Newark evening star and Newark advertiser. [volume] (Newark, N.J.) 1909-1916, 1913-09-24


remained uninterrupredly until Oc-
tober II, 1912, and during that period
Of thirteen days his collections in
cash and checks deposited with the
firms and banks above named
amounted to over $27, 600. On October
5 a check for $500 was sent him by
Abram I. Elkus, and another for
81, 900 was handed him by Henry Nor
ganthau, both of which were per-
sonally Endorsed by him and de-
posted in the Farmers Loan and
Trust Company, with a slip filled out
in his own handwriting. On October
9 a check was sent by William f.
McCoombs for $500. which check was
deposited in the Sarecky account. On
October 10. the day he appeared at
the National Democratic Club and
accepted the nomination for governor,
he afterwards visited the Manhattan
Club, and he got many checks, some
from members of the latter club. On
that date he got from John Lynn
$500; Lyman A. Spalding, 500; Theo-
dore w. Myers, $1,000; e. C. Benedict,
$3.50, and many others whom ! shall
not now name.
Showed Fine Discrimination.
IIo 5uOWSQ Llfto do
to the disposition of those checks on
October 10. Some were deposited by
Sarecky, and reported in the state
ment: some were deposited by Sa-
rocky and not reported; and others
wre used by the respondent to pur-
cahse Big Four stock from the firm
of Boyer. Griswold & CO.. six days
later.
"On October IA he received a check
from Jacob H. Schiff for $500 to the
order of Sarecky.
ACROSS the corner of the check Is
written Mr.. Schiff's contribution to
William Suffers campaign ex-
penses,' placed there by Mr.. Schiff
just before 1t was delivered to the
investigating committee as a vol
untary statement by Mr.. Schiff of
the purport of the check in lieu or
testifying before that committee.
ION October 16. when the respond
emit was still in the city. came the
first transaction in Big -Four stock
during the campaign, when s12.O25
SIPS in cash; the fonowIng checks:
Theodore w. Myers. $1,000; John
Lynn. $500; L. A. Spalding, 500: E..
F. O'Dwyer. 800; John w. Cox. $500;
The Frank V. Strauss Company,
81. 900: John T. Dooling. $1,000; total,
$4,000; and a check of William Sui
ger for 5000 to make the exact
amount. were used by his friend.
Frederick L. Colwell. to buy these
200 shares. stock in which Sulzer
had been long interested.
Checks Were Certified.
"These checks were all certified,
and the check of the respondent for
5000 was charged to his account in
the Farmers Loan and Trust Com
pany on the date in question. On
October 16. after banking hours, there
was handed to the respondent In his
office a check for $4,000 to the order
of cash by friend who will testify,
and / will refer to the check later.
Herrick Argues for sulzer.
In asking the dismissal of the first,
second and sixth articles Of impeach-
ment D. Cady Herrick, Governor
Suffers chief counsel, today made a
long argument, with view of con-
vincing the court that the offenses
specified in the three articles, if com
mitted at all, were committed while
William Sulzer was a private cfti-
zen" Therefore, he maintained that
in view of the constitutional pro-
vision prescribing that public officials
can only be impeached for wilful
and corrupt misconduct in office" the
court should not consider any allega-
tions involving Mr.. Suffers action
prior to his assumption of office.
The three articles charge. in sub
stance, that William Sulzer filed a
false statement of his receipts and
other monetary transactions involved
in his gubernatorial campaign; that
in swearing to this statement he
committed perjury, and that he COM
mitted larceny in specuiating in
stocks with money and checks con-
tributed for his campaign. These
charges the governors counsel con-
slider the most serious of the eight
filed against the executive by the As
senbly.
Judge Herrick argued that their
consideration by the high court will
set a precedent that will extend the
law beyond what is written and place
the honest public official who may
have erred at the mercy of black
mailers and scandal-mongers, politi-
cal or otherwise, but will confine the
power of impeachment to its primary
purpose of removal from office of an
unfaithful public official for miscon-
duct in office only, leaving to the
ordinary tribunals of justice his pun
ishment for crimes committed while
he was private citizen"
Not Intended to shield sulzer.
He assered that the dismissal was
not asked with any desire on the part
of counsel ito shield William Sulzer
form answering the matters therein
set forth"
Sooner or later he must do So" he
continued, 'either here or at the bar
of public opinion, and when that time
comes whether it be here or else
where, we have no apprehension but
sufficient"
Anticipating a contention from bis
legal opponents that there Is no law
governing this tribunal as to what is
an impeachable offense except its
own determination" he declared:
IF that be the law, If the Assembly
can impeach for any cause that it