The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1866-12-07
TINE ALLEGED DIsTlLlERY FRAUDS.

Confirmation Of the Examination Of Wit
ncsscs-The Prosecution Closed, &c.
Before Commissioner Newton.
The examination Of the Of the United States VS.
Messrs Angus Schwabins Rowe and Boehm for allie ged
manufacture Of alcohol under the name OF "burning
huid was continued yesterday, in Brooklyn, before
Commissioner Newton The first witness called by the
prosecution Dr. Squibb who testified substantially
follows
TESTIMONY DR.. f. r. sou1Bp
reside at ITO Columbia street, Brooklyn am q prac.
tcal chemist am casually acquainted with burning nuid
burning fluid is practically made by mixing alcohol and
turpennc: do not know of any fluid made with less
per centage of turpentine than twenty per cent:
alcohol must be rected to about nineyve per cent 10
cut or dissolve turpentne; burning fluid is complete
solution and not mixture, at least a commercial
artcle the whole Of II will burn without n cminution
OF illumination; when an excess Of turpentne added
greatest quantity the alcohol In the greatest and
water In the least; there Is proportion Of the three
which Is not infammabe.
Mr. Dittenhoefcr here requested that a portion Of
common burning fluid should be placed in lamp, por-
ton OF the article In dispute IN another both set burn
ing and presented TO the DOCTOR TO II he could dsn
guish between them This was done and tho lamps
were placed burning on the Commissioners desk.
witnessaTne fluid given me ey Cochae and Mead was
purities usually produced in the distilaon OF grain
consisting OF not more than ten per cent and not less
than four per cent OF spirits Of turpentne the spirit
about seventytwo cent? the substance was not
burning fuid the turpentine be very easily sepa-
ated the metnod adopted was 70 dilute u with its bulk
Of water and dis IL; when II distilled trace OF
turpcntine remained The witness here gave detailed
account as to the specific heat Of turpenne alcohol and
water. and continued as follows-A burning fluid can
not DO produced by q single disation, because the
alcohol does not sufficiently strong dissolve
the turpentine the last part such dssaton would
contain little II turpentine to make burning fluid
would require subsequent mixing to free IL from the
turpentine would simply require extra dstiaton, tho
fluid presented 70 would all burn in ordinary
lamp; lamp might be arranged 70 vaponze the water
Crossexamned by Mr. Dtenhocfer-I never bought
or sold burning auid as business; have no personal
knowledge Of the market; heard Of making burn
ing nuid BY Installation before the law the substance
being In the lamps would not be taken whiskey or
highwines could not call Other than an inammable
liquid.
Redirect examination put turpontns in the mash
would prevent fermentation and the production Of al
coho pure alcohol has very little illuminating power
in the mash before fermentation there u nothing 70 dis
solve ALCOHOL the amount OF turpentne dissolved
portionae to the amount OF alcohol present. dsation
makes NO difference tho solubliiy Of turpcntins in
Mr. Frederick cochue was the NEXT witness called and
testified to the seizure OF certain barrels OF burning
fluid in lighter At the foot Of South Eleventh street,
williamsburg and that from those samples taken
in bottles and sent 70 the District Attorney.
Dr. squibb recalled-I have never been dstiller OF
whiskcy; am familiar with redistations; state the
effect Of turpentne on better authority than my own;
the substance eit after separating the urpenne nom
the liquid my experiments sseG ~ IKE dirty water
would like clean alcohol and water; could not say
what quantity Of turpentine would stop fermentation
Examined by District Attorney for prosecntion-lhav
been chemist for thirty years; had four bottles from
you, said TO DO burning nud they were mixtures Of
alcohol water and spirits Of turpenne; they averaged
about eighty per cent Of alcohol estimated the per
cent Of urpentne 70 be not over ave per cent would
not call the specimen shown mo burning hud have
made fluid myself; the stronger the alcohol the
turpentne IL took up; less than ten per cent would
times the same light that the article brought 70 me did
the article brought me gave only about one attn the
light Of the standard sperm candle; the ordinary burn.
ing fluid Is equal 10 about threefourhs OF candle the
sample brought me would not DO Tor ordinary light
Cross-examnod by Mr. Dtienhoefer--I should call the
light burning poor light the stun burning In them
would not be called whskey or high~nes; I
bought sold burning fluid there turpentne both
Of the lamps which have been burning.
tcle tested by Mr. Torrey the same that taken
from the barrels seized and the District Attorney rested
his case.
Mr.. Dittenhoefcr then opened the defence by calling
Mr. Monroe who testified substantially as follows
TESTIMONY n. N. MONROE.
have bought and sold burning inid should call the
substance in those two small lamps burning fluid;
should not call whiskey burning fluid; would
ing mud: should not think that an article would
require 10 be better than that 10 be sold in
the market NJ burning fluid; u IL not the quantity of
the component parts OF the mixture, but the light
givcs no man would make any difference between an
article or burning nud " gave good light that con-
tanned ten per cent OF urpcnne and that had only
FIVE: whlskey high wines not known in the mar
ket as burning nuid; have known burning nud 90 be
made in the old way With ten per cent Of turpentne
length by the District Attorney, but nothing new wac
elected
The case was then adjourned until today at hafpa
nine O'Clock A. NJ
the STEAMSHIP SCOTLAND.