THE DUERKOP CASE

New Zealand Times, Volume XL, Issue 8945, 19 January 1915, Page 7

THE DUERKOP CASE

TRADING VIA ROTTERDAM PRISONER COMPLAINS OF AIILITARY SURVEILLANCE. INTERESTING LETTERS FROAI GERMANY PRODUCED. The case in which Heinrich IVilhelm Alugnus Ducrkop, xu-oduco merchant, of Auckland, stands charged, on five informations, under section 35 of the Regulation of Trade and Commerce Act, 1014, with attempting to supply goods to tho enemy, was continued before Air D. G. A. Cooper, S.AL, in the Alagistrale’s Court yesterday afternoon. Air H. H. Ostler, of the Crown Law Office, conducted the prosecution, and Air T. Neave appeared for tho accused. The charges are as follow: — (1) That on October 16th, at Auckland, while His Majesty the King was at war wth Germany, he did supply 33 casks and one case of casings to Gustav J. J. Witt, carrying on business at Hamburg; (2) that, on or about October 28th, at Auckland, he did supply 19 bales of sheepskins, 12 sacks of cows’ tails, and 14 sacks of glue pieces to Gustav J. J. Witt, Hamburg ; (3) that on or about October 28th, at Auckland, he did supply 10 casks of casings to tho said AVitt; (4) that on or about November 3rd, during the present war between Britain and Germany, ho did attempt to trade with the enemy by supplying Gustav J. J. AVitt and Co., a German firm trading at Rotterdam, for transmission to Germany nine casks, and one case of casings; (5) that on or about September I7th, at Auckland, he did attempt to supply Gustav J. J. AVitt, carrying on business at Hamburg, with 17 casks of casings. DEFENDANT ON HIS OATH.

Evidence was given by the defendant, who stated that he was a partner in tho firm of Duorkop and _ McKay, which had been doing business for two years and a quarter as importers and exporters mainly of New Zealand produce to England, Edrope, and the United States. In August, 1913, ho visited Europe in order to establish agencies and connections. Among other firms he saw Gustav J. J. AVitt, in Hamburg. AVitt carried on business by himself as a trader in -Hamburg. AV-itness was to consign goods from New Zealand to him, drawing on him for 75 per cent, of the invoice value of the goods so sent: He consigned certain goods to AVitt on these terms; they were trial consignments, to be disposed of at Hamburg on a commission basis. AA’hen the war broke out, he had consignments on the high seas for Hamburg. Two of the German vessels then carrying his cargoes, shipped before .the outbreak of the war, safely reached neutral ports. The third vessel, was captured on the high seas. A part of these shipments was originally meant for other firms in Hamburg, and to them lie wrote stating that' ho was unwilling and unable to deliver the goodswhich he had arranged to consign to them—that his firm could riot deal with these firms “until this regret table war had terminated.” He sent Tetters to Oarl Rootliag, Hamburg, on October 6th, 1914, and Alax F. N. Koster, Hamburg, on November 11th, informing them that his firm would refrain from sending any casings to that port on their behalf. The shipping documents had to be returned from London, because acceptance and presentation could not be made on the Continent owing to the war. For that reason his firm had to repurchase those. shipping docufnents. REASONS FOR SHIPPING TO HOLLAND.

Duerkop then proceeded to-give Jits motives for endeavouring to trade with a neutral country. British merchant vessels at that time were still running a chance of being sunk or captured by hostile warships. The insurance premiums on British steamers at that time were accordingly higher than lircmiums. that could have been arranged in neutral countries and for vessels flying a neutral flag. In addition to this, the London markets appeared to be overstocked with an excessive supply of the kind, of goods his firm was dealing in. These neutral countries, he calculated, on account of the war, wero likely to be largely falling short of the usual supplies which, in ordinary and peaceful times, wore being raised from the, countries at present engaged m warfare. Ho wished to avoid. expensive middlemen in London, so ho decided to deal with neutral countries, and determined that his best plan was to. trado with Holland.

