The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1890-06-26
DIR, SHERER TO BE REMOVED.
REPORT OF THE COMMITTEES ON TIE
ALLEGED SUGAR FRAUDS.

Special Agent ByrRe's Report Diseredited
No Charge Made Against DIR. Shsror's
Honesty, but AEainst hIs Methods-No
Sugar RinE In New York and No Sys.
tematIe Frauds on the Revenue.
WASHINGTON. June 25.-The committee. COM
posed Of Special Agents o. l.. Spaulding, l.. NJ.
MONTGOMERY, and W. 8. Chance appointed by
Secretary Window on Dec. 8, 1889, TO investi-
gate charges Involving the integrity and 1T
ness for his office OF DR.. Edward Sherer. ex-
aminer In charge OF the testing OF sugars at
the port OF Now York" as set forth in reports
OF Special Agents Holahan and Dyrne, have
made their report. The charges were two in
number First, that DR.. Sherer. while exam
liner in the Appraisers stores In New
York. engaged in commercial or mer-
camille business. contrary to section 2.941.
Of the Revised Statutes, as member OF the
firm OF Sherer Bros. in testing sugars for the
trade at 1872 Front street. and also that he on
gagged In the manufacture OF bronze powder;
and. second that he so administered his offlce
as to give occasion for the we'll grounded COM
plants of sugar importers and reflners at Bos-
ton that the foreign sugar trade Of that city
had been diverted to New York by reason Of
tho lower classification OF sugars for duty that
obtained at that port through improper and
corrupt practices, particularly In the testing OF
sugars by the polariscope. The committee re-
port that the first charge Is not sustained. As
to the second charge, the committee say:
THE second charge emanates from Boston.
where abundant proof in its support was prom
ised. 1t had been formulated by Mr. Byrne In
his report He named sugar importers and re-
flners Of that city who. he said, had complained
to him OF TOO low assessment OF duties ut New
York. The testimony OF these gentlemen taken
at Boston was an impeachment OF Mr. Byrnes
report. The witnesses either denied any con-
versation with him or accused him OF perver-
sion OF their language. They said thoy had
complained OF DR.. Leary's rigid tests. but not
OF Dr. Sherers liberal tests. One or two wit
nesses not importers testified that corrupt
practices ut New York had diverted the sugar
trade from Boston. but the committee cite Of
fetal figures showing that from 1884 until 1889
tho falling of In the sugar importations at Bos-
ton was but 81 per cent, OF the total importa-
lions. while at New York 1t was ~ per cent.
THE most forward OF DR.. Sherers accusers
informed the committee that for the last two
years there had been sutstantial agreement in
tests between New York and Boston. The
committee early instituted daily interchange
and test OF samples at the three ports for three
months carefully concealng the identity OF
such samples in the current work. SO that the
chemists should not know Thorn. and the re-
t nasS xe that s h0 ET h boston snS
Philadelphia. in IA cases out OF 254. as to
srsS ws The tSo Bs5n a S FHadS
RRFoi. Wiley Visited the several Laboratories
fIl Ii account of bis tests there He shows that
the tests Of Boston and Philadelphia are APP
to read SHADE high. Whie the tests at New
York are too low by about hve,tenths OF do;
ing sugars. He is fully satisfied that the re-
suits Se.snGd ss aeeep %s oono
sions and be!ieye the results are largely If not
sherer writes that there are high aud low
readers Of the poariseope. and he believes the
10 ia a low reader in read ing .46 OF degree In
the mean. lower than the most conservative
TO the Is
Doubts are as liable to be plus as minus, and
they beEst doubts they, epdanSer ac-
which may, diseredit his work: The work at
tal agreement Is practicable. Tho committee
believe there should he q change IN the meth
tests should be toned up hvc-tenths OF a
degree rec. ooro,rs,ors do MT nooo.sor,,v -
show that he differs from the other chemists
His methods may be better. but the showing is
against him. He believes In them, and should |
not be absolutely condemned until the real
cause OF, the difference Is discovered, but
change 10 the supervision OF the New York |
Laboratory. But Dr. Sherer is not amenable |
to the charge OF fraud. or that he has inten- |
tionally favored his own port or individual inn |
porters. He could not discriminate without |
knowing whose sugars he was testing. and |
could only have known that through a con- |
spiracy Involving other officials, OF which there |
Is no evidence.
Tho committee has convincing testimony |
that Col. James Burt did not contribute TO the |
appointment OF en- d o ees in the sugar division |
at New York, that he did not know some OF |
them, and that none were his relatives rs has !
been asserted. ond there Is no proof that he |
WAS chief OF a Burt sugar ring His frequent |
application for retests Ia not proof OF his con-
troll OF officials making them II his influence |
WAS as potent as represented, tho first tests
mittee do not believe that there was Burt or
any other sugar ring. and can find no credit |
able testimony TO that effect. Col. Burt WAS
earnest In behalf OF his clients but his methods |
were lawful, and he did not come into official |
contact with DR.. Sheer
Tho committee finds no evidence that the |
sugar examiners and samplers at New York |
on the revenue, and believe on the whole that |
the Government is served with as honest nur- |
poses at New York as at other ports They |
have no doubt that lts employees arc as faith |
full to their trusts Ms are tho employees OF pri- |
vate parties or Of the great corporations OF the |
Dr. Sherer's removal has been determined |
upon and will probably be announced to-mor- |
row.