New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1913-09-26

came from brewers. from all sources
where he thought the receipts or those
moneys might reflect IN any way upon his
political future or be the subject OF criti-
cism or cavll or debate.
Those amounts were sedulously. DELHI
erately omitted by design, by intent, by
this respondent from those statements
and therefore we claim that as bearing
upon the fitness Of the man. AS bearing
upon the truth Of these charges, as show
ing the corrupt, vilful. deliberate intent
that renders the man unit 20 occupy the
| place that he at present fills. We have the
right 10 show that in numberless other in
stances not appearing upon this record he
/ has deliberately failed. Intentionally failed.
/ TO file "A statement Of hts receipts"
Marshalrs rebutting argument was con-
! fined 10 a strict legal exposition Of what
| he termed "the rights % the respondent
| 10 have the trial limited fatty 10 the exact
accusations in the impeachment articles.
| stanchfeld closed the debate with a
! brief argument TO the effect that all the
sulzer campaign fund transactions consti-
| tuted A. common purpose, a common
scheme.
II concede that the failure 10 report one
contribution might be an accident he
said; the failure to report TWO contribu-
tons might he a coincidence. the failure
70 report 100 is a crime
| The lawyer had scarcely resumed his
seat when President cullen expressed his
opinion that the evidence should be adj
mitted. He said that he agreed with the
-contention OF the counsel for the respond
Tent that there could be no amendment
| OF the articles that would bring In q
new and different offence. but he inter-
nreted the articles alre dy preferred as
/ being in substance an accusation or
KNOWLEDGE or intention 20 make false
| report" and on that ground. he held.
proof Of similar acts at or about the
same time would be competent evidence.
II hone, as this will come up often.
he added. that some one will demand a
vote on this ruling 1 rule the testimony
| Is admissible"
The morning session began with the
! further examination Of Thomas NJ. God
win, Of the Farmers Loan and Trust
| Company. who WAS on the stand yester-
day. After some fencin Mr.. Stanchheld
succeeded in getting him TO express the
opinion that the Ave deposit slips OF dates
in October. November and December, 1912,
which we're marked for Identification yes
| terday. were in the handwriting Of WILL
lam Sulzer They showed that on those
dates Sulzer had deposited a total OF a.
400 In currency The defence made no
attempt to CROSSE examine Goodwin and his
| evidence stood unchahenGed
Abram T. Elkus was the next witness.
and ne was taken carefully over the
ground covered by the previous dlsclos-
ures before the Frawley committee with
respect to his $500 contribution made in
his letter TO Sulzer on October 4. 1912.
lie Identified the check. which was on
| the Plaza branch OF tho Union Trust
Company. and the Endorsement OF WIN.
| Sulzer" on its reverse as well as the an
swer he had received from Sulzer, which,
while thanking him for his good wishes,
made no mention Of the contribution.
The discrimination OF Elkus by
Marshall developed nothing startling until
the lawyer put this question 10 the wit
| ness:
did you intend that he might not