The evening world., 1913-10-14
SUlzER LAWYERS
RIDDLE PROSECUTORS
PLEA IN THE CASE
continued from First FagcD

-
continued from First FagcD
EXPENSES FOR the trip TO the capitol. \
number az Senators want an adjourn
mont unili after election but this will
De- opposed Nv the Judges ~ Appeals
a"c urging speedy procedure
Mr.. Stanchhcld IN mis- opening ad.
dress made four distinct proppsitlons
!. That the tsHt Of the article
be changed In certain spsoiasd de-
tails 90 that Il would include the
testimony Of 11orgsnthau ana Ysct
relating to the oovsrnsr's attempts
70 influence their testimony.
2. That II this amendment were
made. the prosscut1ol would not
offer any additional tsstamouy, but
stand upon that already In the rec
ord.
Q. That the Asfsnss could pat In
additional testimony and special ~
visation Wss extended 70 Gov. Sui
ssr 70 take the witness stand.
In his argument Mr.. Stanchneld
maintained that this was not a criminal
any stage Of the proceedings 20 make
the pleadingn conform with the proof.
COMEDIES THAT ASSEMBLY
ALONE CAN iMPEAcH.
Il do not mean to argue nc said.
that this tribunal possesses the power
TO amend these charges IN such a why
as TO comfort or twist this tribunal into
an impeaching body. concede with
the utmost frankness that the Assembly
alone IL the impeaching power OF the
State"
THAT by no means preoludcs this
court from amending the Impeachment
to conform to the proof" continued
Stanchfield, 1.-The basic exception be-
ing that the amendment shall not work
hur, or detrtment or be unjust to the
respondent.
In asking you 20 grant that RELIEF
! reiterate that IL does not change the
basic character OF the offense-an eff
fort to tamper with the administration
Of justice. an effort In some way TO con-
troll and color and distort tho testimony
Of q witness. q confession upon It's race
OF the weakness Of his cause and an ad-
mission upon Its face that he 10 Obliged
to support the defense II any he may
have by dishonest means and evidence.
SAYS DOOR Is OPEN FOR suLzER
TO TESTIFY.
"Once more We repeat that II with
this change of view the respondent feels
now that no wishes in person to make
answer from the witness stand or that
there 10 other testimony he desires 10
produce aside from himself. the door Is
open and there viii be no objection
ralssti, by the managers Of this trial.
Stanc enfield emphasized the fact tina.
Article w., as II now stands, charges
Sulzer with a misdemeanor. whereas, he
maintained, the testimony OF Peck anu
Morgenthau showed he was guilty Of
attempted subOrnstion Of perjury. "A
felony.
Senator Duhamel. an ardent supporte
Of Gov. Sulzer. inquired II Peck ha
ever appeared before the Frawiey Com
mittee. and was informed by Attorns,
Stanchheld that he had not
hERRick CALLS IT ATTEMPT TO
STRENGTHEN WEAK CASE.
In beginning his argument Judge Her
rick declared II had seemed to him and
his associates that the testimony OF
Peck and Morgenthau had no bearing
on Article w.. but only on the general
features OF the case-the general credi-
liability Of the respondents defense"
Reviewing briefly the testimony Of Peck.
Herrick declared 1T did not come with
Al. 10.
ceit mentioned In the articles.
III the suggestion for argument on
the status Of this testimony came from
the managers-and I must assume II
did not" Judge Herrlck continued, II
should say that II was an afterthouxht
by which the managers sought to boil
ster up an otherwise IA! ed case. Com
ing as II does from a member Of the
court, Judge Miller. l must submit tina,
| II there Is any doubt of its status this
respondent must be given the benefit OF
that doubt"
The admission of this evidence into
Article w. would constitute in effect,
ne said, a new article Of impeachment.
The defense originally had made no
objection 10 The admission OF t,s test!
mony Of Peck. said Judge Herrick. be.
cause It had no objection to offer.
"Peck's testimony was admissible"
he said. ''as showing an unreported
contribution and because II purported
to disclose a weakness In the respond
ent's proposed defense-that he wanted
to suppress evidence AGAINST him. II
was not admitted as intending to estab-
lish any substantive charge In the case"
Judge Herrick declared that the man
ayers counsel practically conceded