New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1913-10-09


for the single occasion, and he would not
permit the lawyer to get that evidence
into the record of the impeachment trial.
Asked Floyd Not to Appear.
stanchfeld however, got before the
court the proposition that Sarecky had
been acting on such advice when he ut
tered his refusal before the Frawley COM
mittee. Along this same line he was able
to draw from Sarecky the admission that
he CSarecky) had asked Webb Floyd not
TO testify before the Frawley committee
but Sarecky insisted that neither Gov
ernor SuIzer nor any one around him had
suggested that he make such request OF
Floyd.
bringing the cross-examination then
down to the campaign contributions
which Sarecky handled through the Nu'
tual Alliance Trust Company account
Stanchfield brought out series OF adnlis-
sions as to the throwing away OF prac-
ticalIy every original document or memo
randrrn made by Sarecky IN that connec-
ton.
sarecky described his system in brief.
He entered the receipts of checks or casn
upon 'sheet" Of paper, which sheets
he kept in his desk. He began to enter
the receipts from those sheets INTO d
pocket memorandum book, but abandoned
that method after few days trial ne
made out his deposit slips directly from
the checks before depositing them' ana ne
kept his desk checkbook in the USUAL
manner on the check stubs.
At the end OF the campaign he made UP
The statement OF receipts and e1pendi-
tures which the Governor swore to, from
those daily "sheets" he had kept loosely
IN his desk and from his check STUBS anu
cancelled checks.
.vvbere is that book?" asked Stancn-
field. referring to the memorandum DOM
in which Sarecky had testified he ehtereo
nm tho receipts Of the first few days OF
the campaign.
"r threw II away" sarecky answered.
coolly.
"Nhere are those sheets!
1T threw them away with the oooA'
where is that checkbookF
.I threw that away. too
Too Elusive for Lawyer.
.eyybat did you do with those cancelled
checks?"
81 threw them away, TOO.
Now what reason will you give us no"
for tho destruction of all the evidence,
both by entries in regard to chechs anu
the checkbook connected with the Cam
| palgnr .,so-
.0rhe simple reason that l mad apso-
lutelv no further use for them was
cleaning UP my desk preparatory " ooiH-
! iro 10 Albany. and one OF the boys IN the
ogica was TO use that desk. and SO
leaned II out OF all superfuous stun
/ tbat WAS I'm there that we had no iui-
/ Their use for" .,;s
sarecky did not fix the date OF TINS
"clean up" exactly, but put II approAi-
,,a,elv as either Just before or just AFTER
January 1913. Stanchfeld, however mac
in hand the deposit slips OF the 0a i.'l,
hank account, and by making the WHITES
| compare these deposit Sips WIN '"o
sworn statement of receipts hled py HoS
/ a,ror sulzer he continued to emphasIe
| the discrepancies. 49,
on the deposit slip when coHIdlneu ~.
item Of $500 from the JACOB H. ochiil
check stanchheld endeavored in VAN .
get from Sarecky any admission that ~
had talked with sulzer about the ohiIs'
sion OF that contribution from the cam,
paIgn fund statement. The lawyer ca.Ieo
the attention OF the witness to the lac'
that the items mentioned in the campaisI
fund statement paralleled the items Oh
the Mutuars deposit slips, except FOR th'
omissions, and sought to draw the ao'
mission that sarecky had in front Oh mn
the complete record of receipts when h(
made UP the statement from VIM" 90
items were left out, but saFe1NS WV
not be pinned down.