New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1913-10-08

Odd you have any communication
with him upon the subject? A.-No, sir.
Q.-Now, 1t is a fact. is II not, common
knowledge, that Senator Root had been
long time your fathers counsel,
Ayes, sir.
Q.-And Mr. Delaney Nicoll had also
been one of your fathers counsel, had he
not? Ayes. sir.
Q.-Now. in this last conversation TO
which ! have been calling your atten-
ton, In which you were requested to see
Mr.. Nlcoll. what reply, il any did you
make to Governor Sulzer? Al told him
I would see what could do. and went
out in the country and forgot 1t.
Ryans testimony ended the managers
case against the Governor, and the de-
fence called its first witness.
Samuel A. Beardsley. OF Utica. this
first witness. was not allowed TO testify
at length. Through Mr.. Herrick chief
counsel OF the Governors forces, the
statement was put on the record that the
defence expected to show through
Beardsley that he had offered Sulzer
contribution of $4,000 from "a client"
and that Sulzer had refused II.
Mr.. stanchfield objected when Louis
Marshall attempted to bring this out from
the witness, and .Herrick, in response.
said
This respondent has been depicted be-
fore this court as going around with his
hat in his hand, almost begging contriou-
tions for his personal benefit, showing
more activity in gathering In contribu-
tons than in gathering In votes. We
propose TO show that this man rejected
contributions of large amounts-refused
TO accept them. Certainly that has some
bearing upon the charge that is made
here that he was soliciting contributions
from people for his own personal benefit"
Courts Closest Vote.
President Cullen thought that the
proffered evidence was immaterial. but
he said that, as ii was matter OF i'm
portance because there were probably
other similar witnesses TO be presented
BY the defence. he would ask for vote
OF the court upon the admissibility OF
such evidence.
The resulting vote disclosed the closest
division of the court so fare TO "a In
favor OF excluding the evidence, and
thereby supporting the view and vote OF
President Cullen that it was not material
evidence.
Mr.. Herrick excused Besrdsley from
the stand then and, saying that while the
defence had other witnesses who would
have given similar testimony they would
not be put on. called Herbert h. Lehman
to the stand. Mr.. Lehman, who was
treasurer OF the Suzer direct primary
committee and who is a banker In New
York City. examined by Louis Marshall.
testified that he had first met Sulzer in
July, 1912.
II appeared that Lehman wrote 10 SUI
ger in the latter part OF June, 1872, shortly
before he first met him, suggesting that
as a candidate for the nomination for
Governor he should initiate some kind OF
publicity campaign. Lehman wrote that
while he had no practical experience
along that line he would be glad to assist
in such a REORGANIZATION campaign BY
making a contribution.
After an argument over the point OF ad-
hitting evidence of money received by
Sulzer prior TO the date Of the transac-
ton In which he is accused by the mana
gers, President Cullen ruled that the de-
fence might show such contributions or
receipts of money. as il would fall under
the head Of evidence which might tend to
prove that the money invested In stock
deals was Suffers own money and not
campaign contributions.
II think it is competent" said Judge
Cullen. 1T will be for the court 10 say
where this money came from
Lehman then testified that he gave 10
sulzer 5000 in cash on September q, 1872
Gave Sulzer $4,000 to Spend.
u gave it to him for his own personal
use. without any conditions Lehman
added.
On cross-examination Stanchfeld went
directly TO the point of the purpose Of
the 5000 gift
when you first met him did you have
a talk with him on the subject OF the
letter you had written him. he asked.
81 did" Lehman answered.
What did you say 10 him about this
letter."
II told him that thought a campaign
of publicity would be OF value TO him and
that would be glad to help defray some
of the expenses OF such a campaign
And isn't that what you gave him the
5000 fore"
No"
1t appeared that Lehman had looked
up the law for himself on the point Of
publicity OF contributions TO candidates
both before and after nomination, out
he explained he had done so because NJ
his work as treasurer of the direct p'l-
mary campaign committee.
Now. when you gave him the SOC" IN
bills. on September %, did you mean "
il TO aid MIN in effect!ng publicity OF MS
campaign for Governor" Stanchfed pu'-
sued.
Not by any means
What did you mean by itY'
II gave him 5000 unconditionaUy ,
knew that he was a man OF straitenso
circumstances. ] did net care what no
did with this money-whether he PAID NO
rent. or bought himself clothes. or pau
for his office. or any other expenses Wh''
he might incur"