The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1910-05-20
BEAT THB SCALES Two WAYS
Used 10 HANG 4 RAG o. LEAD
ON THE SUGAR WEIGHING ban


before the scalss we're Bearded Ip and
the wire spring Was Devised witness
Who says Ile Used Them on the Have.
meyer Doetls Tssilnes IN Helke Case.
New life was injected yesterday into The
trial % Charles R. Heike and his code
PENDANTS a. well a. into the whole sugar
fraud Investigation by the testimony Of
Frederick SchwerdtieRer. who was q
tallynan In the employ Of the American
sugar Refining Company at the Have
meyers A Elder refinery In Williamsburg
until 1877. Schwerdtfeger left the en-
ploy Of the sugar company prior 10 the
raid made by Richard Parr on November
-. 1911. when the notorious steel spring
ievics used by the sugar checkers for
manipulating the scales on the Williams
burg docks was discovered. Since then
he has been living At JenersOnville, n. T..
except for three months he lived in
FlAt6llsh.
SchWerdtfeger was a witness for the
Government. He told not only Of uaipg
the spring wire device bus also OF a de-
vioo not hitherto referred 70 that waa
used earlier. This consisted Of q cloth
bag with small pieces Of lead in It. This
bag. said the witness. was made effective
by hang Il % the scale lever by means
Of . small wire. The bag WAs used until
the scales we're boarded up, when Il could
be used no longer. Then the wire spring
device was invented.
Mr.. Stimson produced one Of the steel
springs and asked the witness IL he
had used II himself. He said that he had
used Il until he quit his job and that he
had begun TO use Il about two months
after James =. Vail was appointed Deputy
Surveyor in lsaS. Vail was removed last
fall by Collector Loeb.
The witness stated that he first saw the
device in the hands Of Harry W. Walker,
who a. formerly assistant superintendent
Of the Williamsburg docks and IL one Of
the defendants In the present trial Later
he saW several Of the sugar company EN-
plOyees using II. including Jean NJ. Voelker.
one Of the present defendants: Thomas
Kahoe. who u serving time in the peni-
Tertiary on BlackNells island after con-
yictiOn on the same charge, and Rudolph
and Charles Stein. ~ well a. Richard
Whalley, who has been assisting the Gov
eminent. Whalley was former " a sugar
checker. but was dismissed. lie was
with Richard Parr In the raid Of November
% 1877.
As far a. the steel wire was concerned
Schwerdtfeger's testimony did not differ
much from that Of other witnesses in the
previous sugar trials. but his revelations
IN regard n the linen bag device were
entirely new u appears. however. that
the Government approached SchWerCit-
Eeger with the purpose Of inducing him to
testify as far hack AZ November. ipgf
On the crosa-eNamination, conducted
by Henry Y. Cochrane, % council for the
defence, the witness said that Parr.
Whalley and BreEinzski. a special agent
assisting rarF. visited him at Jefferson
vile in November. 1877. soon after the
Williamsburg dock raid. and asked him
what he knew about the sugar weighing
methods there. About the same time
Schwerdtfeger was Induced by Otto
Biesanzs. the night superintendent a. the
refinery docks, who h his hrOtheF-in-law.
to sign an afidavit.
Is this your signaturei' asked Mr.
COchrnne. producing the paper
Yea" aaid the witness after carefully
examining the document, hut this N
not the paper ! signed. There werH only
sven OF eiAnt NyEs-NfIlttn liifee ON inc
paper I signed This has many more.
IheTe was quite 2 spaCe between my name
and the writing
The afidavit contained two statements
10 the elect that the witness did not
know q anything wrong In the SCALES
used IN weighing sugar ON the refinery
docks and that he had never worked
any wire device. The second statement
SchWerdtieger diaoWned. The document
was admitted in evidence and no further
explanation Of II was forthcoming. u Ia
likely mat the defence will attempt %
prove that SchWerdtfeEer signed the
AFFIDAVIT a. Il now stands.
lis Il not true. asked Mr. COchrane.
that you fed from Germany 90 escape
the consequences of embeExlingF
Mr. Stimson vigorously objected, but
before the objection could he noted
the witness answered IN the negative.