Arizona republican., 1913-06-12
Controversy Arises as to Whether Executive Had Given Producers Reason to Believe They Have Nothing to Fear
WITN ESSES ADMIT
 ARE LOBBYISTS
Incidentally Resent Insin- uation Their Actions Have Been InsidiOuS or in Any Way Illegitimate OF Un- derhandcd
ASSOCIATED PRESS D1sPATcHl

WASHI\GTON, June I.-InVesti- gation today of the sugar lobby" by the senate committee turned into controversy over whether President Wilson had given sugar producers reason to believe that they have nothing to fear from free sugar under his administration.
 Outside of todays testimony. in which Louisiana and Hawaiian wit nesses repeatedly declared they had not received fair treatment from the president and had been misled by others as to his purpose. the commit tee succeeded in drawing out what they believed to be some of the most important facts thus far developed Some sugar men frankly admitted they constituted a lobby although they objected to the charge that any of their actions had been "msidious or in any way iuegitimate or under handed They admitted a compre- hensive campaign had been organized to carry out and create back-fiTcs among the senators and representa- tives from their own states. in the hope of winning their support to an other free sugar side.
 The prosperity of Louisiana is at stake" said Jules GodchauN d sugar planter We tried to get people that we did business Ivith to write to the senators and representatives, telling them that free sugar would destroy the business of the state. We asked them to write and wire Washington and to ask merchants who they did business with throughout the United States to do the same We tried to establish endless-chain letters and teIegrams to draw the attention Of congress to our arguments. John r. Hamburg of New York. manager Of d large Hawaiian sugar firm urged all their 1900 or more GUS 1 toners to write to senators and rep rcsentatives. pointing out the de- struction of business that would fol-
 low free sugar.
 We had to do that to overcome some of the effects of misstatements which had been mad6 in the free sugar 1 campaign" he said.
 1 He was plainly resentful of the presidents recent statements as to l the operation of an .insidious lobby 1 in Washington of the Louisiana and { Hawaiian sugar men. and enlivened 1 the hearings with frequent attempts ! tC tell of pledges he believed he had re ceived that sugar would not be made | entirely free. Jules GodchauX and F.. i F Dickinson two of the Louisiana 1 witnesses. declared they tried in vain 1 to see the president and had been informed that he had all the informa- ton he wanted on the sugar tariff Dickinson declared the president never talked to any of the practical 1 sugar men" about the Louisiana sit uation.
 l The charges of the sugar men that 1 they had been given assurances or the presidents sympathy on the sugar question were based on the statements Representative Broussard said were made to witnesses after visit to President elect Wilson at Sea Girt. 'I am assured by Broussard," said Harry Irwin. representing the Hilo GawaiD 1 board of trade, that plan endorsing
 the tariff reduction. such as would not destroy any legitimate industry, was prepared in Wilson's presence and sanctioned by Wilson in direct refer ence to the sugar situation"
 The fact that the Baltimore conven-
 tion did not endorse free sugar and
 other circumstances of the campaign lthe witness said, led them to work
 for the democratic ticket in support iof Wilson in the belief that they would I have nOtnInS to IedI lIoIl StHH ilONt- ment toward free sugar
 After we got to Washington, God 1 chaux said the sugar planters made vain efforts to see the president and
 talk with him. We went to the
 White House and saw Secretary Tu-
 multy" he added. He told us WIG could not see the president, and that
 he had particular instructions tha1 the president did not want any ap- pointments with any one from Loui-
 siana to talk about sugar-he had al the information he wanted on tha subject.
 Dickson was particularly emphatic in his statements that he was no [ an ''insidious lobbyist" declaring Inc ? looked the term up and found i ] meant "deceitfuI lying and treacher :. Ous."
 Do you know of any misleadint r statements that have been circulated? l asked Senator Overman.
 : Why, yes, in some of these bulle 0 tins statements were put out by tn r free sugar advocates that were no
 (Continued on Page Six)