New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1913-06-23

surety for his lodgings and board. /
wish to sav in a general way that Mrs
vatson svore on the trial that shc
never saw Sulzer or talked with MN
IN her life. and never made any co"-
tract with him
u am aware that Judge Lacomoe has
different recollection, but 1t must DC
remembered that Judge Lacomoe loon
no notes and is dependent entirely upon
his recollection As to vhat occurred d'
that trial. and that was many years
ago. I don't know that it was ever con-
tended by any one that the petition
offered was ever presented to the court
II was. however presented to the Gu
cral District Attorney.
"One thing is settled, and that is that
the petition was offered to the Federal
District Attorney, and was sent SUB
.eouontIy by him to Mr. Stckney' To-
gether With the letter.
Petition Not a Forgery.
Therefore the. petition is not forgery
and the letter is also genuine ana not
lake I'm any sense What became OF inc
original petItion is. and may perhaps re-
main. a secret forever.
AS I stated i'm The Tribune this morn
Ing. Mr.. Sulzer did not advance any
money in the Watson case, either Tor eA-
penses or anything else, and. as SAID
he was I'm no pccunary position 10 90
that sort of thing. and If he ootalneu
any money from his mother ne never
nut il into that case. and | repeat that
he cannot prove he over paid dime
toward the expenses i'm that case.
Ills statements about the work he dld
in the case are entirely fabulous Inc
total amount of the estate of John An
derson did not exceed S2.500oo0. The state
ment Of Mr. Sulzer that he had spent
quite a little money and had done all
the work is entirely imaginative.
"Au his statements about CONVEX
station he alleges he had with me regard
ing his services in the case are purely
imaginative. No such conversation ever
took place. 1t is very hard TO ascertain
how ono-ffth Of $4,000 estate could
net any one 100000. ] never promised
him any sum-slO.C00 or anything else.
lie did ask me for 500. That ] re-
fused. lie then made a claim for SlOW
on me which he said he was to give to
some witness in the case. told him
that such a thing could not be thought Of
James G. Carter is dead, and much Is
made by Mr.. Sulzer of the fact that he
was a witness i'm his favor ] will tell
YOU how that was done Mr.. Carter was
called as an expert witness, and an OK
pert witness is called to estimate the
value of services, if proved. Mind you.
if proved The witness is asked II the
lawyer did certain services, what those
services are reasonably worth, but the
trouble with Mr. Suffers case was that
he did not prove he did any services.
Says Sulzer Pleaded for Chance.
"Mr. Suffers coming shows the re-
markable pushing nature Of the man. He
was in my office. and after he left he
went with Judge Henderson, and about
the time of the second trial before Judge
Lawrence he came TO me and said: i
Am young man. making my way. and
In I'can be associated in such a case as
this Il will give me prestige in my pro-
fession and It will be OF great service 70
me. would like to come in there with
you. and If ! can be Of any assistance
during the trial I will do So / said, natu-
rally. that wanted to see him get along
and ] granted his request.
y believe he then possessed the same
extraordinary facility he has shown
since Of getting his name into the news
papers. and he got his name mentioned
then as one Of the attorneys in the case.
HE claims he consulted Joseph r..
Choatc. Mr.. Choate says he has no recol-
lection about the case. He SAYS Judge
Lacombe charged the jury strongly in his
favor My recollection is that Judge La
combe made an impartial charge. He
says Judge Lacombe said that he was
surprised that the verdict was against
him. don't believe Judge Lacombe said
any such thing. And ! don't believe
Judge Lacombe said the verdict was
against the weight of evidence and ought
10 be set aside, because no motion was
ever made before him for that purpose.
Son Never Asked Justiceship.
81 wish TO call attention to the state
ment Of sulzer that he was asked 10
appoint my son 10 Supreme Court JUS
ticeship and that he laughed about It.
This fabrication Is absurd and shows that
while pursuing his political avocation Mr..
Sulzer neglected the law. My son is a
resident Of the lid District. in which there
has been no vacancy since Mr.. Suffers
Inauguration. and how an application 10
be appointed 20 place not vacant car
be considered is beyond my comprehen.
sion.
II believe all his story about a man
coming to him with COPY OF the letter
and petition is an entire creation of his
fertile imagination. In regard to Mr.
Murphy never saw him In my life.
"In regard 10 Governor Pingrees letter
herewith present one OF an earlier date
than that offered by Governor Sulzer, and
leave the public TO declare which letter
merits more consideration-the one writ
ten 20 me or the one written TO Mr.. Sui.
zer He says my story-that is, the letter
and petition-is a forgery and p fake
His own witness. Mr.. Plumley. says h,
received the petition and he sent copy
~ II TO Mr.. Stckney.
II ask no favor OF Mr.. Sulzer. II il
presenting papers which are conceded Il