(NIGHTS OF INI i JLLO-REUSC THE LIBRARY OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA LOS ANGELES THE KNIGHTS OF INDUSTRY, REVELATIONS FOREIGN LONG-FIRMS in LONDON, ROLLO-REUSCHEL. LONDON: Published by THE AUTHOR at 142, Clerkenwell Road, E.G. 1895. HI/ - CONTENTS. PAGE Introduction ... ... ... ... ... ... i The History of the 'Sledge-driver' Articles in the 'Cologne People's Gazette' ... 9 London Swindling Firms ... ... ... ... ... 17 German Beggars in London ... ... ... ... 26 The Musical Sledge-drivers in London ... ... 30 Sledge-driving and no end of it ... ... ... 40 Sledge-drivers' Misfortunes ... ... ... ... 49 The Jolly Sledge-drivers ... ... ... ... 62 The Sledge-drivers* (with facsimiles of authographs ) ... 74 More about the Sledge-drivers* ... ... ... 90 The Sledge-drivers of Naples ... ... ... ... 113 The Sledge-drivers of Naples at Work ... ... 119 4 Ernesto ' in London ... ... ... ... ... 136 The Enquiry-office L. Lehnert, alias 'Liman & Co.' (with Lehnerfs photo, and facsimiles of handwriting and cheque) ... ... ... ... ... 154 Opitz, the Traveller to the East ... ... ... 184 The Sledge-driving Trials ... ... ... ... 218 New Revelations ... ... ... ... ... ... 251 Sledge-drivers who are a Common Danger ... ... 264 * These two articles, originally published in the ' Cologne People's Gazette," led to the Libel-action brought against the. author. 997046 INTRODUCTION. reason why this book was written, is in the first place to 1 draw the attention of governments and the trading com- munity, on the strength of documentary evidence, to certain crying evils that, as all and everything in our times, have grown to gigan- tic proportions, endangering the commerce in a most serious manner. The culminating point was reached, when a London enquiry-office, enjoying the absolute confidence, not only of their customers, but also of kindred trade-protecting institutions, entered into a conspiracy with a well organized gang of long-firm swindlers. Exporters and manufacturers were by this dangerous combination at the mercy of a gang of relentless robbers. Betrayed for years by those whom the victims considered their protectors, they were defrauded of goods to an incalculable value. The material referring to this conspiracy is of a most sensa- tional character. As soon as I had ascertained the facts, I opened my attack against the confederates in the columns of the " Kolnische Volkszeitung " (The Cologne People's Gazette), a leading political, and, with regard to commercial matters, most important daily paper in Germany, to which I am for many years the London correspondent. But my warning voice was stiffled for a time at least. The second article was in the press, when the proprietor of the said enquiry office, LOTHAR LEHNERT, of 46, Queen Victoria Street, London, E.G., and his so-called manager, but in fact partner, GUSTAV OPITZ, brought a criminal action for libel against me. Not to become guilty of contempt of court, I was obliged not to proceed further with my revela- tions. After prolonged proceedings in the police court, the matter reached finally the Central Criminal Court, where the case B 2 INTRODUCTION. was tried on the 25th of March before Commissioner Kerr. I pleaded ' not guilty ' and justification, but my hope, to find an opportunity at this occasion to disclose through my counsels in the public interest the existing conspiracy, and to make use of the damning material in my possession, was again frustrated. After hearing the opening part only of my evidence, and when Lehnert had been hardly one ' hour under cross-examination, the Jury stopped the case, declared justified what I had written, and found me ' Not Guilty '. The counsel of the other prosecutor, Gustav Opitz, intimated that he could not proceed with the action, and threw up his brief in disgust. A verdict of ' not guilty ' was entered in this case too, and the Judge directed my solicitor to lay the documents referring to the case before the public prosecutor. I had gained the victory, and lost nearly two thousand pounds sterling, costs of the action, which certainly the prosecutors were ordered to pay, but of which, unfortunately, I shall never see a farthing again, with the exception of half of this amount, that has been refunded to me by the proprietors of my paper. A few days later the par nobilefratrum, Lehnert and Opitz, were arrested ; the next day they were standing in the dock at the Lord Mayor's court to answer an indictment of fraud and conspiracy. The case was not gone into at this occasion, and to this regretable circum- stance the defendants had to thank it that they were admitted to bail in a ridiculously small amount. At the next hearing Opitz only put in an appearance. Lehnert, when called upon, did not answer, and it became soon evident that he had transferred himself to another milder clime. Opitz was several times remanded and at last committed for trial, the result of which I shall deal with in another chapter. But one thing was gained, I could speak out again, and show to the commercial world where the dangerous breakers are laying, on which the ' good ships ' are coming to grief and sinking in the bottomless sea of bankruptcy. I consider it a public duty to do so. Before entering, however, on the principal part of my book, I think it advisable to point out a few differences in the organi- sation of trade in England and Germany, which are puzzling to many a merchant here and there, and seem to require a short explanation. INTRODUCTION. 3 England is a free country. Everybody can come and settle here, without being troubled to produce papers, to give notice to the police, to say who he is, where he comes from, what profession he is following, what his means of existence, what his business. No questions are asked. He may choose what name he likes, he can start in business under what firm it pleases him. Nobody troubles about it, and he need not trouble too. There is no noti- fication to the authorities, and no registration of firms, as in Germany and other continental countries, where every merchant and tradesman is bound by law to register his firm. If someone opens a business in England, he can do so under any style he likes ; he may call himself Liman & Co., even if his real ' honest name ' be Lehnert, and Herr Hans Schulz may fly to-day from Germany, arrive the next morning as Mr. Robinson in London, and open in the afternoon as Messrs. Dumas, Gros- venor & Co., somewhere in a small back room in the city his business. Nobody troubles about it, and English liberty becomes thus the greatest protection to the swindling fraternity and to the guild of Knights of Industry. If Herr Schulz, alias Robinson has reasons of his own to get tired of his firm Dumas, Grosvenor & Co., then he buys for a penny white paint, and the beautiful long firm vanishes for all eternity ; another pennyworth of paint, however, is sufficient to recompense the world for this loss, and under the deft hands of Herr Schulz alias Robinson, a new grand firm appears in the place of the vanished one. If the abode of this ever changing firm gets too hot for the proprietor, he simply leaves the premises, usually with some week's rent in arrear, and opens a new business under a new name a few streets farther off. Did not Mr. Gustav Opitz trade within a year under his name, and in quick succession as McEnti, John Mouat & Co., W. Arnold & Co., Bernard & Co., Lulu L. Clark & Co., within a radius of five minutes' walk ? Nobody cares for it, the creditors excepted, and if one of these preying and disagreeable individuals happens by chance to find out the ever vanishing proprietor of the endless firms, and if he feels disposed to bring the swindler to bank and to help him to a few months of well-deserved hard labour, he may do so, if he does not mind a lot of personal trouble and heavy expenses. But let him beware that he be provided with con- B 2 4 INTRODUCTION. elusive proofs, else it may happen that he finds himself prosecuted, after an abortive trial, for wrongful imprisonment, slander, de- famation of character, and a string of other inditable offences, carrying heavy damages with them. A public prosecutor who would take action on the strength of private information laid before him, as in Germany, France, Austria and other countries, does not exist in England, much to the relief of the international guild of long-firm swindlers, who honour this free country with their presence. Who wants to see justice done in England, must prosecute personally ; he has first to pay a very heavy solicitor's bill, and when he attains his end and sees the person who de- frauded him, sentenced, he will usually find, that the heavier punishment fell to his, the prosecutor's , lot. The fact is, that the law-costs are simply monstrous in England, that to go to law is really a luxury reserved for the rich. A short time ago, I had occasion to enquire from a manufacturer in Bohemia, how a law-suit he had instituted against a member of a gang of long-firm swindlers, had ended. The result was abortive, and the manu- facturer wrote to me, he should not like to decide who was the greater rascal, the solicitor who conducted his case, or the swindler who committed the fraud. In the proceedings of bankruptcy there are also great dif- ferences in existence. If somebody finds himself utterly stranded in England, he simply closes his office and leaves it to his cre- ditors to look for him and to find him, if they can. And if such a defaulter is found, very little is gained indeed. If a fraud was committed, a great expense is required to bring the culprit before the proper tribunal. If there was no fraud, a civil action must first be taken to obtain judgement, and on the strength of this the creditor can make, at his costs, the debtor bankrupt. There, of course, the solicitors are standing again at the gate, and who has once gathered experiences with the English law, will be cautious not to burn his fingers a second time. I say at this point quite openly and candidly that even greater caution is to be observed at the choice of a solicitor than at that of an agent, and nobody ought to confide himself to the tender mercies of a solicitor who has not been specially recommended by a trustworthy person. These are shortcomings which are quite incomprehensible to INTRODUCTION. 5 foreign merchants, who in their own country have but to apply to the public prosecutor in order to secure, free of charge, the prosecution of a fraudulent debtor or long-firm swindler. As the prosecutor has besides to appear personally in England, most of the continental merchants and manufacturers abstain from bringing an action here for recovery of debts. Under these circumstances the foreign consulates in this country can do but little for the protection of the commercial interests of the countries they are representing, and they also do not display great energies to exert themselves in this direction. All what is to be got from them are, as a rule, some general remarks and some indifferent advice, because they usually are not informed sufficiently to give a better one. To my opinion this deplorable state of things could be ame- liorated only, if 1. A law was passed, binding every foreigner who takes up his residence in England, to produce papers and to give notice of his presence and his address to the proper au- thorities ; this would enable the police to watch in a more efficient manner the foreigners congregating in this country, and to prevent dubious characters to hide their identity. 2. If the compulsory registration of all commercial firms was introduced, where also the proprietor or proprietors of the firm were registered, and a considerable registration fee demanded, as in the case of limited companies. 3. If only such foreigners would be permitted to establish a firm in England, who had been established previously already in their native, or another country for at least two years under the same firm, and who can produce a ' clean bill ' i.e. that they are neither defaulters or un- discharged bankrupts. Of foreigners, who were not formerly in business for themselves, a residence of at least ten years in this country ought to be demanded, before permission is granted to them, to open here a firm. At present the case stands thus, that foreign clerks, who are not able to find here a situation, enter the ranks of the long-firm swindlers ( ' sledge-drivers ' ) as soon as their scanty means are INTRODUCTION. exhausted and they find themselves driven to extremities ; they become thus a disgrace to their countrymen and are not only discrediting them, but they grow also to a real terror of the foreign exporters and manufacturers. Foreign governments ought also to take some steps to protect the export trade from the 'sledge-drivers' in foreign parts, and especially in 'modern Babylon'. I do not want to go so far as to say that enquiry-offices ought to become official in- stitutions, but I maintain that the enquiry-agencies ought to be controlled by an official enquiry-department, connected with the consulates, where accredited firms could obtain against the pay- ment of a reasonable fee, reliable commercial informations, in order to control by these means the informations received from other sources. The chambers of commerce ought to combine too, as a reader of the ' Cologne People's Gazette ' remarks in his congratulatory letter to my victory, and the establishment of a central enquiry office at London on their part, would certainly prove a most useful and beneficial measure. Finally the foreign press and the foreign governments ought to warn more often, yes, constantly and most urgently against an injudicious emigration to the United Kingdom. Perverse ideas of the wealth of England, and of the ease to earn here a good living, if not a fortune, are inducing great numbers of foreign clerks to transfer themselves to the shores of this country. Very few find their expectations realized ; the great majority are soon cruelly undeceived and ship-wrecked in the streets of London town, not only materially but, worse still, morally too. Driven to despair, they soon swell the ranks of the swindling fraternity. The name ' sledge-driver ' (Schlittenfahrer) is the invention of German swindlers, who had chosen London for their field of activity. If Germans speak amongst themselves of an unprincipled man of business, they say : ' he is driving his sledge '. It is the generally accepted term for a long-firm swindler, otherwise a member of the ' black gang ' (schwarze Bande). A most im- portant person in the sledge-driving conspiracy is the ' sharper ', usually a ' respectable city firm ', exporting goods to Australia, India, the Cape and other British colonies. He is nothing better than a receiver of stolen property, who disposes of the goods INTRODUCTION. 7 obtained by fraud and swindling from the manufacturers by the sledge-drivers. The sharpers are very careful to conduct their shady business in such a manner as not to come into conflict with the law. Whatever they pay for the goods, and if it be the tenth part only of the real value, they insist always on getting a receipt for an amount representing the current market prices of the com- modity they buy, and they never make a payment in the presence of witnesses. They remain thus always on the safe side, and never being betrayed by the thieves, enjoy undisturbed the fame of most respectable firms. It is dangerous ground to tread upon, but I shall endeavour to pillory by and by these receivers in the same way as I have done with the swindling-enquiry-agents Opitz and Lehnert. The History of the ' Sledge-driver ' Articles in the 'Cologne People's. Gazette'. THE question was often put to me, why I persecuted so re- lentlessly and systematically, yes, even with undisguised hatred the sledge-driving fraternity. The answer is not far to seek. I wanted to put an effectual stop to the heartless and cruel frauds perpetrated continually on such manufacturers, who can least bear the loss inflicted upon them. Large and old-established firms do not easily become a prey to long-firm swindlers ; this lot falls usually to the beginners who are anxious to get con- nections and are subject to the fascination that London, the centre of the world's commerce, exercises on the minds of all engaged in trade. To get a footing in this market, to do business with a ' London firm ', is thus the pious wish of every German manu- facturer, and in his ardour to see this realized, he forgets too often the simplest rules of caution and circumspection. This is well- known to the sledge-drivers, and they are choosing their victims principally amongst the young, struggling and inexperienced firms. One of the first cases of long-firm swindling that was brought to my notice, and actually gave rise to my hatred against this pest of the commercial life of our times, had reference to such a poor, young German manufacturer, an acquaintance of mine, who, after having worked hard for some years, was totally ruined by a gang of long-firm swindlers in England. He communicated with me, and I tried to recover for him at least a part of his claim and his goods, but all my endeavours were frustrated by the art- fulness of the swindlers, who kept their prey and escaped also justice. The end of it was that my friend lost all he possessed, became a bankrupt, and found himself and his family in the most pityable position. I vowed to avenge him, and to this purpose 10 THE KNIGHTS OF INDUSTRY. I commenced to study the tricks and dodges of the swindling fraternity, for I knew that by these means only their doings can be frustrated and justice meted out to them. Thus the study of the art of sledge-driving became my speciality a kind of sport. Circumstances occured which strengthened me in my resolve, and these were my personal experiences. I must confess : I was swindled and defrauded too, and this so often . and to such an extent, that my former simplicity in trusting and taking everybody for an honest man has, to my great regret, given way to the ignoble principle to trust nobody and to regard everyone as a rogue, as long as I have no proofs to the contrary. The first swindle to which I fell a victim is of particular interest to me, because a prince, a real prince, the descendant of a historic royal house, had a hand in it. H. R. H. was, of course, reduced in his circumstances, but, like his ancestors, he was an adept in squandering money, and living in grand style at other people's expenses. The noble prince introduced once to me a Mr. X who had been an officer in a Prussian regiment of Lancers. It seems hardly credible, but this quondam officer surpassed even the Prince in the art of borrowing. From the very beginning of our acquaintance, I felt an antipathy against this fellow, but, try as I might, I could not get rid of him. It did not take long, and both, the prince and the lieutenant, were in my debt. Once the prince came, quite broken-hearted, with the ' dreadful ' news that his friend X had the broker in the house, and he- assured me, in a very flattering manner, that I was the only man in the whole world and the surrounding villages, who would act as a Christian and save X from ruin. I informed the prince with great firmness that my modesty forbade me to aspire to such a distinction ; I refused in fact point blank to render assistance, but, somehow, the prince prevailed upon me, and accepting him as security, I parted with my money, never to see it again ! The week had passed, during which the prince had engaged himself to repay the loan, and when I went to remind him personally of his promise, I found him gone, and ascertained that his pityful story was a work of fiction from beginning to end, and that he had ' let me in '. However, after some time I discovered his address, and took the liberty to remind him of his unsettled THE KNIGHTS OF INDUSTRY. II ' debt of honour '. He answered by return of post, but instead of the letter he had written to me, the envelope contained a note, bearing in the left corner a ducal coronet, and informing ' my dear Prince ' that the Duke of (*) has much pleasure to comply with his request and to forward to him a parcel of worn garments- from the ducal wardrobe ' which may prove acceptable '. The letter had hardly reached me, when it was followed by H. R. H. r who was anxious to prevent it falling into my hands ; but, finding that the mischief was done, he tried to explain away the duke's gift, assuring me that it was destined for ' poor X '. But I knew enough, and he did not succeed to undo the impression this little incident had created in my mind. For eighteen months I had the pleasure not to see either the prince or his lieutenant, and not to hear of them either. The two rascals had nearly slipped from my memory, when, quite unexpectedly, Mr. X favoured me with a call. Did he come to repay his debt ? Far from it. He had the impudence to ask for a new loan. All what he wanted were only ^25. ' We are tired of our lazy life,' he declared. ' The Prince and I have resolved to start a new career, and to earn our living by honest work.' I assured him, I was glad to hear it. ' Would I give them a helping hand ? ' I enquired, of course, what kind of honest work the two 'gentlemen ' intended to perform, and he then con- fided to me, that they intended to start in business. I laughed at the idea of two such men undertaking such a venture and this too with paltry twenty-five pounds. But he was quite in earnest, and declared they did not require more. It tickled my fancy to hear what kind of business they had in view. Was it a fried fish shop, or ' rags and bones ' ? No, the reply was : ' Export merchants.' All what we want is four week's rent for a small office, say twenty-shillings, second-hand furniture, a table and two chairs for ten shillings, printing of circulars and postage, say five pounds, some nice looking memo's, say ten shillings, and the rest for one month's living. That's all what we require. We can give capital references, the prince especially, and before the month is over 'our firm' will be supplied by the German, Austrian and French manufacturers with such a quantity of goods that we can repay you not only this twenty-five pounds, but all we owe you.' 12 .THE KNIGHTS OF INDUSTRY. I need not say that Mr. X did not get the money. At a com- mittee-sitting of the German Society of Benevolence a few years hence, I heard a touching letter read from the same gentleman, and I came just in time to prevent a crying misapplication of the funds of this excellent institution. I hoped the rascals would not succeed to realize their commercial intentions, but they never- theless succeeded to establish a ' sledge-driving ' firm in Coleman Street, and before I discovered it and issued a warning, a con- siderable number of continental manufacturers had been victimised. However, acting for one of the defrauded firms, I succeeded to stop the game of H. R. H. and his aid-de-camp, who both left London to evade the proceedings instituted against them, and exported themselves with the proceeds of their robbery to America. I commenced now (1886) the war against the German sledge- drivers in real earnest. Just before Christmas of the same year I helped one of their number, a man named Lewin, alias Popert, to eight months hard labour, much to the dismay of his friend, the notorious proprietor of one of the notorious German clubs, who at that time pleased himself to pose as the leader of the German social-democrats, and propagated ' the movement' with great success in London. A short time afterwards, when hunting down with a detective of the City-police (Seething Lane Station) a sledge-driver, who had closed his office, we entered also a German public house in the Eastend. The proprietor called and calls himself the ' Sledge- driver ' and claims the honour of having originated this sig- nificant name. He really was worthy of his title, and I admit readily that I am under the greatest obligation to this grand- master of the noble guild. Not suspecting our errand, and led on by us, he became quite confidential, and in course of time, he proved to me a living source of information. He initiated me in all the ins and outs of the noble craft, and into the mysteries of German ' low life ' in London, and it is but paying a debt of gratitude if I acknowledge what I owe to this veteran of the noble fraternity. When he discovered that I would not become 'one of them,' and that I was an ' unprofitable investment ' on which time, beer, exhortations, cigars, instructions and whisky were wasted, he tried ' to do me ', but in spite of his many and varied THE KNIGHTS OF INDUSTRY. 13 trials to swindle me, the veteran ' sledge-driver ', I must say so to his shame, did not succeed. But I do not bear him any grudge for that ; I just took him for what he was, and remained thus safely guarded. The German manufacturers too, I am sure, will forgive him a great part of his many sins, if they consider that without this oracle many of those sensational revelations could not have been made in the ' Cologne People's Gazette ', which proved so instructive and advantageous to them. In 1887 the good old ' sledge-driver' sent a gentleman to me in whose interest it is if I do not mention his name. He sub- mitted to me a volumnious paper dealing with the German sledge- drivers in London, and wished me to publish these revelations about their secret doings. I was decided already a long time ago to do so, because I knew it would be rendering a tremendous service to the commercial community to reveal the organisation and the modus operandi of the international gang of long-firm swindlers with their London head-quarters. What kept me back from starting my crusade in the ' Cologne People's Gazette ' was a certain feeling that I had not yet studied the subject sufficiently, that the material collected was to fragmentary, with one word, that I was not competent for the responsible task of dealing efficiently with the matter. But the paper now laid before me, seemed to fill many of the gaps in my knowledge of the subject ; it was evidently written by one thoroughly conversant with the matter, and when the gentleman said : ' If you publish what I am putting here in your hands, you will render a public service and earn the thanks of the whole commercial community,' I promised to consider it. I read the manuscript carefully over and over again ; the general drift was quite in accordance with my views and my ex- periences ; but it contained many statements which I doubted, or which were not quite clear to me at that time, and then I set myself the task to verify it. It was an arduous labour ; it involved visits to places where I did not like to go, intercourse with persons for whom I did not care, researches and inquiries, foreign and distasteful to my nature, involving great loss of time and great expenses. But all was overcome ; the material was carefully sifted, and after many conferences with the gentleman in question. T4 THE KNIGHTS OF INDUSTRY. I re-wrote the article, christened it ' The German Sledge-drivers in London,' and published it in the ' Cologne People's Gazette '. The article was published on September 3 ^75> an( i 74 6s -> payable in London on the 3ist of May. The bills were accepted by 'Cory & Leo' in New York,. THE KNIGHTS OF INDUSTRY. 123 and endorsed by 'W. Moll' of Hull. The bills had hardly reached the manufacturer, when he received a letter from the solicitor Dr. Wex in Hamburg, who asked him, in the name of Listmann, to withdraw the bills from circulation, as they would not be taken up. A fresh exchange of letters followed, conducted by Listmann and by Ernest Schreck. Inquiries made disclosed the fact, that the acceptances were bogus bills. Result of the transaction : loss to the manufacturer of 4,855 marks 39 pf. 3. J. P. was the third victim of Louis Listmann and his confederates Schreck. J. P. is a cotton-spinner and weaver. He transferred likewise the agency for Italy to Listmann. In the month of December, 1885, J. P. transmitted to Listmann a bill of 350 francs for collection. Listmann did so, but he omitted to deliver the money. About the same time Listmann took over in lieu of payment for J. P. a parcel of goods to the value of 2039 francs from Messrs. Mazzano & Co., and his order was to keep these goods at the disposal of J. P. But Listmann sold these goods, contrary to his instructions, and without informing the owner, and kept the money for himself. Not enough with this, Listmann favoured the manufacturer with an order of Signor Pietro Menegozzi at Bovino for not less than 564 pieces of flannel. Inquiries made by the manufacturer disclosed the fact, that the firm in whose name the tirder was given, was no 'firm' at all, but a poor servant in the employ of a certain Zorzi. Having received this information, the manufacturer declined to execute the order. In consequence of this Listmann wired: 'Information absolutely wrong, go on working.' This telegram was followed by a letter in which Listmann described Menegozzi as a rich man, and to prove his confidence, Listmann promised to become responsible for the amount of the order against a compensation of i/k, and he added, he took orders from substantial firms only. J. P. accepted this proposition, and Listmann wrote now to him : ' Please write out the order in my name, that I might invoice the goods to Menegozzi, and he may make payable his acceptances to my order. I should not like Menegozzi to perceive that you were suspicious with regard to his trustworthiness, and this will be IM THE KNIGHTS OF INDUSTRY. avoided, if I forward and invoice the goods to him in the name of my firm.' In the meantime a further information in regard to Menegozzi had reached the manufacturer, in consequence of which he declined to part with his goods on other terms as cash in advance. List- mann contradicted again the unfavourable report and declared, that he had sufficient credit to discount directly Menegozzi's accep- tances, and thus to forward cash to J. P. on receipt of the goods. The unhappy manufacturer was deluded into accepting this pro- position and forwarded on the 3rd of February 558 pieces of flannel to Louis Listmann. At the same time he wrote to the latter: ' I could not get a satisfactory information regarding Menegozzi, but I put all my confidence in you, and rely on it that you will fully justify my trust. In accordance with your promise, I expect your remittance in cash directly after the arrival of the goods. The 30,000 yards of flannel reached Naples in safety, but no return was made for them. When the money did not come, J. P. reminded Listmann of his promise. In answer to this refresher of a sometimes weak memory, Listmann wrote he would send remit- tance in a few days ; he explained that a disagreement with Mene- gozzi caused him to sell the goods to another firm. That was true enough, very likely, but the manufacturer never received a penny for his goods and lost by his connection with Listmann and Schreck 12,042 marks 72 pf. 4. The fourth victim was G. H., a glass manufacturer, who had also named Listmann his sole agent for Italy. It is a long story of most artful frauds and swindles as disclosed by the official documents ; but we shall just lift a corner of the veil only. When Listmann had got as much goods as he possibly could obtain, he sent a set of ten acceptances to G. H., all made payable to the order of Listmann, and domiciled at the Banca Nazionale at Bari, Salerno, Caserta and Leno. The whole of these remittances came back protested, with a bill of costs amounting to about ^16. Listmann, being informed of this little occurrence, somehow ' explained away ' this ' unexpected little mishap,' and consoled the manufacturer with another set often acceptances, ranging from 700 to 1000 francs, and bearing as acceptors the nice-sounding names of THE KNIGHTS OF INDUSTRY. 125 Luigi Langirosi, Ludovico Guerri, Luigi di Domenico, Frederico Asio, Eugenio Parletti, Michelo Zottola, Marabim Giso, Emilio Curci, Leopoldo Leposi, Santorio Genaro. All the bills fell due in June and July. Listmann prolonged thus the settlement for another two months, and aprh nous le deluge I It is needless to say that all the bills were again absolutely worthless. But the experiences of the Notary who protested them, were interesting. Strange places that where the bills were domiciled ! The lowest quarters of the town had to be visited, narrow streets climbed, where no carriage could enter. One of the domiciles was a church (Santa Maria Merconiolia), another was a cellar, a third a watchman's box, the remainder low taps, and actually notorious resorts of banditti I Half of the acceptors could not be found at all ; of the remainder, one was a cook out of work, who did not know Listmann at all, another a lad of seventeen, a notorious good-for-nothing, a third a real and genuine Neapolitan lazzaroni. All the bills were signed for a small con- sideration, and it is needless to say that not one of them was taken up. In this case too the greater part of the business letters of the firm of Listmann was written by Ernest Schreck, and signed by him in a disguised hand by procuration. G. H. had made inquiries about Ernest Schreck, and the informations he received gave Schreck a very bad character. In the summer of 1885, Listmann visited the manufacturer personally, and G. H. told him in plain language that it did not inspire great confidence to a firm, if its procurist was a notorious swindler, and if such a character was employed at all. Listmann assured G. H., that he had not known the career of Schreck at the time he engaged him, but that in consequence of certain things which had come to his knowledge, he had dismissed the man, and severed every connection with him; a statement which was proved untrue, as letters and the endorsement of the bills received later on by G. H. from Listmann were in Schreck's handwriting. The total loss in this case amounted to 14,565 marks 49 pf. 5. G. F., a handkerchief-weaver, became the fifth victim. As all the preceding manufacturers, he named Listmann his agent for 126 THE KNIGHTS OF INDUSTRY. Italy, and was soon favoured with sample-orders, which were executed to the 'perfect satisfaction of the Italian firms,' and led to some considerable orders. The manufacturer, however, had made some inquiries, and this led to a refusal on his part to execute, unless some more satisfactory references were given. A protracted correspondence ensued, conducted on the part of the swindlers by Ernest Schreck ; the manufacturer, however, had made some more inquiries, and these induced him to declare finally, that he would only send the goods for 'cash in advance.' Now the head of the great Naples firm, Mr. Louis Listmann, stepped in personally, and told the manufacturer his style of writing and his conditions might do for Polish Jews, but a respectable firm could not accept such disgraceful terms. The righteous indignation of this most respectable firm of Listmann impressed the manager to such a degree, that he forwarded the goods without delay. Listmann sold them directly far below the invoiced price, never paying the manufacturer a single penny. 