Martinsburg herald. [volume] (Martinsburg, W. Va.) 1881-1920, 1911-08-12
Won't Tell of Campaign
Contributions.
MAY Be CITED FOR CONTEMPT
Former Morgan Partner Refuses to
Tell Steel Probers About
Trust and Personal
Political Gifts.

Washington Aug. 9.-AngeTeu' Dy
the continued refusal of George w.
Perkins, former United States Steel
corporation director and former part
ner in the firm OF j. p. Morgan & Co,
to testify regarding campaign eontri.
butions. either personally or through
affiliations with the New York Life
Insurance company and the steel
trust, Mr.. Stanley. chairman of the
house steel trust investigating COM
mittee, intimated to Mr. Perkins that
he had better appear before the bar
of the lD0use at its next session If he
would avoid the necessity of the
chairman resortings 10 radical author.
Hy-"
Mr.. Stanley said it would then be
up to the house to determine whether
the committee had exceeded its pow
ers In going into campaign coutribu-
lions or whether the witness was in
absoiut econtempt of congress: Up to
this time NO formal summons had
been served ON Mr.. Perkins. however.
Overriding the objections Of Repub-
liean members of the coHgmittee' by a
strict party vote of A to B., the com
mfttee' decided this line os question
ing was germaue to the steel trust"
Investigation. Then objections by
Richard D.. Lindahury, counsel for the
Steel corporation and private counsel
for Mr.. Perkins, were quickly over
ruled, and Representative Stanley,
chairman of the probers, insisted that
all the questions asked by Mr. BealE
be answered.
Counsel for Mr.. Perkins advised him
not to- answer, and he fatty refused
This aroused Mr.. Stanley. who said
to the recalcltrant witness:
1T would be unpleasant fo~f the
chairman to cite any witness before
the bas of she house. l think; the
chair has been lenient with the wit
ness. hope that this witness will
understand that he might force the
chair to take such a step to find out
the chair and uncomfortable to the
witness" Still Mr.. Perkins refused to
answer And the advice to appear the
house was given
Denies Giving Part of Salary.
Incidental to- his stormy examination
regarding cam paign contributions, Mfr.
Perkins denied that any part of his
saIary had, by agreement, been turned
into q fund for campaign contribu-
tions. He also declared he knew moth
Ing of any fund to affect either state
or national legislation.
This was only one of several SEN
Stations marking the days hearing. In
addition, while Mr.. Perkins was on
the stand, Mr.. Stanley produced min
utes of the executive committee show
ing that the committee had laid be-
fore it a plan whereby the United
States Steel corporation was to raise
S50,000,000 without costing that COM
bination single cent
The financial achievement outlined
by Mr. Perkins to the Steel corpora
ton committee was to be attained by
taking up about 40 per cent. of, the
preferred stock, or about 100000, 900,
costing $t4,000,000 a year in dividends
at per cent, and to Issue, instead
$3.50, 900, 900 OF second mortg Ge 5 per
cent. bonds This would have added
s50,000,000 In new money and would
have resulted in a saving to- the cor
poration of Sl,500,000.
The clash over campaign contribu-
tions was precipitated when Mr. Stan
ley produced minutes of the Steel cor
poration's finance committee of a
meeting on April 10, 1906, at which
Mr. Perkins had presided The min
utes showed that a request had been
received for an appropriation for con-
tribution to meet the expenses of "a
leading politician" then a candidate
for reelection to Office.
The question was raised as to the
legal right of corporation to make
such contribution and the recon-
mendation was made that the opinion
of the ablest lawyers be obtained.
'Do you remember that, Mr. Per-
kins?" asked Mr.. Stanley. mot es-
pecially," replied Mr. Perkins.
"Who was that leading politi-
cian?'" II have no recollection.
Had he ever held high executive
office in New York or in the United
States government ut is difficult
for me to tell, not knowing who 1t
was"
Representative BeaH. of Texas, ask
cd the witness whether after he be-
came identified with the Steel cor
poratiOn, lie did no participate In
campaign contributions in his capa-
city as vice president Of the New York
Life Insurance company, and whether
he had not made personal campaign
contributions since he became dl.
rector Of the steel corporation.
On the first question, Richard V.
Idndaberry, counsel for the Steel cor
poratlon, advised the witness not to
answer. protesting that it was not a
Sabject within the scope Of the in
quiry. The chairman decided the
question was germane.