New-York tribune., 1910-08-21
CIVIL SUIT IN SUGAR CASE
Government Guarding Against
Statute of Limitations.
DRAWBACK FRAUD ALLEGED
Inquiry as to Criminal Response
bility Now Can Go On at
Convenience.

To make the statute OF Iimita tions1sf
no enect.ea salxl1rnons against the Ameri-
| can Sugar Refining Company was issued
| last week in the federal governments in
vestigaton relating to the charges that
| the company collected draw backs on i'm
portations to which it was not entitled.
! This summons was in civil suit for the
recovery of about 81 OGD.O00 in duties.
But the investigation may so ahead at
its convenience as to the criminal re-
sponsibility, if any, for the alleged acts.
Evidence that led TO the beginning of
the investigation was laid before the
United States Attorneys office by Rich
ard Parr in the autumn of 1907, soon
after his raid on the Havemeyers & Elder
docks, in Williamsburg. But the gov
ernment took up the short weighing
frauds first and after d years work
started the court machinery. which re-
suited in the collection of duties evaded
by the company amounting to about
81. 13G,OtU and the conviction of several
employees, including the secretary of the
company.
ington called the attention of the local
office last December to the drawback
charges and Mr. Wise. tho United States
attorney. was instructed to begin an i'm
mediate inquiry. Experts have been at
work on the companys books ever since,
and there have been numerous hearings
before federal grand iuries. but the
work assumed such magnitude that it
thre atened to extend beyond the period
of the statute of limitations and there
fcre it was decided to protect the gov
ernment by the issue of the summons.
The charges that brought about the in
vestigation into the payment of draw
backs to the company were' that collec-
tions had been made on exports of sugar
that had not been manufactured from
the imported raw product. OF course.
the drawback cannot be collected unless
a concern exports a product made from
the imported material upon which duty
has been paid 1t was charged that the
American Sugar Refining Company eX-
ported sugar made from domestic beets
or cane and collected draw backs as Of
goods made out of the imported raw
sugars.
The company has freely submitted its
books to the government for investiga-
ton, being used to that process in the
prosecutions of the past and foflowing a
set policy of putting no obstacle in the
way OF the law officers of the govern
ment in their inquiries. The federal
grand jury has examined much of the
evidence obtained so far. and there may
be action before the opening of the fall
term of court.
The cases of Charles r. Heike, the
former secretary of the company. and
Ernest Gerbracht former superintendent
of the Williamsburg refinery, convicted
OF conspiracy in connection with the
short weighing frauds on the docks, Will
come UP for disposition next week. The
two men have not been sentenced, but
will he arraigned then. and it was said
that although they might be sentenced
there would be delay granted by the
court to enable them to take steps to
have. their conviction reviewed.
Mr.. Heikes counsel will fall back upon
the Immunity plea, due to testimony be-
fcre the federal grand jury in the in
vestigation of the company under the
Sherman antitrust law This was be-
fore the United States Supreme Court
carly in the year soon after his indict-
ment but was referred back because 1f
an lrreeularity In the proceedings