6. The woollen manufacturer, Mr. F. K, was induced to follow the example of other firms, and to appoint Listmann his agent for Italy. Mr. F. F., however, seemed a little more cautious and less confident, and Listmann, perceiving this, thought it advisable to give at first a few sample orders and pay for them in cash, cal- culating quite correctly that this would alay the distrust of his new customer. As soon as he felt firm ground under his feet, he wrote to the manufacturer on the 23rd December, 1885, in way of a Christmas-present, that he had succeeded to secure for him the custom of 20 firms, who gave a small trial-order of 400 dozen shawls with fringes (lively patterns). For the present, however, the firms did not want to enter for this small trial orders into direct communication with the manufacturer, but wished to receive the goods from the agent for cash on delivery. For this reason, List- mann explained, he gave a cumulative order, and asked for careful execution, as a tremendous sale might be secured. The customers paying cash, Listmann was pleased, as he wrote, to be able to let the manufacturer have a remittance on Berlin or Frankfurt after receipt of goods. The discount demanded by Listmann for this 1 cash transaction ' was rather high, and the manufacturer declared THE KNJGHTS OF INDUSTRY. 127 he could not accept the terms, and declined to execute the order. A correspondence ensued and magnanimous Listmann declared ' he would waive for once his commission, in order to secure the customers.' That settled the matter. The manufacturer sent the goods, Listmann acknowledged the receipt, and said cheque would follow within a few days. Days and weeks and months and years rolled by, but the promised cheque never followed an awful slow travelling, if we consider that since then ten years have passed. Whether Mr. F. F. still expects to get his 7755 marks 73 pf. for his ' lively patterned ' shawls, we do not want to decide. 7. Another firm represented in Italy by Listmann were A. & P. These people were also too cautious for the liking of the Neapolitan sledge-drivers, but not cautious enough for their art- fulness. When Listmann gave his first large order, they had made already inquiries, which turned out far from satisfactory, and they wrote accordingly an explanatory letter to Listmann, dwelling on their 'principles in business,' which led to the demand of 'cover on delivery.' Listmann answered with an equally long and apparently straightforward letter, saying : ' To your principles and your open language no exception can be taken. Your views are also my views, and I shall give you an open and honest answer. I am not a rich man, but, for my circumstances, fairly well situated. My last balance-sheet closed with 52,000 francs in cash on the right side of the ledger, and I hope that the next balancing at the close of 1886 will prove still more satisfactory. At present I have advanced 40,000 francs for customs-dues, which I shall not receive back before the Leipsic Easter-market, but it is a nice round sum for an agent to advance. I 'have a number of friends who are always willing to discount for me good bills from my customers with my indorsement, and often too without it. This enables me to oblige my friends in foreign parts with cash instead of acceptances, if they desire it. To give you encouragement and to facilitate to you the business, I offered you this way of settlement, for candour for candour I made inquiries about you too, and from the enclosed information you will see, that I knew you were beginners and I, as experienced man of business, know what this means. You will understand 128 THE KNIGHTS OF INDUSTRY. that a cautious man of business does not make promises which he is not able to keep. ... I sold a lot of your velvets after samples, and I can discount all the acceptances which I receive in exchange from my customers. This enables me to promise to you, for certain, cheque within 30 days after receipt of goods.' This letter, as most of the correspondence with this firm, was written by Ernest Schreck, and signed in a disguised hand- writing in his name per procura, as he personated the procurator in the intercourse with foreign parts. But A. & P. were cautious ; they were not deceived by the bragging missile of Signer Ernest Schreck, and another similar letter failed also to produce the effect the swindlers desired. Now Listmann entered personally into the action. He wrote with his own hand ' a private letter ' to the firm, bragged again a good deal, but gave as references two well- accredited German manufacturers, who played in the whole affair a very strange part indeed, and one of whom is to this day in the same very strange relationship to Schreck in his present capacity as London ' City merchant.' In consequence of the references given by these two firms, A. & P. decided on executing half the order, and became thus losers to the tune of 4734 marks 12 pf. 8. In this case we find Listmann again the sole agent for J. G. P., a cotton manufacturer. The first act ot the ' honest agent ' was to represent to the manufacturer some of his former customers as 'quite rotten,' and thus to get hold of some small parcels designated for them, which Listmann pretended to ' keep in stock,' but actually sold to his own profit for 1366 francs 40 c., of which J. G. P. never saw a farthing. Listmann obtained further, by fraudulent pretences, from the same manufacturer,- 1.7 parcels of goods, collected and embezzled moneys belonging to the firm, and caused to J. G. P. quite a disastrous loss of 58,784 marks 96 pf. The correspondence in this case was conducted throughout by Ernest Schreck. 9. C. G. H. is a manufacturer of dress materials, and he also entrusted to Listmann the sale of articles for Italy. After the fashion followed in the preceding cases, ' Louis ' acted also THE KNIGHTS OF INDUSTRY. 1 29 against this new victim of his and his confederates. Not trusting to give an order in his own name, he transmitted to the manufac- turer an order purporting to come from the old established firm of Giovanni Malatesta, but declared, the firm had stipulated to get the goods duty-free, and to arrange matters with the Custom-house, Listmann directed the goods and the invoice to be forwarded to him for delivery to Malatesta. These instructions were obeyed, and Listmann in exchange sent remittances on London, accepted by ' Robert Morrison, Manchester,' and ' Jameson, Young & Co., Leith,' all payable at the end of May, 1886. These bills proved fictitious, and the total loss of the firm amounted to 1257 marks 48 pf. Ernest Schreck was also in this case the able correspondent. 10. In the case of S. & Co., manufacturers of dress materials, Listmann used again the name of the firm Malatesta, and suc- ceeded to swindle the manufacturers of goods to the value of 9704 marks 34 pf. ii. Another manufacturer of dress materials, Fr. H., appointed also Listmann as his sole agent. Some small orders were paid promptly, and this made Fr. H. sufficiently confident to execute a large order, amounting to 13,479 marks, 60 pf., for which List- mann sent him London acceptances, payable, as the other bills were, with which he pacified his customers, at the end of May or beginning of June, 1886. It need not be mentioned that all these bills turned out fictitious, and that the manufacturer lost the whole of his claim. 12 & 13. The last two victims were a Bohemian manufacturer, who lost 28,000 francs, and a Bavarian firm, who were dropped infer 102,000 francs. Of these 13 creditors only, the losses could be ascertained; but, no doubt, there were many other manufacturers who had been swindled and who, seeing that there was no chance of recovering anything, did not come forward, and kept their loss quiet. But now the month of May, 1886, had dawned upon the world ; the bills, distributed in such profusion, were soon due, and the volcanic ground of Naples became too hot for the beautiful K 130 THE KNIGHTS OF INDUSTRY. German trefoil, but especially for the two principals, Louis Listmann and Ernest Schreck. Arfest Schreck, who was ' travelling,' was recalled by wire, and after a serious consultation of war, Arfest undertook to ' face it,' for a time, in Naples still, to sell out what there was left, and to cash some bills. But 'Louis' and 'Ernesto' fled. Vede Napoli e poi mori I They had seen beautiful Naples, but they did not feel disposed to die for that. They bid the town good-bye for ever it had seen too much of them and escaped in time, duly warned by persons ' who knew ' the fate that was waiting for them in Italy. Ernest Schreck went to London, and Listmann to Fernambuco ; from thence he fled to Buenos Ay res, and fled again, his whereabouts remaining unknown for many years. But I strongly suspect that the gentleman could have been met in 1894 at the head-quarters of German sledge-drivers in London during a meteoric, short, and brilliant career, and that he gathered there new laurels and another small fortune in the guise of \h& flying Dutchman, adding new glory to his fame. Towards the middle of May, 1886, the swindled manufacturers received the first intimation that ' something was wrong,' by a notification proceeding from a Hamburg solicitor, inviting them to attend a meeting of creditors of the firm of Louis Listmann of Naples, on Sunday, May 23rd, at Nuremberg, when propositions would be made with a view of arriving at an arrangement. The creditors appeared to a man, but who did not come was the debtor, the Schrecks, and the solicitor who had called the meeting together. By this means the swindlers had gained the time required, to bring themselves and their booty in safety. But to Arfest Schreck this did not prove of great avail, for he was soon afterwards cap- tured, and leisure was given him in a German prison for two years, to reflect on his career in sunny Italy. Listmann and Ernest Schreck were indicted criminally by the public prosecutor of Naples and a warrant issued against them, unfortunately without avail. The papers seized on Arfest Schreck proved clearly the con- spiracy of the three criminals, and disproved Ernest Schreck's assertion, that he was no party to the frauds committed by the firm of Listmann, for an agreement, dated April the 24th, 1885, was found, in which the lion's share of the profits of the firm Listmann were secured to the leading spirit, Ernest Schreck. THE KNIGHTS OF INDUSTRY. 13! At the ' dissolution of the partnership ' he received in cash and cheques 67,407 francs i2c. and bills to the value of 46,597 francs 72C., Listmann, however, drew altogether 48,319 francs only of the disponible proceeds of the robbery. Although Listmann and Schreck had entered into an agreement, according to which List- mann had a loan of about 80,000 francs from E. Schreck, it must be understood that this could not be a bonafide transaction, because E. Schreck had been less than two years before a bankrupt. Be- sides, the letters passed between Messrs. Schreck showed the conspiracy between the lot. Arfest Schreck acted finally as receiver of the stolen property. There were difficulties in the way of disposing of the acceptances in possession of the 'firm 'at the time when it closed its career in Naples, and when the two principals had fled. Arfest soon followed their example and went to Germany. With the ultimate design in view to discount the cheques and acceptances, he repaired to Hamburg, and procured a place as clerk at a banking firm in Altona with the salary of 75/- a month. But the salary was of no consideration, the principle thing was the disposal of the bills, of which Listmann had handed to him 60,000 francs in Naples, and sent him other 36,000 francs in 39 acceptances from Rotter- dam, at the eve of his departure to South America. Ernest Schreck forwarded to Arfest from London bills to the value of 37,000 lires, and later on other 16 bills of an unknown amount. It is stating but a well-known fact, that cash transactions are exceptions in the Italian trade three and six months' bills are the usual terms, and the firm of Listmann had to sell at the same conditions. This explains the great amount of bills in their pos- session when the crash came, the disposal of which became rather difficult and risky under the particular circumstances of the case. These difficulties were now removed to a great extent by Arfest's action, who managed in his position as a banking clerk, with the help of a third person, to get the bills successively discounted through a leading banking firm in Altona. During this time Arfest kept up a brisk exchange of letters with his brother Ernest in London, and with his brother-in-law Listmann in America, the correspondence with the latter being conducted through some intermediaries and under assumed K 2 132 THE KNIGHTS OF INDUSTRY. names. All the letters referred almost exclusively to the realiza- tion of the paper-property of the firm. The contents of this correspondence are most interesting, and significant abbreviations are used. So the defrauded creditors are simply called 'the dogs,' and very complimentary epithets are conferred to other hostile parties. Thus Ernest Schreck writes from London to Arfest on the Qth of July, 1886 : ' I hope you will take every precaution that they do not take you by surprise.. You may take it for granted that S. & Co. and their confederates (that means the creditors) will try to do you some harm. I know you are watched, and you are no match for such artful rogues as these detectives are. To List- mann, who is declared a bankrupt, do not make for the present any remittance, else proceedings could be taken against you, because you are initiated in the whole matter.' In answer to this letter, Arfest Schreck wrote to Ernest Schreck : ' I do not think that the dogs have come across the scent. But it is not impossible, and an early change of air will do me good. I hope you will not object to my rather pressing terms with regard to the discounting of the bills, but you must not forget that I obeyed your call to come to Naples without delay, and travelled day and night to come there, knowing the whole time what storm was brewing* About the same time Arfest Schreck received a letter from Listmann, dated Fernambuco, July the i4th, asking for some remittances, and instructing Arfest to enquire whether there was any danger for him in Fernambuco, and if so, to cable to him delightful humour, that does not leave the real sledge-driver even in critical moments ! the one word only, ' asino ' (donkey) ! Arfest made inquiries, and the information he received caused him to wire the ' donkey ' over to Fernambuco and the ' asino ' put List- mann to immediate flight to Buenos Ayres, from whence he wrote to Arfest, asking him to forward to him the money for the discounted bills which had fallen to his share. On the 4th of August Ernest Schreck sent from London a bill of 5,083 lires 70 c., accepted by G. Malatesta di Gennaro in Naples, to Arfest Schreck, with instructions, ' to let this bill pass THE KNIGHTS OF INDUSTRY. through the same hands as the last one of 8,000 francs^ case something went wrong, one person only could bring an ; in which the name of Schreck would not appear, otherwise dogs ' would make use of it.' A few days later he writes to his dear brother again : ' Now with regard to the books, I have considered the matter. I do not want to mix Papa up with my matters, and I do not want to have anything more to do with Germany, and keeping my money there after you have left. It is not convenient to me, and besides too dangerous. As matters stand at present, I prefer to liquidate everything, and to deposit my money here with B. J. & Co., and the L. & C. Bkg. Co. Be therefore kind enough to withdraw the money at the savings-bank as soon as possible, and to send me cheques for it.' Arfest gave at once notice of withdrawal, but he commenced now to claim his ' proper share ;' he refused repeatedly to transmit the money for bills he got discounted, and declared that if his claim was not considered, he would help himself to his share by a ' Turkish forced loan.' In answer Ernest Schreck wrote to him from London the following significant and interesting letter undei the date of igth of July : ' Represent Listmann the matter as I advise you, in a logical manner, and if he consents to let you have from the bills dis- counted up to December 30,000 marks, and if you will act towards me as a brother, I shall do my part and put this matter in order. The money, too, shall not be paid over to me until I furnish you with a legal, definite arrangement come to at Naples. Otherwise let Listmann keep his money, for things half done are not worth these sacrifices ; but a clean matter is worth anything, and he understands this, for he would keep then 35,000 marks in cash, after deduction of all expenses, and when he can move freely again, he can start anything and anywhere, and recover easy enough what he is sacrificing now.' The Schrecks thought they had the cat in the bag already ; but ' man proposes and the Lord disposes,' and misfortune is often swift-footed. Ernest Schreck's suspicion was well-founded, ' the dogs ' had found the scent of Arfest Schreck, and at the very moment when he thought of the ' change of air, ' and had every- J34 THE KNIGHTS OF INDUSTRY. thing prepared to start for South America, he was arrested. In his possession were found nearly ^700 in sovereigns, German gold coins and Bank of England notes, four saving-books repre- senting a deposit of nearly ^3,000 ; his pass-book at Messrs. Baurmeister & Jansen, in Ottensen, showing a balance to his credit of 19,585 marks, and a large number of acceptances from Italian firms. Besides 12 large boxes, filled with valuable goods of different kinds, were ready for shipping and destined to ' take a change of air ' with Arfest Schreck, who intended to start busi- ness in the more congenial clime of the other hemisphere. All the property was seized and transferred with the prisoner to the criminal court at Bautzen, where Arfest Schreck found free board and lodging in jail for two years. Now a law-suit of a very peculiar character was instituted, and fought on both sides with great determination for the possession of the property seized. The creditors of Louis List- mann thought they were entitled to recover the seized proceeds from the robberies to which they had fallen victims, and concur- rently with the pending criminal proceedings against Listmann and the two Schrecks, they joined in a civil action against the three swindlers. The criminal action failed, because the two principal offenders, Listmann and Ernest Schreck, kept successfully in hiding. Arfest Schreck became in prison mentally diseased, and was liberated after two years' detention. He left directly for England, and since that time (1888), nothing was done more in the matter, as the three criminals never set a foot on German soil again, and the German manufacturers were loth to prosecute. If thirteen English manufacturers had been defrauded in such a shameful manner, they certainly would have brought back the three brothers-in-law, and this could have been done easily enough, if the means required for this purpose had been forthcoming. Unfortunately, the Continental manufacturers are too cheese-sparing in such matters ; they do not mind to overload the sledge-drivers with their goods, but if they are cheated, and the matter has to be fought out, their invariable principle is not to throw good money after bad, and to let the swindlers go out scot-free. And so it was in this case too. Nobody was willing to make a sacrifice and to risk anything to bring the scoundrels to justice. Worse still t THE KNIGHTS OF INDUSTRY. 135- To save something at least, they came to an arrangement with the swindlers, and contented themselves with 7,000 marks of the seized moneys, leaving the lion's share to the two Schrecks, and withdrawing the action brought against the latter. How true did the Italian paper, ' II Commercio ' say in the article quoted : ' Where is the conscience of honest people ? Where are 'the men who have an understanding for the important social and moral bearing of such matters ? Who have the courage to speak the truth openly and plainly, who will unmask these swindlers, and call white white; and black black? In the cowardice of the just roots the courage of the wicked. ERNESTO" IN LONDON. THE reader will ask : What became of these three gentlemen ? Have these people reformed, after their lucky escape from the clutches of the law at the skin of their teeth ? Have they turned over a new leaf in the new country ? Well, if they had done so, these lines would have never been written. It would be wrong on my part to call up the ghosts of times passed. Besides, the people, as I must admit, are extremely clever, and I regret sincerely to have to proceed against them in this manner. But shall I, and can I have regard for them ? Had they any regard for their victims? Must I not say to myself: what they have done yesterday to John, they will do to-morrow to Peter. Am I not morally bound to warn fellow-men against these dangerous and heartless people ? First of all I refer once more to the chapter ' More about the Sledge-drivers.' We find there Ernest Schreck a constant visitor at Lothar Lehnert's. This friendship certainly did not spring up till after the year 1889, for in that year Lehnert gave still about Schreck an information which was far from creditable and for which, in reproducing it, I decline to take the responsibility. Lehnert wrote under February xoth, 1889, about Henry Payne & Co., 17, Coleman-street, E.G., under which firm Schreck had established himself at the given address, as follows : ' This firm is established for about 8 months and deals whole- sale in ladies' mantles, stuffs and hosiery. Thanks to the cir- cumstances that German manufacturers are not subscribers to enquiry-offices, and obtain their reports from superficially informed English offices, the firm makes a satisfactory business. The name of the firm is* fictitious. The real name of the proprietor is Schreck, alias Stanley, alias Brown. A few years hence he bolted THE KNIGHTS OF INDUSTRY. 137 from here with a barmaid, and by mistake took some ^5000 of other people's money with him. He was arrested, tried, and sentenced to two year's penal servitude. He is an arch-swindler, buys only carriage-paid on credit, and it cannot be warned against him with sufficient strength. Now the bandits have opened an office too at Aldersgate-street.' I repeat once more, I do not take any responsibility for the correctness of Lehnert's information. Very likely he had heard something of Ernest Schreck's past, but did not know the real facts of the case, and made ' a stew ' of it, which he sent out for a shilling. This information becomes, however, most significant if we compare it with another information given by the same Mr. Lehnert about the same Mr. Schreck, alias Henry Payne & Co., some twelve months later. On March igth, 1891, Lehnert writes, in answer to an enquiry, about H. Payne & Co. : 'This firm is established since 1886, and trades as cloth merchants and commission agents at 17, Coleman-street, and mantle manufacturers at 17, Distaff-lane. Henry Payne is an old and experienced cloth-traveller, has excellent connections with the customers, and is travelling nearly the whole year round. The other proprietor, E. Schreck, is also an excellent man of business. The firm has a fine trade and is developing in a satis- factory manner. The people are respectable and diligent, have a working capital of ^4000, are paying regularly, and are considered good for the credit of ^400 they are asking for. They have their banking-account at the Central Bank.' What was the cause of this remarkable change in the valu- ation of the firm H. Payne & Co. on the part of Mr. Lehnert ? Very strange indeed ! But an explanation may be found in the current account, delivered by Mr. Lehnert to the firm of H. Payne & Co. at the close of the second quarter 1891, where the latter is debited with the following items : 30/3/91 To agency S.W. ^7 10 o Do. do. Kl. ... ... 10 o o Do. do. D. ... ... 10 o o Do. do. R. 500 10/6/91 To goods conto meta ... ... 50 o o Do. To commission D. G. Sch. . 20 o o 138 THE KNIGHTS OF INDUSTRY. I abstain purposely from giving the names, because that might be disagreeable to those who appointed at that time Schreck, respectively H. Payne & Co., their agent at the recommendation of Lehnert. I also abstain from publishing further accounts between the two 'firms.' But the account given discloses quite enough of the relations between the two honest men, and it is further illustrated by the ' confidential ' correspondence exchanged between Lehnert and continental manufacturers. Thus, for ex- ample, Lehnert writes on October i5th to a German firm : ' I have succeeded already to secure for you an excellent agent in the person of the proprietor of the firm of H. Payne & Co., 17, Coleman-street, E.G. Should you come to London, please bring with you a complete sample-collection, that Payne may visit with you the customers and hear personally what they demand.' This letter is written by Opitz and signed by him with L. Lehnert On the 3rd of January, 1894, Lehnert informed the same firm that he would arrive on the yth of the same month in Hof in Bavaria, and that he should like to see there the recipient of his letter. As Opitz had to admit under cross-examination in the police-court at Clerkenwell, he travelled at this occasion under the name of Mr. Lehnert to Hof, where he sojourned at the hotel Prince Regent, personating this gentleman. He left London on the 4th, and arrived on the 6th of January in Hof. On the 8th already he called as ' Mr. Lehnert ' at a manufacturer's in Asch in Bohemia, said he was on a business-tour and thought he would make use of the opportunity, and call personally to recommend the services of his office, if occasion should arise. Now, the fact is, that Lehnert and Opitz knew very well that there was an occasion I For this manufacturer had to proceed, against a London agent of his, who did not pay over the moneys he had collected and had acted otherwise incorrectly, so that he stood in danger of criminal proceedings being taken against him. This matter was the real cause of ' Mr. Lehnert's ' call, yea of his voyage, for this defaulting agent was no one else but H. Payne & Co., that is, his friend Ernest Schreck, and he had to be shielded, and the manufacturer cheated of as much of his money as possible. Exactly as the three confederates had conjectured, the manufacturer fell in the trap THE KNIGHTS OF INDUSTRY. 139 set to him. He considered it quite a happy chance that Mr. Lehnert called, and informed the latter confidentially of the matter against H. Payne & Co. It need not be said that ' Mr. Lehnert' at once offered his services. What followed further we shall read in the following pages. Let us hear what the defrauded and cheated manufacturer says himself : 'In Spring, 1891, my predecessor in business was persuaded by the pressing recommendations and representations of a small manufacturer of our town, Mr. X., to engage H. Payne & Co. in London as his agent. My predecessor had actually no mind to appoint there a representative, and to open connections with the English market, but he gave way to the constant pressure and even entreaties of Mr. X., who acted as mediator in this matter, and engaged H. Payne & Co. as his representatives. When I took over the business in 1891, I was also persuaded by Mr. X. to con- tinue the newly created relations with Payne & Co., and far too late it came to my knowledge, that Payne was identical with Schreck, and that X. was an old friend of his. Payne & Co. gave me occasionally small orders which were always promptly regulated. Up to the end of 1892 the business kept within these small limits, and I did nothing to push it. Then came through Payne & Co. a large order for a well-known Huddersfield firm, which was exe- cuted and the goods were delivered in April. My invoice amounted to 3% Ios - 8d., and the terms were cash within 30 days, with 5/> discount. The account was not paid. I sent repeatedly manufacturer's statement directly tc the Huddersfield firm, and to Payne for transmission to them, but without result, i.e., no notice was taken of my demands. ' Finally I wrote on the i8th of December an energetic letter directly to the Huddersfield firm, and I was, of course, greatly sur- prised when they informed me that the amount had been paid already on the nth September to Messrs. H. Payne & Co. I expressed to Payne my surprise at such irregularity, and he for- warded now to me a settling account, which I could not accept. This impudent and quite arbitrary account closed with a balance of ^325 us. 3d. in my favour, for which amount Payne enclosed cheque. ' I intended to draw a statement, and for this reason 140 THE KNIGHTS OF INDUSTRY. did not acknowledge receipt of cheque, which I paid in at my bank, who informed me after a few days, that the cheque had not been paid. ' Now happened the most remarkable in the whole matter. Some months ago I had received repeatedly prospectus and circulars from the enquiry office of L. Lehnert. At the time when the cheque came back from London I received a visit from Mr. Lehnert, who came to recommend his office personally. Not being aware then of the organisation of the gang of swindlers, I thought the visit of Mr. Lehnert a lucky coincidence, and I did not hesitate to inform him of what had happened with Payne. Lehnert offered me his services in the matter, which I, however, did not accept for the moment, thinking that I could arrange the matter myself. I accordingly wrote to Payne & Co., and gave instructions to my bank to present the cheque once more ; this was done with no other result than the first time, Payne & Co. did not pay. 'In the meantime I had made inquiries about Lehnert at the references given, and the answers being fairly satisfactory, I put the matter into his hands on the loth of January, 1894. I had hardly done so, when I received an information about Lehnert, which very likely would have prompted me not to entrust him with the matter. I became suspicious and urged Lehnert to do some- thing in the matter, and on the 22nd of February he informed me that he had succeeded to obtain from H. Payne & Co. a payment on account, which he transmitted to me after deducting a con- siderable part as his collecting-fee. From this time Lehnert wrote to me only when I reminded him of the matter in an energetic manner. When I found that he was not doing anything in the matter, I demanded the return of the cheque and the other documents. But he always knew how to evade this, and I became daily more and more convinced that he did not act honestly. In this con- viction I was confirmed by his reluctance to bring an action against H. Payne and Co. All my demands in this direction were fruit- less, and when I threatened to put the matter into the hands of a solicitor, he advised me to come to an arrangement with H. Payne & Co., and offered me in full settlement of my claim ^100. I refused this offer, and demanded once more most energetically the THE KNIGHTS OF INDUSTRY. 141 return of the cheque, with which demand he finally complied in September, 1894. In the meantime, the articles about the 'Sledge-drivers' had appeared in the ' Cologne People's Gazette,' which made me conscious at once to what miserable and swindling devices I, with many others, had fallen a victim. I understood now the 'accidental' visit of Mr. Lehnert, and many other things which I could not explain to myself before.' I may remark here at once that the manufacturer X., who in- duced the writer of the preceding letter and his predecessor in business to appoint ' H. Payne & Co.' as their agent, was an intimate friend of Schreck, and was one of his and Listmann's references at the time of their Neapolitan campaign. From Lehnert's letters in this matter a few short extracts only. Directly at the return from his flying visit to Germany, Opitz wrote on the nth January, 1894, to the manufacturer in the name of Lehnert : 'Referring to our conversation at my visit, I beg to inform you that I have just returned to London again. I find that your order for collecting your claim at H. Payne & Co.'s has not arrived yet. During my absence, however, some inquiries regarding H. P. & Co. have come to hand, and I have made careful inquiries into the position of the firm.' On the 20th of March Opitz-Lehnert writes again : ' Of course I could have brought an action against H. Payne & Co., but I thought it better for your interests to wait with it, because, under present circumstances, I do not think it would lead to any result, and believe that it is better for you to give the people a little more time, and try to get further payments on account, to such an extent and as often as possible.' From this and other material referring to H. Payne & Co., it is clearly established, that Lehnert knew perfectly well the real character of Ernest Schreck. In spite of this, he did not hesitate to call, in the matter of B. Arnold & Co., the firm of H. Payne & Co. a most respectable one, and he did so during the time laying between Opitz's flying visit to Asch and the date of the last quoted letter. Lehnert was quite aware who had given 'B.Arnold & Co.' a reference, when he engaged the office at Guildhall-chambers, and he knew too who had introduced B. Arnold & Co. at the bank. He was perfectly informed that no one else but Ernest Schreck, as H. Payne & Co., had given these references, that Ernest Schreck 142 THE KNIGHTS OF INDUSTRY was personally present, when this ' Arnold,' whom Lehnert later on 'identified' as de Groot, took the office; that Schreck had personally introduced this ' Arnold ' at the bank, and that these two men were constantly in each other's company. What value is to be put on the references given by H. Payne & Co., may be safely left to the judgment of those concerned. A warning is needless. Lehnert simply adjusted his informations to the requirements of his confederates. The reader is just asked to compare the last- quoted of Lehnert's information about H. Payne & Co. with the following about B. Arnold & Co., given under the 8th of February, 1894, to a customer who had become suspicious about this firm. Lehnert writes : ' Having reported to you about this firm once before, I have very little to add. What I ascertained since then about the firm is the following. About Arnold's own means very little is known in the City, excepted that he opened with excellent introductions an account at the City Bank. His account has been kept in perfect order, and the bank knows absolutely nothing to the disadvantage of the firm. In consequence of a great many enquiries which came to my hands lately, I took occasion to call personally at Arnold's, to convince myself with regard to his solvency, and to his ways of settling accounts, and I found that up to the present he has made considerable purchases, if also to smaller amounts only, and that he paid for them regularly within 30 days. B. Arnold says he is settling accounts for larger purchases in accord- ance with the customs of the Indian trade, and as long as he follows this rule, the execution of his orders amounting to some hundred pounds offers very little or no risk.' This information is crammed with untrue statements like a tasty christmas-pudding with peel and raisins. The excellent introductions at the bank reduced themselves to Messrs. H. Payne & Co., recte Ernest Schreck. The state- ment that the bank 'knows absolutely nothing to the disadvantage of the firm,' is false. Lehnert knew that the City Bank at that time had already closed the account of B. Arnold & Co. Leh- nert's oft repeated statement, that he had made personally inquiries at the bank is equally false ; he never inquired, as the manager of THE KNIGHTS OF INDUSTRY. 