The Barre daily times. (Barre, Vt.) 1897-1959, 1913-09-30
Broker Fuller Is Brought
Back to Stand
To-day
SUFFERS MISFORTUNE
IN BIG FOUR STOCK
On Jan. /, 1912, Governor
Owed $4,000 to the
Firm

Albany. N. ", Sept. 80. Melville B.
Fuller. member of the brokerage firm
OF Harris and Fuller, was recalled to
testify further regarding Governor sui
ger's Stock Exchange transactions when
the impeachment trial was resumed to-
day. On June 30, 1910, the firm bought
200 shares of Big Four stock for Sui
zer's account, the witness said, and ON
July I, following, the stock dropped,
wiping out the governors margin
Attorney kressel, examining the wit
ness. then followed the iuctuating course
of the governors stock deals with the
firm. The account showed that the
Big -Four kept going down and IN or
der to keep the margin good, Sulzer,
kept depositing against it, not cash, but
more stocks. Because of the continued
decline, the governor on Jan. /, 1917,
owed the firm $4,000.
Presiding Judge Cullen of the high
court barred the introduction OF evidence
to prove that the governor had made q
corrupt political bargain with Assembly
man Patrie of Green county and held
that the evidence brought forward to
shaw that he had made similar bargains
with Assemblyman Sweet of Oswego
county and Assemblyman Prime OF Es-
sex county was incompetent.
The legislation had to do in each
case with certain improvements, high
way and bridge, which the assembly
men had advocated in bills subsequently,
passed by the legislature to which they
were desirous of getting the governors
signature In the Patrie case, however,
no charges We're brought in the articles
of impeachment and it was on this
ground that presiding Judge Cullen
threw the charge out OF court. The
Patrie case was first mentioned by Eu-
gene Lamb Richards in his address open
ing the trial for the Assembly man
ayers.
The Sweet and Prime cases were spec
lfed in article of the impeachment,
where it was charged that the gov
ernor had vetoed in one case and signed
in the other the bills of the two as
semblymen. One had failed to sup
port the direct primary bill and the
other did so after consulting Sulzer,
the managers charged.
Assemblyman Sweet testified that
when he went TO see the governor in
regard to getting his billj approved he
was asked whether he had voted for
the direct primary bill, which had been
defeated in the regular session OF the
legislature.
s.T L. \ &.l ns,,at gaI
the witness.
The primary bill was to come up again
at the extraordinary session in July and
the governor wanted to know how Sweet
proposed to vote at that time. Sweet
said he replied:
According to the sentiment and in
The interest of my district"
TO this, according TO Sweet, the gov
ernor replied, with advice to see his
personal counsel, Valentine Taylor, "and
smooth him the right way"
"Did you smooth him?" asked Attor-
ney Edgar t. Bracket of counsel for
the impeachment managers.
II didn't have to-" replied the wit
ness.
Sweet then explained that Taylor had
sent him to John II. Delaney, chairman
of the department of efficiency and econ
omy. and submitted to him a brief
showing the need OF the legislation pro-
posed in his bill and that Delaney pre-
pared a favorable report on it.
what happened to your bill?" asked
Attorney Bracket.
at was vetoed" replied the witness.
"How did YOU vote on the primary
bill at the regular session."
"That is objected to-" interrupted
D-Cody Herrick Of counsel for the de-
tense.
1--WE anticipated" argued Attorney
Todd for the impeachment managers,
tthat the fact that the witness did not
smooth Mr.. Taylor the right way had
some bearing on the question"
objection sustained" ruled Judge
Cullen, che has already said he voted
against the bill, and if this witness
was already against the bill. it showed
he did not receive the price of corrupt
bargain"
On practically the same grounds Judge
Cullen held that the charges in con-
nection with the Prime case were like
wise invalid. The difference was that
at the regular session of the legislature
Prime did not vote at all.
Judge Cullen also ruled out all evil
ienee intended to show that the pro-
posed legislation of Assemblyman Sweet
was for the public good.
Courts cannot consider legislation, !"
he said, except from one point of view,
whether it is constitutional or not.
When it is constitutional the question
Of the propriety of the legislation is
exclusively for the legislature. The gist
Of this article does not relate to wheth-
Pr the bill was wise or unwise one,
but whether any bargaining was done.
There is the vice, if il exists in this
charge We must assume that the leg
islature did what it thought was wise
10 do and the governor had the same
privilege as a legislator and We cannot
sit in review on the propriety of their
acts"