Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1913-09-25
May Introduce Testimony Re-
garding All His Cam
paign Receipts.
A HUNDRED "OVERSIGHTS"
TOO MANY, STATE CLAIMS
Prosecutors Expect to Prove He Con-
cealed That Number Of
Contributions.

ALBANY, n. Y. September 25.-The
court or impeachment for the trial OF
GOV. Sulzer today unanimously voted
In favor of admitting all testimony in
reference to alleged campaign contri-
buttons received by the governor.
whether specified in the articles of i'm
peachment or not.
The point arose on the testimony of
Morris Tekulsky. a New York liquor
dealer. and former president OF the
New York City Liquor Dealers Asso-
citation. He had known William Sulzer
for twenty-three years, he said, and
considered himself an intimate ac-
quafntance. When he started to tell
about the organizations contributions
to Sulzer. Attorney Marshall objected
supporting his objection by a lengthy
argument. He maintained that there
was nothing in the articles of impeach-
ment regarding this witness. The pur-
pose OF the articles of impeachment, he
contended. was to give notice to q re-
tions against him and to afford him
time to prepare to answer.
No Notice Of Charge.
I'VE are now in the position Mr.. Mar
shall continued, more than thirty days
after the fling Of the articles. of being
confronted with charge which we have
not been notified to defend. This is mere
ly an attempt to recast the articles of
Impeachment at the very moment of
trial.
Mr.. Stanchfield. in reply, declared that
the managers have secured and are pre-
pared to prove that Sulzer received a
large number of contributions, vastly in
excess of those which appear on the face
Of the charges. There is no question as a
| matter of law but that this evidence is
admissible.
The managers charge that William
Sulzer filed false statement of CAM
paign expenditures Intentionally. He
studiously concealed contributions from
all sources where he thought their pub
lie acknowledgment might injure his
political future. The amounts Were
deliberately omitted by design and in
tent. Therefore. we claim that 1t Is
proper that we should show all in
stances wherein he acted In a manner
| that renders him unfit to occupy the
high place he now dlls.
Too Many for Error.
zone OF the governors defenses is
that the omissions were the result OF
| q mistake. We charge that he de-
liberately set out to falsify his state
ment and that he accomplished his
purpose.
These transactions-a hundred or more
in number-constituteda a common scheme,
a design on the part Of the respondent.
to display certain contributions and con-
ceal others. l concede that the failure
to report one might have been an acci-
dent; two, a coincident: but to fail to
account for a hundred is a crime
Presiding Judge Cullen then rendered
a long opinion on the question, at the
conclusion of which he announced he
would overrule the motion and submit 1t
judge said that If the present case We're
criminal trial he would pe disposed to
exclude evidence on charges not speci-
fled in the Indictment
This case, however, he said should
be construed with greater latitude"
Ample Time to Prepare.
He added that article of the i'm
peachment had mentioned the receipt of
10000 by the governor without naming
the donors and that counsel for the re-
spondent had ample opportunity to ask
for bill of particulars.
This" said Judge Cullen. they did
not do.
with Tekulsky still on the stand
At the outset Of today's session the
question whether the use which Sulzer
made of the s.. 800 given him by Jacob H.
Schiff constituted larceny preclpitated
heated argument. No final decision was
rendered by the court. Upon It's deter
mination depends the question as to
whether the governor is guilty OF the
most serious charge against him, In the
event that it should be shown in every in
stance that no restriction was placed by
the donors on the gifts of money received
by Mr. Sulzer during his campaiSn.