Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1913-09-24
Court Refuses to Strike Out
money Articles" in Ad-
vance of Trial.
DELAYS FINAL DECISION
UNTIL HEARING EVIDENCE
Leaves Way Open for the Prosecution
to Tell of Stock Market
Transactions.

: ALBANY, September 24.-Ae
2:IS o'clock today Secretary of
State Mitchell May was called to
the stand and sworn as the first
witness in the impeachment trial
OF Gov. William Sulzer.
ALBANY. \. Y. September 24-Fina,
oecision on the defense's objections TO
hhciuding the money articles of inn
peachment IN the consideration of the
ouizer case viii not be given until all
testimony mas been taken. The court
voted. AZ to 4. today to follow this pro-
ceoure. Those voting no We're all dem
ocrats.
Inc vote TO reserve decision followed
an opinion delivered by Presiding Judge
euien advising that the merits Of the
opJections OF counsel for the governor to
the articles be not decided at this time.
DO not think II Is WISE" he said, to
decide this case piecemeai. In a court OF
Impeachment vote of two-thirds is nee
essar! TO convict. \ decision on this
question would only require a majority
vote, while minority greater than one
third, might decide the other way. How.
then. will the case be disposed Of?
Cites Andrew johnson Case.
In my judgment you cannot cbarac.
.er@e either the charges or the objec-
tons are frivolous. Not only this but IL
mas bee nalmost the universal custom m
far as | know. gentlemen. and so far
and fa,
proceedings by Impeachment goes. To de-
cioe the question as to whether the acts
charged We're impeachable offenses or
not, with the final submission of the
case to the court
In many of the cases. the most prom
ihent the dispute has not been SO much
as W tne Iacts as to that very question
IN IN the most momentous prosecution bv
Impeachment of which the books give us
any record, that of President Andrew
9onnson, the turning point at least the
dominant point, was the question whether
the removal of Mr.. Stanton was q yio
Iation OF the tenure of office act. and
Wnetner that act was constitutional
tne UNIFORM current of authority previous
70 that time having been that the Pres
ident under the Constitution had an nm
limited power of removal
ne major part of the argument i'm that
case was addressed to those questions.
Now. gentlemen. there is no snbiecf
on which there has been more divergence
OF opinion than as 90 what consfftufe
,mhpeachable I'M offenses: On that question
the greatest text writer's are not in ac-
cord That constitutes a strong reason
Tor the course l propose
Wants Time to Reflect.
should prefer to have ample time to
renect on the arguments here presented
oy counsel and to look up the authorities
cited Therefore should desire thar this
question be left open until the final vote
on the guilt or innocence Of the resnond-
ent.
In support of that desire, l. under the
t. poMer vested In me by the rules OF
THIS court, shall overrule the objection
pro forma- without any expression of
opinion on the merits Of the case"
In accordance with the judges rul-
lns, majority Leader Wagner of the
senate moved that the final decision be
left open and that the request of the
respondents counsel be denied merely
as matter of form, without prejudice
70 tne merits OF the question being
passed up at a later date. The motion
was then passed.
Declared Novel Doctrine.
Vote on the money articles" was
preceded by the concluding argument
or Attorney Austin g. Fox of counsel
Tor Sulzer. He opened by attacking
the statement of Judge Parker that
the constitution permitted the assembly
10 impeach at any time for any cause.
This attempt on the part of the man
ayers to remove William Sulzer for
acts performed while he was a private
citizen, he said. lis a novel doctrine
never heard before in any court of
justice. never broached in any con-
stitutional convention, never submitted
to any English-speaking people.
''Unhappiiy, a scant majority of the as
semb.y, prompted by what motive we
shall not attempt to guess. are now pray
ing this august tribunal to do away with
the limitations with which the wisdom of
our fathers has surrounded the exercise
OF the great power to accuse of willfui
misconduct in office.
1T was to be expected that sooner OF
later the popular branch of some legis-
lature, acting in the heat of political ex-
citement possibly, with a desire to graft
fy the personal enmity of some powerful
political leader, might seek to overstep
the well settled limitations of their law
full authority.
Impatient of Restraint.
We cannot shut our eyes to the fact
that there is today large number of
our fellow citizens led by distinguished
and popular leaders whose very political
creed embodies an impatience Of consti-
tutional restraint and who demand that
the final test shall be not Judicial in
terpretation OF the Constitution. but the
duly ascertained wish of the majority
of the moment.
.'If the view Of the honorable managers
he correct, then, indeed, all question OF
constitutional limitation or construction
is beside the mark. and this court should
proceed to register whatever decree il
may be persuaded will best please the
present public demand
I'VE shall all do WELL when urged to
disregard the principles established by
law, to recall the words of one or the
greatest judges, to press forward to a
great principle by breaking through
every other great principle that stands
In the way of it's establishment IS as
little consonant to private morality as
to public Justice
Immediately following the roll call the
governors counsel was called upon to
enter answer to the charges. These were
read rapidly by Clerk McCabe. In them
the governor declared that he had filed
his campaign statement lin good faith.
He entered a general denial to each and
every one Of the charges.
Eugene Lamb Richards OF counsel for
the prosecution then opened the case
against the impeached executive.
Busy as Money Getter.
Gov Sulzer was buster getting money
than getting votes during his campaign
for election declared Richards.
"An the technicalitiesNa quibbles