The Richmond Virginian. (Richmond, Va.) 1910-1920, 1913-09-30
To END TESTIMONY
FOR PROSECUTION
EARLY TOMORROW
Attorneys for Impeachment
Court Require Less Time
Than Had Expected and
Sure of Conviction
Two Rulings by Judge Cullen
Heartens the Defense-Gross-
man Contribution. Unac-
counted for One Big Bit Of
Evidence for Prosecution

ALBANY. N. Y, Sept. 2s.--Testi-
mony against William Sulzer Is likely
TO be finished by tomorrow afternoon.
or Wednesday morning. at the latest
BY Wednesday afternoon the gover-
nor may be on the stand. beginning
the long story If poverty and perHe-
cution, which he believes will saws
him.
In five days OF actual testimony. the
swiftly moving lawyers of Il prose-
cution have nearly completed their
case. They expected to require At
least seven. They believe they have L
already insured conviction. Soma Of
their best witnesses. however, they
are holding for rebuttal. They su1- ~
pect that Governor Suffers narrative {
in his own defense will cover SO much Il
ground that wide latitude OF teSt1-
mony will be permitted in reply.
sulzer Lawyers Elated.
The governors lawyers were elated
today by rulings of Judge Cullen
which blocked the impeachment mani
ayers at two important points.
| One OF them was that nobody 0x-
| cept John Boyd Gray. of Fuller ana
! Gray. could be allowed to testify ~
TO whether or not account No. 500,
which Frederick l.. Colweil carried
with that firm was really the account
+ whom this question was asked today,
were checked by the defense, ana
sustained by Judge Cullen, when they
said they only knew what Mr.. Gray
had told them. The impeachment
managers were hit by this ruling, be-
! cause their subpoena servers nEvB
been unable to find Mr.. Gray. How
ever, his partner. Arthur NJ Fuller,
/ has promised to find Mr.. Gray IL he
can. and have him in Albany tomor-
row,
| The other ruling which heartonAd
the defense, and went hard with thu
| prosecution, was that no assem- hIymoM
except Thaddeus G. Sweet, Of Oswego
county, and Spencer G. Prime, I'd, of
/ Essex county. could testify as to the
governors corrupt use of the veto
power in bargaining for votes for his
/ direct primary BILL as alleged in Inn
! parchment article number seven.
| For the prosecution the one big
| bit OF new evidence supplied from
among the thirteen witnesses heard
in a four hour session. was that OF
George w. Grossman, OF GroSsrnAn
& Van Sielcken. New York coffee im-
porters. who sent $4,000 In cash -
MIR. Sulxer on October 18th saat.
Tells of Colwell.
| At the very opening of tho Inn
parchment court ex-Judge Herrick
made known the situation concerntng
Frederick l.. Coiwell. He said that
one OF the governors counsel hA0
found CoIweil in a sanitarium out
side the Jurisdiction of the court, AMI
had talked with him about his Ap-
pearance.
| Colwell said that he would appear bo-E
fore the court If he was given 4 guar~
antee that he would not be Arresto0. 4
Judge Herrick when asked Il No.
would be produced. said he cCs1ids
make no guarantees unless immunity
from arrest were guaranteed. The de-
cision of the managers was left 70 w
consultation of counsel
! Account number $780," the pnyataS1.s
GUS record of stock exchange opera
| tions. which the managers say was on
outlet for the money that was gty41k1
/ TO William Sulzer for campaign pu1M
/ poses. came up again when Arthur IAs
/ Fuller, Of the brokerage arm of Eu1@9
Ter g. Gray. of II Broadway. wAa1
called. Before the Frawley commfk.s
| tee, when a witness Fuller had eAtds
the account was Mr.. Sulzer's. but h1s
qualified this by saying that he hA65
no personal knowledge OF II. hAvtn4
/ learned of 1t only through his partner
John r. Gray. That part of hiA teett-
mony was objected to. and the oh
lection was sustained by Presiding
Judge Cullen. who asked the proeocu~s
/ ton why they did not summon 0xsa
Gray The counsel for the mAnaG941
said they could not locate him.
1t was shown by Mr.. Fuller's te1ea.
mony that account number 500 WMM.
opened to October 81. 1912. Il n atfl1
open. though there have been mN
transactions since November rs. 1014ss
| Between October FL and Ill 1e11
| s11S25 In currency was paid into tMMa
Arm for lots of Big Four stock. On
November 4, 1912. one hundred Men
shares OF Big Four were bou9h3 6QHs
account number 500. These NNfNs
bald for In cash, $5,512.50 being t0
! sum required. On November 1keA
the Arm sold bond for the sacccune
for 1900. mi
Hearsay Evidence
The next witness was EfiinghAm s
Sutton. a brother n-law Of Mr.. 6r1xs
He was asked whose account No to9s
was but having no personal kn0N1&AH
edge of whom it belonged 70, Judeqs
Cullen made the, same ruling N n th0
case of Mr. Fuller Mr.. sutton hA6 1vs
part in the delivery Of the two ht4%
dred shares Of the Big Four 1ecclkS
giving it to Frederick A. Coe. AnothekS
employe of Fuller a. Gray tn tn1S
! Yonkers Office OF the Arm. N
Mr. Coe was then put on tho stanAsR
He said that on October ~. HIN
while he was in the YonkeTu 0aaeMg
of Fuller a. Gray. where MT GSN
was the local representative o. MA&SM
rison g. Fuller until the formation N3H
the firm of Fuller & Gray, he recetyoM@
a telephone message from tho MeNS
York office. He was instructed m 9Ms
to the Brooklyn once. " ss
ssWho instructed you to - N0@
/ Brooklyn p asked Mr.. Kresel s.ass
.4Iither Mr.. Gray. or MI. Cctu II
"you mean Fredertck ~ Co1W0
yes" Ssa D
nected with your ONCE. Z M sSza s4s
.sNo, he was q custoEnAxs | s15ss|
Mr.. Co.'s Instruction. m G1e 4