New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1913-10-09
Liquor Men Same as Others.

He went over the record or the uePo9iS
slips. which the prosecution optaiheu
from the bank. reading of. among Others
tho items of the Peter Doelger check TOT
500 tho Morris Tekulsky check Tor soo
and : I-hlman's contribution of 800, and
asked Sarecky whether he knew that
those contributors We're connected with
the brewers or liquor dealers organiZa-
lions. The witness admitted after some
thought over each case that he had prob
ably known OF II. but insisted that such
KNOWLEDGE had nothing to do with the
omission Of their names from the sworn
statement.
In each case Sarecky contented himself
with the explanation that the sheets
from which he made up the statement, on
which those names happened 10 be, had
been lost or mislaid Stanchneld took
him back 10 the Schiff check again for a
nnaI inquiry. 10 which Sareclty returned
an answer that was typical OF his whole
attitude under oss-eXamination-an atti-
tude of extreme care not 10 give any adj
vantage to the prosecution unless 1t be-
came unavoidable
Now, you know in a general way that
Mr.. Schiff would be classed In political
circles as representing Wall Street and
the interestsg" was Stanchneld's ques-
ton.
WELL" Sarecky returned. slowly. II
regarded him more as philanthropist.
The lawyer had Sarecky identify Sui
GERS Endorsements on the checks that
went into the stock market deals and
At. -, Lt,,, ;Jartify tba urritiug IN cav
eral of the cash deposit slips of Suffers
account in the Farmers Loan and Trust
Company as the handwriting OF the Gov
ernor. Stanchfield brought out then that
the initials of m. ]. Elias as they APP
peared before contribution of 500 on
the sworn statement were incorrect and
the name should have been written,
william ]. Elias"
Mr.. Human. in opening for the de-
fence, had said that there was no intent
10 conceal brewers contributions, and in
proof had cited the Elias contribution In
the statement. William J. Elias being an
officer of the Elias Brewing Company.
Settled Sulzer Suit.
Sarecky testified then that he had de-
posted approximately 1880 In the cam
paign fund account In the Mutual ALI
ance, OF which s7.72i 90 had been reported
as campaign expenditures. He had paid
out either $500 or 5000 more from that ac-
count to settle judgment against Sui
ger in Seattle, Wash, he said. judy
ment obtained by Frederick Hastings.
Another $3.50 went for postage on Suffers
speeches in booklet form to points out
side New York State, Sarecky said, and
he said he could not recollect any other
payments made from that account.
Stanchfleld then produced cancelled
check for 800 made out and signed by
Charles Kohler 10 the order OF John IL.
Rogan and Endorsed by Rogan to Bear
er." 1t was dated November 2, 1912, and
under the same date was a letter from
Sulzer to Kohler expressing his thanks
in the stereotyped form which neglected
to mention any money.
The defence objected TO the admission
OF the check In evidence, but the letter
with the unmistakable inference was AL
lowed to go into the record, and then
Stanchtield jumped back to the settlement
Of the Seattle judgment against Sulzer.
which Sarecky said he had made himself
in Suffers absence. drawing. OF course.