had
I covered up political contributors by
means Of yellow dog" fund and that,
as Mr. Perkins was familiar with this
scheme and the way il operated. h" per
haps had know ledge Of the same systnnl
in the management of the Steel Corpora
tion Mr. Perkins was willing to answer
the question. but Counsel Lirdahury
advised against il. Then Mr.. Perkins
was told that If he persisted in his re'
f,isal he would lmperil his personal lib
erty. There the matter rested until this
morning.
Representative I.ittleton was not in
Washington yesterday, hut on being
apprised os the developments in the Per
hins case he hurried back To the capita
and reported this morning. II was Mr.
Lttleton who requested the committee
TO go into executive session 10 consider
the situation.
The first proposition discussed at ihi'
meeting involved Mr.. Pcrkins's refusa
to answer u question in regard 10 hi'
personal contributions to political organ
izalions Mr. Lit'leton moved that tn,
committee reconsider its vote Of ycster
day upholding Chairman Stanley's ruling
that this question was in order and mus
be answered The Iittletun motion wa
carried.
Chairman Stanley is said 10 have acuui
esced only when il became clear tina
Messrs Littleton and Bartlett. Demo
Gratis intended to side with the ReDub
! licans Mr. Stanleys friends insist to
night. however. that ne was in thorough
accord with the opinions held by Repre-
sentatives Ii,tleton and Bartlett tha
= personal contributions do not come within
= the scope Of the investigation,
The question of personal campaign
contributions was the only one discussed
at the morning executive session and il
the afternoon the committee got togethe
again to consider the other features %
the Perkins case. At the conclusion Of III,
second meeting Representative Little
ton. after the committee had filed int
the public hearing room, said he had al
announcement to make, Reading from
, the transcript of Yesterdays testimony
Mr. Littleton quoted the questions tina
resulted in a clash between Witness Per
kins and the Democratic committeeman.
These inquiries, said he" do not come