143 the bank is willing to confirm at any time. Lehnert's assertion, however, that he saw Arnold personally, is not to be doubted. But it was not his first visit, as he tries to make his customers believe ; he was very often transacting business with ' B. Arnold & Co.,' and of what kind, he, Schreck, and 'Arnold,' know best. But if Lehnert asserts that he had convinced himself that ' all purchases were regularly paid within 30 days,' he speaks the untruth again, for at that time ' Arnold ' had already defrauded a considerable number of German manufacturers, and many invoices had not been paid. Having seen how Lehnert and Schreck had performed the sword-dance together from 1889 to 1895, it will be easier to under- stand the following conspiracy enacted by the two against a German enquiry-office, Messrs. Schmeisser & Co., and a Saxon manufacturer. But I am happy to state, gay ' Lothario ' and earnest ' Ernesto' failed in this enterprise. The conspiracy of the two was the following : At Lehnert's instance the Saxon firm entrusted to H. Payne & Co. the sale of their goods for some districts of England, London included. Lehnert at this occasion had given the information about H. Payne & Co. which was quoted before, to the Berlin enquiry-office in whose employ he was, and this again had supplied it to the Saxon manufacturer. This occurred at the time when Lehnert debited in his books H. Payne & Co. with different amounts for procuration of agencies, and as among the latter the name of the Saxon firm is mentioned, and ^5 put opposite it, I think I am not far wrong in saying that this $ were the reward for giving the good report about H. Payne & Co. The Saxon manufacturer had at that time no connection with Lehnert's firm ; he received the information through the inquiry office in Berlin, and had no idea that Lehnert was their correspondent, and that the information actually emanated from him. The reader, however, will see for himself through the artful conspiracy, when, later on, the swindlers are speaking for themselves in their letters. First of all I shall reproduce a letter which the Saxon manu- facturer addressed to Messrs. Schmeisser & Co. It is dated March the yth, 1892, and reads as follows : ' In December last Payne wrote to me that the firm of Lang 144 THE KNIGHTS OF INDUSTRY. Brothers in Manchester would buy a large parcel of goods, if I would agree to a certain price. If willing to do so, I should wire to that effect, and forward the goods on the same day, via Flushing. This left me no time to make enquiries ; but I did not hesitate to execute the order, as cheque was promised on receipt of goods, and former transactions with or through Payne, about whom I had received first-class references, had gone in perfect order. ' I accordingly dispatched the goods without delay, but en- quired at the same time about Lang Brothers at Manchester, and this information was so bad, that I gave immediately in- structions to Payne & Co. not to deliver the goods to Lang Brothers, and I was confirmed in this decision as Payne had notified to me that the firm would not pay by cheque after receipt of goods, but by two and three months' bills. At the same time I asked Payne to return to me my sample-collection. Payne's answer from January nth you will find enclosed. My answer was, that I did not feel disposed to enter into arguments, but that I would bring in an action, if my account was not settled within a fortnight. Since then Payne & Co., and later on their solicitors, have written to me, threatening first with an action, and proposing afterwards to have the matter settled by arbitration. ' It seems to me as if I had fallen in the hands of people whose character renders it not advisable to accept such a propo- sition. I hope, however, that your influence will prove sufficient to convince these people that it is advisable for them to satisfy my claim. Independent of the case of Lang Brothers, I had at a former occasion another case, regarding Samuel Brown at Man- chester. You gave me a very unsatisfactory information about this firm. I refused accordingly to execute an order of Brown's that was sent to me by Payne, and I complied with his request to execute the order only after he had declared himself respon- sible for the amount. Later on Brown gave another, larger order, but I refused most energetically to execute it. Payne tried to force me by some brutal writing, but I remained firm in my refusal, and four weeks later Brown was a bankrupt. 'These two cases, and the circumstance that Payne & Co. always tried to palm off on me orders for their own account, have THE KNIGHTS OF INDUSTRY. 145 ripened my resolution to break off at once my connection with their firm. .After what had happened, I think I was perfectly entitled to do so, and to my opinion, no Court of Justice and especially no English Court of Justice would order me to pay damages to Payne.' Lehnert being at that time the confidential correspondent and agent of the Berlin enquiry-office, the latter sent to him the original letter of the manufacturer, and instructed him to collect the money due from Payne. Now happened an unheard of thing. Lehnert went with the letter of the Saxon manufacturer to Payne & Co., and this ' firm ' snatched, as he declared to his employers, the letter from his hand, and used it for the purpose of trying to extort damages up to ^5000 from the manufacturer, in threatening him with an action for libel. How it was worked will be seen by the following correspondence. The first letter comes from Lehnert, and is addressed to the Berlin enquiry-office. He writes under the date of the 7th of April, 1892 : ' In consequence of the remarks in your own handwriting, I have taken particular trouble with this matter and have made the most searching enquiries, to save myself all reproaches a la Lewin. On the strength of the communications contained in X.'s letter, which I regarded as correct, I 'gave it hot ' to Payne & Co., and brought them into such a rage that they were quite beside them- selves. I regret of having been misled by such a fine firm as X. are, who have quite misrepresented the facts, and if I had known the truth, I should have proceeded differently. Payne are now decided to bring the matter to a head, and will spare no expenses and troubles to prove to me, respectively to you, that they have the right on their side. ' To speak confidentially, the whole mischief originates from wrong information supplied to you from Manchester. To my regret, I find, for some time already, that you are not favouring me any more with enquiries from the provinces, and the correspondent you are employing has through his want of experience caused a very serious mischief, for Lang are far from being ' rotten ', as he says, and I have learned myself from Payne's books, that he sold to them last year goods to the amount of ,1670, which were promptly L 146 THE KNIGHTS OF INDUSTRY. paid,* X. has decidedly placed himself in this matter in a false position. According to English law he has no right to dismiss an agent without notice, without arriving at an arrangement with him beforehand. The law is that, when no special agreement is made, notice must be given from season to season. Payne are accor- dingly entitled to bring here an action for damages. That X. is living in Germany does not interfere with the matter. In spite of this they can bring an action against him in London, and when the summons has been served on him in Germany, and he does not put in an appearance at the day of the trial, judgment by default for any amount can be obtained against him. It certainly cannot be executed in Germany, but it can be acted upon in England, and X., therefore, could not send any more goods to England, as he might expect to see them seized any moment on the strength of the judgment of the English court. I, therefore, advise him in his own interest not to take the matter too easy, and to come to a decent arrangement with Payne. P. have promised me not to take action until they have heard from me again. Payne are firmly convinced that they are in the right, and it is most ad- visable to act diplomatically. I for my part must confess, that I would not permit anyone to treat me as they were treated, and this the more, as Payne have always guarded his interests in every regard. When Mistrowski came into difficulties, and X. was en- gaged with 200 they fought like lions and finally saved him every farthing, when all the other creditors had to content them- selves with 33^ per cent. ' At any rate, you will be well advised to forward to X. the enclosed newspaper-cutting from the ' Law Times ' of March the 1 2th, 1892, by which he will see, that a foreign firm, in spite of all their objections, may be sued in an English court of justice. ' However, Payne has written directly to you and forwarded, too, all the papers and documents referring to the case, which he had printed for his impending law-suit already, and by looking through these papers, you will gain a clear insight into the matter. But I am anxious to hear soon what you think of the * It is significant, that this firm a few weeks after this letter had been written, was de- clared bankrupt. THE KNIGHTS OF INDUSTRY. 147 matter, and whether you are still of the opinion expressed in your letter of the xoth. At any rate, P. have convinced me by documen- tary evidence, that X. has misrepresented the facts to you. He declares that the order he received in December, '91, was so pressing that he could not make enquiries regarding Lang Brothers, but this firm was very well known to him already since April, '91, and Payne themselves had given him in May, '91, a report about this firm which was far from very satisfactory ! ! ! ' I return you too the original letter of X., dated 7/3/92, that you may compare the assertions contained therein with the printed letters. (In red ink). ' My expenses for nearly a whole day's loss of time to inves- tigate the matter thoroughly, writing reports, postage, etc., amount already to 25 marks.' Very likely Lehnert would have thought twice before writing this letter, if he had known that Schreck, (H. Payne & Co.) had addressed on the 2nd of April already the following letter to the Berlin enquiry -office : ' Your correspondent, Mr. Lehnert, has handed over to us a letter addressed to you by Mr. X., under the date of the 7th m.p.,* under the condition, and with the request, to furnish him with documentary evidence to disprove the calumnies contained therein, or else, if X. was right and we were wrong, to give him cheque for the amount claimed. ' We have complied with this demand, as you will find by en- closed papers, and we have returned him too the letter of X. after we had taken from it 50 fac-similes, of which we had verified four by a public notary. ' Mr. Lehnert, who is employed by us in particular cases, and who, accordingly, is connected with us in a similar manner as he is with you, has shown us in confidence, as this was his well-understood duty, your letter, and we must confess to you that the contents of the same have surprised us in so far, as we would have expected from the chief of an institute of such a repute and such an impor- tance as your's, that he would think before he writes. Amongst experienced and respectable people it is, as you may * It is the letter which in Lehnert's version was snatched from his hand by the 'firm' of H. Payne & Co. L 2 148 THE KNIGHTS OF INDUSTRY. know, a rule, first to inquire into a matter, and then to judge. You have done the latter, but you have omitted to do the former, and your remark, of which we have taken careful notice, ' that these people do not pay over the money they collect,' is really simply revolting. We have very often received cheques for Mr. X., and he will confirm, that we always transmitted them promptly. Regarding the 19 now in question, we have informed the man already on the 3oth of January, that in consequence of his action we would hold and not pay over that amount, and we have also promptly informed the man that this amount had been paid to us on the i gth of February, and that we intended to keep it. If you can name to us another London firm, who would have acted differently under similar circumstances, the cheque is at your service. But you will face with this and other rash conclusions like the notorious ox on the mountain. ' Having taken the liberty to pass derogatory remarks about us in your letter to your London correspondent, you will have to put up with hearing our opinion, and this is, that we should really pity the firms who are relying on your informations, if you are always acting in such a hasty manner, and dispatching your business in such a way. 'The report of Mr. Lehnert about yourself is a guarantee to us that you will read now the papers without prejudice against us and then judge impartially, and also that you will be honest enough to admit openly your error. ' This letter is written with no animosity at all. ' We know that you are not personally responsible, and that you acted bonafide in giving the information about Lange, which caused the whole mischief. 'The firm X. ought to have given you an opportunity to inquire into the truth of our reclamation and the details given at the same time, and the whole conflict with all its consequences for X. would have been avoided. ' But your hasty remarks with such people are not justifiable, even if written under the influence ofX.'s epistle and in a momen- tary passion, and this especially on the part of a gentleman of your experience in such matters, and of so great a moral responsibility. ' In thinking calmly, you will find so much, and to prevent a THE KNIGHTS OF INDUSTRY. 149 further correspondence and other steps, we expect from you a clear and concise direct answer to our letter. ' Yours, etc., Henry Payne & Co. ' P.S. We regard this letter as private, and neither Lehnert nor X. have received a copy of it, but we have left it to the dis- cretion of the former to peruse it in our copy-book.' The following letter was addressed by H. Payne & Co. to the Saxon firm at about the same time : ' We wrote to you for the last time on the 5th of March, and in answer we received through Mr. Lehnert, the London representative of the Berlin enquiry-office of W. Schmeisser & Co., the letter which you addressed to the latter on the yth inst., with the request to furnish either refuting documents or forward cheque for 4.2 75. 2d. ' We regret sincerely that a firm of apparent respectability as your's, can go astray so far, and we consider it our duty towards ourselves and our fellow-men, you included, not to foster the further development of such evident moral aberations and their con- sequences, by writing out the cheque demanded, but to make you take, through our solicitor, an English Pill, the three-fold ingredients of which, to use figurative language, shall have, for good or bad digestion, a disinfecting, cooling, and finally tonic effect. ' We comply now with the demand of your representative, and refute logically and by documentary evidence the distortions and grave untruths contained in your letter of the yth p.m. ' You are mentioning three causes why you take the agency from us, and you allege they are a justification for your action. ' These three causes are according to your statement : I. ' The case Lang Brothers, as mentioned in your letter. ' To this we have to remark : 1. 'That you knew Lang Brothers a long time before you sent the goods. 2. 'We are not responsible that Lang Brothers demanded, con- trary to our first arrangement (cash on delivery), 3 or 4 months' time, and we gave them 2 and 3 months' accep- tance. Such things happen every day, and are of no consequence in your branch of business. We have, 150 THE KNIGHTS OF INDUSTRY. accordingly, acted quite correctly, or have you still to find fault with something ? 'The enquiries you made, and the information you re- ceived about Lang Brothers were worthless. It may be ex- pected that you have at least so much sense as to under- stand, that we must be better informed, doing business with the people, than an enquiry-agent who hears the name of the firm for the first time and supplies a shillings- worth of trash to the Berlin enquiry-office. Your action in this matter was accordingly simply provoking and ' extra stupid\ as we also said in our letter of the nth January, which you will find printed on page 17 of the enclosed papers.* ' There is no excuse or evasion. II. ' Case of Samuel Brown, Manchester. ' In this matter you show your real character, for it requires a great deal of depravity to write such a thing and especially to an enquiry-office. Brown's large order amounted to ^20. You do not mention this, and also not that we required Brown at your instance to pay cash, and that we took the responsibility for this amount. You are also suppressing the fact that Brown fell a victim with other large firms to a crisis in the waterproof trade, f III. ' The third case you plead in justification of taking from us your agency is, that, as you say, Payne always try to press on me orders for their own account. ' You show yourself in this case in the same miserable light. We gave three orders only for our mantle manufactory. The first and second we returned to you, because of delayed delivery, the third we cancelled for the same reason. Will you tell us now, how we pressed our orders on you ? If you had suspected that your * It will be remembered that the firm of Lang Brothers, in spite of the ' better information ' of Messrs. H. Payne & Co., became bankrupt and was dissolved a few weeks later. t Mr. X.'s information regarding Brown was correct too, and disproved all what Schreck (H. Payne & Co.) had to say about this firm to induce Mr. X. to execute Brown's orders. THE KNIGHTS OF INDUSTRY 151 letter will come into our hands, you certainly would have given more plausible and less ridiculous causes for your malice.* ' We do not believe that you really are the stupid German Michael who you pretend to be in your letter to the Berlin enquiry- office, but we truly believe to know your motives, aims and ends of your malice, and we shall prove this in an English court of justice. ' Now to the consequences : 1. ' The miserable way how you acted render it a necessity to disinfect your dirty linen, which our solicitor will have to wash in a short time ; this has cost already a lot of time, trouble, work and expenses, for which you alone are responsible, and for this, we mean for the disinfection (ist edition), we debit you in our currentaccount with ^50. 2. ' According to English law we demand one season's notice, and we claim on this count ^300. 3. ' P'or loss of commission on orders which you are now executing, we claim ^100. 4. 'In spite of our conciliatory and just attitude you have written your letter of the jth p. m. to the Berlin enquiry- office. This letter contains serious misrepresentations, direct untruths and vile slanders ; it is addressed to a first-class Berlin enquiry-office, that is to an institute where, as you must have been aware, and as you were too, such a communication was bound to do us serious harm, the consequences of which in this case could not be gauged and measured. 'The seriousness of your action is further increased by your suppression of the fact that we have rendered you in the matter of Mistrowski a real service, and you will have difficulties to explain how, after having received, at yourown admission, first-class references only about our firm, you can say now, that you had fallen into the hands of people with whom it is dangerous to agree even to arbitration. * Mr. X.'s assertion that Payne were pressing on him orders for their own account, does not refer to the orders for the mantle factory at all, but to Payne giving orders in their own name and selling the goods at higher prices to Mr. X.'s customers in England. This he stated dis- tinctly in his letter of January gth, 1892, to Payne & Co., as the principal cause why he dis- solved his connection with them as his agents. 152 THE KNIGHTS OF INDUSTRY. ' The malice is a little clumsy, but we shall take care to have the motives brought out properly. * Your letter, accepted by the Berlin enquiry-office, as if your claim had been as correct as a manufacturer's statement, was sent in the ordinary course of business to their London correspondent, and this brings you civilly and criminally in the clutches of the English law of libel, and you will feel something of a cold shudder after you have informed yourself what this law of libel means for you, with regard to money, and may be criminally. ' It is no business of ours to give you the information you require ; we leave this to you, and you will hear that nobody can save you. ' To collect the amount of damages, you may trust to us ; it will give us exceptional pleasure to prove to you in this regard our capabilities. 'Our claim ad 4 is ^1,000 *br this special libel ; if we should find out some more libels, we shall increase our claim in adequate proportion. ' We shall give you time to consider the matter and to make enquiries, up to April the i5th; if we do not receive then a cheque for ^1450 in addition to the ^42 you are claiming through the Berlin enquiry-office, and for which we have a counter-claim, and if you have not surrendered until then at discretion and declared your unconditional acceptance of all other conditions we may impose, we shall serve you with a writ, and then the matter will cost you about ^3000, and we shall look to it that the money is paid.' When the 1 5th of April passed and the cheque for ^1450 did not arrive, and when the ' friendly advice ' of Mr. Lehnert was not heeded, H. Payne & Co. increased their claim to ^5000, and put the matter in the hands of their solicitor, who threatened to take immediate action. But the Berlin enquiry-office and the Saxon manufacturer were not to be frightened into submission. They had seen clearly through the devices of Mr. Schreck and Mr. Lehnert, and had recognised that these two gentlemen tried their hands at a game of extortion. Mr. X. accepted service of writ, and the rest was silence. The two noble confederates buried their battle-axe, and nothing was heard more of H. Payne & Co.'s THE KNIGHTS OF INDUSTRY. 153 ' English pill,' of their claim, and of their action. As soon as Mr. X. shew fight, they considered discretion the better part of valour, and withdrew. The infamous part, however, which Lehnert had played from the moment when the confidential letter confided to him by his employer was ' snatched from his hand,' caused the Berlin enquiry-office to dismiss him, and this decision was the easier arrived at, as a short time ago Lehnert had played them a perfidious trick with his other confederate, G. Opitz, of whom we shall hear later on. THE ENQUIRY-OFFICE L LEHNERT, alias 1 LIMAN & CO.' IN the two articles of the 'Cologne People's Gazette' devoted to the enquiry-office of L. Lehnert and Liman & Co., I observed a certain reserve, because I could not believe that a man in the responsible position of an enquiry-agent, to whose hands actually the fate of many young and striving firms is entrusted, should be- come a party to such abominable swindles. I had, certainly, for years past received complaints from German manufacturers regarding Lehnert, but no really serious case came to my knowledge, and I, accordingly, felt disposed to regard these complaints as petty denunciations, of which, unfor- tunately, German manufacturers become often guilty by their neglect of inquiring thoroughly into matters. However, I took careful notes of all, and kept my own counsel. Lehnert I had not seen in my life before I confronted him at the occasion of my trial. With the same feeling of incredulity and reserve I received the accusations that were made against Lehnert in September, 1894, by the London agent of a German manufacturer, an Englishman, who called on me after he had tried for a fortnight in vain to find my address. The manufacturer had, before that, already put heaven and earth in motion he had applied to the German Consulate General in London, with many other victims of the long-firm swindler B. Arnold & Co. ; he had also sought the assistance of 'Scotland Yard,' but everywhere he received the poor consolation that nothing was to be done, because the proofs were wanting. The fact was, that nobody took the trouble to procure these proofs. In- Germany, the public prosecutor would have taken up the mat- ter at the expense of the public exchequer ; but in England such LOTHAIR LEHNERT (after a Photograph). 'I hope you know me when we meet again,' Shakespeare. THE KNIGHTS OF INDUSTRY. 155 a prosecution is left to the private individual, and that surpasses the comprehension of the German manufacturer, because it is against the German custom, and puts the prosecutor to such expenses, as are equally foreign to German notions. The German manufacturer had read many of my articles, and there the idea struck him, that I would be the right man to take up the matter. The agent submitted to me some letters which really amoun- ted to a most serious indictment. But the proofs were wanting, and I declared, I could and would not believe in Lehnert's guilt until substantial proofs were given. The agent then took me to the solicitors Messrs. Osborn & Osborn, Exchange-chambers, Copt- hall-avenue, E.G., who were perfect strangers to me. These gentlemen, the agent told me, were in possession of documents implicating Lehnert in a most serious manner. Mr. Albert Osborn then actually produced some documents, of which I commenced to extract notes, but he stopped me from doing so, explaining that he could not let me do so without the permission of the owner of these documents. I asked who the owner was, and Mr. Albert Osborn mentioned a Mr. Hesse, who formerly had been an intimate friend of Mr. Lehnert. I went now with the agent to Mr. Hesse, to obtain from him in the first instance the permission to take copies from the documents deposited with Messrs. Osborn & Osborn, and secondly to ask him for some explanations. Mr. Hesse told me, he would first consult his solicitors Messrs. Osborn & Osborn, but he complied with my other request, and informed me how he had obtained possession of the documents. He said : ' I was formerly in partnership [with my brother as M. & E. Hesse, and we had a flourishing business which brought us every year some thousand pounds of clear profit. In 1885 we had transactions with M. Sugar & Co., and the heavy loss we sustained through this firm, combined with other losses, led to the ruin of our business. The principal proprietor of the firm of Sugar & Co. fled the country, and we did not save a single penny. At present the fugitive of former days is the partner in an enquiry-office. But you know how cautious one must be in making such assertions, and I must leave it to you to take your informations from the documents at Messrs. Osborn &. Osborn, if those gentlemen advise me that I may permit you to do 156 THE KNIGHTS OF INDUSTRY. so. These documents came in a very strange manner into my possession. A friend of mine, a Mr. Berliner, took care of some papers for a Mr. Zucker. Mr. Berliner died, and at the request of his sister, I looked through the papers he left behind, and at this occasion I found the papers now at Messrs. Osborn & Osborn, the perusal of which is certain to greatly amuse you. The matters are, in fact, so interesting that they ought to be published. I intended to do so already, but one of the concerned parties threatened with an action. Not to be taken by surprise, I brought the whole of the papers to the solicitors. If I could find only this ' Rollo,' the correspondent of the ' Cologne People's Gazette,' I would hand all the papers to him, that he might bring a little more light into the matter. I have here a few numbers of the ' Cologne People's Gazette,' where similar things are disclosed.' I asked Mr. Hesse whether he would let me have the papers for a consideration, but he replied, ' London did not contain money enough to induce him to do so.' ' But,' he inquired suspiciously, ' what do you want with these papers, and why are you taking notes? Has a Mr. Lehnert or a Mr. Opitz sent you ? ' I appeased Mr. Hesse by assuring him that I did not know either Lehnert or Opitz, and that I had only heard very much of these two gentlemen. I told him further, I had an interest to ob- tain detailed information about these two, because I had heard of Opitz having done much harm in company with a certain Sugar, a man named Schiitz and other swindlers, by very extensive long- firm swindling. Mr. Hesse remarked my information was quite correct, but he would have to see first his solicitors before giving me the permission to take copies of the documents. I would understand this precaution, he said, because he did not know who I was, and for what purpose I required the copies. I had to leave without having obtained my object, because Mr. Hesse, as he told me afterwards, entertained a suspicion that I had come as a spy sent by Lehnert, who had become his enemy since he knew of the documents being in Mr. Hesse's possession. After I had taken copies of the documents, of which I am now publishing a part, I instituted the most searching and extensive inquiries with the result, that I gained the conviction of having discovered two most dangerous swindlers. Lehnert I felt dis- THE KNIGHTS OF INDUSTRY. 157 posed to consider the less guilty party, in fact, a misled man, and this explains and excuses the moderate language I used with regard to him in my two articles containing the disclosures. But after having made personally, and by correspondence, further researches in England and Germany, in which undertaking the ' Cologne People's Gazette ' rendered the greatest service, I must confess that the case of the enquiry-office, Lehnert-Liman, and of the two pro- prietors, Lehnert and Opitz, assumed far more serious features than I had anticipated. For this reason I do not hesitate to disclose the part of the two heroes ' from the cradle to the grave.' Lothar Anton Lehnert was born on December i3th, 1850. His mother was Hortensia Lehnert, and who his father was is not known. His mother married later on, became divorced, and married for a second time. In 1870 Lehnert left Berlin, where he had lived at a Mr. Wichmann's, 13, Karlstrasse. He gave notice to the police that he was going to London, from whence, according to his statement, he returned on the 6th of January, 1875, to Berlin, taking lodgings at 13, Markgrafenstrasse. During these five years of his absence from Berlin he was, however, in Vienna too, and the information he gave about himself to the police is incorrect, for he did not return to Berlin from London, but from Vienna. About his sojourn in Vienna strange stories have reached me, but my informants not being able to prove their queer assertions by documentary evidence, I prefer to pass the matter over in silence. Lehnert remained then in the German capital up to 1882, excepted a few months he spent in 1880 in Stettin, and notified in 1882 to the police his departure to Vienna. During his stay in Berlin he married a young lady who was engaged as singer, Miss Lambert with name, at the Reichshallen Theatre, and he lived with her for two months in apartments at the tailor Genske, 7, Koch- strasse. Lehnert was at that time without occupation and was kept by the earnings of his young wife. His visits to Vienna, and later on to Amsterdam, were apparently connected with the profession of his wife, who appeared in both towns on the stage. On the 2nd of May, 1884, Lehnert and his wife notified to the Berlin police their departure for Liverpool, and this must be considered the date of his emigration to England. This agrees too with the statement Lehnert made under oath when examined at my trial in the Central 158 THE KNIGHTS OF INDUSTRY. Criminal Court, and in which he asserted, he had immigrated to England in 1884, and had established his enquiry-office in 1886. His wife performed in 1884 in Liverpool, and later on in London, where Lehnert obtained a situation as clerk at the firm ofBrasch& Rothenstein. In 1885 he was suddenly dismissed for reasons which, in my opinion, were not well founded, at least, the state- ments made to me, are so confused and contradictory that I would commit an injustice in repeating them and parading them as true. In the same year, and shortly after his dismissal from Brasch & Rothenstein, he was appointed by Messrs. Jahnke & Fdlsch, forwarding-agents in Hamburg, their London agent, with a yearly salary of ^200. After the first year already this salary, however, was reduced to 100, because his activity did not come up to the expectations of his employers. He asked then Messrs. Jahnke & Folsch for the permission to establish an enquiry-office, and to use the address of their office. But long ago Lehnert had actually started this business already, without asking their permission, as ' Liman & Co.' at his private address, i, Millbrook-road, Brixton, S.W., an address that hardly can be called an appropriate one for an enquiry-office. It is, therefore, very significant that Mr. Lehnert, after having received the permission of his employers to establish an enquiry-office, did not transfer his already established office to the City, but left ' Liman & Co.' at Brixton, and opened another office under his name L. Lehnert, at 14, Trinity-square, E.G., where, besides of Jahnke & Folsch, known to the latter, also a third firm had their abode. I may state here that at that time Mrs. Lehnert acted as clerk to her husband. I have a great many in- formations in my possession which are written in her handwriting, and this enables me to say that also a part of the letters of the notorious swindling firm Hart & Co., were written by Mrs. Lehnert. Since 1885 Lehnert was closely connected with a great number of such long-firm swindlers, and if I do not say he was their partner, then I simply omit to state a fact for which internal evidence is in my possession. I could go even farther, for proofs are not wanting, that he also caused some ' long-firms ' to be started by his friends, really celebrated members of the fraternity. He was on most in- timate terms with ' Bernard & Co.,' and passed daily hours in their office ; he also visited Holm at the time this unfortunate man, who THE KNIGHTS OF INDUSTRY. 