The Bridgeport evening farmer., 1913-09-25

0u4A0Es LOuGy, undnl1nOuSlY voted III favor of admitting all testimony in reference to alleged campaign contri- buttons received by the governor not specified in the articles of impeach- ment. The ayes were 55.
 The decision came after Attorney John B StanchfeId for the impeach- n1ent managers had declared that the contributions which the governor re- ceived were vastly in excess of those specified in the articles of irnpeaeh- ment.
 These transactions-a hundred or more in number,'' asserted MT. Stanct- field, constituted a common scheme, a design on the part of the respondent to display certain contri ributfons and conceal others. I concede that the failure to report one might have been accident, two coincidence, but 10 fail to account for hundred is a crine.''
 The question as to the admissibility of evidence to prove these transac- tions arose when the prosecution placed Morris .TekuIsky, a New York City liquor dealer, on the stand and began to ask him about campaign con- tributions. His name had not previ- ously been mentioned in the case.
 Louis Marshall, of the governors counsel, protested against the admis- sion of the witness testimony on the ground that the name of the witness had not been specifically mentioned in the articles of impeachment.
 Presiding Judge Cullen then rend- cred a long opinion on the question, at the conclusion of which he an- nounced that he would overru1e the motion and submit it to a vote of the court The presiding judge said that if the present case were a criminal trial he would be disposed to exclude evidence on charges not specified in the indictment.
 efThisy case,'' he said, should be construed with greater latitude" He added that Article 6, of the articles of impeachment, had mentioned the re- out naming the donors and that coUn- seI for the respondent had ample op- portuntty to ask for a bill of partieu- lars.
 This" said Judge Cullen, they did not do.''
 CoHFt~adjourned for the noon re- cess with Tekulsky still on the stand. In view of the testimony of Jacob Schiff, the New York banker, yes- terday, that he contributed $2,5oO to Gov. Su1zer's campaign fund with no restrictions on how it should be spent, the prosecution planned to recall him to the witness stand at the impeach- ment proceedings, today.
 Counsel for the impeached gover- nor regarded the testimony of MT. Schiff as a big legal victory for them. I Both the Senate and Assem- bly will reconvene, tonight. Majority Leader Aaron J. Levy was expected to resume his attempt to round up enough mem bers of the assembly to guarantee the passage of the additional impeach- ment charges. Seventy-six votes were required and the asseTn bly, adjourned, last week, only when Levy, after desperate attempt, had failed to se-
 
 The charges which are said to have been drawn up ,1ast week, by the board of managers, were that the gov-> ernor made a pre-e election promise to appoint Julius Broder state commis- sioner of health; that he failed to ac-. count for his direct primary campaign fund and that he usurped the powers of the executive office after being inn peached.
 Conference between su1zer and his attorneys was protracted till a late hour last night. Asked today if the testimony yesterday had caused any change in the defenseis plan to put the governor on the stand, Judge D. Cady Herrick smiled and said, T don't think it will be necessary now
 At the outset of today's session, Ed gar T. Bracket moved to strike from the record the answer of Jacob H. Schiff, yesterday, in which the witness
  gift to Su1zer as 'campaign expenses"
 t-The intent of the witness cannot affect the intent of the receiver of the fund.- argued MT. Bracket.
 Louis Marshall argued against the motion s"Tnis case should be consid- ered,'' he said, precisely the same as if we were trying indictment-as if the defendant had committed the crime Of larceny. You cannot be made the victim of a crime of larceny when | the giver places no restrictions on the ] gift he makes
 MT, Bracket replied that the intent ] of the gift must be determined by the 1 testimony of MT. Schif-what Sulzer ] said when he asked for the check that he asked for campaign scontri- | button. 1
 Preceding, Judge Cullen refused to strike out the answer. t'If it was a common law larceny said the judge, | T should be certain that my ruling was correct, although there must be l trespass in common law. I feel that he same ruling should apply here. [ may change my mind but for the lime being I must reiterate my pre- viouS ruling"
 Judge Cullen added that MT. Schiff's at the time and not his in- .ention at the present time, was the question that should be considered.
 That's all we want" commented MT. Marshall.
 Thomas M. Goodwin, the paying tell 1T of the Farmers Loan & Trust Co.,, vas then recalled.
 He was first questioned by John B. stanchfeld concerning the instruc- ion he had received from the attor- icy for the trust company not to tes- fly that signatures had not passed trough the institution in which he s employed.
 MT Stanchf1eId handed the witness ! check of the Frank V. Strauss Co. or $1,00O. The check was endorsed " William Su1zer.'' After some he's tatton, the witness said, ''I am of the L