The times dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1903-1914, 1913-10-15
Possibility Of Indefinite
Continuance Appears
in Sulzer Case.
COURT LISTENS TO
LONG ARGUMENT
New Charge, Proposed by Man
ayers of Prosecution, Is Felony
Instead of Misdemeanor. and
He Must Be Given Time to
Answer-Judgc Cullen
Sums Up Case.

Albany. y. Y. October fS-rhe pos
sib!lity OF an indefinitely long delay
~ reaching a verdict AS to the guilt
or Innocence Of Governor William sui
zer to-day looincd up az his impcach-
m"nt trial here. This Was suggested
when counsel for the impeachmcnt
managers asked that the court recon-
mend TO the Assembly tho brinl.in1, of
new article OF impeachment in the
event the testimony OF Duncan w
Pcck. superintendent of public works
ana Henry l.. Morgenthau, bassador
10 Turkey. should not he found Ia bc
relevant 10 any charge contained in
th. present articles
Whether this testimony was rclo-
want 10 Article ". which charges the
Governor with suppression OF evidence
before tho Frawley Investigating com
mitt"e to-day was the subject or de-
bate in executive session and unde-
cided when Adjournment until to-mor-
row morning was taken.
Continue Executive Session.
The executive session will he con-
tnued tomorrow, and on the result
Of the courts delibcration will de-
pend the question as TO whether il will
proceed To vote or await the act!yn
OF the Assembly in the question OF
bringing the suggested new article OF
impea achmcnt
should the latter course be adoptct
the future progress OF the trial will
be matter of speculation. The oues-
tion a once would arise whether the
necessary majority could be obtained
10 vote tho new article
St!uld it be possible to muster
enough votes to adopt the now article
at an early date. tho Constitution re-
quires that the Governor he given
twenty days Eotice before called upon
to answer.
Propose an Amendments.
me SPECIFIC contentious placed be-
Tore the court in the all-dny arguments
OF the counsel was whether the Peck
Morgenthau testimony constituted "a
new charge against the Governor. Ar
torncy John H. Stanchiield. for the i'm
parchment managers. brought il 10 a
climax by proposing an amendment to
Article ". specifying the names OF
feck and MorGenthau in addition to
those Of Frederick 4. Colwell Louis
i. Sarecky and Melville b. Fuller as
persons whom tho Governor sought to
prevent from tcstifyinG before the
Frawley committee.
Peck sworc that the Governor had
asked him II called before the com
mittee 10 deny under oath that he had
given $500 for his campaign. Morgen-
thau testified the Governor had asked
him in connection with his 81. GOO con-
tribution ito be easy with him"
New Charge I. Felony.
The proposed amendment further
differed from the original in that il
specified that the Governor attempted
subornation OF perjury. n felony.
whereas the original merely charged
that he used threat and mcnaces" a
misdemcanor
Argument OF counsel mainly centred
around the point as TO whether citing
fnr
jury constituted a new charge.
Although the testimony OF Allan A.
Ryan that the Governor sought politi-
cal influence TO stop the trial was placed
before the court for its consideration
when the question was first raised yes
terday by Judge Miller. no action was
suggested in regard TO il to-day
Attorney Stanchheld. in presenting
the amendment. offered counsel for the
defense the chance to place the Gov
ernor on the stand to refutc the charges
IS amended but they Indicated no in
tention Of doing so.
Judge Cullen sums Up.
Presiding Judge Cullen summed up
the issue as follows:
The question whether under the ar
ticles OF Impeachment they now
stand the conversation to which the
witness. Peck, testified can he consid- :
cred rs a substantive offcnsc. is one
that will have to be determined when
YOU finally determine the merits OF the
case. But there also is here AN appli-
cation to amend the articles and also
4 request here for the court to use the
expression OF counsel. 10 send it back
10 the Assembly or give it notice. That
viii have to be determined now and
before proceed further in this
case
When court tonight adjourned it
was rumorcd that a motion was under
debate TO adopt the proposed amend
ment. and that there also was an
amendment TO the motion itself. the
nature Of which could not he learned.