159 was convicted of fraud and died in prison, was still established in Sun-street. Holm was also connected with Opitz, Schiitz and Zucker, as partner in the firm of Bernard & Co. After the dis- solution of this firm and the flight of Schiitz, Lehnert was a daily and most regular visitor at Zucker's office, who had opened a new 'firm' under thestyle of 'Morris Brandt & Co., 'at 20 Coleman-street, and the house-keeper says, Lehnert was in his daily visits as punctual as clockwork. What business had he at this swindling firm ? The cheques of Morris Brandt & Co. furnish the answer. * Morris Brandt & Co.' departed in peace, and like a ' jack-in- the-box ' Mr. Zucker, alias Sugar, reappeared ' round the corner' as Messrs. 'Hart & Co.,' of which event in the career of this gentleman with many aliases we spoke already in a preceding chapter. Before this strange transformation scene was enacted, Lehnert, however, took the precaution to discourage the creditors of Morris Brandt & Co. from troubling themselves about the vanished firm, and from going to the expense of taking proceedings. To this purpose he gave to the enquiry-offices who employed him as their London agent, the following report : '24/9/86, Morris Brandt & Co., London, E.G., 20, Coleman- street. I have very little to add to my telegram 'Ceres Mars dubious agents without means.' The firm was established a few months ago, apparently they are representing a house at Plauen, but they do not get any orders, and are not anxious to do business. The firm is a fictitious one, and is breathing their last, because they will be turned out in the course of the next days for arrears of rent.' ' Private : If the customer who addressed this inquiry to you is not a banker, then he is rotten. Morris Brandt & Co. are offering by advertising paper-credit against i i commission, and your customer, very likely, has obtained such an acceptance for a consideration of 60 marks. These bills are marked with rubber stamps as payable at the London Continental Bank.' This report was written by Lehnert himself. It served his purpose in every regard. He showed himself well informed by the postscript to his letter ; he knew events would prove his infor- mation true with regard to the firm enquired after; he let the people know that Morris Brandt & Co. had absolutely nothing, and that it !6o THE KNIGHTS OF INDUSTRY. was useless to proceed against them, and to throw 'good money after bad.' It was a correct information, perfectly true, and yet how untrue and deceitful ! Why did not Lehnert say who ' Morris Brandt & Co.' was ? Why did he not say : ' It is the notorious swindler Zucker, who has cheated you already as Martin Sugar & Co., as Bernard & Co., and under other aliases.' Mr. Lehnert was very careful not to betray this little secret, for what would become of the new firm, which was being hatched at this time already ? Should he tell the truth and cut in his own flesh by ruining his dear friend Zucker, who was presenting him with cheque after cheque ! On the loth of June, 1887, he received still from Morris Brandt & Co. a cheque under his, Lehnert's, name (of which will be found a facsimile on the following leaf). But how many cheques were given to him under other names ? I have quite a collection of these cheques, all drawn by Morris Brandt & Co., and payable to a number of different persons at the London & North Western Bank, and all these different persons were Mr. Lehnert, and all the different signatures were his, according to the opinion of Mr. Thomas Henry Gurrin, the well-known expert, to whom I had these cheques submitted through my solicitors, Messrs. Osborn & Osborn. The same opinion was expressed by Mr. Gurrin with regard to the cheques of Hart & Co. When this new firm had blossomed forth in the place of ' Morris Brandt & Co.,' and had transferred their quarters from Coleman-street to Lime-street, as described in the ' Cologne People's Gazette,' Lehnert was again the faithful friend and adviser of Mr. Zucker in his new guise. The two ' gentlemen ' met every morning in a small coffee-shop near Lehnert's office in Trinity-square, and witnesses are prepared to affirm that Zucker always brought with him the letters Hart & Co. had received from the continent, that he handed them over dutifully to his partner, who read them, and returned some letters to Zucker with instruc- tions what to answer, and took others, very likely the most import- ant ones, with him, to have them answered to his diction through his ' clerk,' Mrs. Lehnert, who signed ' for Hart & Co.' as a Mr. Hassfeld ! ' Messrs. M. Hart & Co.' had an account at the Royal Ex- change Bank and the cheques were signed in the name of that firm by Zucker. Lehnert received under his name from Hart & Co. N_B374S9__ BANKIMG HOURS 1O TO * SATURDAYS 10 TO 2 .Ttu*s Ch^ifu,e must he .s ^ ncd, ett~lfie l6o THE KNIGHTS OF INDUSTRY. was useless to proceed against them, and to throw 'good money after bad.' It was a correct information, perfectly true, and yet how untrue and deceitful ! Why did not Lehnert say who ' Morris Brandt & Co.' was ? Why did he not say : ' It is the notorious swindler Zucker, who has cheated you already as Martin Sugar & Co., as Bernard & Co., and under other aliases.' Mr. Lehnert was very careful not to wr tri wt of un tht un all dil th sig H, ch Tl ch in qu ^ % 0> ^ ^^ %^ N >?V 1 ,.{ x V * *v. X\, i^<7 cs^l/t- THE KNIGHTS OF INDUSTRY. 167 Miihlhaus, Meseritsch. Hungary, Croatia, Transylvania, Bosnia, Servia, Russia, France, Italy, Holland had not to complain of being neglected by the London City-firm in Lime-street ; that Hart & Co. ordered pianos from half-a-dozen firms, watches, clocks, violin-strings, cloth, embroideries, boots, shoes, haber- dashery, sticks, gold and silver paper, we can well understand ; but it is rather difficult to understand what these exporters to Australia wanted with such articles as broad-beans, eggs, sausages, hams, poultry, wines from Sicily, butter, olive-oil, ptarmigans, tons of onions. The business of this firm was, however, not con- fined to the sale of merchandise; they were also financial agents, and their advertisements in German papers to the purport that ' a London firm ' is prepared to give paper-credit, and to exchange acceptances for a small commission, brought them within three days some dozen customers, and Hart & Co., with 10/6 at their banker's and no banker's credit whatever, entered into 'discounting' bills (that is by exchange of acceptances) of 10,000 marks, 2,500, 1,500 5,000, 3,000 and up to 20,000 florins, and making a nice, tidy amount by commission. Hart & Co., of course, never thought of taking up their own acceptances, and there they expected to make their haul ; for if they succeeded to put bills into circulation, which they had received for their and their con* federates' worthless acceptances, they pocketed the money and left it to the poor drawer to pay for it. Unfortunately for Messrs. Hart & Co. one of those wicked papers who spoil the honest trade of these good people, got wind who the discounters were, and what game they were playing, and the warning published by this and reprinted by other papers, brought Messrs. Hart & Co. in one day quite a shoal of far from pleasant letters. They had to disgorge the acceptances they were holding, and had to content themselves with the 'commission ' they had drawn. Could anything give a better proof of the swindling character of this city-firm, than this glimpse in their copy-book ? To this general survey, I shall just add a few details. Hart & Co. wrote to Mr. W. H. Moore at Rennes, to supply them with eggs. Mr. Moore seemed greatly pleased and flattered by receiving an inquiry from a London house, and he was quite in a hurry to secure such good cus- tomers. He wrote : 1 68 THE KNIGHTS OF INDUSTRY. 'St. Malo, October ist, 1888. ' Gentlemen, I received your letter this morning, when I was just starting for this place to superintend the shipping of my goods, and I have shipped directly from the market to your address. 10-1200 chests eggs, middle size, selected. 10-1200 large, Normandy. 1-1200 extra qual., Normandy, as sample I charge you the lowest prices. 10 chests 7/- 42 o o 10 8 /3 ,49 i o i chest 8/6 ; 5 2 o ' I have no invoice formulas with me, and ask you to excuse this. My conditions are net cash, f.o.b. St. Malo. As I try to work up a great trade by contenting myself with a small profit, I shall be only too glad to supply you with any kind of goods you may require. I am sending you too one sample-chest of my extra quality. Should the quality meet with your approval, I should be pleased to receive from you weekly orders. This being our first transaction, I shall be obliged by cheque per return. If you are ^ilso dealing in butter, I can supply you.' ' Yours most faithfully, (Signed) W. H. Moore. 115, Route de Nantes, Rennes. Telegraphic address : ' Moore, Rennes.' Hart & Co. received the eggs and sold them forthwith at Leadenhall Market, without even taking the trouble to advise the kind sender of the receipt of the goods. Mr. Moore waited until the loth of October, and then he wrote : ' Messrs. M. Hart & Co., London. Gentlemen, I am without news from you. I am anxious to hear from you how you like the goods. Paris spoils the whole trade, because the prices are much higher there than in London. But your orders shall have my best attention. Faithfully yours, (Signed) W. H. Moore.' Hart & Co. found time now to answer, which drew under the date of i jth October, the following letter from Mr. Moore : 'Your letter of the nth inst. has really surprised me. The eggs were sent directly from the market, and they were quite fresh THE KNIGHTS OF INDUSTRY. 169 at the time. Your customer tries very likely to secure a reduction. Competition is very great, and if people cannot make money by fair means, they try to do so by foul means. At this time of the year there are always a few bad eggs amongst the lot, but I cannot accept any reclamation, and particularly as the goods were sent on the ist of October, and now we are writing the i3th. I shall delegate somebody to inspect the goods, and have to ask you for cheque by return. All reclamations regarding eggs must be made within three days after arrival.' Hart & Co. did not lose their equanimity. The pan-cakes prepared from the sample-chest had certainly convinced them that no objection could be taken to the quality of the eggs. It was useless to maintain a claim on this account. Mr. Moore's agent had also to be kept from paying Messrs. Hart & Co. a visit in their imposing offices under the roof of a four-storied dingy house, and Messrs. Hart & Co. decided, therefore, on paying Mr. Moore in full with their own three months' bill. Glorious ! In three months' time many things may happen. Life is short, especially that of long-firms. Mr. Moore was accordingly favoured by return, as he had asked for, with the remittance. But, somehow, he did not ap- preciate this promptness on the part of Messrs. Hart & Co. He smelled 'rotten eggs,' and indignant as he felt, the following epistle flowed from his pen : ' I received your registered letter, but I do not understand its contents. You seem to think that I do not know the business. Three months' time for eggs ! What next ? You must be mad ! The great loss you are trying to make out, is bosh and nonsense. The goods were shipped directly from the market. I am for many years in busi- ness in a large way, but never before a similar complaint has reached me. Your customer is rotten and not the eggs. He demands credit for three months. Really! how ever can you sell to such a fellow. I must have your cheque by return, and should also like to know which mark was bad. You received three different marks from three different markets. I am astonished at the result of this first transaction, it makes an end to our connection.' There were great rejoicings at this letter in the 'sledge-driver' office of Messrs. Hart & Co. A respectable firm could answer such a boorish letter in one way only by contemptuous silence. IJO THE KNIGHTS OF INDUSTRY. And this Messrs. Hart & Co. did to their hearts' content. Mr, Moore was not worth even a stamp to them. Nothing more was to be got out of him, and Messrs. Hart & Co. did not want his eggs r fresh or rotten. They could feed on pancakes without him. A Moscow firm had sent them a fresh supply of 100 chests Rus- sian eggs, and even the Russian Consul General, whom the defrauded merchant had called to his assistance, could not prevail on the City-firm of Hart & Co. to settle the account. Their principle was not to pay, and some egg-merchants in Hamburgj Berlin and Maros-Varsarhely (Hungary), were taught the samelesson. Mr. Moore waited until the 5th of December, and not hearing from Messrs. Hart & Co., he wrote to them : ' I am astonished at your silence. That is not the way to do business ! (Happy Mr. Moore ! How little he knew of the ways of sledge-drivers ! ) And how about your doubts that I would not be able to supply your great demands ? And how about the increasing inquiry, and the brisk sale round Leadenhall-market? I should have thought you would buy more. Write by to-morrow.' The morrow came, and many morrows more ; but to Mr. Moore's sorrow, the day never dawned that brought him the money, or even a letter only from Messrs. Hart & Co., the rotten egg-merchants, as he called them. Messrs. Hart & Co.'s ' clerk,' Mrs. Lehnert, was kept busy. There was a great deal of correspondence. The firm was dealing in everything and anything, as Australian shippers do. Thus we find Mrs. Lehnert writing on the 2jth of April, 1888, quite a string of letters. Here a few of them. A manufacturer in Lodsz (Russia), is honoured with the following missile: 'We heard the name of your esteemed firm mentioned as capable of executing large orders,' etc. To a dealer in raw sticks in Carlstadt, Croatia, she writes : ' Your esteemed firm was recommended to us for the supply of sticks.' A firm in Czernowitz, Bukovina, is informed : ' We have seen samples of broad and horse-beans, which, to all appearance, came from your firm.' I wonder whether each bean was stamped with the firm's address, to inform Messrs. Hart & Co. of their provenience ? A firm in Brunswick is asked for price-list and samples of German sausage and Westphalian ham. Ham and eggs are going beautifully together, and Mrs. Lehnert writes there- THE KNIGHTS OF INDUSTRY. 17 1 fore to an export company in Hungary : ' We are dealers in French eggs, but having often enquiries after Hungarian eggs, we should like to know whether you can promptly execute large orders.' Who eats, wants to drink too; accordingly an Italian firm in Riporto is informed that 'their esteemed name ' was mentioned to Messrs. Hart & Co. ' as exporters of Sicilian wines, and as we are doing business in Italian produce, we should like to have a trial with your wines.' In way of precaution against too great an acidity of the Sicilian wines, Mrs. Lehnert enquired at the same time at a firm in Navachio about the supply of salad-oil. But ' man lives not on bread alone,' he requires refinements too, and to a firm in Erlbach is written : ' We have an export order for catguts, and your firm having been recommended to us,' etc. Yes, ' music gladdens the heart of man.' How mistaken Schiller was when he wrote : ' You make your home where music you do hear, For good men only have for music love and ear.' Who would contradict Lehnert when he called Hart & Co., in his information, 'clever and experienced people, who knew their business ? 7 This sledge-driving concern lasted up to March, 1889. To- wards the close of the preceding year, Hart & Co. had received still the bicycle bells from K. & Sch., and they paid with an acceptance which, when falling due, came, after an excursion to its native place, duly back to Germany protested. Messrs. K. & Sch. had an agent in London, and through him they made now inquiries what had become of Hart & Co., who did not answer their letters. The agent found the office of Messrs. Hart & Co. closed, and heard they did not attend any more there. He went now to Lehnert and asked whether he did not know something about these people. Lehnert, as well-informed enquiry-agent, knew some- thing, of course, and he told the agent that poor Mr. Hart was suffering with galloping consumption, that he had gone to the South of France, from whence he very likely would never return, as his case was a hopeless one. The agent duly reported to his firm what he had heard from 'a most reliable source,' and in consequence the German manufacturers abstained from bringing an action for the recovery of their claim. It is needless to say that 'poor Mr. Hart' was 'not dying;' if his case was a case of con- 172 THE KNIGHTS OF INDUSTRY. sumption, it was one of consumption of food and drink, and instead of galloping, he was walking quietly in the streets of the city. But in shielding his friends and staving off actions, it was a favourite idea of Mr. Lehnert, to remit them pitiless to the sick- if not the death-bed. In another swindling-office, of which we shall hear more later on, he reported his friend Opitz ill, and stricken with fever in Burmah, and during all the time he met every day with Opitz in a restaurant at Coleman-street. The facts were, that Zucker at the time when he was still ' playing at ' Hart & Co.' with Mr. and Mrs. Lehnert, had opened another sledge-driver office at n, Leadenhall-street, as ' Freeman & Co.' A Mr. C. Lewin had allowed him to put a table in his office, and to adorn the door with a small plate bearing the inviting name of Freeman & Co. Zucker succeeded, as I know by evidence in my possession, to swindle, under this new name, some of his former victims for the second, and even third time. Mr. Lehnert received, of course, inquiries regarding this new firm. Having proclaimed ' Mr. Hart ' dying with galloping con- sumption in the South of France, he could not proclaim him now living, strong and healthy in London, and thus the incognito of Mr. Freeman remained guarded in this case too. But the infor- mation was a remarkable one, if we consider the relations between the two. Lehnert wrote : ' 29/8/89. G. Freeman & Co., London, E.G., n, Leaden- hall-street. This firm exists since the beginning of the present year, and is reported to export cloth, hardware, pianos, etc., to Australia, and to work hand-in-hand with a relation living there. That sounds very nice indeed, but I do not believe it. I can never see this Mr. ' G. Freeman,' only a certain C. Lewin (a great friend of your firm), who has his office next to that of Freeman, and looking at the intimate relations between these two, it seems as if they were work- ing together, and as if Freeman was played out in the place of Lewin, who has lost all credit. At any rate I advise caution.' Why did Mr. Lehnert not say what he knew : this Freeman is no one else but the well-known long-firm swindler Martin Zucker, alias Hart & Co., alias Morris Brandt & Co., alias Bernhard, alias M. Sugar & Co. Why ? because he dared not say so. Even if Zucker had not turned against him, the enquiry-offices would have found out, by THE KNIGHTS OF INDUSTRY. 173 comparinghis former informations, that their 'confidential agent,' Mr. Lehnert, is a swindler too. In the information just quoted, Lehnert gave also a kick to another intimate friend of his, to Mr. C. Lewin, whose pretended friend he remained up to the day of his flight of Lon- don, when under remand for conspiracy to defraud. At the time when Lehnert gave his information about Freeman-Zucker, he knew quite well that Mr. Lewin was trading on his own account, and that he had only permitted Zucker the use of his office, for which Zucker had to pay a small weekly rent, with which he remained in arrears not settled to this day. At any rate Mr. Lewin was able to prove to my solicitors that he was no partner of ' Freeman &Co.,' and that he holds an I.O.U. from Zucker for arrears of rent, which the latter signed : ' Mr. Sugar, trading as Freeman & Co.' The reason why Lehnert gave an unfavourable report about ' Freeman & Co.' was the following : Lehnert had kept the money for the bicycle-bells for himself, and had refused to pay Zucker his share. This annoyed Zucker, and he established ' a firm ' for himself. This again was contrary to the intentions of Lehnert, and a tension arose, with the result, that Lehnert used his influence against 'Freeman & Co.' Zucker found this out, and after the fall of the last-named firm, the two became friends again. Zucker opened then a new long-firm as Mr. Sugar in Hatton-garden, and Lehnert's office supplied again the necessary favourable informations to Continental customers and enquiry- offices. Mr. Opitz, the so-called manager, but in fact, partner in Lehnert's business, when cross-examined in the preliminary stage of my trial, had to admit that Zucker, alias Sugar, was a swindler, but he declared him now to be ' an honest and respect- able man.' Knowing who Opitz was, I doubted the veracity of this testimony, and wrote to the creditors of Mr. M. Sugar, the now honest and respectable firm of Hatton-garden, and they were singularly unanimous in" their judgment, that Zucker was as Sugar what he had been under all his other aliases : a swindler, who had cheated them. Thus a firm of Hanau wrote to me : ' Zucker was introduced to me at the occasion of my last visit to London through a Mr. Sch. He traded at that time with a certain D. under the firm of Mr. Sugar, in antique silver- ware, and just then a great demand existed for this kind of 174 THE KNIGHTS OF INDUSTRY. goods, and rendered it a profitable business. I was told that D. did not advance sufficient capital. To my opinion, Sugar was not the only swindler, but a whole nest of them existed, and they put him forward and used him for their purposes. I entrusted him stock to the value of 12,000 marks and appointed him my agent, making it the conditions of our arrangement, that he was to manage the matter, that the stock remained my absolute property, that he had to conduct the sales, that all sales had to be made in my name, and all the moneys received, paid over to me at the close of each month. I did so under the impression that the English law corresponds with the German law with regard to- agencies, and the stock entrusted to an agent can be disposed of and removed by the owner at any time, and the agent dismissed without notice, and prosecuted criminally, in case of irregularities. Acting on this supposition, I entertained the business. Unfortunately I was deceived, and learned to my loss, that the English law is a different one, and this experience cost me in the case of Sugar over ^1,000.' When Lehnert and Opitz decided to prosecute me for libel, they were not slow to recognise, that Zucker would be called on my part as a witness, and that this could turn out very dangerous for all of them. As soon as I had heard that an action was to be brought against me, I really thought too of Zucker, as my prose- cutors had surmised I would. But I came too late to prevent him from escaping. When I sent a confidential person to make enquiries, Sugar's office was closed ; the house-keeper said ' every- thing' had been removed; a 'Mr. Hassfeld' called only every morning for letters, and Mr. Sugar had gone to the sea-side, and would not return for some months. Very much to the seaside indeed! Mr. Sugar had fled to New York, where he reappeared as Mr. Harris ; but he did not like the new world, and went to Antwerp, where he disappeared. It is quite within the range of possibilities that Mr. Zucker opens somewhere an enquiry-office, and, after having Mr. Lehnert for his teacher, it is not to be doubted that he will know how to conduct it. Very characteristic is also another case, in which Lehnert committed a grave breach of confidence. I mentioned already his relations to Mr. Hesse. The latter had to stop payments in consequence of the heavy losses he sustained at the hands of THE KNIGHTS OF INDUSTRY. 175 Opitz. In spite of Mr. Hesse's knowledge of the intimate rela- tions existing between Opitz and Lehnert, he remained on friendly terms with the latter. Mr. Hesse established later on a business under the name of his wife, who was supplied with the capital required by her brother. The business certainly bore no com- parison with that he had before his bankruptcy, but nevertheless, he made a living. He called himself the manager of his wife's business, and before the law he certainly was entitled to do so. (I give this as my opinion without having investigated the matter.) Lehnert had become aware of it, that Mr. Hesse had obtained possession of Berliner's papers, so seriously implicating Lehnert, and when Mr. Hesse declined to part with them, the honest enquiry-agent resolved to have his revenge, and to render him harmless. Hesse heard of this scheme, and he induced a friend in Germany to make an enquiry at Lehnert's about the firm of his, Mr. Hesse's, wife. The information given and written by Mrs. Lehnert was a very unfavourable one, and reached Mr. Hesse in due course. He was justly indignant at this ' friendly service ' Lehnert had rendered him, and invited this gentleman to give him a call. Lehnert not suspecting what had happened, did so, and was surprised when Mr. Hesse did not recognise his greeting but addressed him abruptly and roughly in asking : ' Lehnert, will you tell me what kind of information you have given about me ? Lehnert denied of having given any information at all, but when Mr. Hesse held the original paper before his face, he declared it with a forced smile, as a little joke. He said, he knew a trick was to be played on him, and so he thought to answer with a tit for tat, amounting to nothing more or less than a joke. Mr. Hesse . would not hear of such jokes and declared, he would have a joke in his turn, and send copies of the documents in his possession to all the continental enquiry-offices who employed Lehnert as their oonfidental agent and correspondent. When Lehnert saw that Mr. Hesse meant what he said, he became greatly frightened, and implored 'his old friend ' to forget and forgive the little matter, which really had not been done in a .spiteful spirit. But Mr. Hesse told Lehnert that he knew him well enough to come to his own conclusion what to think about the matter. Finding Mr. Hesse inexorable, Lehnert threw himself on 176 THE KNIGHTS OF INDUSTRY. his knees before Mr. Hesse and implored him not to execute his threat. ' Do not make me unfortunate ! ' he cried. ' Do not ruin me and my family ! Have pity on me ! Take a stick and give me a good thrashing ! only do not let my firms know ! I shall put everything right again. Enquiries are sure to come again, and you shall see how I answer them.' Well, Mr. Hesse gave ear to Lehnert's implorations, and promised not to act as he had threatened, if Lehnert would act honestly. ' I have also to keep a family,' he said ' and I do not want to be wantonly ruined by you.' A short time after this occurrence, Mr. Hesse, who was manu- facturing buttons in a small way, thought to open a connection for his firm with a large German button-manufacturer, and he wrote the following letter to Lehnert (the original in my possession and published with Mr. Hesse's permission). 'London 20/2/1890. Dear Lehnert, would you write out for me from your directory the addresses of manufacturers of bone- buttons in Germany and elsewhere, also manufacturers of studs and slings in Berlin? I mean such firms as Mathias Achsler, Ansbach, who is represented here by Benthner Kiihn. Yours Hesse.' At the back of this letter Lehnert wrote out a list of the desired addresses and returned it to the sender. Soon afterwards Lehnert received an enquiry from a button manufacturer in Ober-Bieber about the character and position of the firm L. Hesse, and whether ^150 to 200 could be safely credited. Lehnert answered immediately : ' In answer to your esteemed letter of the i6th inst., you will find the information you desire on the next page. I beg to offer you my services for enquiries regarding England at the same charge, and remain, yours most respectfully, L. Lehnert.' This letter is signed by Lehnert himself, the information on the back, however, is written in Mrs. Lehnert's handwriting, and runs as follows : ' L. Hesse & Co., London, E.G., 52, Fore-street, E.G. ' This firm is established for some years and is doing a good and satisfactory wholesale business in all kinds of buttons. Proprietors are respectable and experienced people, who know their branch, and are well introduced in the trade. They keep a THE KNIGHTS OF INDUSTRY. 177 well assorted stock. It is thought they are possessed of sufficient working capital. They are paying regularly, and the people are considered good for a credit of 150 to 200 in goods.' [On the following pages will be found a facsimile of the above- mentioned letters as well as the report] With regard to this matter, Mr. Hesse told me soon after the publication of my two ' incriminated ' articles in the presence of his son, that Lehnert brought this letter to him. 'This is for your kindness that you did not interfere with my employers,' he said in handing the letter to Mr. Hesse, asking him to read it, and then to close it and post it, what Mr. Hesse did. Soon after- wards the German firm gave Mr. Hesse the credit he had demanded, and this in spite of an unfavourable report of another enquiry-office, which was incorrect in being too much to the disadvantage of Mr. Hesse. To verify the facts, I wrote to the manufacturer in Oberbjeber, who was kind enough to forward to me in the most obliging manner all the correspondence referring to this matter. I saw from it in the first instance, that Mr. Hesse had told me the absolute truth, as he in general does not make a secret of his misfortune. But I saw, too, what danger, yes, public danger, enquiry offices as a whole are constituting, because they are under no authoritative control, but to the contrary, shielded in many regards by the existing laws. What I am objecting to principally is : The enquiry-offices undertake to supply reliable informations about any firm in anyplace of the world for a ridiculous fee. It is evident the enquiry- offices cannot keep agents everywhere, and therefore they should not try to make people believe that they are represented in all parts of the world by their agents. I know one particular case in which a German enquiry-office addressed the post-master of a village, in sending him a small fee, to give information about a manufacturer established in the place, whether he was good for a credit of 16,000 marks. The post-master gave an excellent report about the firm, on the strength of which the credit was given. Two months afterwards the manufacturer had stopped payments. The best of the matter is, however, that the post-master who gave the information and the manufacturer were one and the same N L. LEHNERT.' SPEDlTION -AUSKUNFT-INCASSO. 14. TRINITY SQUARE. TOWER HILL. ..* <%--^e^- <2sC^* and he did so in the first instance to hide his connection with this long-firm, against whom criminal proceedings were pending, and for the second he prepared thus his un- avoidable bankruptcy. He knew that nobody would appear to defend the action, and it was thus easy to him, to sue and to obtain judgment. THE KNIGHTS OF INDUSTRY. 199 kind of business a man is engaged. They certainly take Opitz for a simple agent, who is representing a few German firms, and like many others, goes begging for orders to the wholesale houses. In such a capacity he certainly would not require any credit. But if Stubbs had put their noses to page 340 of the official shipping-list for the year 1885 he would have read : Gustav Opitz, 17, Great St. Helens, East India, China. Woollen goods, Manchester goods, clothing, piece goods, pencils, glass, machines. Value ^7882.* ' The lists are unfortunately bound and so voluminous, that I cannot transmit them to you, but you will take my word for the correctness of my quotation. There is no question about it that Gustav Opitz is possessed of some capital, for with nothing one cannot buy anything in London. t His Indian housej must be supporting him, or how could he buy goods for ^7882 ? He must get credit, for the transport of goods to India takes 4 or 6 weeks, another 4 weeks are required for the sale, and 3 to 4 weeks before remittances reach him. Who has no means, or very little only, shall just show me the trick to buy goods for ^7882 and to pay for them. That were the views that induced me after consideration of all the facts to recommend the man for a credit of ^500. At any rate, I may claim to be well-informed in this case, and I think you will have found yourself by a comparison of reports with those of the competition, that I am able to bring ten times more to light in special cases, than all the other enquiry- offices in London. And this is quite natural, because my social position is a different one to that of the drunken lot of fellows who are making the enquiries for Stubbs. After having explained these facts, I can but maintain fully my informations of the 24th and 3151 July, and I hope that you will agree with me. I should not like to underbind the credit to a man, who is * Very nice and true. But the fact is that Opitz paid VERY little, if anything at all, for these goods. I have got a number of bills which he gave for goods from German manufac- turers, but which he never paid, and in fact he did not even mention the names of these manu- facturers in his bankruptcy in 1887. t Not buy, but obtain by long-firm swindling. t Martin Cohen & Co., who had no capital, as Opitz had to admit under oath as partner of the firm. { I think Mr. Lehnert and his friends knew the trick how to buy goods and NOT to pay for them. 200 THE KNIGHTS OF INDUSTRY. esteemed by all who know him as honest, experienced, and diligent, and I feel convinced that you share in this my opinion, in spite of contradictory reports. Most respectfully, (Signed) L. Lehnert.' ' Postscript. ' Some of his connections are not considered satisfactory ? Well, who are they ? Such general phrases are easily uttered, but they ought to be substantiated.' Audacity, thy name is Lehnert ! But for such a dear friend as Opitz was, Lehnert could well write such a tissue of lies and falsehoods, and even run the risk to give to himself a testimonium paupertatis. For Lehnert knew at that time already what was unavoidable in the nearest future, and that Messrs. Stubbs's report with its classical brevity : ' Rotton, Hands off ! ' would be justified to the hilt. And how would Mr. Lehnert then compare with the ' drunken lot of fellows who are making enquiries for Stubbs ' ? How would he shine in his superior social position ? Would also Messrs. Schmeisser consider Messrs. Stubbs's informations worth- less ? For, a few months later Opitz was bankrupt and travelling to the East as passenger in a coal-ship, glad to have escaped his creditors and to the police, who had 'an eye on him.' Lehnert had now only to prepare for this event and to cover his retreat in regard to Messrs. Schmeisser as well as he could. A few months later when Opitz had obtained what he wanted, we find him therefore writing the following supplementary information : 'G. Opitz, 22, St. Mary-axe. This firm has suffered great losses, and will be hardly able to overcome the crisis, I should advise not to give any further credit.' This was certainly very conscientious ; but at the very same time when Mr. Lehnert issued this warning to Messrs. Schmeisser, Lehnert became the reference for Opitz under two new aliases, which the latter chose, at two banking institutes. Opitz, to wit, opened, when the account in his own name had ebbed down to 3/5, under the name of Walter Arnold & Co., another account closed soon afterwards with 2/1, and a third account as L. L. Clark, which was closed when the bank held still the magnificent balance of 3d. for this firm in their coffers. The proprietor of L. L. Clark was, according to Mr. Opitz, a ' Mr. Summers,' for whom the THE KNIGHTS OF INDUSTRY. 