LEGAL ADVICE TAKEN. Mr Neave questioned the defendant on the subject of his having sought legal advice on tho position in which his firm stood relative to trading with Holland. Defendant stated that on August 14th he attended a lecture at the Auckland Chamber of Comirierce by Air R. N. Algie,, LL.B., concerning international law in times of war. As a result of that lecture, he gathered that ho was entitled to trade with neutrals. He wrote to Air Algie stating that he intended to consult a lawyer regarding his "proposed dealing with Rotterdam, so as to avoid any misinterpretation that might bo placed upon his dealing with Holland. He asked for an opportunity of consulting Mr Algie, and followed the letter up with an interview. Tho conclusion he drew, after seeing Air Algie, was that trading could bo legally done with any person or corporation so long as that person or corporation was not resident within an enemy territory. ;He accordingly wrote to “Gustav J. J. AVitt and Co.’s HandelAlaatschappij,” Rotterdam, asking if they would be willing to take charge of his firm’s consignments in German steamers which were detained in certain ports. Defendant wanted them to sell the consignments on his firm’s behalf at the best possible price in Rotterdam and on a commission basis. He had not dealt with this firm before. In bis correspondence with Rotterdam ho did not suggest in any way that he wanted any of tho goods to reach Germany. Ho asked the fifm to sell to Holland, Belgium, England or Franco as they saw fit, and for tho purpose of obtaining the best values. The firm of AVitt, Hamburg, had written on August 22nd, stating, “England has declared war against us and stopped all commercial intercourse.” He had received nothing but a cable from the Witt Company of .Rotterdam. Mr Neavo produced a letter which, he stated, had come to the defendant’s firYn from the Witt firm of Rotterdam since the last hearing of the case, a week ago. It had been sent on to counsel bv Duerkop’s partner. CHAFING UNDER AIILITARY RULE.

Tht defendant here made a complaint against the strictness of the imprisonment or detention which he was un-

dcrgoing. He stated that he had been seven weeks on Somes Island, and it was only with the greatest difficulty that he could get into contact with his property. As a result, when ho was last before the court his defence was unprepared. Ho was cut off from everything, and subjected to great rostrictiou of liberty. Mr Ostler: "I have supplied your counsel with a copy of all the letters l roly on, and have given him back every other book but those in court. I have not done anything to make it harder for you.” Defendant: “Why must I be kept isolated on an island when it takes all the time to defend myself ?” Mr Ostler: “That must bo settled with the military.” Duerkop stated that he had sent in one petition after another to be allowed to comply with the conditions for release on parole. “They don’t meet with any notice,” ho added. “It is difficult for mo to get permission from the .Island to got access to notes and particulars I require.” Mr Ostler : “ The only consolation, I think, is that many English in Germany arc having a worse time.” Defendant (warmly); “ No, I don’t think so. You cannot go'by what the newspapers say. It is not true, and there should not bo retaliation.”

His Worship: “We cannot discuss that. The court will grant assistance in any way.” Mr Xcave said that Duerkop’s complaint was that ho had not access to his books and documents. He did not refer to the necessary documents on which the Crown based its case, and with which counsel had supplied him ; but there wore a number of documents and books in Auckland, Ho did not make any complaint against the charge, but felt that he should be released on parole. Defendant remarked that no military offence was charged against him. Mr Ostler: “I 1 said I would not charge you with being a spy—that is all.”

Defendant; ‘‘lf I want to get other evidence of bona fides, how can I get it?” Mr Ostler: ‘‘Your partner can supply the documents.” Defendant stated that it took fifteen days for a letter from Auckland to reach him on the island, and three days in th© case of a letter from AVellingtoti. Defence under such circumstances was naturally difficult. Mr Heave : “ Your complaint is that the Defence Department will not release you on parole, although other prisoners have been released?” Defendant: “Yes.” His Worship: “I cannot assist you.” . THE FIRM WITH THE LONG NAME. Continuing his evidence, Duerkop stated that the firm of Gustav J. J. .Witt and Co.’s Handelmaatschappij had been domiciled in Holland for years. It was tho resident Dutch company incorporated in accordance with the Dutch trading, and company laws. He knew this before tho outbreak of the war, but he wanted to make quite sure,', and he applied to R. G. Dun arid Co., Auckland, to secure information as to" the position of the firm. A cable was received from Dun’s agents stating, “ They are a Dutch Company, quit© reliable. Capital and directors are German.” Further details were subsequently received, 'setting out that it was understood that the firm was ■ originally started as a branch of a Hamburg firm in 1899, and was converted into a joint stock company. They acted as commission agents, and represented several foreign houses; they also carried on an insurance department. The manager was Theodor© Thomson, a native <of Germany. GustaV J. J, Witt had been connected with the firm both as a director and managing director. It was a separate trading firm from Witt and Co., of Hamburg. j Defendant added that be was tinder the impression that it Was a separate mutual trading concern, distinct in management, nationality and name from the Hamburg firm, and it was as such that he endeavoured to trad© with it. ■Mr Neave: “You received a letter from Gustav J. J. Witt which came enclosed 1 in an envelope of th© Dutch company?” ...

