New-York tribune., 1913-10-15
Invites Sulzer to Testify.

"Once more We repeat" he said, land
/ speak the sentiment OF the managers
OF the Assembly Of New York and. I
trust Of high minded. fair minded citl-
zens everywhere, that If, with that
change in view, the respondent feels now
that he wishes in person TO make answer
from the witness stand, or If he feels
now, in the light OF that change, that
there is other testimony he desires TO
produce aside from himself-for he has
the right 10 so on or keep off the stand
as he may please-if. / repeat, he desires
TO produce other testimony 10 meet the
accusations, the door is open, and there
will be no objection raised by the man
ayers Of this trial.
Mr.. Herrick. who opened for the defence
at the beginning Of the afternoon ses-
/ sion. based his argument chiefly on the
premise that to include the Peck, Nor
genthau or Ryan testimony as bearing
on Article would be to add TO the
charges against Sulzer, and that such
addition TO the charges could not prop
erly be contemplated by the court or by
any one except the Assembly.
me say that this court is the highest in
! the state. as has been stated before. and
| Il IS under corresponding obligations 70
observe the law and establish no had
precedents; not to convict man upon q
! charge not brought against him; not &c
! permit a man to be charged with one or
fence and convicted OF another"
He reviewed the Peck testimony care
fully. reading frankly the statements o.
| that witness.
Now, that may be wrong. ASSUMING
u all TO be true, assuming the Governor
did wrong II you please, still II doesn
hiring II within gunshot OF the Language
OF Section li OF the Penal law" he said
Power Belongs to Assembly.
Mr. Herrick quoted from numerous I'm
| peachment cases. beginning with the
Warren Hastings impeachment In Eng
land. 10 back up his contention that In
impeachment as in criminal proceedings
any doubt must be regarded as favora-
bic 10 the defendant To apply the PecK
evidence. through Section Sl3 OF the penal
law 10 Article " OF the impeachment, ne
argued. would be to import into the case
what would virtually be new article
OF Impeachment against Sulzer.
The only authority for finding such
an article rests in the Assembly he said
You are here only to try the articles
they find and no others"
He then put to the court the case that
they might find Sulzer not guilty upon
seven OF the eight articles presented by
the Assembly, but ind him guilty upon
Article " under the proposed new in
terpretation.
You would then have found him guilty
upon an article practically presented by
yourselves upon an article not presented
| nv the Assembly" he said.
Z outs Marshall. also for the defence,
followed Herrick He characterized the
| Effort OF the managers to bring the Peek.
Norgenthau and Ryan evidence to bear
| unon Article " as confession or bank
riptcy so far as other evidence upon
| that charge was concerned:
| .'They have virtually taken poodle
dog and cut OF his head and tail. his
| forelegs and his hind legs, and are seek
| Ing to substitute other tissue and &c
! make OF Il a wolf" he said.
He argued that the proposal to include
Tho acts testified to by Ryan. Peck and
| Norgenthau related In effect solely TO the
| mower OF the court TO amend the articles
OF impeachment
Sets "Due Process" at Nauaht.
! I'VE insist that no such power OF
amendment exists" he said. "and that
an attempt to exercise 1t would be vio-
,ation not only OF Section l3 OF Article
| VI of the New York Constitution and OF
Section /. Article VI. OF that constitution
| hut OF the Fourteenth Amendment to the
Constitution OF the United States as we'll