New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1913-10-11

committed before taking office. either saiu
fine LAWYER but one violating his oath OF
office and the moral and crifniiai Ia"
while he was serving as the state chiei
executive.
Parker Says Guilt Is PLAIN
! Mr. Parker completed his argument lor
the managers within the first hour Oh the
morning session to-day, after "hich MI
Herrick began the closing argument lor
Governor Sulzcr. The former Chiel judge
Of the Court OF Appeals. who. II ne hdd
not resigned to run for President might
have himself been the presiding offlcer OF
the Court of Impeachment. cited nufher-
Gus opinions that the power of impeach-
ment and the range OF impeachaole OF
fences was unlimited in New York state
under the constitution, except by the de-
termination OF the court itself.
There cannot be found in this constitu-
ton" said Mr.. Parker, any Limitation
upon the power of the High Court or I'M
parchment to determine for what offences
a person may be removed from Office ana
disqualified"
Following the argument Of the defence
TO its conclusion. the argument that Sui
ger should not be impeached for offences
committed before he entered office, Par
ker put this question to the members or
the court.
WHO would be so shameless as 10 say
that II the Governor or the Lieutenant
Governor should secure his election TO Of
flee by fraud or bribery that he should
be permitted TO hold 1t for the reason that
ne committed the crime or wrong before
his term Of office began
In his final summary of the case Parker
said that Suzer. with all his defences In.
stood face to face with these facts:
That he collected personally many
thousands of dollars for campaign pur-
poses and appropriated most OF it 10 his
personal use.
That he committed perjury in swearing
TO a false report of his collections and
expenditures
That he deliberately sought to procure
the contributions in such form as would
best elude detection.
That he sought, by the exercise Of the
power Of his high Office, TO prevent the
truth. and the full truth. being told by
witnesses.
That he suggested barter of appropri-
tons for legislative votes
Resorted to Coercion.
That he sought TO coerce the action OF
members Of the court through influence
and that his acts constituted 'wilfui and
criminal violations of public duty and
personal dishonor defyng the majesty
Of sovereign state and insulting the
Intelligence OF a free people.
NO act OF his shows more perfectly the
complete baseness OF his character said
Parker uniting him utterly for any
public or private trust. than does his ef-
fort 20 coerce the members Of this court
through channels his warped intellect
mistakenly instructed him held the power
Of coercion"
Herrick's argument. the last word to
be spoken I'm Suffers behalf except ny
members OF the court, attacked hrst the
constitutional argument OF the prosecu-
ton as TO the almost unlimited power OF
the court. The chief counsel for the Gov
ernor insisted that the court could not
even consider charges based upon any
conduct Of Sulzcr before he entered Of
fee To DO so would be 10 make an un-
limited precedent. he said which would
he fraueht with future danger TO the en-
tire country.
Herrlck began then 10 speak plainly 10
In. members OF the court addressing
himself principally TO the Tammany Sen
ators. He prefaced this portion OF MS
argument with a few remarks about IN
tcllectual honesty" citing the dithculy
Of a lawyer who was likely 20 give more
weight 20 the statutes and decisions IA
voring his client
And hence IL is that | feel sense OF
embarrassment and difficulty IN discuss
ing tho cause OF this respondent before a.
tribunal so many Of whose MEMBERS
say IL with all respect-not prejudlced, out
prelisposed against his case and against
him. some by reasons OF opinion pre-
viouslv formed upon partial investisa-
ton and consideration OF the facts.
To such members OF the court. HerricK
said. ne wanted to say solemnly that II
was their sworn duty TO lay aside pre-
,iotsIv formed opinions.