2OI account was opened with ,50 in the maiden name of Mrs. Lulu Opitz. When Opitz had to admit under cross-examination that he opened these accounts in these names, it was really distressing to find, that Mr. Arnold and Mr. Summer shared the sad fate of poor Mr. McEntee. Poor Arnold had gone a-travelling to Australia, and was never heard of again, and poor Summer met the same fate in Russia. One consolation remains, and that is that Arnold and Summer were never seen before their disappearance, and that their fate was not a reality like that of poor V., who was never seen again and heard of after he had reported on the celebrated borax-fields in Nevada. His disappearance, and how he came to write this fatal report, were and are a real mystery to his friends and relatives. Looking at these remarkable disappearances, it seems as if Mr. Opitz, with his admirable dexterity in letting vanish the actors in his original plays, would succeed exceptionally well as manager of a Punch and Judy show. His predilection for the East Indian trade is easily explained, for his ' affiliated ' firms were all exporting to India. We have already seen that Opitz was ' driving ' at the same time, so many firms, as to render it impossible to him to find the leisure to drive still another one ; to an ordinary being, at least, this would have been an impossibility. But Opitz is an extraordinary man, and so we need not be surprised to find him engaged in another concern too. Before I tore the veil from his face, I thought he had been in business relations only with Messrs. Bernard & Co. (or Barnard &: Co. as the swindlers spelled the name on some letter-headings). Since then, however, I found in looking at the City-solicitors through the papers seized by the Police, when they cleared out the office of this long-firm after the arrest of Holm, alias Holland, that Opitz had actually found time to conduct a part of the corres- pondence of Messrs. Bernard & Co. It was of special interest to me, that the letters addressed to the Italian hat-manufacturer, whose address Mr. Lehnert had supplied to Messrs. Bernard & Co., were all written by Opitz. But a little mishap happened never- theless to our fine gentleman. Going under so many names, it is not surprising to find that he got mixed up a little, and did not 202 THE KNIGHTS OF INDUSTRY. know ' where we are.' He signed inadvertedly a letter instead with Barnard & Co. as G. Opitz, and this had rather unpleasant consequences for him. For after the conviction of Holm, and the dispersion of the Bernard gang, the Italian manufacturer, (whom I had called as a witness at my trial), sued Opitz. I, of course, need not mention that this did not help the manufacturer to anything, who lost to his 400 another nice round sum for lawyer's costs. When things came to the worst, Opitz, to wit y declared himself bankrupt, and having done so, he went for a change of air to Bombay, never heeding the summonses of the court of bankruptcy, escaping thus his public examination, and preventing the proceedings to be closed. I, having the good fortune of having become a creditor of Opitz, who has to pay to me the heavy costs of his abortive libel action, certainly could force him now to appear, as his trace is no longer lost. But I would have to open the proceedings at my own expense. The English law permits thus to any bankrupt to bring a libel action, to put the defendant to a great deal of expenses, which to recover from the bankrupt is as likely as to draw blood from a stone. The English law prescribes that a foreigner, living in foreign parts, when bringing an action in England, has to give security of costs ; but a foreign bankrupt living in this country may prosecute a subject of Her Majesty the Queen for libel, without giving any security for costs whatever. This is my case. I, a naturalized British subject, was wilfully prosecuted by the foreign b'ankrupt Opitz, and lose my costs, because he as a bankrupt is supposed not to possess anything. But let us return to the year 1887, when Opitz escaped English justice in flying to Bombay, where he remained until 1889. The wind had blown over, and he returned to England, and be- came, according to his statement, in 1890 secretary to the ' Eastern Exchange,' which position he held, as he says, up to 1892. According to his depositions he did not do business on his own account since he became a bankrupt in 1887, and he did not ask for credit. But I have before me a really beautiful matter, which, however, appeared to Lehnert a real sour apple, when he had to bite into it at the Central Criminal Court. A Crefeld firm intended to go amongst the exporters, and not THE KNIGHTS OF INDUSTRY. 203 knowing how to start the business, they inquired at Messrs, Schmeisser&Co. for information, and asked them whether they could procure for them a competent agent, who had a thorough know- ledge of the Indian market. Messrs. Schmeisser & Co. thought quite correctly that London was the proper place for obtaining the agent and the information required, and they entrusted accordingly the matter to their confidential agent, Mr. Lehnert. In answer to their inquiry, they received from him under the date of the 2ist of January the following epistle, which is far too interesting to be withheld from the reader. Lehnert writes : ' Informations regarding firms of some standing, in such places as Bombay, Calcutta, Rangoon, Madras-Dehli-f-wV,), Colombo,, etc., can be obtained here within two or three days, and they are equally reliable as the enquiries made in those places, because the London Banks and exporters who are trading with the East, are in closest touch with all these firms. The charge for enquiries made in this manner amount from 2/6 to 3/-. ' In the following pages you will find an excellent report how the business is transacted. My reporter has spent the last 20 years in the East, and is now with his family on a recreation tour in England. I can but advise your client to communicate directly with that gentleman. Should letters be sent to him, please to forward them to me, as his address is at present very unsettled. In the Indian trade I am one of the most competent, as nearly all my best friends here are engaged in this business.' (The following pages are written by G. Opitz to Lehnert, who forwarded them in continuation to his introductory lines to Mr. Schmeisser.) ' With your enquiry regarding velvet and silks for India, you have found in me the right man, for nobody has made in these articles such a gigantic business, and, therefore, nobody can give you more detailed information regarding this matter than your most obedient servant. ' In one season, it is not very long ago, I sold in Bombay, Delhi, Lucknow, and Cawnpore for only three firms, N. Edela Flechere, Perunegel in Lyons, and Heckel in Elberfeld, silks for one and a quarter million francs. ' Business is done in. the following manner : The agent of 204 THE KNIGHTS OF INDUSTRY. the manufacturer takes on the sample-collection firm orders (indents), and at delivery of the goods the manufacturer draws 30 days after date on the customer, with documents attached, that is, he affixes to his bill or draft the invoice, bill of lading, and insurance policy, and sends it travelling with these attached. This draft -with documents he transfers then either to a local banker, or directly to one of the London Exchange Banks, who have their branch establishments in India (the ' Chartered Bank of India, Australia, and China ' is the best), and this bank holds then the draft, in the place where the customer is domiciled, until he takes it up, and for cash only he receives the documents which enable him to receive the goods. Credit, accordingly, is never given, and in case where the bank knows the customer well enough to deliver him the goods without previous payment in cash, the bank does so at their own responsibility, and not at the risk of the manufacturer. This way of dealing restricts the risks so far, that the manufacturer can suffer a loss only if a customer refuses to take over the goods against payment of the draft, and if he cannot be forced to do so by judicial proceedings, because he is not worth the costs. But in such a case he does not get the goods. The manufacturer or his agent must then dispose of them otherwise, that is, they must sell them to some one else, and if this cannot be done to the full original price, a small loss may occur, and this difference between the price at which the goods were ordered and the price at which they were sold, constitutes the only risk which the manufacturer has to bear in this trade ; but even this only happens, if manufac- turers are sending out travellers who have no knowledge of business matters in India, and who do not know the customers, and think it is not worth the trouble to take detailed informations regarding the customers, because they do not get the goods without payment. In this manner a lot of goods are thrown finally at their hands. We in Bombay know quite exactly with which of the native firms we can transact business without any risk. I, for example, know intimately every customer in the different branches. I am personally on friendly terms with most of them as I transact all my business affairs personally, thanks to my knowledge of Oriental languages, and thus never require an interpreter. But for a man who is a stranger in India, it is very THE KNIGHTS OF INDUSTRY. 205 often a difficult task to know the black ones from the white ones, I hope this observations will fulfill their purpose, otherwise I am with great pleasure at your services with further informations. ' I am now as well as decided to start in March on my fourth voyage round the world, but this time it shall be confined to the East, that is, India, Burmah, the Straits, Japan and China. I have come to an arrangement already with six English firms of the first rank, on the following basis : Duration of the voyage, one year ; contribution for expenses by each firm, ;ioo, which includes salary, travelling, and all other expenses, and 3 "I- commission on all orders after drafts have been taken up. Should you hear of someone among the wide circle of your acquaintances who- should like to participate under these conditions, please let me know and recommend me, but I care only for manufacturers who- are really able to deliver, for I cannot work and lose my time with insignificant firms who lose their head when orders are pouring in, 'I intend to take altogether ten agencies, at 100 each r my travelling expenses being thus about covered. I think I am certain to sell goods this time for ^100,000, and even with 3 l I should be left at the end with some ^3,000. But if I get in Japan my railway-plant contract, which according to the letters of my broker, Matzagdios, is but waiting for me, then I shall earn at least twice that sum. ' But more when I see you, and this very likely will happen in the course of next week. 4 In the meantime friendliest greetings, also from my wife to yours; and always with pleasure at your services, Faithfully yours, (Signed) G. Opitz.' The letter had its effect, as Mr. Lehnert could see by the following : Enquiry from With. Schmeisser or* Co., Berlin, to Mr. L. Lehnert, London, regarding 4 Bernard Opitzj 34 Ayton-road, Stockwell, London, S.W. Agent and Commercial traveller for the East. ' He tries to get the agency for a small-arms manufactory for travelling in the East. Can he be trusted, and can samples worth 206 THE KNIGHTS OF INDUSTRY. 1500 francs be confided to him? Is he experienced and clever ? How is his past, and his way of conducting business ? No. 29612. Berlin 2nd April, 1890. ' Please write an answer on other side of this leaf.' It will be remarked that Opitz applied in the name of Bernard and not Gustav. This was done as a precaution to cover his identity with that Opitz, about whom Messrs. Stubbs had reported : 1 Rotten ! Hands off ! ' and to prevent Messrs. Schmeisser to detect this in looking through their registers. Lehnert's answer to this enquiry was : ' The person enquired after held formerly for some years a position in Japan, and visited repeatedly the sea ports of Japan and China. He is now for some time in London, and makes preparations to start in a shoft time on a rather important travel- ling tour in the East for a number of first-class English firms. He represents houses as Lions, Lions & Son ; Barkley & Son, Limited ; Welsch, Margetson & Co. ; Parker, Son & Rayment, and some other manufacturers. ' He receives from each of the firms he is representing^ TOO travelling expenses and a commission. According to the infor- mation given me by the named firms, the man is clever, experienced in business, and enjoys their fullest confidence. I believe, there- fore that your subscriber can participate without misgivings at this collective travelling tour and trust him (Opitz) with samples to the value of 1500 francs.' Lehnert gives here the names of some leading English firms who, as he declared, had already engaged Opitz for this travelling tour. The facts, however, were, that Lehnert had not enquired at these firms, but that he was given by Opitz as a reference, and then he gave the names of the firms to Messrs. Schmeisser, supposing correctly, that his word would be taken and no en- quiries made. The enquiries of Messrs. Schmeisser were caused by the following letter which Opitz had addressed from his own abode at 84, Ayton-road Stockwell, London, S. W., to the Belgian firm. He wrote : ' I beg to inform you that I am arranging with some first-class English houses, to make, as their commercial agent, a tour to the THE KNIGHTS OF INDUSTRY. 2OJ Straits-settlement, China and Japan. Being convinced that I could at the same time do good business in your article, I take the liberty to offer you my services, and this at the same terms which are agreed upon between myself and the other houses I have the honour to represent, that is : duration of the voyage 1 2 months, during which I shall visit the ports of Singapore, Batavia, Hong Kong, Canton, Shanghai, Nangasaki, Kobe, Tokio, Yoko- hama, and such other places as I shall choose during the voyage, with a sojourn of at least 4 months in Japan. ' I engage myself not to represent more than ten houses, not wo of them dealing in the same article. 1 Each of these houses will pay me ^50 before my departure, and ,50 more six months later, and it is understood that this sum of ;ioo has to pay me for all my travelling expenses, salary, and' all other claims, excepting a commission of 5 per cent, of the amount of all transactions made, or introduced through my inter- vention, and payable after settlement of the said amount. ' I should like to remark that my commercial experiences in Asia are dating back for 20 years, during which time I was engaged in business in Japan and China, also that I know very well the countries which I intend to visit, also the people, their languages and their requirements. The trade, especially with Japan, but also with China, being at present on the point to expand into more important dimensions than in the past, a more advantageous moment could not be chosen for the acquisition of customers, and of gaining a good footing in this most important commerce. ' In the expectation to have a favourable reply from you, I have the honour to present you my most respectful compliments. 'Bernard Opitz. ' I have come to arrangements already with the following firms : ' Barclay & Sons, Ltd., London, medicine and drugs ; Welch and Margetson & Co., woollens ; Jacobson and Hamilton, Man Chester, hats and caps ; Lion, Lions and Son, London, boots and shoes ; Perkin, Son and Rayment, optical instruments ; Broots and Hawkes, Birmingham, small ware.' Actually, however, Opitz had not come to arrangements with all these firms, but only with two of them, who later on sued him 208 THE KNIGHTS OF INDUSTRY. for the return of the advance made, and the samples entrusted to him. On the strength of Lehnert's report, his statement, however, was accepted, and the Belgian firm answered his letter as follows : ' We have received your esteemed letter of the 2gih March last, and waited a little before replying, so as to have your proposals- examined by our Committee of Administration. 'We would be disposed to accept them, only our Committee desires that at the same time you should represent the ' L'Union des Papeteries, Societe Anonime,' rue d'Arenberg, at Brussels, as. our Administrators are also those of this Company. ' We observe the same course in different representations of our two houses, given amongst others for America. It would be worth mentioning that the representation of the ' Union des Papeteries ' would give you but little trouble on account of the smallness of the samples, and besides this you will earn more commission. We would have to allow you for all costs, j$o for each house. 'Please examine the above, so that we may have time to make up for you a good and handsome collection. We would then pay you for the Society ' Union des Papeteries,' and also for our house ;SQ on your departure, 50 six months later, and 5 % commission on all orders sent to us, as well as those sent by you to the ' Union des Papeteries.' The whole to be paid after settle- ment of the accounts. Immediate reply will oblige, 'Yours, etc.' Now ensued a lively correspondence between Opitz and the Belgian firm, and I give first the following letter, which was addressed to Bernard Opitz under the date of the i2th of May, 1890 : ' We received your esteemed letter of the 5th inst. Our negociations with the ' Union des Papeteries ' are not yet termin- ated, but until now we are not able to come to an understanding, as this company is already represented in Japan, and as for China, they have not yet decided to have it visited. ' Our managing director is going to Brussels shortly, and will try to persuade the company to pay part of the costs for the journey. THE KNIGHTS OF INDUSTRY. 209 ' In the event that the ' Union des Pape"teries ' should decide not to participate, we shall try to replace this house by another, and with an advantageous article. ' We will soon let you know. , ' The samples of weapons will be ready for the 26th inst. Please let us know if you absolutely want a price list in English. 'Tell us the approximate date of your departure and of the day you would come to see us. We remain etc.' Opitz answered on the 1 6th of May : ' I have the honour to acknowledge the receipt of your esteemed letter of the I2th inst., and to thank you for the information which you were kind enough to give me. ' As I am certain to secure good orders for the ' Union des Papeteries,' I should regret very much if you could not prevail upon them to accept your propositions. But even in that case you will certainly find another firm dealing in an advantageous article. 'I do not require absolutely a price-list in English, and if this should cause you difficulties, it will be sufficient for us to have more French ones, and I shall translate them when occasion requires it.' On the 26th of May he wrote again : ' I regret to have to inform you, that I shall not have the time left to pay you a visit before my departure for the East. ' I hope that you were able to come to an arrangement with the ' Union des Papeteries ' or with another firm, and that all the samples are ready. For all the arrangements for my immediate departure are nearly complete, and I would ask you to send to my address all that I have to take with me before the ist of June, that is, not later than Saturday. Otherwise I shall be obliged to postpone my departure. ' Expecting to have the pleasure to receive your answer by return. Yours, etc., (Signed) Bernard Opitz. Now the gun factory answered on the 2jth May, 1890 : ' We received yours of the i6th and 26th instant. p 210 THE KNIGHTS OF INDUSTRY. 'We could not succeed in persuading the 'Union des Papeteries' to entrust you with their representation for your voyage, but we have been able to get over the difficulties by asking them to give you a complete collection of their papers, and their lowest prices, to which they have consented. We shall have this collec- tion during this week, when we will have it forwarded direct from Brussels, at all events you will have it in good time. You will have to transmit to us any orders you may take on the samples of this company, to have them manufactured by the ' Union des Papeteries,' and we trust, as you say in your letter of the i6th, that you will succeed in doing good business in paper. ' As to arms, we shall send you the collection to-morrow and send you invoice at the same time. ' We are sending by same post as this some of our illustrated catalogues. We are etc.' This letter was followed by another, dated May 3oth, 1890. ' We have the honour to hand you herewith invoice of our samples of arms a/c., amounting to 39ifcs. i5c., which we shall place to your debit of sample-deposit. We shall send a parcel containing the samples of paper of the ' Union des Papeteries ' and illustrated price-list of our arms. It is leaving to-day by mail via Ostend. We think you will have them by the time mentioned. The prices given you in our invoice, are the lowest at which we could sell these articles ; our other arms in our illus- trated catalogue are to be sold at the prices mentioned therein, and the conditions are given on the first page. Please acknow- ledge the receipt of this, and wishing you that you may do good business on your journey. We remain etc.' Opitz answered : ' I have the honour to acknowledge the safe receipt of your esteemed letter of the 3Oth p.m., and the documents mentioned therein, and also the two parcels of samples. ' But you have omitted to remit to me the first payment f ^5 m accordance with our agreement, and I ask you there- fore to send it to me by return of post, because I must depart on Friday, the 6th instant, the latest. THE KNIGHTS OF INDUSTRY. 211 ' I thank you most sincerely for your good wishes and I assure you that I will do all I can to succeed in doing good business and to justify your confidence. ' Awaiting your reply, please accept etc. (Signed) Bernard Opitz.' 50 were the real matter of importance. He very likely waited with anxiety, but the 4th of June brought him relief in the form of cheques and notes, and Opitz acknowledged the receipt in the following letter of the 7th of June : ' I have the honour to acknowledge safe receipt of your esteemed letter of the 4th inst., with your remittance of ^50, in accordance with our agreement, for which I thank you and enclose receipt. I shall depart on Tuesday, the loth inst.' From this date Opitz gave no sign of life, and on the 4th of April, 1891, the Belgian firm wrote to him as follows : ' A year ago we gave you a collection of samples for your journey to Japan. ' Being deprived since then of your agreeable news, we address to you this, to let us know your results. ' Awaiting your reply, We are, etc.' No answer came, and the Belgian house inquired again at Messrs. Schmeisser, who wrote to Lehnert on the Qth of April, 1891 : ' Under the date of the 5th of April of last year, you gave us under the number 8,000 an information referring to Bernard Opitz, London, S.W. You told us that this honourable man would travel for some first-class houses to China and Japan, and that he received from each firm a collection of samples and ^100 travelling expenses. 'In consequence of this information, a Liege gun manu- facturing firm sent to him a valuable collection of sample-guns, worth 1,200 francs, and they enquire to-day whether we are not in a position to inform them how the gentleman is doing, especially whether he has spent their money in comfort in London, and whether he has flung away their^guns, for they never heard a word p 2 212 THE KNIGHTS OF INDUSTRY. more from him. You can certainly hear from the first-class houses, whom he was to represent, to what end this man has come. ' Sincerely, (Signed) W. Schmeisser.' Lehnert answered on the i4th of April : 'I obtained information that B. Opitz has gone in July, 1890, by steamer from London to Colombo. It is said he resigned the representations which he had accepted, in order to be enabled to devote himself exclusively to the representation of a Manchester firm, for whom he had to conclude contracts for the fittings of spinning mills in the Colonies, and who guaranteed the whole of his travelling expenses of ^1,000. In Burmah, it is said, he was seized with fever. According to reports from there he left directly for Australia. His samples, it is pretended, are deposited with a firm at Colombo, whose name I am not able to ascertain, and O. intends, as it is said, to bring them with him at his return from Australia. His relations are not possessed of more detailed news. Judging from his last letter, which arrived here a few months ago, it is thought that the samples possibly are already on their way back from Colombo. At any rate, I ask you to procure for me a Power of Attorney that I may take possession of the samples as soon as they become recoverable. ' I entertain, however, very little hope with regard to the recovery of his travelling expenses, as the man in fact has really travelled. But I shall be very glad if I get back the sample- collection, and in this I shall succeed may be, as the relations make the impression of respectable people. The local firms who made payments in advance to O. have not heard from him since he visited Colombo. (Signed) L. Lehnert.' ' P.S. That is really a cheap way to make a tour round the world. What clever ideas some people have.' The contents of this letter were communicated by Messrs. Schmeisser & Co. to the Belgian firm, who sent the power of attorney to Messrs. Schmeisser & Co., who on their part forwarded it again to Lehnert. The Liege gun-factory addressed after this a further letter to THE KNIGHTS OF INDUSTRY. 213 Messrs. Schmeisser on the 28th of April, 1891, informing them of having received a communication of one of the firms whom Opitz had mentioned when offering his services, to the purport, that the great Orient-traveller was now Secretary to the Eastern Exchange in London, and asking Messrs. Schmeisser to press now the matter to the best of their ability. This letter was also forwarded to Lehnert, who answered a few days afterwards : LIEGEOISE v. OPITZ. 1 In answer to your esteemed letters of the 23rd and 26th inst., I have succeeded in arranging the matters in a satisfactory manner, and the samples are already in my possession. What shall I do with them ? I further received a payment of ^5 on a/c of the advanced travelling expenses of ^50. The repayment of the remainder I agreed to accept in monthly instalments of ^5. What you communicated to me on the 26th, I could have told you yesterday already, but I thought to wait until I heard the cheque was paid. The matter appeared strange to me from the very beginning, but I could not make out the people at 4, Spenham- road ; one sees every time a new face. The gentleman with whom I was conferring yesterday is a sea-captain, who had just returned from Australia. According to the tax-collector's book, the house is rented by L. L. Opitz, and the cheque I received was also signed by L. L. Opitz. With one word, I was very energetic and succeeded very well. But whether Mr. Bernard Opitz had started on his voyage or not, whether he was living in the house or not, I was unable to ascertain.' On the 27th of May, Lehnert wrote again to Messrs. Schmeisser. The letter is apparently written in Opitz's hand- writing, slightly disguised, but I do not want to pass an opinion, and content myself to give the letter : ' In accordance with your instructions, I have handed over to-day the 7 guns and 1 6 revolvers to Mr. Argles. The number is correct, but the goods look rather dirty. Enclosed you will find my account for expenses, with which I ask you to credit me. With regard to O., nothing is to be done more, as I have made an arrangement with him. If he does not keep up his payments 214 THE KNIGHTS OF INDUSTRY. regularly, then we can proceed against him at the best with a civil action. In accepting the first instalment of ^5 you have waived the right to take a criminal action, if such an action could have been taken at all. Enclosed I return copy of invoice. Yours faithfully, (Signed) pro. L. Lehnert, Albert Lange.' We see Mr. Opitz was shielded against a criminal action, as he and his friend and protector thought. Of a civil action the two gentlemen were not afraid, and they did not trouble about paying another instalment. Messrs. Schmeisser, accordingly, reminded their confidential agent of the matter, and he answered on the 6th of August, 1891 : ' The chances to get now anything from Opitz are very bad, for, as far as I can judge, he has nothing. In an action brought against him, he agreed this week before the registrar to pay 2 a month. But I shall watch the matter.' To another reminder on the part of Messrs. Schmeisser, Lehnert answered on the 5th of September : ' LIEGEOISE v. OPITZ.' ' I have watched the matter but cannot obtain any further payment, for the simple reason that the man has nothing. If you want to sue him you will have to pay ^5 ios., and may be more, according to the line of defence the man takes. I do not think it advisable to throw good money after bad, and I am confirmed in this opinion by having heard yesterday, that he is for some weeks already out of a situation. But I will do as you instruct me.' Nothing was paid, of course, and a further letter from Messrs. Schmeisser drew on the lyth of November the following consoling answer ' short and sweet ' from Lehnert : ' The case is hopeless. The debtor is proceeded against from all sides, and I recommend not to throw good money after bad. I have very little hope.' As Lehnert admitted in the witness-box, Opitz was helping him in his business already at the beginning of 1891, and Opitz himself declared under oath that he became Lehnert's manager at the beginning of 1892. Was it not Lehnert's duty to tell simply THE KNIGHTS OF INDUSTRY. 215 to Messrs. Schmeisser, that Opitz was his employee ? Instead of this, he pretended not to be able to find Opitz, and to ascertain, whether he had gone on his voyage or not. From beginning to end Lehnert acted dishonestly towards his employers, and it was unavoidable that he was finally found out and dismissed, as men- tioned already. Mr. W. Schmeisser writes in this matter : ' You will have received the papers referring to the matter Henry Payne & Co. and Lehnert. Lehnert has cheated me too shamefully with Opitz. If he had acted bonafide, it would have been his duty to act in the interests of the Liege firm and our own. Instead of this, he kept silence, because he was evidently going hand in hand with O. At that time I trusted Lehnert still implicitely. He was always extremely well-informed about swind- ling firms and knew artfully how to strengthen the confidence I bore him. To-day I see clearly what then was to me unexplicable and often puzzled me. Thus for example Lehnert warned in his report against a swindling firm and added : ' The enquiry came to you from N. N. in B.' How did he know it, as we did not give him the slightest hint where it came from ? He simply played the trick to give to his accomplices the addresses of German manu- facturers, the former gave their orders, and if we made an enquiry at Lehnert's, he knew the firm who enquired, because he had fur- nished the address to his confederates, and sometimes he did not mind to turn round and warn. But as Lehnert was named an official enquiry-agent in Regenhart's Almanac,* which enjoys a very large circulation, many enquiries were addressed to him ' directly. Lehnert had too great an income through his connection with our firm, as to deceive us frivolously and to open our eyes to his doings. Payne and Co. very likely thought to make a great deal of money out of the matter of K., and they betrayed Lehnert, and that broke him the neck with us.' Two years had passed since the ' Voyage to the Orient ' had come to grief, when the Belgian firm instructed their London agent to take proceedings against Opitz. The agent did his best, but he could not find the great traveller, and thus the matter remained in abeyance, until the articles in the 'Cologne People's Gazette' were * His name was removed after the appearance of my articles. 