The times dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1903-1914, 1913-10-10
Defense Of Sulzer Is
Outlined by Attorney
Louis Marshall.
BIG STATESMEN
IN COMPARISON
Refers to Mckinley and Webster
as Men Devoting Lives to
Politics and Accepting Big
Loans-Parker Is Sarcas-
tic, Referring to boy
Sarecky."-
Especial to The rimes-Dispatch. ]

Albany. y Y, October a.-In the
opening day OF argument in summation
before the high court OF impeachment.
opposing attorneys made these points
for and against William Sulzer:
ny Louis Marshall, for Sulzer.
THE three fundamental charges
relate 10 acts which occurred and We're
completed before the respondent be
came Governor.
2-We assert impeachment will not
lie in this state for acts which do not
constitute wilful and corrupt miscon-
duct in Office.
3-Thc law referring to statements
oy a candidate has reference only to
contributions and expenditures by the
candidate, not contributions made 10
him.
+-in so far as the affida wit of the re
spondent relates to contributions made
10 him, IL is voluntary and extra judi
eial. not being an oath required by law
and hence does not come within the
definition of perjury.
Gifts to the respondent were not
made specifically campaign contri
buttons. but for any purpose the re-
spondent might desire.
eff he did not intend TO use these
gifts for campaign purposes and If they
~cre received by him with the under
ctunding on his part that he was to
use them for any purpose he might
ful and corrupt swearing by emitting
them from his statement
.. Campaign contributions are given
in a spirit Of liberality. There is
therefore, in this case, no basis for a
charge Of embczzlemcnt. That crime
as well as ?[ceny. is against property.
5. Conceded these moneys were
given on condition they were to be
returned II not used for campaign pur-
poses. certainly the possession OF these
funds, BY the respondent was lawful.
BY Alton II. Parker for Impeachment:
!. No man ever gives money To 4
candidate unless his purpose is to aid
him In his campaign honestly aud
generously or else because he desires
10 secure lien upon him.
.. II does not help the respondent
for the boy Sarecky 10 say he did the
best ne could. His master, William
Sulzcr knew il was lie.
3 What was implied when he said
TO Allan Ryan. Tell your father, I'm
the same old Bill" Was il not that he
would continue TO be friendly and ser
viccahle ana kindly?
4 The respondent knew his nomina-
ton for Governor would convey the
idea that money contributed 10 him
VAS u b. usod for campaign purposes,
He let II convey that idea.
;. Statesmen are accused by states
men and tried by statesmen not upon
the nicetics OF q narrow Jurisprudence,
but on the larger and solid foundation
OF State rloralitS.
8. We submit that an officer may he
impeached for acts committed prior
to his term of office. This proceeding
is not and never was designed as a
punishment for crime. Impeachment
is not so much designed 10 punish the
offender as 10 secure the state"
Argues on Technical Lines.
Mr.. MarshallS appeal was To the
lawyers of the court for acquittal on
technical grounds He did not defend
the moral attitude OF his client. the
impeached Governor He urged strict
Interpretation of the Constitution.
which will throw out of court the
three articles of impeachment which
charge misuse of campaign funds
Mr.. Marshall declared that no proof
worthy of consideration had been Of
fered in respect to any OF the charges
except such acts as were committed
prior to Sulzer taking Office. He at
tackled the testimony Of Superinten-
dent of Public Works Duncan w
! Peck He said that Special Investi-
gator Hennessy had investigated Peck $
! department and found grave irregu-
/ larities.
Peck. Attacked. Makes Reply.
| He said:
| Governor Sulzer was familiar with
the line of inquiry which Mr.. Hen
messy had instituted. SO was Peck
| While under this connection it would
! have been the most unnatural thing
| in the world for Governor Sulzer to
have made to Peck the suggestion "a
| which the latter has testified, for Peck
would have been the last man in the
world into whose power he would have
/ placed himself. at that time Peck had
| a strong motive for inventing such a
| conversati ton as that to which he has
| testified, because 1t would enable him
! TO aid in the destruction OF the man
who had set in motion the investiga-
tion which threatened. not only the Of
flee which he held, but his very
/ liberty.
\ Peck issued a statement, In which he
I said:
| II denounce Marshalls statement as
| a lie. and as "A lie told for pay. Nc
| one has ever investigated my depart
ment His statement is unsupported
| by the slightest bit of evidence. Wher
! was on the stand he had full oppor-
tunity to attempt to impeach my testi-
mony by cross: s:examination, but he pre-
| ferred to make n cowardly attack upor
| ME when had no chance TO be heard
Draws FInttering Comparison.
/ Dwelling on Suffers financial condi-
| tion as an excuse for accepting gifts
Mr.. Marshall compared him in this re-
spect to Daniel Webster and President
/ Mckinley. He said:
| 1T Is we'll known that some OF the
bgreatest men In American history. wh6
devoted their lives to politics In the
| best sense of that much abused term
were proverbally impecunious. in &
state OF perennial financial distres,
and dependent largely upon gifts. loan,
4 (Continued on Seventh Page.9