Defendant: “ This letter from Hamburg was a reply to business proposals made long before the war, to Hamburg, and as Gustav J. J. AVitt happens to bo managing director of a separate firm at Rotterdam, it was the only means of sending me the communication. It said, ‘ You cannot.do anything with us till the war is 'over!’ ” Continuing, Duerkop said that he tried to establish connections in the United States and Italy, but without success, and he came to apply to the firm in Rotterdam. National sentiments or patriotic considerations one way or the other never guided him in busin'ess affairs. QUESTIONS OF CREDIBILITY. Mr Ostler opened his cross-examina-tion by asking tho defendant how he knew, three weeks after the war broke out, to write to a Dutch 'firm. Duerkop replied that he was guided by his visit to Hamburg in October, 1913. During that visit he knew that Gustav J. J. Witt had an interest in the Rotterdam firm; he did not know it was a controlling interest, nor did he then know that AVitt was a director. Ho did not know now that AVitt controlled the Rotterdam firm. In reply to another question, defendant said that his age was twenty-six years. Mr Ostler called attention to a letter in which defendant represented himself as thirty years of ago and his partner as twenty-five.

Defendant admitted that he had allowed this to appear in the letter. He denied that .‘he had done so for business reasons, but at the same time explained that ‘ if other mercantile firms saw a report that a senior partner was only twenty-six years of age a prejudice was formed immediately.’ LETTEBS FROM GERMANY. Mr Ostler produced a letter he had received that day through the censor. The communication was contained in a Handel-Maatschappij envelope, and was dated November 24th. Enclosed with it was a copy of a letter of October 30th. and another letter of October 30th. whith Duerkop’s partner had evidently not sent down. The second letter, which was from Gustav J. J. Witt, Hamburg, commenced: — “Through my Rotterdam firm I came in receipt of your letters of July 31st, August 6th, and September Bth, the contents of which I duly noted.” The .rriter went on to say:—“l regret very much you had such bad luck with the two consignments. However, we cannot do anything here in this business.” Reference was also made to the detention of the ships Firth and Seydlitz, and Witt said he would communicate on hearing about them. After stating that the market was much higher owing to the war, the writer

announced that the establishment of a credit bank in Germany was being planned, to take over the former London credit business, but tho matter bad not been settled. “I hope,” be added “that the value of your two shipments will not be lost, but that you will get it back at the final account of the two countries.” Mr Ostler called attention to the words, ‘ ‘Through my Rotterdam firm I came in receipt of your letter.” With this letter there was a copy of a private letter from. Witt dated November 4th, written to Duerkop in German, a translation of which had been prepared by Mr Ostler, who read it ever while tho defendant checked it. The communication opened by acknowledging a letter from Duerkop, of September 16th and expressing regret that he was dependent on Router’s and other newspaper agencies for nows of the war. “According to these,” stated the writer, “the English and French continue pushing on, hut probably they are pushing backward, for up to now tho Germans have pushed forward into France, and the devil himself cannot drive them out.” He went on to state that London was very nervous, referred to the extinguishing of tho lights, and averred that Buckingham Palace was insured for £200,000 and Westminster Abbey for £IOO,OOO against Zeppelin attacks. The writer noted the quietness of the British fleet, the presence of' gray uniforms in Hamburg, and denied that there was any famine in Germany. Then the letter contained this statement: —“As for your two consignments by the Firth and Seydlitz, my Rotterdam firm will grant an advance of 75 per cent.—(l) if the export of casings to Germany is permitted; and (2) if in fact the consignment roaches it.” He added: “No one can pretend what will happen, because the - English are stopping not only Gorman, but neutral ships.” Mr Ostler repeated the clauses in the letter relating to an advance of 75 per cent, if tho goods could be shipped to Germany, and when they arrived. Defendant: “It is the first time 1 have seen this'letter.” Mr Ostler : “In spit© of your partner fearing they would get to Germany, and your letters being read by Witt himself, and that it was shown that they were wanted for Germany, you still say you did not know they were going to Germany Duerkop; “I did not know; and when my. partner objected, I stopped shipping to Germany, and they have since been going to London.” , At this stage the further hearing of the case was adjourned until to-mor-row at 2.15. p.m.