2l6 THE KNIGHTS OF INDUSTRY. published. The Belgian firm became by this means aware that Opitz was living still, and they addressed themselves in consequence to the paper, and at the same time instructed their agent to com- municate with me. Thus I became enabled, with the kind assist- ance of Messrs. Schmeisser & Co., to disclose the whole swindle. The Belgian firm decided now to proceed against Lehnert and Opitz. As soon as they heard of this intention, Lehnert wrote to them on the 25th of February, 1895, the following letter : ' During the six years I had the misfortune to represent the enquiry-office of Schmeisser & Co., in Berlin, I was also entrusted to collect some moneys for your company. Amongst these debts was also an amount of ^50, and some samples from G. B. Opitz, 4, Spenham-road, London. After a great deal of trouble I suc- ceeded to arrange the matter in the manner that Opitz made on the 27th of April, 1891, a payment of ^5, and gave accept- ances for ^45, and returned the samples, I giving him in ex- change a receipt in full for your claim. I must remark that I gave the receipt on the back of your power of attorney, that was sent to me by Schmeisser to arrange the matter as well as I could. I was consequently greatly surprised to hear that a solicitor here brought an action against Mr. Opitz for having cheated you of ^50, and stolen your samples. My books are proving that I remitted to Schmeisser on the 29th of April, 1891, those ^5 and one year later, when I resigned the agency, ,^45 in acceptances (not taken up). The box with samples I handed over on the 22nd of May, 1891, to Mr. Argles, in conformity with Schmeisser's instructions. As Mr. G. B. Opitz is now one of my employees, it is tried to show that I helped him to cheat you, which is quite devoid of foundation. Quite to the contrary. I arranged the matter at the time to the best of your interest, and when Opitz has not paid the remainder, then the only cause for it is that the intended travelling-tour has unfortunately turned out a great loss to him, which he could not repair yet in his present situation. He is an honest man, and I feel convinced that he will repay you as soon as he can, and in the same manner as he has paid the houses who had engaged him for that tour. If, accordingly, the mentioned steps were taken with your consent, please enquire as soon as possible about the facts at Schmeisser's, and withdraw your consent. THE KNIGHTS OF INDUSTRY. 2i; Regarding Opitz, I promise you that he will pay your claim as soon as he is in a position to do so. Yours, etc., (Signed) L. Lehnert.' I am of opinion that Mr. Opitz would have acted far wiser and more honestly if he had repaid this debt in good time, instead of bringing a costly libel-action against me. Thus ended the great 'tour to the Orient,' where it was generated, in London. There was, too, the 'fever' bred, which sent Mr. Opitz from Burmah to Australia, just as the galloping consumption, which sent Mr. Zucker to the South of France. THE SLEDGE-DRIVING TRIALS. IT is repugnant to my feelings to write about matters concerning myself. But the pressure brought on me on the part of my friends, and the interest of the cause I have taken up are inducing me to overcome my scruples, and to say a few words about my trials and what led to them. I said just now ' my trials ;' but they would much better be called the ' trials of the Cologne People's Gazette.' When staying in Essen to consult and to instruct the solicitor Mr. George Heinen, who is representing myself and the ' Cologne People's Gazette ' in the libel-action we brought against the ' Rhenish Westphalian Gazette,' this gentleman, in perusing the voluminous material submitted to him, and in hearing my answers to his questions, was struck that I had actually played a far more impor- tant role in these sensational trials, than it would appear from the reports of the German press, the ' Cologne People's Gazette " included. Mr. Heinen actually seemed to arrive at the conclusion that something was withheld from the public, and he declared openly that the public at large would share his fate, and be struck like by a thunderbolt from a cloudless sky, if they knew all the details brought to his knowledge. To prevent the ' thunderbolt ' doing any harm. I shall construct here with due care a 'lightning conductor,' feeling at the same time, however, that nothing has been withheld from the public. The editor and the publishers of the ' Cologne People's Gazette ' have for years blindly trusted to my reports, because they knew, by their thorough knowledge of the case, that they were right in doing so. To put it plainly : they knew that I did not write these dangerous matters for gain, and they knew further, that I went in my researches regarding the modern knight-robbers THE KNIGHTS OF INDUSTRY. 219 to such expenses, that rendered it quite impossible to make my work materially profitable to myself, as no newspaper would have paid a honorary sufficient to refund my expenses. Mean insinuations made in the vindictive spirit of party- hatred were directed against the paper I represented, and every means was tried to delude the public into the belief that the publishers of the ' Cologne People's Gazette ' in their craving for sensational news, were paying me to fabricate, at the expense of truth, those incredible and fictitious ' stories,' which created such a sensation amongst the German manufacturers. I, personally, was quite pushed in the background. ' Rollo ' was to them nothing more nor less than one of those starving wretches, who are earning with pen and ink a few pence to buy bread for their hungry offspring, and of whom many a one is not very particular about the truth, if it helps him to sell the wares of his brains to editorial sensation-mongers. It never occurred to these friends of the ' Knights of Industry ' to see any noble motives underlying our action. And more, there were not many who believed that what I wrote was true, line for line, and word for word. Even our solicitor Mr. Heinen was sceptical, and he was converted only, after he had sifted with me the material. But from day to day he understood better the impregnability of my position, until we reached after ten days hard work, and sometimes night-work into- the bargain, the last page of the documentary evidence in my possession. It is true, I was paid for my work by the ' Cologne People's- Gazette,' but the question of honorary was always treated as a formal matter only. I declared repeatedly that I did not require any honorary, but the publishers insisted on my accepting it. The relations between the proprietors of the ' Cologne People's- Gazette ' and myself were simply different to those as may exist in the ' Rhenish and Westphalian' Provinces between newspaper- publishers and their correspondents, and this fact certain people would not understand. One newspaper accused us of making sport of the war against the ' sledge-drivers.' If it gives pleasure to our enemies, we shall admit it. Yes, the fight is a sport to me, but I consider this sport a duty. I was in a position to cultivate the sport, and this made 220 THE KNIGHTS OF INDUSTRY. the sport a duty to me. These are things which are above the comprehension of the journalists with down-trodden heels and torn trousers, of whom a paper in Essen has secured a specimen. From my point of view, also the editor and the publishers of the * Cologne People's Gazette ' regarded the sledge-driving fraternity, and I am thankful to them that they opened their columns to me, and rendered it possible to lead such a merciless war against the ' Knights of Industry.' The ' sledge-driver ' journalists really paid me a compliment in an Essen paper, in declaring me a powerful antagonist. They were right. The ' powerful antagonist ' has pressed them so hard in the corner that they squeaked. When I commenced ' the war ' against the swindling enquiry- office of Lehnert, I did not hesitate a moment to tell the publishers of the ' Cologne People's Gazette ' that I might expect a libel-action. Quite to the contrary, I said, I hoped it would come to it, and in my second article against Lehnert-Liman & Co., I even declared in the ' Cologne People's Gazette ' that all ' explanations ' on the part of Lehnert would be of no avail, and that a prosecution alone could satisfy us. We even went so far as to say, it was a necessity to bring the matter to a head, that it might be proved in a court of justice with what cunning and to what a pitch the art of sledge- driving had been brought in London, to the detriment of German and English trade. I was quite aware how dangerous it was in England to be involved in an action with such cunning liars, for such fellows will lie themselves, so to say, out of the nook from the gallows. Their really fiendish proceedings were a proof to me that I had judged the matter correctly, but I did not rely on witnesses, but only on the documentary evidence in my possession, by which the sledge-drivers were bound to fall, because they could not well deny their own hand-writing. I was of the opinion that it was but my duty to fight out the action, and when Lehnert wrote to me through his solicitor, I should disclaim my accusations and apolo- gize, I had him informed at once that my solicitors were Messrs. Osborn and Osborn, who would accept service on my behalf, and that I hoped they would have an opportunity to do so as soon as possible. The proprietors and publishers of the ' Cologne People's Gazette,' however, proved their magnanimity also on this occasion, in declaring their solidarity with myself. I was just at that time THE KNIGHTS OF INDUSTRY. 221 for a longer stay in Germany, and we resolved to regard ourselves as one person, and to carry on the war against the sledge-drivers in the name of the ' Cologne People's Gazette ' to the bitter end, and to defeat them, cost what may, in which we succeeded with the help of excellent counsels in a glorious manner. After the battle had been won so splendidly, the pub- lisher, who had come over from Cologne to be present at the trial, wished to state publicly in the report, that someone else wrote for the occasion on my behalf, how I shared in the expenses. I was against this, because we had declared ourselves solidary, and could not well part now as victors. The merit of having done such signal service to commerce, said I, belongs to the ' Cologne People's Gazette,' and not to the publishers or to myself ; we were but single individuals, belonging to the personal of the ' Cologne People's Gazette,' but not the ' Cologne People's Gazette.' In the first place the merit belongs to the chief-editor, Dr. Cardauns, who had turned grey over the matter. But I am not responsible for his sleepless nights. The guilty party are the ' sledge-drivers.' With- out the chief-editor we could have done nothing, if he had not put at our disposal 'a piece of blank paper' in the columns of the { Cologne People's Gazette.' That ' Messrs.' Opitz and Lehnert committed a foolish act in bringing these libel-actions, everybody will admit to-day. They were bound to know, in reading my articles, that I had much more material in my possession than I made use of in my writings. But from the manner in which I wrote, they must have seen, too, that they were quite in my hands. Generally, it is accepted as a rule, that it is not safe to throw with stones in glass houses. Why Lehnert and Opitz threw stones, nevertheless, is explained by the circumstance that I had gone at that time to Germany. The two ' gentlemen ' thought I had fled in fear of their threatened libel- action, and that I would not return again. It was evident to them I had heard whispers, and on the strength or weakness of these, I had written my articles. Unable to justify what I had said, I escaped the consequences in leaving the country. There was a chance to pose cheaply as injured innocents, to prop up the fading lustre of this unique enquiry-orifice in 46, Queen Victoria-street, to gain a victory, and to demolish ' Rollo.' And so the stone was 222 THE KNIGHTS OF INDUSTRY. set rolling with a light heart. A libel-action was brought against me as publisher of the ' Cologne People's Gazette ' in England, with a claim of ^"1000 damages. At the same time, to have their revenge and something to boast of, they took criminal proceedings against Mr. E. Hesse, of whom we had much to say, as author of the incriminated articles, knowing all the time that he had nothing whatever to do with the writing or publication of the incriminated articles. But the ' gentlemen ' had made a gross mistake in their calculation, and great was their dismay when they heard that I had returned. It was very inconvenient to me, because I had still to transact important business in Germany, but when I heard that Mr. Hesse had been summoned, I hurried back to England to explain before the magistrate who the real author was. On the 23rd November, 1894, Hesse had to appear for the second time at Guildhall Police-court. His prosecutors had secured as witness a Mr. Rewman, about whom I do not want to say anything, as he has died a short time after his appearance in the witness-box against Mr. Hesse. Rewman declared under oath that he called at Hesse's, and that the latter read to him the articles in the 'Cologne People's Gazette,' and added that he had written them. Rewman said, he had said in answer to this declaration : ' Whoever wrote this article was well-read in Goethe and Shakespeare ; if he spoke the untruth, he ought to be punished for telling lies ; but if, what he says was true, he ought to be punished still harder, Hesse, he declared, told him then, that he was willing to part with the incriminating material in his possession for a consideration of ^1000. Hesse and his son declared to the contrary, as mentioned in my article, that Rewman came as an emissary of Lehnert's and offered the ioco for the documents. At this junction I stepped in the witness-box and declared, that I was the author of the articles, that I took the full respon- sibility on myself, and that I would justify my assertions. Accor- dingly the summons against Mr. Hesse was dismissed, and through his solicitor, Lehnert now applied for a summons against me, an application which was made into a 'warrant' against me by the German official organ of the long-firm swindlers. THE KNIGHTS OF INDUSTRY. 223 The action against me was, however, dismissed, I being the * publisher ' and correspondent of the paper in London, and the fiat not having been obtained in the High Court of Justice. Before this Lehnert's solicitors had tried already to obtain an injunction in the High Court to prevent me from publishing any more articles against their client. But this application -was not granted, and the judge remarked, that I could write what I liked, as Lehnert had the remedy in his hands in suing me. This decision was reported in the said German paper to the effect, that the publication of the weekly edition of the ' Cologne People's Gazette' had been prohibited. One lie more or less did not matter much. The next application that I might be prosecuted for libel was granted by the High Court, and a few days later I had the pleasure of being served with the writ. The scene of the preliminaries to the trial was Clerkenwell Police-court, and with adjournments for eight and fourteen days, the matter was dragging on there for an almost unbearable length. The cross-examination of Mr. Opitz, however, fully compensated for this loss of time and expense, and forced him to admissions which rendered it advisable to him not to appear again in the witness-box at the Central Criminal Court, and to let the verdict be entered for me. The magistrate, Mr. Horace Smith, was quite willing to hear the matter out in the Police-court, but he declared the case was so important, that he was distinctly of opinion that it ought to go before a jury, and he would not take the responsi- bility on himself to decide the matter, even if every word what I had written was the truth. After a short consultation with my solicitor, Mr. Albert Osborne, who had conducted the case in an admirable manner, I decided in not going on any further in the Police-court, but have myself committed for trial at the Central Criminal Court. This gave the swindlers and their literary friends an oppor- tunity to publish in their organs in Germany the news that ' Rollo had been sent to the Central Criminal Court to receive sentence for his libels against Messrs. Lehnert and Opitz,' and Lehnert wrote triumphantly the same lie to a merchant in Cologne, hoping by this strategem and by the intervention of the gentleman whom 224 THE KNIGHTS OF INDUSTRY. he addressed, to gain over the publishers of the ' Cologne People's Gazette.' After another adjournment at the C. C. C., the trial came on on the 25th March, and the curiosity was great how the matter would end. It had to be decided whether I had wilfully disturbed the trade, undermined the credit of London firms, and injured the true interests of German exporters, or whether what I had written was true, and done in the best interests of commerce. Up to the opening of the case, Lehnert and Opitz could be seen walking together in the precincts of the court, smiling and confident, as if victory coud not fail them. They did not know that we knew so much ! Finally the hour came, and they gloried to see me in the famous dock at the Old Bailey. Judge and jury, counsels and solicitors, and everyone else engaged in the case, were convinced that the trial, with its ' hundred-weights ' of docu- mentary evidence and the score of witnesses from the continent, would last at least a week. But I could not help having a presenti- ment, that the trial would come to an abrupt end. I could not imagine, that it would take eight days to find out who and what the prosecutors were, and that the valuable time of the court would be taken up for days with washing the dirty linen of a swindling enquiry-office. My solicitors were Messrs. Osborn & Osborn, Exchange chambers, Copthall-buildings. Mr. Albert Osborne, a young but extremely clever solicitor, had taken for months the greatest trouble to study every detail of the case, and to prepare it in a manner that was convincing where the right was laying. Mr. Osborn secured for me as counsels Mr. Charles Mathews, Mr. Gill and Mr. Avory, who also took the greatest pains to master the matter in all its intricacies. Mr. Commissioner Kerr presided at the trial, and after the jury had been sworn in, the clerk of the court put the usual question to me, and I pleaded ' not guilty ' and justification. It was not surprising to find that the prosecution had altered their tactics, and put now Lehnert's action in the fore- ground. Opitz had left the Police-court morally demolished by the clever cross-examination of Mr. Albert Osborn, and it seemed therefore better to keep him in the background and to put forward ' honest ' Lehnert, against whom nobody knew anything we THE KNIGHTS OF INDUSTRY. 225 excepted. His counsel, Mr. Kemp, opened the case for the pro- secution in a very clever speech. He said, quite correctly, the ' libel ' I published amounted simply to this, that his client, Mr. Lehnert, had abused his confidential position to introduce notorious swindlers as respectable firms to German manufacturers, to defraud the latter, and then to divide the profits of the robbery with the swindlers, whom he had recommended. These malicious libels, Mr. Kemp proceeded, had been really disastrous for his poor client, whose business was in consequence of my undefensible action nearly ruined. The worst, however, Mr. Kemp maintained, on the strength of the instructions he had received and believed to be true, was the motive for my action, and this he said, was to ruin Lehnert, that I may get his customers for my own business, which was of a similar character to that of his client. Mr. Kemp made this unfounded statement on the strength, that I had called into existence the ' German Trade Protection Society ; ' but he did not know that I never was the sole proprietor of this institution, as people tried to make believe, and he also did not know, that at the time of the trial, and actually a long time before the trial, I had absolutely nothing whatever more to do with the 'German Trade Protection Society,' and had also no share in the concern. The ' German Trade Protection Society ' was besides not intended to act as a regular enquiry-office, but to take up only special cases, and to protect the exporters against the 'sledge- drivers,' and sham-enquiry-agents. I, unfortunately, was not in a position to let it be known already in 1890, that the suspicious dealings of Lehnert were at that time the cause, that I with some gentlemen founded the ' German Trade Protection Society. The cause that induced us to act, exists to-day as it existed then, and the disappearance of Lehnert has not altered anything in the matter ; there is simply a dangerous swindler less, but as long as the small enquiry-offices are permitted to exist, as long will there be Lehnerts, more or less worthy of the original. These swindling enquiry-offices are actually growing up like mushrooms, and their founders and conductors are for the most part dubious persons, whose past would not bear investigation. These offices remain the mouse-traps for manufacturers, and it is impossible Q 226 THE KNIGHTS OF INDUSTRY. to warn too often and too strongly against them. I do not want to recommend here any enquiry.-office in particular, but it ought to be a strict rule, to take informations only from long estab- lished offices, whose reputation is above suspicion. Let us return to the trial. After Mr. Kemp had finished his opening address, the translation of the incriminated articles in No. 596 and No. 670 of the 'Cologne People's Gazette,' 1894, were read, and then was called as first witness a Mr. Miiller, who was the head-clerk in Lehnert's office, and who made occasional enquiries for his employer. Mr. Kemp proved by this witness ' publication ' of the incriminated articles in England, as required by the law of libel, and had done with him. But not so Mr. Mathews, who made the witness confirm the strange arrangement of the offices of the double-firm Lehnert-Liman, with its different street-entrances and the different office-entrances, and the different names on the different doors, as described by myself in the incriminated articles. I hope Mr. Miiller will take a warning from the fate of his former employer and master ; for he has established himself since then as enquiry-agent in Newgate-street, and if his office has two different entrances, this certainly will not induce him to use a double firm, a practice which may be advantageous to the user, but misleading and dangerous to the public. Another of Lehnert's clerks proved also having bought one copy of the incriminated paper at Mr. Siegle's Library in Lime- street, and Mr. Mathews did not take the trouble to cross-examine, as I admitted publication and authorship, having taken the responsibility for both upon myself. And now came the 'prosecutor' himself, Mr. Lehnert, who entered the witness-box with a regular ' city bag ' in his hand. His long, thin figure, his drooping lower jaw, his sallow complexion, and the small dark eyes, who seemed always on the watch, did not make quite an agreeable impression, and this effect increased steadily during the time that Mr. Lehnert had to stand the fire of Mr. Mathews's cross-examination. How different Lehnert must have felt now to his other appear- ance in the witness-box in Dresden, when he came there to give evidence against Hammerstein. Here Lehnert declared under THE KNIGHTS OF INDUSTRY. 227 oath that he came to London in 1884, and opened business as enquiry-agent in 1886. In Dresden he swore again, according to a printed report on Hammerstein's trial, published by G. Rossberg in Dresden, 1892, that he had left Berlin 35 years ago, and was an enquiry-agent in London for ten years (that is since 1882). In 1883 he swore, he gave already from London unfavourable reports about Hammerstein, which is in direct contradiction to the depo- sition in my trial. The fact is, Lehnert was not in London, and was not an enquiry-agent at the time when he declared in Dresden that he had reported about Hammerstein, and Hammerstein was convicted on Lehnerfs evidence. To my view it becomes thus a duty to the German authorities to re-open the case of Hammer- stein, to have a new trial, if possible, and if not, to do something for him by way of grace. There is no doubt, Hammerstein was a dubious character, but this is not sufficient to sentence him to 12 years' penal servitude. The judge certainly had to go by the evidence brought before him, but why were no enquiries made regarding the principal witness, Lehnert ? Lehnert received for the ' services he rendered ' a special reward of 1,500 marks. When he returned to London, a friend said to him : ' But, Lehnert, how could you depose like this against Hammerstein ? You knew it was not true, and you have yourself quite enough to answer for ! ' 'Well,' Lehnert answered, 'I received ^75. Business is business. If Hammerstein had paid more, I would have sworn to the contrary to what I deposited now.' 'But, suppose the matter would leak out ! ' the friend remarked. ' Well, then I would go travelling for some time ! ' ' And suppose you were caught ? ' ' Then I suppose I would get for some time board and lodging for nothing ! Worse things may happen !' Lehnert said with a laugh. I say, if a man is convicted on the strength of the evidence of such a witness, then the case ought to be re-opened as soon as possible, and there is every reason to surmise that this is the case of Hammerstein. For in his printed 'letters of thanks,' Lehnert quotes the following one from the Chief-judge of the Criminal-court at Dresden, Dr. Eberhardt. The letter is dated June the roth, 1892, and reads as follows : ' My dear Mr. Lehnert, I am very sorry to hear that you had Q 2 228 THE KNIGHTS OF INDUSTRY. to suffer some persecution in consequence of the part you took in the case of Hammerstein. But the consciousness of having done a good action will comfort you. Without the great exertions you made in clearing up the matter, and without your well-founded informations, a conviction of this dangerous swindler would have been well-nigh impossible. And it is a great public duty to coun- teract the doings of these international swindlers.' Should the authorities think it right to clear up the matter now, with a view to shorten the term of penal servitude to which Hammerstein was sentenced, I am willing to put my services at their disposal. I can produce witnesses who are prepared to swear that Lehnert committed wilful perjury. It needs but to read care- fully the cross-examination to which Lehnert was subjected at my trial, and to remember that, not one of the 53 witnesses I had summoned at a great deal of expense from England, Scotland, Ireland, Italy, Belgium, and Germany was called, and it will be seen that Lehnert convicted himself of gross perjury by his own confessions. His own counsel asked him : ' Have you read the libels against you in the ' Cologne People's Gazette,' and is it true what is said there ? ' Lehnert's answer (under oath) was that he had read the libels, and that there was not a word of truth in them. Mr. Mathews made these last words the beginning of his masterly cross-examination. ' Not one word of truth, Mr. Lehnert ?' he asked with a tinge of well-played sympathy. ' Not one word ! ' Lehnert answered with great decision, and full of righteous indignation. ' Are you quite sure ? ' the counsel asked again. ' Quite sure.' To a string of questions, which were put rapidly, and answered often rather hesitatingly, Lehnert made the admissions that his office consisted of three small attics on the top-floor of 46, Queen Victoria-street, that two different entrances were leading to this house, that at each entrance to the house and also at the two doors to his office he had pointed a different name, and that one of these two names, Liman & Co., was that of a Berlin firm, established since 1879 or 1880, for whom he was acting as agent since 1886. THE KNIGHTS OF INDUSTRY. 229 Mr. Mathews : Are you still acting as agent for this firm ? Lehnert : No. The Berlin firm has sold the business to someone else, but I made before that an agreement with the firm that I could use their name in future. Mr. Mathews was very curious, and wanted to see the agree- ment, but Lehnert, after furraging about in his handbag for a long time, was not able to produce more than a few circulars, which proved that there was a firm of Liman & Co. The agreement, however, he was unable to produce, and so he declared finally that the name of Liman & Co. was always painted at his door, in 14, Trinity-square, as well as in 46, Queen Victoria-street, and the name of Jahnke and Foelsch, too. This firm, Lehnert declared, he had represented for many years, but they had dismissed him as their agent on the 23rd of October, 1894, in consequence of the libels published in the ' Cologne People's Gazette.' Mr. Mathews sympathised again, but was a little anxious to know whether the firm of Lehnert was still in existence. Highly offended the witness burst out : ' My name is Lehnert.' Mr. Mathews did not doubt this, but he insisted to have his question answered, and then Lehnert had to disclose the fact that his firm had been turned into a ' limited company ' on the 6th of March, 1895 (during the postponement, and a fortnight before the trial), under the style of ' Lehnert Limited,' that he had been appointed director and Mr. Opitz secretary. Why was this change made ? To get money to go on with these wanton actions,' Lehnert answered, quite forgetting that he and his friend Opitz had brought the actions. About the number and the persons of the shareholders, the subscribed capital, and other trifles, Lehnert was not able to satisfy the curiosity of counsel, and he referred Mr. Mathews to the secretary. But Mr. Mathews would have none of him ; he preferred Mr. Lehnert, and asked his opinion about Mr. Opitz in his new secretarial dignity. Lehnert declared, he had always found him an honest man, and Opitz was enjoying his unlimited confidence as secretary of ' Lehnert Limited,' as he had been en- joying it when manager of Lehnert (unlimited). Mr. Mathews's curiosity was not to be satisfied. He asked now about the arrangements of the office, and elicited that it was ' in the good olden times ' as counsel suggested, as described in 230 THE KNIGHTS OF INDUSTRY. the incriminating articles, but that since then some alterations had been made. The number of clerks was formerly nine, Lehnert declared, and Mr. Mathews seemed greatly surprised. ' Nine ? ' he exclaimed, ' Mr. Miiller told us there were never more than five,' and I may remark that Miiller spoke the truth. Mr. Mathews became again quite sympathising and enquired : ' Has your busi- ness gone back ? ' and Lehnert was not slow to answer in the affirmative, and to mention the cause : it was the appearance of those wicked articles in the ' Cologne People's Gazette.' Now Lehnert had to give an explanation why Opitz signed ' L. Lehnert,' and why he personated Lehnert in receiving callers and new customers. Lehnert explained that it was of no conse- quence whether he or Opitz received visitors, and whether the latter took one for the other, and with regard to letters, there were so many, that he could not sign them all, and he had given authority to Opitz to sign his name. ' But surely he could have found time to put before your name the two letters p.p. (per pro- euro) that people may not be misled to take the signature as yours,' Mr. Mathews remarked, to which remark Lehnert had not to offer any explanation. Mr. Mathews went now on to ask Lehnert whether he had been present at the cross-examination of Opitz in the Police-court, and this being admitted, whether, what he had heard there, had not shaken his confidence to his former manager and now secretary to the new company, ' Lehnert Limited.' Lehnert said there was no cause whatever for it. Mr. Mathews said he was surprised at this assertion, and he took now the witness through the damaging ad- missions Opit/. had been forced to make. Lehnert's memory seemed all at once defective, and his powers of understanding too, seemed to have been greatly weakened ; but this was of little avail to him, and he had to admit that he had heard and knew that Opitz had traded in 1886 under half a dozen different names, that he had been connected with notorious long-firms, and that he finally became bankrupt. Lehnert grew more and more fidgetty during this part of the cross-examination, and tried to escape answering the awkward questions, by constantly referring counsel to Opitz, in exclaiming : 'You better ask Opitz himself, he will tell you.' But Mr. Mathews assured Mr. Lehnert, 'he wanted to THE KNIGHTS OF INDUSTRY. 231 have it from him, that he heard Opitz saying so, and what impres- sion these admissions had made on his mind with regard to his employee.' Lehnert : At that time I had no knowledge of it. Mr. Mathews : Do not say so, because I have something in my possession what may prove very disagreeable to you. Lehnert : The sooner you bring it forward the better. Mr. Mathews: Wait your time. Did you hear him say that he opened his third banking account under the name of L. L. Clark, and that the maiden name of his wife was Louise Lancaster Clark ? Lehnert : I could not say. Mr. Mathews : And do you remember that he filed his petition on the 28th of January, 1887. Lehnert : That is so. Mr. Mathews : Were you not shown at the Police-court a number of cheques which were signed by him in the name of L. L. Clark & Co., and signed after he had filed his petition ? Lehnert : I could not say. Mr. Mathews : Go on, Mr. Lehnert, go on ! I think that would have been sufficient to convince you. Lehnert : You are always asking me about the business of other people, ask me about my business. Mr. Mathews: I am asking you about your confidential man, the secretary of your company, who is signing your name with your consent. Lehnert: You seem to think a man ought not to be per- mitted to do honest work again, when he had the misfortune to fail. Mr. Mathews : You are still believing him to be an honest man? Lehnert : Certainly, or he would not be in my employ. Mr. Mathews : In spite of the bankruptcy, and the different banking-accounts he opened in fictitious names, and using them for his dubious operations ? Before leaving this matter you know his handwriting (handing the witness a- document) is this his signature ? Lehnert : Yes, G. Opitz. 232 THE KNIGHTS OF INDUSTRY. Mr. Mathews : Look at the back of this letter, what names are given there as references ? Lehnert : Mr. Hume and L. Lehnert, 14, Trinity-square. I described him as a respectable man. Mr. Mathews : Look at the other document. In whose handwriting is the signature 'Walter Arnold & Co.' Is it that of Opitz ? Lehnert: I am no expert in handwriting. It may be his, and it may not. (A third document, bearing the signature of L. L. Clark, is handed to Lehnert, who gives a similar answer and adds : You are always asking me about matters which I do not know, you better ask Mr. Opitz himself.) Mr. Mathews : Ah ! But you heard Opitz swear at the Police- court that this were his signatures ? Lehnert : I do not remember. Mr, Mathews : I must say, that is very strange indeed. Lehnert : If I had known that you would put such a great stress on that what Opitz said, I would have made a study of his depositions ; but I did not pay attention to what he said. I had quite enough to do with my own affairs. Mr. Mathews : That's just to what I want to draw the atten- tion of the jury. There were bankruptcy proceedings against him, writs, summonses, and finally he was declared a bankrupt in February, 1887. Lehnert: You know it better than I do, you have the official documents before you. Mr. Mathews : Why did he fail ? What were his liabilities? Were they not .6,377 is. 6d. ? Lehnert: I could not say, but I think they were about ^6,000. Mr. Mathews : And you heard him say so under oath ? And now tell me, Mr. Lehnert : you knew quite enough about this bankruptcy ; did you know who the creditors were ? Lehnert : Yes, I saw the list, and I had even to support a claim of one of the creditors. Mr. Mathews : I thought so. He purported Morris Brandt & Co. were his creditors. Did you know that according to his statement his own liabilities under the name of G. Opitz were THE KNIGHTS OF INDUSTRY. 