The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1913-10-14
Sulzer Probably Will Not Know
Fate Before Tomorrow.
Trial Is ReOpened for Lengthy
Argument of Counsel.
THE BIG FIGHT WILL Be MADE
On Articles One, Two and Six
of Impeachment.
No Vote on Guilt or Innocence
Expected Today.

| Albany, N. Y, Oct. IA motion
to amend article iv of the impeach-
| so as to include the testimony of Am
! bassador Henry Morgenthau and Su-
| perintendent of Public Works Duncan
w. Peck was presented by the i'm
parchment managers at the reopen
| ing of the trial of the governor today.
| No action was suggested in regard to
| the testimony of Allan A. Ryan. 1t
was explained that the evidence which
! he gave could only be considered as
corroborative of other charges in the
| impeachment articles unless a new
article should be added. This would
have to be done by the assem- bly,. The
proposed amendment sets forth that
William Sulzer wrongfully and will
fully attempted to incite and procure
Louis A. Sarecky, Frederick L. Col Tt,
Peck and Henry Morgenthau to COM
init perjury and to give false testi-
mony'' before the F'rawley investigat-
ing committee.
Article iv as it now stands does not
mention either Peck or Morgenthau
and merely sets forth that Sulzer
practiced deceit and fraud and used
threats and menaces with intent to
prevent said committee from procur-
ing the attendance and testimony of
Sarecky, Colwell and Fuller. The
proposed amendment was presented
by Attorney John B. Stanchfield, who
argued for an hour in an effort to
prove that the court had a right to SO
amend the article.
No Verdict Today.
Albany, Oct. 14.-Indications today
were that the high court of impeach-
ment which is trying Governor Sulzer
might not reach a verdict before to-
morrow and possibly later. Lengthy
arguments beginning at 11:30 o'clock
dealt with the question whether the
testimony of Duncan w. Peck, Allan
A. Ryan and Henry l.. Morgenthau
would be considered as parts of Arti-
Gle " of the Impeachment charges or
merely as corroborative evidence and
whether the testimony should be en-
bodied in an amendment to the artl-
cleS.
Having disposed of this the court
planned to take up the constitutional
objections of counsel for the defense to
the various articles. The big fight was
to be made on articles 1, 2 and 6, which
virtually compose the case of the
board of managers. Although the plan
of court procedure had not been fully
outlined, it was thought there would
be no vote today on the general prop
oSitiOn of the governors guilt or in
nocence.
The substance of the eight articles
voted against the governor by the as
semb1y follow:
Article THAT he filed with the sec
rotary of state a false statement of
actions involved in his gubernatorial
campaign.
Article 2-That he committed per-
jury in his statement to the secretary
of state relative to his campaign re-
ceipts and expenditures
Article 3-That he bribed witnesses
to withhold testimony from the legisla- |
tive committee which investigated his |
expenditures and receipts.
Article 4-That he suppressed evil
dence by means of threats to keep wit |
nesses from testifying before the leg
islative investigation committee
Article 5-That he prevented and |
dissuaded Frederick L. Colwell from |
under subpoena the sessions |
of the investigating committee.
Article 6-That he committed larceny |
in specializing in stock with money |
and checks contributed for his cam |
paign.
Article THAT as governor he |
to use his office and inf1u-
ence to affect the vote or political ac-
ton of certain public officers.
Article SHAT while governor he
corruptly used his authority and inf1u-
ence to affect the current prices of Sc
curities in the New York stock ex-
change in some of which securities he
was al the time interested