The Topeka state journal., 1913-09-26
III. l.. MOrgenthau, Ambassador
to Turkey, Testifies
That SuIZer Asked Him to "GC
Easy" on Him.
THE DEFENSE is INDICATED
1T Is That He Was i'm Need of
Money
And Friends Donated for His
Personal Use.

Albany, Sept. 26.-Duncan W. fech
state superintendent of public works
testified at Governor Suffers impeach-
ment trial that the governor had
asked him to deny under oath that ne
had made a $500 contribution to Sui
zer.
Peck said he had made the contrl-
button shortly after the governor
election and that last July he had
shown Mr.. Sulzer in the executive
chamber, a copy of a letter from the
F'rawIey committee asking him TO tes-
tify.
Il said to the governor said Mr'
Peck, What shall 1 do about ii?
He said, DO as L am going TO do'
deny it
II said, But I shall be placed under
oath.
He said, Forget it
Albany. Sept. Ex-Governor Sulzer
asked Henry L. Morgenthau, ambassa-
dor to Turkey to be easy with him IN
case he was called to the witness stand
at the governors impeachment tr1aI-
Mr. Morgenthau, who contributed Sl,OOO
to the governors campaign fund, so
testified when recalled a witness
today. He added that the governor
had asked him to treat the relations
between them as personal affair
At the opening of today's session At
torney Kresel introduced in evidence
letters written last fall by Sulzer to
VIM. J. Elias and William Hoffman.
brewers who contributed to the fund
turned over to Sulzer by former Sena-
tor Stadler The governor thanked
Hoffman for ''a1l you have done in my
behalf
The letter to Elias expressed appre
citation for your letter and enclosure"
Judge Lewis COnlOn of New York.
the first witness, told of handing Sui
zer a $100 check from Daniel NJ. Grady.
What kind of contribution was it?"
asked John B. Stanchfield of counsel
for the impeachment managers.
1T was a contribution to help him
along in his campaign" said Judge
Conlon. The witness said he had re-
ceived acknowledgment of the receipt
of the money from Sareckey.
I'm the usual rubber stamp form %
asked the attorney.
TT was an acknowledgment" re-
piled Judge Conlon with some asperity.
In cross examination Judge ]. Her
rick questioned him as to a conversa-
ton he had with Mark NJ. Potter, who,
the witness testified yesterday, had
given him a check for Sulzer.
Did you have any conversation con-
cerning Mr. Sulzer's financial condf-
that it was not competent-was entered
by Mr.. Stanchfield and was overruled
by Presiding Judge Cullen, who gave
lengthy opinion as to the admissibility
of testimony tending to show whether
it was the intention of contributors
that the money could be used for pri-
vate purposes or only to meet cam
paign expenses.
Court Is Sustained.
I'm my opinion he said, 1.-The re-
Spondent has the right to introduce
evidence concerning the intent of the
donors. Here we are considering a
charge of larceny and while testimony
along the line of intent may not affect
the moral culpability of the respondent
it certainly does affect his legal status.
If the respondent used the money as
it was intended it should be used by
the donors, he was not guilty of larceny
and could not be convicted by a petit
jury. Even the undisclosed intention
of the donor negatives the idea of
larceny and would prevent his convic-
tion, however great might be his moral
culpability."
The members of the court voted 40
to sustain the ruling of Judge Gull
len.
Judge Conlon then read his testimony.
He said he had talked with Potter
about helping out the governor.
Didn't you tell him?'' asked Judge
Herrick that he ought to have a new
suit of clothes?''
We'll, if 1 did. it was in a joke
We'll, didn't you as a matter of fact
tell him that he needed a new suit of
clothes and new hat for his campaign
up the state?"
Yes, 1 said something like that
You wanted to help him out with
his personal expenses. did not you?''
'-As 1 said yesterday 1 did not place
any restrictions on the use of the
money, 1 believed that Sulzer did not
have a cent about the time he was
entering on his campaign
Did you know that he had $40 600 or
$4,000 ir New York banks?" asked Mr..
Stanchfield.
Argument Shut Off
Mr.. Marshall Immediately made OBJ
lection that this question was insult
ing and undignified lin this presence"
A heated controversy followed be-
tween Stanchfield and Mr.. Marshall
which was closed by the admonition
of the presiding judge to Cease this
argument
Mr.. StanchfieId asked if Judge Con-
condition and received a negative an
Swer.
But Sulzer wore the same style of
clothes for about 25 years, did he not?"
he asked.
He did not appear to have grown
suddenly poor, did he. that might have
led you to the belief that he did not
have a cent?"
There apparently was no change in
his appearance in the past % years"
was the reply.
He wore the same style hat for all
that time
Daniel NJ. Brady, the next witness,