2,3-3 ^2,000; and that for the remainder of ^4,000 he had been made liable, as he says, as partner of ' Martin Cohen & Co.' and 'John Mouat&Co.' Did you know it? Did you know it, or did you not ? Lehnert : Well, really Mr. Matheivs : I suppose you cannot remember ! Lehnert : It may be as you say. Mr. Mathews : Do you know of his leaving England from Cardiff in a coal steamer for Bombay towards the end of 1886 ? Lehnert : Yes. Mr. Mathews : Do you know that he never attended his public examination, and that he never got his discharge as a bankrupt ? Lehnert : (After a deal of fencing) I think I know. Mr. Mathews : You think you know. But you know, and we know now already Mr. Opitz up to his bankruptcy as Gustav Opitz, Martin Cohen & Co., John Mouat & Co., Walter Arnold & Co., and L. L. Clark & Co. Did this not shake your confidence in the man? Lehnert : No. He always tried to lead an honest life. Mr. Mathews : Your confidence was not shaken in the least, neither through the names nor dates I mentioned ? I leave it to the jury what to think, that you have promoted this man from the position of your manager to that of secretary of your company. Lehnert : Yes, I did so (correcting himself) that is to say the shareholders did. Mr. Mathews: Of course, the company and you are two different things, as far as I know the law. But I suppose we shall hear more of that bye and bye. For the present I am quite satis- fied with having Mr. Lehnert and Messrs. Liman & Co. in one person before the jury. I want now your full attention, for I shall put you a very important question : you are an honest man, Mr. Lehnert ? Lehnert : I cannot give information about myself, but I think I am. Mr. Mathews : You think you are, but you are rather shy to say so publicly ; you are modest, Mr. Lehnert, but you think you are an honest man ; we may say so in your presence without fear that you -would contradict it ? 234 THE KNIGHTS OF INDUSTRY Lehnert : Certainly. Mr. Mathews : Would you recommend Mr. Lehnert, if you were asked as Messrs. Liman & Co. for information about him ? Lehnert : Why not ? Mr. Mathews : And if you were asked as Lehnert about Liman & Co., then you would recommend the latter ? Lehnert : You are asking questions which I cannot answer. All depends on circumstances. Mr. Mathews : Quite so, Mr. Lehnert. Take your time to- answer my questions, but tell me : if a man would come to you and propose to you to order goods from a foreign manufacturer, to seize them after their arrival and to sell them, so that the manu- facturer loses his money, would you listen to such a proposal ? Yes or no ? Lehnert : Well, if a man would come to me Mr. Mathews : What ? I wish you to estimate your own honesty, that is what I want you to do, and I ask you once more :. if a man, living in England, would come to you and propose to- you to obtain goods from a foreign manufacturer, to seize them after their arrival and to sell them, so that the manufacturer is- cheated of his money, would you listen to such a proposal ? Lehnert : Well, let the parties settle the matter between them- selves. Mr. Mathews : Would you participate in such a transaction ? Lehnert : Such an occasion would never arise. Mr. Mathews : I challenge you : yes or no ; would you do it, and do it for money ? You say, you would have no occasion to do it. Do you mean to say that you have not done it? Yes or no?' Lehnert : I am unable to tell you ; all depends on circum- stances. If you will put before me a particular case Mr. Mathews: Ah, Mr. Lehnert! Did a particular case occur to you ? It looks like it. Lehnert : It may be. You seem to know more than I do. Commissioner Kerr : Maybe you can refresh his memory. Mr. Mathews : I can, my Lord. First of all, Mr. Lehnert,. is this your signature? (Handing a letter to the witness.) Lehnert : Yes. (Opens the letter to read it.) Mr. Matheivs : Stop. Do not read it yet. THE KNIGHTS OF INDUSTRY. 235 Lehnert : It is very interesting to me. Mr. Mathews : I have not the slightest doubt, it is. Well, the signature is yours. Now look at the date. Is it the i5th of August, 1893? Lehnert : Yes. Can I read the letter now ? Mr. Mathews : You can. Now, did you come to an arrange- ment on that 1 5th of August with a Mr, van Raalte to obtain some goods from a German manufacturer. Did you or did you not ? Lehnert : I know Mr. van Raalte. Mr. Mathews : I know you do. That is not the question. Did you make arrangements with him to obtain goods from a manufacturer in Teplitz. Well, Mr. Lehnert, well ? Lehnert : He intended to order some goods. Mr. Mathews : Say order goods, if you prefer it. This van Raalte had obtained goods before that from the same manu- facturer ? Lehnert : I cannot say, without asking first Mr. van Raalte. Mr. Mathews : You cannot say ? Had he not goods for which he never paid ? Lehnert : No, Mr. van Raalte pays everybody. Mr. Mathews : He did not pay the Teplitz manufacturer, who had to sue him, and at Raalte's motion the manufacturer was ordered as a foreigner to give security for costs, and when, by an oversight, deficient security was given, did not Raalte manage to get the action dismissed and obtain thus judgment for his costs ? Lehnert : He had a judgment against the manufacturer. Mr. Mathews : And then he came to you, and you arranged with him to get more goods from the manufacturer under another man's name ? Lehnert : No, no, no ! Mr. Mathews : Did you arrange to induce a Mr. Worlitschek to order goods from the manufacturer ? Lehnert : I think he required some goods. Mr. Mathews : Did you arrange with van Raalte, that his name should not be mentioned to the Teplitz manufacturer, but that the goods should be ordered in the name of Mr. Worlitschek ? Lehnert : I did not arrange anything. Mr. Matheu in the name of his or any other firm. He shew me a letter of a Swiss- firm, ordering a bill for 100,000 francs, and offering if ^ commis- sion, and he produced this letter, very likely with the intention to- induce me to avail myself of his services ' in this line,' which, as- he explained, ' was his favourite,' and it was always a pleasure to him to ' procure ' acceptances of highly respectable firms.' I must add that the above ' mentioned bill of ^138 io/- y dated from 1886, signed and indorsed by G. Opitz, is drawn and accepted in the name of Walter Arnold & Co. by Lehnert in his own handwriting, and, knowing that Opitz was Walter Arnold & Co., this is a clear proof that Lehnert & Opitz were swindling together already at that time. In his bankruptcy Opitz did not account for this debt 4/-, which shows what kind of bankruptcy it was. NEW REVELATIONS. THE abrupt collapse of Lehnert's and Opitz's action at the Central Criminal Court, has deprived me of the possibility to disclose in a court of justice the devices of the swindling fra- ternity to their full extent. The evidence produced at the trial was, as shown already in this book, a small sample only of the .material in my possession. If all should be published, I would have to fill volume after volume. It is sufficient to indicate the .abundance of the material, in stating that my defence rested on 5374 documents, and that from these for the action in London :so much was put in the hands of my solicitors, Messrs. Osborn .and Osborn, that they had to employ, besides of their usual staff, 1 8 copyists, to make the copies required for the court and my three counsels. In spite of this drain on my ' resources,' and in .spite of having heaps of material untouched and undisturbed in my archives, I was still enabled to put 1000 documents into the hands of my solicitor in Germany, who is conducting my case in the libel-action which I brought against the ' Rhenish West- phalian Gazette' in Essen. It is, therefore, not difficult to undertand, that the whole of the documents in my possession will never become publicly known. There are so many side-issues connected with it, that I could mention them only at the risk of rendering this book quite un- intelligible. For an illustration I shall adduce the affair Max Matzdorff from Landsberg, who is serving now a term of penal servitude for fraudulent bankruptcy. He had also transactions with Lehnert, and it was not the merit of Lehnert that he and Matzdorff avoided to come into a bad scrape with the custom- house. I shall give the outlines of the story only. "But before doing so, I just remark that Lehnert would have been helped to THE KNIGHTS OF INDUSTRY. 255 some years rather unpleasant work by the English custom-house authorities, if Matzdorff had had time and money to entertain Lehnert's proposition. Considering how experienced Lehnert was, it is impossible to suppose that he would have run such a risk, and it is more likely that he intended to cheat Matzdorff, a surmise that was expressed too at the latter's trial. The facts of the case are the following : Max Matzdorff had sold to a London firm 3000 boxes of Brandy with a spurious label of the well-known ' Martel ' brand. Each box contained 1 2 bottles, and the total of the invoice amounted to 48,000 marks. The first shipment of 1500 boxes was seized by the English custom-house officials, under the Merchandise Mark's Act, Sec. 3 and M. J., 1887, on the ground of 'false trade description.' Matzdorff came in January, 1 894, personally to London, and tried to obtain a release of the impounded goods, in which he failed. Somebody brought him to Lehnert, and this versatile enquiry- agent offered to ' arrange the matter with the custom-house,' for a consideration of 1000 marks (50). From a letter of Lehnert's to Matzdorff, it is evident that he pretended he could ' bribe the officials,' and the same assertion he repeats in a second letter, dated January 2oth, 1894, which runs as follows : 'In receipt of your favour of the i7th inst., I beg to thank you for your communications, and I can but assure you once more that you can depend on my loyal collaboration and the guarding of your interests in this most important business, if you show yourself prepared to pay me adequately for my trouble, expenses, and loss of time. At any rate, I am prepared to assist you in this important and difficult matter with my services and my experience, that you may be saved from the great loss threatening you. The matter has reached an acute state, when energetic, politic, and especially immediate action is required, and I had liked very much to see you personally, to consult about the steps which must be taken. Unfortunately this cannot be done, for you will understand that your appearance in London could have unpleasant consequences for you under the prevailing circum- stances. Until now you have made but a sparing use of my services ; you have initiated me partly only into the matter, and iven preference to correspond with me. This must come now 256 THE KNIGHTS OF INDUSTRY. to an end, and if I shall be of any use to you, I must have your confidence, and the power to act and to mediate for you. ' First of all I must speak with you about many things, which I cannot and will not put down in writing, and as you cannot come here, I do not see another way but that we meet at a place conveniently to be reached by both of us, for example Calais or Ostend. ' Of course, I could do so only under the condition that you pay not only my travelling expenses, but also an adequate fee, and remit me the amount in advance. I would charge you for coming to Ostend or to another place, similarly distanced, ;io. ' If required, I could even come to Landsberg. But as this- would necessitate an absence of a week, I would have to charge you at least ^20. ' You must do something, and this at once, if you will prevent the matter ending in a total loss for you. How matters stand, you have not to lose a single day. Fortunately neither R. nor the General Steam Navigation Company, nor anybody else, myself excepted, can get the brandy, but, as matters are to-day, I shall be very careful not to teach anybody how the thing is to be managed, But without the necessary ' grease ' nothing can be done. In London the goods are absolutely unsaleable, and it is useless to make further offers. But I have a relative in Bombay, who could do this business, and could afford to pay what R. offered. But more about that at our meeting. Without an immediate interview and consultation, nothing is to be done, and you are rid of your goods to see them never more. Therefore act with promptitude. Yours faithfully, (Signed) L. Lehnert.' The careful reader will have observed, that Lehnert speaks of a ' relative ' in Bombay, a figure who makes his convenient appear- ance in many letters, and on many occasions, when the able conjuror requires it. The fact is, that Lehnert had no relations in India, but Mrs. Opitz had, and it is a strange sign of identifi- cation, going so far that even in their private life, Lehnert and Opitz considered themselves one and the same person. Lehnert's letter to Matzdorff, however, was of no avail, for Matzdorff had meanwhile been declared a bankrupt, and his credi- tors recognised in Lehnert a bird with whom they would not have THE KNIGHTS OF INDUSTRY. 257 any dealings. They preferred to bear the loss, to preventing it by bribery and by other dishonest tricks, which even Lehnert wanted the courage to ' put down in writing.' Such secondary matters I have in great numbers in my docu- mentary evidence. But this example will suffice. My publications had ' taken ' and at once undermined the confidence to the famous enquiry-office ' L. Lehnert' and ' Liman & Co.' This, of course, raised a great anger in the sledge-driving community, and especially in the office of 46, Queen Victoria-street, where Lehnert and Opitz were living like in a robber's castle, and never thought that anyone would dare to attack them. I need not have regard towards anyone in the world, and I could afford to do it, and the honest trade is obliged to me for it. But not to deviate from the matter, I must publish still in this chapter some interesting documents, and I hope I am not tiring the reader with it. I, personally, do not like to read letters in books and newspapers, but in this case I have no other escape, and have to do myself what I do not like in others, if I want to show the reader how Lehnert was driving his sledge. After the publication of my articles against Lehnert, he circulated some ' Declarations and Explanations,' in which he, putting on the mask of an honest man, tried his best to clear himself of the accusations raised against him, and create the impression, as if he was enjoying the fullest confidence on the part of his customers, and that ' Rollo ' was the only one who was speaking badly of him. But it was strange that to his thousands of applications for testimonials, only about a hundred of his customers acceded, and many of these in very colourless letters. As Lehnert published the letters only which were in his favour, I will just look for once at the reverse side of the medal. It is, of course, impossible to publish more than a few of these adverse letters, but I can supply any amount of them. First of all, Lehnert wrote on the i7th of November, 1894, to one of his customers, as he had written to many before that : ' Last year you made an enquiry regarding a firm B. Arnold & Co., who later on failed, as I duly informed you. As you will see by my ' Rejoinder,' and by articles in the German Press, s 258 THE KNIGHTS OF INDUSTRY. (Lehnert referred there to the articles published at the instigation of Lehnert and Opitz by Adolph Stein, alias Adolph Semansky, alias Herbert Winter, in the 'Rhenish Westphalian Gazette'), the London swindlers, who of course are hating me furiously, are using Arnold's case to deprecate my trustworthiness, very likely for the purpose to hide their own guilt in this matter. 'Among other things I am accused of having given such a favourable report that a number of manufacturers, who received exactly the same report as I supplied to you, were induced to credit considerable amounts to the firm mentioned. ' You being a highly esteemed customer of mine for many years, I should be greatly interested to hear your opinion. I think I can take it as granted, .that you gave no credit to Arnold, because you did not answer the supplementary information I sent out in June. I should like to have it attested by you, that you refused to credit anything to the firm in consequence of my report.' The answer of the manufacturers, who supplied me with a copy of his letter, was the following : ' In receipt of your letter of the lyth inst., we should advise you to read the ' Cologne People's Gazette,' which will give you a perfectly satisfactory explanation with regard to your enquiry. Not your information was the cause that we did not enter into any connection with the firm of B. Arnold & Co., but the information we received from a highly reliable German enquiry-office. ' How could you state in your information that the proprietor of the firm was a Mr. Arnold, when his name was De Groot, and if he was a Mr. De Groot from Amsterdam, then he was certainly the same fellow who swindled us of a sample collection worth 200 marks. ' You further describe in your information this Arnold as the salaried buyer of four Indian firms, the names of whom you gave, but who, in fact, were not existing. Why do you not bring an action for libel against the ' Cologne People's Gazette,' who have exposed you in such a manner, that there cannot be any longer a question of confidence to your firm.' This letter was answered by Opitz, signing himself as ' L. Lehnert.' He wrote : THE KNIGHTS OF INDUSTRY. 259 ' I am rather surprised at the contents of your esteemed letter of the zist inst. I have read the ' Cologne People's Gazette,' and if only half of their contentions were true,* then, certainly, I should be a great swindler. But circumspect people know that many things printed by such dirty rags and ' party-organs,' are not true. Please take therefore notice, that directly after the publica- tion of the libellous articles in the ' Cologne People's Gazette ' proceedings were taken against the paper by my solicitor in Cologne, and that I instructed him to include in the action all further articles, if such should appear. I have also instituted proceedings against all other papers who have reprinted, as far as I know, the incriminating article ; finally the authors, Hesse and the famous correspondent of the ' Cologne People's Gazette ', Rollo, are sum- moned and will have to appear to-morrow before the magistrate to answer in the dock for their miserable lies. Who could do more for his justification ? ' It is surprising where these fellows learned to utter such bold lies ! The statements made in this letter were untrue, and the result of the action they brought later on, is already known. The reason why the firm just mentioned did not suffer a loss at B. Arnold & Co., was therefore not the information given by Lehnert, but information received by a Trade Protection Society, given at the same time when Lehnert sent out broadcast his favourable reports. The contents of this information were simply : * Rotten, keep aloof.' This was supplemented by a private letter, dated the i8th February, 1894 : 'Re B. Arnold 6 Co. I have tried my best in this matter, but nobody has to say anything in favour of this firm. Every- body dissuades from having anything to do with these people, ex- cepted they pay cash before delivery of goods, and these terms B. Arnold & Co. will hardly accept, in spite of their protestation that they are buying for cash only. ' From a manufacturer in Lienbach B. A. & Co. bought also goods for cash at delivery, but since then two months have passed, and the manufacturer is still waiting for his money, and, very likely, will never see it. I, therefore, cannot advise you to execute the * Not only a half, but the whole was true, and a good bit more. S 2 260 THE KNIGHTS OF INDUSTRY. order and wired to you yesterday : only for cash in advance, a message, which I beg to confirm with this letter. Be very careful if you do not want to lose your money. I just receive your tele- gram : ' Does Arnold consent ? ' Of course not, if you mean cash before delivery. I do not want to make any other arrangemenc with him, because I know, if he has once possession of the goods he will humbug you and find constantly new excuses for delaying payment. I am told he is a man who promises everything and keeps nothing.' That is clear and unmistakable. Now let us compare what Lehnert is writing at the same time : ' Orders to the value of some hundred pounds sterling can be executed with very little or no danger.' And this advice he is giving after serving up the temp- ting story of the three Indian houses, the ^1200 salary and z\ per cent, commission they are paying to Arnold, the ' good banking account,' and ' the excellent recommendations ' given to this ' experienced man who understands his business.' To dis- close fully this miserable conspiracy, I ask permission to publish one more of the many letters in my possession. A German firm to whom Lehnert had given his stereotype information about B. Arnold & Co., had in spite of this some doubts, and before delivering the goods ordered, they 'made another enquiry, to which Lehnert replied in a lengthy voluble letter in which he also says : ' Some time ago I had occasion to call personally at this firm, and they produced some 50 in- voices with the cheques they had paid in settlement, and it appears that until now all transactions passed off in a satisfactory manner.' This letter was written on the 2nd of April, at a time when the City Bank had already closed the account of B. Arnold & Co., because the business of the firm left no doubt about its swindling character. The ' 50 invoices and cheques ' Lehnert parades with so much ostentation, are an invention of his ; he never saw them, because they never existed. As B. Arnold & Co. had an account at the City Bank only, these cheques would appear m their banking-account ; but, with the exception of a few small cheques paid to German manufacturers, all the withdrawals were in favour of Mr. Ernest Schreck, Mr. Arnold's dear 'self/ Mr. Lehnert (20), the landlord, and two 'numbers' mysterious THE KNIGHTS OF INDUSTRY. 261 cheques, that, very likely, could tell a tale, if they could. But the ' 50 cheques ' were never written out, and never paid. The firm, who had made the two enquiries at Lehnert's, executed Arnold's order, the value of which amounted to ^205 45. 5d. No payment was made, and asking for it did even not elicit an answer from the debtor. The manufacturer wrote finally to Lehnert, saying : ' As these people absolutely will not pay, I do not find confirmed what you said in your informations, viz. : that B. Arnold & Co. are prompt payers. I have sent them repeatedly my statement, and I advised them finally that I have drawn on them the ^204 45. 5d. at sight. I enclose the draft with the request, to collect the money, and to remit it to me. But, if the people should not pay, I expect to have your advice what to do, to see my claim satisfied.' Lehnert answered a few days later, on the 6th of June, 1 894 : ' I thought it best for your interest to call personally at B. A. & Co. These people admit that they gave you the order to ship the goods on the loth of April, but they say that cash after 30 days meant cash 30 days after receipt of goods, and not after shipment. B. A. & Co. are quite willing to settle the matter in this way, and to pay your claim on their next pay-day, that is the 2oth inst.' Lehnert finished his letter with some re-assuring remarks, and the manufacturer's surprise was therefore the greater, when he received eight days later the following communication from Lehnert : ' In receipt of your favours of the gth and 1 2th inst., I have to supple- ment to-day my former communication regarding your claim against B. Arnold & Co., with very disagreeable news. I received yesterday from another firm a draft at sight on B. A. & Co., and calling there repeatedly, and finding always the office closed, I enquired at the housekeeper's, and heard to my immense surprise that the proprietor of the firm had gone to India, and that the office would remain closed during his absence. The rent, which was not due yet, he has paid in advance, and he left an address in Calcutta, whereto all letters are to be forwarded to him. I am not able to draw definite conclusions from this sudden departure, but I have strong suspicions, and these are increased, as not only in your case, but also in that of many other firms, Arnold had fixed the 2oth inst. as pay-day for considerable amounts.' 262 THE KNIGHTS OF INDUSTRY. ' As many of my customers are concerned in this matter, I am firmly decided not to spare either troubles or costs to bring Arnold to book, and, if need be, to proceed against this dubious individual even in India, where I can succeed better than anyone else thanks to my long stay in that country, and the relations I have living there.' (What tissue of lies ! as Mr. Mathews said. The author.) 1 1 enclose a formular of my customary power-of-attorney, and if you wish to entrust your interest in this matter to my care, please to fill out and to sign the formular, and to return it to me with the stipulated preliminary fee. ' I need hardly remark that this letter is signed by Opitz in the name of Lehnert. The manufacturer answered by return on the 1 6th of June : ' I have received your letter of the i4th inst., and am surprised at its contents. You call now the proprietor of the firm B. Arnold and Co. a ' dubious individual,' but according to the wording of your first information of 27/2/94, I was bound to think that you were well informed regarding the position and character of the man. How else could you have said that he was for many years in the employ of the Indian firms, who had sent him as buyer to London ? You named the salary and the commission he is receiving. Accord- ing to your statement his income was larger than that of a Prussian prime-minister, and on the strength of this, I entered into connec- tion with this firm. If matters are as you report now, then B. Arnold & Co. was not a commercial firm, but a long-firm a ' sledge-driver ' as they are called and you must have known it, and you ought to have reported accordingly. Before I sacrifice another shilling for the prosecution, I want to know what steps you intend to take in this matter.' Lehnert answered, saying he pardoned the manufacturer's rather suggestive letter by the vexation he must have felt at the loss he suffered, and explained what he would do to secure Arnold's person and to help the creditors to their money, and wound up, that the manufacturer may do what he thought best ; but if he wanted to make common cause with a large number of other defrauded manufacturers, who had put the matter in his (Lehnert's) hands, (an assertion which was true for once, and brought THE KNIGHTS OF INDUSTRY. 263 Lehnert a nice lot of money, who thus turned also the ' smash ' of Arnold's firm to a profitable account. The author) he would have to sign the power-of-attorney, and to pay in advance the principal fee of 44 marks. This the manufacturer did after some more correspondence, and in exchange he received two circular-letters of Lehnert, and nothing more. Referring to one of these circulars, the manu- facturer wrote on the i4th of August, 1894, to Lehnert : ' Your circular in matters of the famous firm B. Arnold & Co., has come to hand. I have told you already, that I entered into connection with this firm on the strength of your information only. You stated, they were buyers for Indian firms, whom you named, and to show how well-informed you were, you stated also the salary B. A. & Co. were drawing. Who was vouching to you for this information, which yom supplied to the commercial .world, causing thus great loss to myself and many others ? It is hardly credible that an enquiry-office would give such frivolous infor- mations, and state as facts what never existed. Or do you want to maintain still that you really believed Arnold to be as what you represented him ? You even were not able to ascertain who he was. According to German law, you could be held responsible for the loss you caused, but this, unfortunately, does not apply to England.' To this Lehnert answered (the Italics being ours) : ' My informant for this report was, as usually, my clerk, who is making the enquiries for me in the City, and he has taken great trouble in this matter. I reported to you faithfully what he reported to me, as result of his careful researches (but the ' trap-doors' 1 at least were added by Lehnert). I named to you the three firms whom Arnold pretended to represent. But, as I did not know them, and as Arnold was newly established and quite unknown in the City, I recommended you to supply him with goods for cash only. (This is absolutely untrue. In the information given to this manufacturer, Lehnert says distinctly : '// is thought, a few jQfoo can be credited? The belated assertion that l Arnold was quite unknown in the City,' is simply incompatible with Lehnerfs former apodictic declaration that ' the man is highly respectable, experienced, knoiving his business, and possessed of some means of his own. 1 ) Why did you not enquire 264 THE KNIGHTS OF INDUSTRY. about these Indian firms (who never existed). You ought to have done so yourself, or through my office, before trusting such people with goods to the value of many thousands of marks. For my fee of 1/9 I give, as you know, informations only about that what may be gathered here in England. (But B. A. 6 Co. were in England, and it was Lehnerfs duty to ascertain here the truth of his statements.) If I shall make enquiries in India, I require a special fee. (But Lehnert received joo enquiries regarding B. A. and Co., and that brought him over 26 in fees quite enough, to be sure, to make on his own account an enquiry about these three firms, before parading them in siich a manner, as he did. Besides, so many enquiries about a new firm, who had a small office only, furnished in true sledge-driver style with one table, one chair, a directory, and a copying-press, ought to have made him suspicious, as it did in the case of the manager of the" City-Bank.) The manufacturer gave him on the 23rd of August the following appropriate answer, one of many similar and even sharper ones Lehnert received from Arnold's victims ; he wrote : ' You have not the slightest understanding of a manufacturers business, else you would not reproach me with a want of following your advice to transact business with B. A. & Co., for cash only. You must have copies of the informations you gave me. Just read them, and you will find, that you could not have given a better report about a thoroughly honest and accredited firm, than about this Dutch swindler, whom you did not know personally.' ( Wrong ; Lehnert knew ' Arnold ' as Mr. de Groot, and they often had a quiet game at cards together.) ' You have supported this experienced swindler indirectly, (it ought to be: directly) and you helped him thus to success in his frauds. With all your sophistry you will not alter my opinion, shared by all my colleagues in misfortune, that you are the cause of the loss we sustained, and that your informations are cheap, but works of fiction. ' If you had said : B. Arnold & Co. pretend they are the buyers for these and these Indian houses, we could have made an enquiry, and the swindle would have been detected. But you stated positively : They are the buyers, and you have made your- self guilty by this of culpable negligence, for which you would be answerable in Germany.' THE KNIGHTS OF INDUSTRY. 