Pine Bluff daily graphic., 1913-08-17

turned on SulZer the very same Wea- pon that he had used against it and an investigation of Sulzer's campaign fund was instituted by legislative committed composed of Tammany men.
 Senator Frawley, a Tammany chief tain, was the chairman of the Commit tee and it commenced it's sittings in Albany. The first witness to be call ed was Louis A. Sarecky, Sulzer's private secretary and campaign man. ager. Sarecky was questioned about Sulzer's campaign fund, but he declin- ed to answer. It was intimated that Sulzer had received checks for his campaign fund which he had not list ed in his sworn statement, misde- meanor under the laws of New York State.
 TWO checks were introduced into the evidence. One was for $2,5O0 from Kuhn, Loeb & Co.,, the bankers, and endorsed "Mr. Scriff's contribu- tion to the Sulzer campaign" The other check was for $500 and was signed by Ahram l. Elkus, a promi- nent New York City lawyer. It was alleged by the Frawley Committee that neither of these checks appeared in Su1zer's campaign list.
 At later session of the Frawley Committee held in New York it de- veloped that the Peoples Cover nor' and the Poor Mans Friend" had owed the stock brokerage firm of Harris and Fuller $4S,5992S on January 1, 1912, when Sulzer was in Congress. According to testimony and evidence offered Sulzer had been steady loser in the stock market. The brokers to whom he owed money dunned him for payment, according to the testimony and Sulzer was fin ally rescued by his business partner, Ex-Governor A. E. Spriggs, of Mon- tana, who paid 5000 and Louis M. Josephthal, of New York, who on July 19 last, paid $26,749.21.
 It also developed before the Com mittee that Sulzer had traded with Boyer, Criswold & Co. Charles H. Reynolds, formerly cashier for that firm, testified that on October 16 last Frederick l.. Colwell, whom he under stood to be an agent for Sulzer, had bought 200 shares of Big Four for $12,O25. The stock was paid for the same day with eight checks and $7,123 in cash. One check given in payment for the stock was a campaign contri- button. The Frawley committee all leged that the seven other checks were also campaign contributions, and as serted that this would be proved.
 Before the Sulzer war with Tam many reached the point of 'investiga- tion," it was charged against Sulzer that he had been cited for perjury by jury in Vermont in 1890, when he was commencing his career as law yer. George M Curtis, prominent New Yorker, made public what he al leged was petition presented to a United States District Attorney in Vermont in which the jury asserted it's belief that Sulzer had committed perjury in the course of trial m which he was counsel. Sulzer brand ed this a political plot. He communi- cated with Congressman Plumley, who had been District Attorney at the time mentioned, and to whom the petition was addressed, and that offl- cial replied that he had never recelv- ed any such petition. Snlzer openly charged that the petition was forg- cry.
 According to Sulzer, Charley Mur- phy offered to "buy up' the perjury story when it appeared at the time of the Sulzer campaign for Governor.
 It appeared again." said Sulzer, with a threat of exposure from Mur phy. Then it again appeared when Curtis son, George M. Curtis, Jr., wanted to get job as Supreme Jus tice, which he didn't get because l wouldn't appoint him to fill the va cancy."
 Suffered Eczema Fifty Years-NOw