Norwich bulletin., 1913-10-10
ImpeachabiIity of Acts Committed Before SuIzer Was
 Governor Must be Determined
ALSO WHETHER ACTS CONSTITUTE LARCENY
Constitutional Question be Decided in Executive Session Before Vote is Acknowledgements Begun Yesterday Judge Parker Denounces Sulzer Unfit to be Gov ernor"-Defense Claims Passion and Caprice"

had not seen him or consulted him, but that he had seen copy of an opinion ! which he had rendered.
 The other task placed upon the 1 shoulders of Sareci1y was to persuade this court that William SulZer honest " signed this statement; that he had l nothing to do with it's preparation ] There has been a great attempt. IL seems to me, to create an atmosphere | that William Sulzer is a man who is ! absolutely blank so far as dollars and lcents are concerned, but as this trial 1 drew near a close, it must have been ! borne on your honors that he is very 1 thrifty indeed and has quite a knowl ! edge of business affairs.
 No Checks Over $500 in List. Now, he testifies that he came in with this statement showed it to the { governor and that the governor lacked | it oyer and then the governor said: ! Is it all right?' We'll he said, it is ! with the data l have and then the ! governor said, All right and signed it.
 Well, your honors, when William ! SuIzer glanced over these figures and contributors must have been very proud in d of the talent of his pu- pill, for he took Sarecky from the high school and all the education that he had in political affairs he had ac quired in William Sulzer's office and necessarily under his direction We
 
 deed have chuckled at the wisdom of Sarecky when he glanced over this list, for he did not find in that hSt1 the checks Of bankers like Jacob H. Schiff, nor the checks of his brewery friends. Not a single check could he discover there of a politician, whether leader of the organization, district leader or otherwise. Even Morgen- thau, with his S1.000, did not appear. Not a single dollar was there repre- HSr7rr of iT7fa ~ncrtc- New York. Indeed, there was no check there larger than $500, just one of $500 i
 The Perjury Charge.
 Well now, of what use, your hOnors, is that testimony? Why was it pre- | sented to you? Suppose it was true, l so far as the boy was concerned, that i that was as good as he could do. You l having heard him do not believe it | was true, I am sure but suppose it [ was. The man who read that list and | examined it knew it was not true It does not help him for the boy to say he did the best he could do. His master William Sulzer. knew it was lie"
 The attorney touched only briefly Article 2, which charged perjury. The contention of the defense was that the law did not require an affidavit attach ed to a campaign statement but Judge Parker said that every candidate was 1 compelled to make a, campaign state ment and swear to the truthfulnesS of it and whether an affidavit was attached or not so long as the oath was taken in regard to an inaccurate state ment perjury was committed.
 Fraud Was Committed.
 In discussing Article 6, the Tar ceny' charge, Judge Parker reviewed the history of all the concealed con- triburiOns and sought to show that their donors contributed in the belief that they were aiding Sulzer, the can didate.
 Fraud was committed in ordering money under false pretenses. argued the judge and that constitutes lar ceny.
 Money Given For Campaign Purposes.
 Tt is my view" argued Judge Parker that when a candidate ap- plies for campaign contributions and so-calls it. he characterizes it; that it does not cease to be q campaign contribution because later some one, 10 save him from trouble or embar- rassnent undertakes to help him by giving it some other name. It is the at the time which fixes its status.
 ''The respondent William Sulzer, falsely and fraudulently represented to the contributors of money that the money was to be expended for cam paign purposes. He did this even though he didn't in single instance say that this was the purpose for which the money was to be expended
 Those who gave him or his repre- money at the time when ne ha9 been nominated for this office. and when the campaign fer his cleo ton was in progress could only believe hat the money was needed and woulJ he expended to further his election.
 Silence Was False Pretense.
 If he did not inform the eontribu- tors of the use which he intended to laake aDG which he did make of the money contributed, then he falsely and frsuduiently pretended and represent cd tG them that the funds were in tended and would be used for cam paisn purposes,
 '-SHerce in these circumstances was a false pretense and fraudulent repre- seIta ion because that silence pro- duced as he could not but know it ! would, and as he could not but have intended it should, a false impression upon the minds of the contributors,
 And, therefore it is the duty of the , court to give to those transactions as ii seems to me, that reasonable and ] natural construction that men Who de- sire to have their party win, men wn) desire to help their friends, who have been accustomed, perhaps, to assist in the givi.e of money in early days - LH pocket not with the idea that he may bay farms for his cid age, not iar the purpose of laying away against that later day when he can aot earn money, out fer the purpose }f Tclping him tow ard meeting tlat ,urden wi ich nearly every candidate inGs cuiie heavy who runs for office Gan Never Regain Confidence of Pea, B
 pie. (
 NOW that brings Fae te tiais aues- ion: l want again t. present to you m argument that. notwithstanding he fact that all three of the articles f hat I have so far considered are for I tets done prior te the taking of office 6 f the respondent, nevertheless it is ( he duty of this high court to find a t -erdict of guilty as to each one. I lave listened from the beginning of ( his trial to the arguments that no C natter what q man may do, no mat T CT what offenses he may commit ! gainst the public, no matter what 8