265 On the 22nd of September, the same manufacturer sent Lehnert a cutting from a newspaper, according to which a Mr. G. had been arrested in Amsterdam, and enquired whether this was not his Indian buyer Arnold. Lehnert answered on the 24th of September, that this para- graph did not refer to de Groot but to a Guttmann, ' who was the soul of a firm Barnard & Co. in London, who had become bankrupt a fortnight ago. This firm opened as cloth dealers about eighteen months ago with a capital of ^250, and failed now with liabilities amounting to ^"32,900, the principal creditors being English firms. The assets are put down with ,5,000, but will hardly realize one third of this amount. Not enough with cheating the manufacturers who supplied them with goods, they cheated .also their customers and confederates in London, among whom was also a certain van Praag, who appeared also in a very dubious light in Arnold's matter. To him the Guttmanns sold a parcel for i, 800 florins and there was a deficiency of not less than 1,200 yards. This swindle led to the arrest of Guttmann. Regarding Arnold, recte de Groot, absolutely no information was to be obtained, excepted that he had not been seen either in Calcutta or in Bombay. In both seaports and in Rangoon firms are existing whose names are very similar to those Arnold mentioned (the German consul in Calcutta wrote however, as we know already, that these firms do not exist), but they all declare, that they never heard until now of B. A. & Co., and had not authorised him to make use of their names.' Finally after the publication of my revelations, the same manufacturer wrote on the 1 5th of November the following 'testi- monial ' to Lehnert : 'You did not answer my enquiry regarding Colmann. With- out doubt this firm belongs also to your proteges, as Arnold did. Much is said about your firm, and still more may be read about the queer manipulations of your enquiry-office. What I suspected for a long time, I find it now confirmed : You are the procurer of the sledge-drivers ! What you are saying to your defence is simply foolish. What interest should these swindlers have to slander you, after this de Groot, alias B. Arnold & Co., whom you and your Mr. Opitz knew so well, enjoyed your vigorous and effective support 266 .THE KNIGHTS OF INDUSTRY. in his miserable frauds. The impudence to obtain money from the victims by pretending that you are prosecuting the swindlers,, is the crowning of the edifice. Such a perfidious action is really unheard of. I am now putting together the material to recover from you the 44 marks which I sacrificed for the pretended prose- cution of your friend, de Groot, and to render you liable for my loss- of ,205. I expect to hear from you by return, otherwise I shall take proceedings against you, and I hope to find the matter ripe for the public-prosecutor.' It is a great pity that Arnold's victims did not take common action directly after the appearance of my revelations, and had Lehnert arrested as a confederate. The fellow did not deserve any pity, and this view guided me when I finished him off with a few strokes of my pen. But the preceding correspondence is- quite sufficient to show that the firms who went so far as to sup- port Lehnert with their testimonials, had no suspicion of the real facts of the case. Sledge-Drivers, who are a Common Danger. IN this concluding chapter I intend to show that the sledge- drivers are not only cheats and swindlers, but also directly scoundrels. The one quality certainly includes the others, but the criminal laws make differences, and these are observed too in the practice of the judicial proceedings. If somebody obtains goods and does not pay for them, the loser can proceed by civil action only, excepting the debtor had incriminated himself in some secondary particulars, as it usually is the case with the German sledge-drivers. But matters are different with those sledge-drivers, who form a common danger (and to these B. Arnold & Co. must be reckoned), and intentionally cheat by swindling their fellow-men. The first case that I will mention as an illustration of this theme, is a most instructive one. It deals with the swindler Jackson, a London celebrity, who formerly was carrying on his nefarious trade under the name of Hansen in Kiel, and later on in Hamburg, 49, Wilhelminensjtrajsse. Of this scoundrel no manu- facturer was safe, whether English or German, and I am informed by a most reliable voucher that Hansen even succeeded to swindle a shipowner of a fully-equipped steamer. A similar, but still more daring trick was played by the famous international Knight of Industry, Hoffmann, on a celebrated Scotch firm of ship-builders, with whom Hoffmann lodged an order for a steam-yacht for a well- known and sadly-remembered ' crown-prince.' The swindler, who introduced himself under the name of a Hungarian magnate in the best London society, pretended to act as plenipotentiary of ' his friend ' the crown-prince, produced credentials (forged, of course) and drew over 10,000 pounds sterling on account of com- mission. The yacht was nearly finished before the fraud was 268 THE KNIGHTS OF INDUSTRY. detected. ' Friend ' Hansen, alias Jackson, fared better. He steamed away on board his ship, rounded Cape Horn, and succeeded in selling it at the port of a South-American Republic, where people are not very particular with regard to ship-papers. In spite of the new coat of paint, and the new name the steamer bore, she was traced, and the buyer had to fight a hard battle for her possession ; but Hansen was not troubled with it, for he had brought himself and his booty safely to England. This ' stroke of business ' I am unable to prove to him by documentary evidence ; but it is different with his sledge-drivings in London. It is not worth speaking of his long-firm swindles to which so many Conti- nental manufacturers fell victims, for they are mere trifles in Mr. ' Jackson's ' glorious career, to which he turns only for a change, if no 'great matters ' are occupying his precious time and fertile mind. At present his principal occupations consist in defrauding honest people who managed to save something by hard work, and are anxious to secure some kind of employment for their old days. These kind of people are his victims, and with the help of a shady solicitor and some experienced forgers of documents, he succeeds wonderfully well in the most hazardous and difficult transactions without transgressing the line that would bring him within the clutches of the law. It is always ' a close shave,' but until now he managed to escape. In a newspaper, given to me by one of Jackson's victims, I read the following advertisement : ' Manager and cashier wanted, on trust ; cash deposit, ,25.' The man who fell a victim to this catch, was an old soldier, and as the procedure in his case was the same as in the next following case, I shall not enter into particu- lars. The advertisement in the next case read as follows : ' Man and wife wanted to manage a house of trust and business. Cash deposit, 25,' To this advertisement quite a number of appli- cations by respectable married couples were received, and they were all engaged by Mr. Jackson, and all defrauded of their ,25. According to the documents handed over to me by one of these victims, the matter was done in the following manner : Jackson was living in a house of imposing appearance in the swell-part of Kentish-town. Rich curtains, and beautiful flowers on the window-sills betrayed a richly furnished interior, and who THE KNIGHTS OF INDUSTRY. 269 drew this conclusion was betrayed indeed. For, in fact, the house was empty. The swindler slept with his family in a bare room on some paliasses, and a ground-floor back-room only was furnished as a kind of office. There he received his victims to rob them of their hard-earned few shillings. A table in this office was covered with piles of properly red-taped documents, especially leases, creating the impression of a solicitor's or land agent's office in no small way of business. Who would have suspected that these parchments were either forgeries, or obtained by fraud ? My informant applied for the situation, and was received in this office in a most formal and condescending manner ; he was very- close questioned about his past, his state of health, his references, and everything had the appearance of a bonafide matter. The appli- cant was informed, he would have to look after some house-property, and collect the rents and some debts, and for this services he would receive a weekly salary of 30 shillings with the free use of two rooms and a kitchen in the house. As security, he would have to deposit ^25 in cash, for which amount the lease of No. 1 2, Eversham-road, Kentish-town, would be given as security into his hands. ' Jackson made inquiries at the references, and ' these having proved satisfactory,' he wrote to my informant, that his offer was accepted, and he would be appointed to the place as soon as the security was deposited. Pleased of having succeeded to obtain the berth, my informant, who was in the employ of a coal-merchant, called and deposited on account 14. Mr. Jack- son favoured him at the same time with an order for 10 sacks of coal and six sacks of coke, and told him to call next week, when at payment of the remainder of the deposit, he would receive the lease as security, and enter on his appointment. The coals and coke were delivered, the remaining 11 paid, and ' the next week' definitely named as time when my informant would be installed in his new dignity, the day when he could move in, to be communi- cated to him by letter. The next week came, but no letter, and my informant called therefore at Mr. Jackson's, who received him. very kindly, and put him off for another week. Calling again, he was told Mr. Jackson was out, and waiting for his return in, the street, he met another man, apparently on the same errand. Pacing up and down like sentinels before the house, they got 27 THE KNIGHTS OF INDUSTRY. into conversation with each other, and my informant heard, to his great surprise, that his companion was also appointed house- keeper, had also deposited ^25, and was also promised the lease of 12, Eversham-road, Kentish-town. My informant did not say anything, but, on ' Mr. Jackson ' not turning up, he returned home, and wrote him a very plain-spoken letter, in consequence of which ' Mr. Jackson ' called the next day on him and produced the lease, saying he would give it up if another five pounds were paid. My informant took it, without paying the additional five pounds, put it in his pocket, and told ' Jackson ' to be gone, a polite request which the latter thought advisable to obey without much ado. The new possessor of the lease went to 12, Eversham-road, and being admitted there, introduced himself as the new landlord, and wanted to come to arrangements with the occupier. The lady, who received him, seemed surprised, but said nothing more than that he may be good enough to call in the evening when her husband would be at home, who, she had no doubt, would come to an understanding with the visitor. The ' new landlord ' called, of course, as he had been requested to do ; but it was now his turn to be surprised, for, after having produced the lease in the presence of three gentlemen, one of whom declared he was a solicitor, and the other, a detective, the ' new landlord ' found himself given in charge for trying to obtain possession of the house on false pretences, the lease being a forgery. My in- formant explained, and, after the police-officer had ascertained who he was, he went with the latter to the station and laid in- formation against Jackson. A warrant was applied for the next morning ; but when the police came a few hours later to execute it, the bird had flown, and had left the empty nest. Even the coals and coke, which had not been paid for, were gone, and only a pair of tapestry curtains remained as bequest of Jackson- Hansen, who had got wind of what was going on, and had left the country in a similar manner, as his great model Opitz had done in 1885, when he took his pleasure-trip to India in a coal-ship. THE KNIGHTS OF INDUSTRY. 27 1 Another swindle belonging to this category of sledge-driving, that came to my knowledge, deserves also to be mentioned in this place, for it equals, and maybe surpasses in audacity of conception and execution all what I related until now. A great drawback, especially to the stranger, who comes to London, and a source of much trouble and inconvenience is, that so many streets in all parts of the vast town are bearing the same name. There are Queen's-roads and Queen's-streets, King-streets, Prince's-streets, Broad-streets, and so on, by the dozen. A less favoured, but nevertheless frequent name, is also Liverpool-street, and this conformity of names was made use of in a most ingenious manner by one of the sledge-driving fraternity. In Liverpool-street, E.G., just opposite Broad-street Station, there is established for many years the well-known restaurant of Messrs. Moretti Brothers. The proprietors are highly respected, and, if they would require it, purveyors would be only too pleased to supply them with goods on credit. In June, 1894, the firm of Carlo Antognini, in Magadino, in the Tessin, received from ' Moretti, 7-15, Liverpool-street, London,' a letter, enquiring, whether they would give the London agency for the sale of their Gruyere and Emmenthal cheese and Italian salami, to the enquiring firm. The letter was signed ' Moretti,' and the nicely printed letter-heading read : ' Moretti's Cafe and Restaurant, Refreshment Rooms supplied, 7-15, Liverpool-street.' The omission of the postal-district in this address shows at the first glance the fraudulent intentions of the sender of the letter. Nevertheless, nobody would be suspicious about it that the E. C. was omitted, and, who knows London, would take it as granted, that Moretti's Restaurant, Liverpool-street, E.G., was meant, in spite that the number was given with 7-15, instead of 7-11. Moretti's letter closed with ' To save a deal of useless corres- pondence, I mention that our firm is very well known in the trade, and that you may enquire about us wherever you like.' Enquiries were made, and the reports received were, of course, highly satisfactory. Signer Antognini had a friend in London a Mr. Maschini and to be quite on the safe side, he asked his 272 THE KNIGHTS OF INDUSTRY. opinion about Moretti from Liverpool-street, and was informed that he (Mr. Maschini) knew the Morettis personally, that they came from Riva San Vitale, and. were highly respectable and prosperous. A banking house said ' Moretti Brothers, Cafe and Restaurant, Liverpool-street, are very respectable and hard-working, peopled They are Italians, possessed of means, and prosperous in business.' Another business-friend confirmed that the Morettis came from Riva San Vitale, and that they were good for any amount. . On the strength of such reports, Mr. Antognini wrote on the 1 4th of June, 1894, to Messrs. Moretti, that he was willing to supply them with goods against three months' bills conditions that seemed very acceptable to ' Moretti's,' for they gave an order for 23 boxes of cheese and two boxes of salami, an order which was executed without delay by Mr. Antognini and invoiced the cheese with 5254 frcs. 95 c., the Salami with 303 frcs. 90 c., together 5558 frcs. 85 c., Moretti being informed at the same time who the forwarding agent was. The letters of ' Moretti ' came to him in the printed envelopes which ,'Moretti' had enclosed with each of his letters, and this trifling manoeuvre contributed principally to the success of his game, as we shall see presently. ' Moretti ' lost no time to give the forward- ing agent his directions where to deliver the goods at their arrival, and he gave as addresses 117, Westminster Bridge Road and 94, Portland-street, W.C. On the loth of July, 1894, 'Moretti' acknowledged receipt of goods, and remitted to Mr. Antognini their acceptance in settlement of the invoiced amount. Some time afterwards Mr. Maschini, the gentleman already mentioned, paid a visit to his friends, Messrs. Moretti Brothers, at 7-11, Liverpool-street, E.G., and in the course of the ensuing conversation, he inquired, whether they had been content with the quality of the goods obtained from Signer Antognini. Messrs. Moretti were surprised, and said they did not know Sign or Antognini, and they had not ordered and not received any goods from that firm, and they ventured the opinion that there must be a mistake, or that a swindle had been perpetrated. Mr. Antognini was communicated with, and at his enquiry at the forwarding agents, he was informed that the goods had been delivered in accordance THE KNIGHTS OF INDUSTRY. 273 with the instructions received by Messrs. 'Moretti,' 7-15, Liverpool street. The matter became quite inexplicable, and yet the solution of the riddle was as easy as possible. I shall just say what I ascertained. Opposite St. Pancras Station, turning out from Euston-road, is Liverpool-street, IV.C., as officially described. The absence of all traffic forms a sharp contrast to the busy life of Liverpool-street, E. C., where Messrs. Moretti's celebrated restaurant is situated. The Liverpool-street, W.C., does not belong to, let us say, the fashionable part of the West-central district. No. 7 is a private hotel ; the proprietor, Mr. Wood, never knew a Mr. Moretti, and he certainly was never living there. No. 8 is a similar house, the ' Derby-Hotel,' and no Moretti is known there too. Now comes Derby-street. Crossing this street we pass on in Liverpool-street, the Nos. 10, u, 12, 13, 14 and 15 all strictly private houses, each of them tenanted separately, and in no connection with each other. There is no trace, and never was, of a 'Moretti's Restaurant.' At No. 15, a highly respectable French family are living, who are letting appartments to single gentlemen. In May, 1894,3 'gentleman,' who said he was a restaurant keeper at 117, Westminster-bridge-road, came with another young man, whom he introduced as Mr. Moretti, a man of about 35 years of age, of fair complexion, with a 'very funny ' fair moustache, pretending not to know English, and his friend explained, he had come to this country to learn the language. The conversation was carried on in French, spoken by Moretti with a slightly foreign accent, that proved him not to be a Frenchman or native of Switzerland, but caused the landlady to think he was a German, and even roused her suspicion that his assertion of being un- acquainted with English, was an untruth. However, a bargain was concluded, and the ' Mr. Moretti ' engaged a bedroom at a small weekly rent. He was not many days in the house, when letters arrived with the printed address: 'Messrs. Moretti's Cafe and Restaurant, 7-15, Liverpool-street. They bore unmistakable traces of having travelled through many postal-offices, before being delivered at their ultimate address at 15, Liverpool-street, W.C. Very likely they were first presented at the real Messrs. Moretti, but the printed address with Nos. 7-15, instead of 7-11, induced T 274 THE KNIGHTS OF INDUSTRY. this firm to decline to accept them, and thus the letters reached finally their goal. The landlady remonstrated with her lodger with the ' very funny moustache ' about the ' very funny address,' and declared her house was a respectable house, and she would not have such things. He explained it was a mistake, and he would have the matter rectified without delay. A few days later another letter with the same printed address, and a small parcel arrived from Switzerland. The landlady remon- strated again, and warned her lodger that if such a thing occurred again, she would ask him to leave at once. From this day 1 Moretti ' was waiting for the postman in the street, and took his letters from him. A few weeks later ' Moretti ' came home drunk one night and overslept the morning delivery, which brought to the house a letter, addressed as before, and bearing on the envelope, that apparently had been opened, a remark, that the letter did not belong to ' Messrs. Moretti, Liverpool-street, E.G.' The landlady was thoroughly disgusted, gave her lodger notice, and he left a week afterwards. During his stay at 15, Liverpool-street, W.C., no goods had been delivered to him (the small parcel excepted), and he also could not have stored them in his small bedroom. A long time after Moretti had left, that is on the third of October, 1894. an acceptance of his, amounting to 222 6s. gd., was presented at the house through Lloyd's Bank. No cover had been left, and the bill consequently went back protested. It was, of course, the bill of Mr. Antognini, who never received a farthing for his cheese and sausages. In prosecuting my researches, I further ascertained that a part of the goods had really been delivered at 117, Westminster- bridge-road, where Moretti, with another man of dark complexion were constant customers. The ' News-rooms ' in Bedford-street, the 'Cafe du Nord' and Capalli's Restaurant, then No. 94, Portland-street, and the clubs and German Public-houses in and about City-road, were the favourite haunts of the two swindlers ; and following these traces, I was finally able to collect unmistak- able proof, and to convince myself, that ' Moretti ' was no other than the notorious scoundrel Lewin, alias Popert, to whom I helped in 1886 to eight months hard labour, and whose career as Popert, and lucky escape to justice has been related in a preceding THE KNIGHTS OF INDUSTRY. 275 chapter. Directly after the great haul of cheese and salami from Signer Antognini, Lewin, alias Popert-Moretti, went last year to New York, but came back from there a short time afterwards to Europe, landing at Antwerp, and very likely he is staying now in Holland, in a convenient distance from England, where he is certain to be seen again as soon as his last exploit is forgotten, and the storm has blown over. His confederate and partner in this transaction, the man with dark hair and moustache, is, if I am not greatly mistaken, at present well secured. What I ascertained about this fellow, points to his identity with a criminal who appeared under the alias of Domenico Moretti on March 2 8th of this year at Bow-street under a warrant for extradition to Germany, for frauds committed there. The demand was granted, and it transpired that the man, whose real name is said to be Ossacino, had just served a term of five years penal servitude for defrauding a clergyman in South Kensing- ton of 2,000 by means of the ' confidence-trick.' Let us hope that the now prisoner in Germany and Lewin's confederate is one and the same .person, and that he will meet his punishment. But the cheese and salami have shown that even the most cautious business-man is not safe before the ingenious tricks of the sledge- driving fraternity. On the arid plains of a South-American Republic are strewn the bleaching bones of many thousands valorous sons of the German fatherland, who were killed in the battles of two rivalling parties. This fact is well known to the authorities, and if I am not mistaken the press was not silent at the time to the traffic going on between London and the said Republic, that amounted to nothing more nor less than slave-dealing, if I do net mention the name of the Republic who employed agents here for 'enlisten- ing' soldiers, it is easily explained by stating that I do not want ' a war ' with that State in an English law-court, .because the poor fellows, who were actually kidnapped and pressed into the service of these South-American Hidalgoes, cannot appear as witnesses before the day of general reckoning. Dead men are silent ! But one question I shall answer : Who were the scoundrels who acted 276 THE KNIGHTS OF INDUSTRY. as agents for the Republic, and who sold the young lives for slaughter? They were the countrymen of the poor victims the German sledge-drivers of London. Who did not know the ' star ' of the sledge-drivers and sharpers and smugglers, Venediger, who, after a long and prosperous career, sinned against the ' eleventh commandment,' and was caught at a most daring fraud by the excise-officers, and sent to prison, where he died ? He was the matador of the whole fraternity, and supplied the un-named Republic with the fighting material at $ per head. Who does not know his confederates the brothers Frantz, who are still serving a term of penal servitude ; Holm, who died in prison ; the miserable scoundrels Drucker, Hermann Arnold, Goetz, and Ritsch, who are all at present in safety in one or the other of H.M. prisons. But none of them deserved his fate better than their matador Venediger, who was not satisfied by ruining whole- sale striving manufacturers and merchants, but sold and sent into death thousands of his German countrymen, for whom many a mother and sister and many a German maiden are crying to this day. All these poor young fellows were engaged under false pretences as clerks, stewards, and ship's cooks, with good salaries and better prospects, and a 'free passage' to their new home, and when on the high sea they were informed of the truth, and forced to become soldiers, and to fight the glorious battles of the miserable Republic. They were not permitted to communicate with any- body, and treated as prisoners. Like cattle they were driven into death, and the bleaching bones of these poor fellows in the distant plains of the Andes are the appropriate monument of the German sledge-drivers in London a monument that cries for vengeance ! PRESS OPINIONS. 'The Cologne People's Gazette' ( Koelnische Volkszeitung ) has rendered a signal service to the German export-trade in exposing a considerable number of London 'Sledge-drivers.' In bearing the tremendous costs of the prose- cution, amounting to fully 40,000 marks, and in taking the great trouble of collecting evidence, the paper has made a sacrifice in the interest of German trade and manufacturers, deserving gratitude, and of which it is to be hoped that it was not brought in vain.' ' Neueste NachrichtenJ Leipsic, 27/4/95. ' By their energetic proceedings in this matter, the ' Cologne Peoples Gazette ' have earned the gratitude of the whole trading community of Germany, and all we wish is, that the great sacrifices were not brought in vain. There are certainly existing still in London some more of these companies of swindlers ; but to trace their dealings and to disclose it to the public, means so much trouble, danger and expenses, that it cannot be undertaken by a single individual or a single newspaper. There other factors must come to the rescue, and there the chambers of commerce seem to have to fulfil a duty, for it is easy to them to take the necessary steps and to find the means to protect German trade against these rogues and swindlers. ' ' Mercuria^ Berlin, 14/4/95. ' The Cologne People's Gazette,' one of those solid papers who are not tainted by any kind of corruption and have to thank their prosperity to their high character, combined with commercial honesty and intelligence, are pub- lishing, for some years already, most interesting revelations by their London correspondent ' Rollo,' regarding the fraudulent doings of the London ' Sledge- drivers,' who have swindled already the German trade for many hundred thousand marks. By disclosing the dangerous dealings of these London swindlers, hailing mostly from Germany, the ' Cologne People's Gazette ' has rendered a really great service to German trade, that deserves greater appre- ciation still, as it involved the paper into costs of 40,000 marks. The 'Cologne V 278 THE KNIGHTS OF INDUSTRY. People's Gazette ' intend to go on with their activity in this regard, and it is to be wished that there were more papers who would recognize and fulfil their ethical and practical mission in an equally thorough manner.' ' ft ffice, BERLIN S.W., FRANKFURT o/M. 13, Jerusalem-strasse. 44, Schiller-str. Teleph. I. 1815. Teleph. No. 2754. BstabltsbeD 1st Hpril, 1873. I. TERMS OF THE COMMERCIAL INQUIRY DEPARTMENT. TARIFF A. One Single inquiry for any place in Germany, Austria and Hungary, 3/-. Other European countries, except Russia, Spain and Portugal, \\-. Russia, Spain and Por- tugal, s/-. Transatlantic countries from 6/- to is/-. TARIFF B. Subscription chequebooks, for Germany and Austria : 10 inq. cheques, is/-. ; 25 inq. cheques, i is/-; 50 inq. cheques. 3 s/-; 100 inq. cheques, .6. Other European c 'untries, except Russia, Spain and Portugal : 10 inq. cheques i sj-, 25 inq. cheques 3, 50 inq. cheques .5 is/-, TOO cheques .11. For inquiries in Russia, Spain and Portugal an additional fee of i/- should be added to each inquiry. TARIFF C. Inquiries can be made by telegram at a fee from i/- to 2/- each ; besides the telegraph charges. All amounts are payable in advance by cheque or P.O.O. Additional fees should be sent in postage stamps with each inquiry. In case of omission, they are debited and a statement sent half-yearly, which has to be settled within 8 days, otherwise these amounts will be drawn at sight. TARIFF D. We undertake to furnish for all branches of business lists of commercial houses of good standing for the sale or purchase of goods. Terms according to requirements. We also procure to subscribers respectable agents in every branch of business for the sale of goods at a most reasonable charge varying from to/- to i. TARIFF E. Special inquiries, obtained by most exhaustive researches and through various reliable channels, are charged for accordingly, but not under io/-. II. TERMS FOR THE RECOVERY OF BAD DEBTS. WILH. SCHMEISSER & Co. undertake the recovery of debts under the following conditions: The preliminary charges for correspondence and other expenses amount to 4/- in Germany, and 8/- in foreign countries. If unsuccessful, no further charges are made. The rates of commission for amounts recovered by us are : 5 per cent, in Germany, 10 per cent, in other countries. The above charges are also payable if the debt is settled directly after the matter had been placed in our hands. WILH. SCHMEISSER &, CO. 1 Schmeisser, Berlin, Jerusalemer-strasse. Telegraphs Address j Schme isser, Frankfurtmain, Schiller-st. 282 THE KMGHTS OF INDUSTRY COLOGNE PEOPLE' 8 GAZETTE. %-. sag - M MIITO /^"T" TT fYl Svolm[rl)f $ ' ES^li^&- ' -- W v /o ^,.-.. ar>a ._i- g . it grsr % vy sSSSsiTHF 133 ^K/VCV 1 f Political, commercial and agricultural 'paper of the largest circulation. Three Advertisements : S'/ad. per sma// //ne ; 7/fl per square -Inch. Size of one page: 21 in. X IS la. For large orders translation of advertise- ments into German free of charge. Subscription t 151- per Quarter (postage Included) payable in advance. Apply to the Proprietor and Publisher J. P. Bachem, Cologne. on -the-Rhin e . English and Foreign Press-Opinions: ,,That paper (the Volkszeitung, Cologne) is known to be an occasional organ of the Vatican, and therefore good authority on Church affairs." (New-York Herald, 12. Nov., 1893.) ,,The Koelnische Volkszeitung, the largest catholic periodical in Germany, the official organ of the centrum of the Reichstag." (Inter Ocean, Chicago, 7. Mai, 1893.) ,,An organ of such acknow- ledged authority as the Koel- nische Volkszeitung . . ." (The Times, Jan. 2, 1896.) ,,But now that the Koelnische Volkszeituiig has taken the ques- tion into consideration, it acquires a very different degree of im- portance." (TheTimes, January 10, 1895.) THE KNIGHTS OF INDUSTRY. 28 3 l*S*^3 ** lH* Cologne People's Gazette (KolnischeVolkszeitung) Edition. Circulation all over the world. in London : on Thursday morning. Best medium London Qffice: 142 Clerkenwell Road, E.G. f or advertising amongst Germans residing in Great Britain . ...... .T, * Price of advertisements: 3? per small line. Translations of advertisements into German free of charge. -, vTER itf MM ^>$? jfESS Subscription: 2/6 per Quarter, payable in advance. Preas-Opini o ns: ,,The Koelnische Volkszeitung, the most important of the German Catho- lic papers." (The Daily New*. London, 21. Mai, 1892.) ,,The principal organ of the Rhine CatholioN." (New York Herald, 8. Mai, 1893.) ,,An organ of snch acknow- ledged authority as the Koel- nische Volkszeitung . . ." (Th* Time*, Jan. 2, 1895.) ,,The Koelnische Volkszeitung, one of the most influential orguns of the Centre party." (The Times, London, 19. Dei-ember, 1X93.) 284 THE KNIGHTS OF INDUSTRY. H. HERRMANN, LIMITED, 11, Dod Street, Limehouse, LONDON, E. CARVING DEPARTMENT. keep a large quantity of carvings of various sizes and designs in stock, and will also, when quantities are required, furnish quotations for special designs in every kind of wood, at very low prices, our work being of a highly artistic character and finish. Sbow*rooms : 67 i 69, CITY ROAD, LONDON, E.G. AND 7, MADEIRA COURT, ARGYLE STREET, GLASGOW. 64 PRICE LISTS AND DESIGNS CAN BE OBTAINED ON APPLICATION. THE KNIGHTS OF INDUSTRY. H. HERRMANN, LIMITED, 11, Dod Street, Limehouse, LONDON, E. CARVING DEPARTMENT. 98 THE KNIGHTS OF INDUSTRY. Hohoff & Co., # * * SHIPPERS OF THE NATURAL MINERAL WATER - -ELIZABETH SPRING,' be impress of all Gable Waters. We keep at our London cellars a large duty-paid stock of German, French, Hungarian and Spanish Wines, CHAMPAGNES, &c., &c., at moderate prices. tS^. Export to all parts of the World. 3<5 Speciality : HIGH-CLASS CABINET WINES. SAMPLE CASES of specially selected Wines {6 Bottles at io/-, 10 Bottles at 25/-). on receipt of P. O. or Cheque. Write for ipampblets, price Xists, testimonials, etc. CENTRAL ESTABLISHMENT: ERBACH-oN-THE-RHINE, GERMANY. Xonoon ffices ano Cellars: ST. PETER'S HOUSE, CLERKENWELL RD., E.G. BRANCHES: BORDEAUX FRANCE, OEDENBURG (HUNGARY;. THE KNIGHTS OF INDUSTRY. THE HAMBURG HOFPS MALT EXTRACT, for all Diseases of the Chest and Lung's, Coughs, Stomaehieal Troubles, CHRONIC DYSPEPSIA, Anaemia, Chlorosis, Febrile Conditions where there is Suspension of the Digestive' Functions ; also for Nursing Mothers. tbe Recommended by the faculty. BRITISH MEU JOURNAL. "Too well known and too extensively used to need any commendation from us." LANCET. " The parent of all the others." MEDICAL PRESS & CIRCULAR. "Superior to the other candi- dates in the market." Newest Awards : GOLD MEDALS- CHICAGO, LONDON, MANCHESTER, HAMBURG. COPIKS OF MEDICAL REPORTS FREE ON APPLICATION TO M. HOFF'S LONDON HOUSE, 29, New Bridge Street, London, E.G. May be obtained from all respectable Chemists and Druggists. 2 88 THE KNIGHTS OF INDUSTRY. Heinrichs & Co., 133 ft 135, Old Street, and 1 & 2, New Street, Works : 123, Central Street, and 2^z, Powell Street, London, E,C, Manufacturers of every description of Cane, Malacca, Bamboo and Wicker Furniture, Cane Blinds, Mail Carts, Baskets, &c. Houses and Rooms furnished and decorated in Bamboo &c. Japanese or Chinese Style. WHOLESALE & FOR EXPORT. All kinds of Invalids' Carrying 1 Chairs in Cane, &e. Depot for Genuine Austrian Bent Wood Furniture in all designs. A special department of Repairing all kinds of Bent Wood. Importers of Perforated Wood Seats in all sizes & shapes. SEATS CUT TO ANY PATTERN Billiard and Saloon Seats, Rout Seats, Bar Stools, c. DESIGNS & ESTIMATES SUBMITTED. THE KNIGHTS OF INDUSTRY. 289 Manufacturers of Envelopes Paper Finest Note, Bank & Writing Papers white and coloured. Book & Drawing Speciality BLOTTING PAPERS coloured and white. Large assortment OF All sizes and qualities. Kote Jpaer and in Exquisite Fancy Boxes and Ordinary Wrappers. THE KNIGHTS OF INDUSTRY.' MOTHER-OF-PEARL. Speciality : All kinds of Inlays, in Cnts or Aglets for Manufacturers of Instruments, Sewing Machines, Works in Horn, Furniture, Fancy Buttons, &c, SPECIALITIES for Manufacturers of Fancy Boxes and Sticks, Fancy Brushes, Lacquered Metal and Mashed- paper Goods, Portfolios, Purses, Toilet Sets, Fancy Paper and Glass Ware. J. REULAND, Mother-of-Fearl Works, COLOGNE-on-the RHINE, GERMANY. Sample Sheets, Samples and Price Lists post free. THE KNIGHTS OF INDUSTRY. 29J R MILDNER & CO., Jf^otjeign AND St. Peter's House, 144 Clerkenwell Rd., exG^. LONDON, E.G. 3^ Printing of Illustrated Catalogues & Price Lists a Speciality. THE KNIGHTS OF INDUSTRY. W. SCHIMMELPFENG (Auskunftei W. SCHIMMELPFENG) 137, CHEAPSIDE, LONDON, E.G. AMSTERDAM, BERLIN W., VIENNA I., Kloveniersburgwal 51. Charlottenstrasse 23. Schottenring 7. BRUSSELS, PARIS, &c., Boulevard du Nord 86. Boulevard Montmartre 20. Represented in the United States, Canada and Australia by The Bradstreet Company. The Institute was founded in 1872, its London Branch in 1888. All human institutions differ in value ; and as one selects one's banker, one's solicitor, one's newspaper, so the man of business should select his inquiry-office intelligently and cautiously ; then he will be safe against disappointments. In order that an inquiry-office may do its work in the best manner, three things are necessary : 1. That the responsible managers with their officials hold aloof from all other business enterprises, in order to maintain an absolutely impartial position. 2. That the head of the office find and train able, trustworthy and judicious assistants, conscientiously and skilfully. 3. That the institute be able to spend and does spend money enough on organisation and inquiry, in order especially to recognise early and in the best manner to deal with difficult and momentous cases, a single one of which often suffices to repay the inquirer his subscription for years. (From "Mer- cantile Inquiry J' a lecture by IV. Schiininelpfeng. ) ASK FOR THE TARIFF. Printed by F. MILDNER & Co., 144, Clerkemvell Road, E.G. UNIVERSITY T OS ANGFT.ES University of California SOUTHERN REGIONAL LIBRARY FACILITY 405 Hilgard Avenue, Los Angeles, CA 90024-1388 Return this material to the library from which it was borrowed. m DC SOUTHERN REGIONAL LIBRARY FACILITY A 001 040 766 6