For an account of the College, which is to be dedicated on October 22, see the editorial pages

the hearing, and at the time of the writing of this article that point had not been decided. Over the protest of lawyers for the Governor it was decided to permit Senators Frawley, Ramsperger, Sanner, and Wagner to sit in the court. The three first named were protested because they had served as members of the committee that brought the charges against the executive on which the impeach ment was based, and exception was taken to Senator Wagner's participation in the proceedings on the ground that he would become Lieutenant-Governor in the event of Mr. Sulzer's conviction and therefore might be considered prejudiced.

THE PITH OF THE CASE

Practically all of the evidence introduced by the prosecution bore on the first, second, and sixth charges against the Governor, namely, that he had filed a false statement of receipts and expenditures, that in swearing to the truth of this statement he had committed perjury, and that he had converted campaign contributions to his own use, speculating in stocks with some of these funds.

The bulk of the evidence introduced to prove the seventh charge was ruled out, and the prosecution made little effort to substantiate the third, fourth, and fifth accusations. It was shown, however, that while Mr. Sulzer had admitted the receipt of $5,460 from sixty-eight contributors, and expenditure of $7,724, he had failed to mention the receipt of some $40,000, much of which he had invested in stocks.

PLEAS OF THE DEFENSE

Counsel for the Governor staked their case on two propositions: first, that much of the money in question had been given to Mr. Sulzer without any proviso that it be used solely for campaign purposes; and, second, that the task of drawing up a statement of campaign receipts and expenditures had been left to the then candidate's secretary, Louis Sarecky, and that if any criminality. attached to the failure to mention all the sums contributed to Mr. Sulzer's fund, the blame should fall on Mr. Sarecky. In other words, the suave, self-possessed young secretary, who proved to be the cleverest witness examined during the trial, was made "the goat" by the lawyers for the defense. The

duel between the cool, alert Sarecky and Mr. John B. Stanchfield, one of the prosecuting attorneys and a master of the art of

cross-examination, reminded some of the veteran correspondents of a similar matching of wits between Evelyn Nesbit Thaw and William Travers Jerome, then District Attorney, at the trial of Harry K. Thaw for murder. In both cases an experienced trial lawyer was pitted against a young and inexperienced but keen-minded witness, bent upon protecting the principal in the back-ground.

THE GOVERNOR'S APPEAL FOR LENITY

The most significant bit of testimony in the entire impeachment trial had no bearing on the guilt or innocence of the Governor on the charges brought against him. The testimony of Mr. Allan A. Ryan, the son of the financier Mr. Thomas Fortune Ryan, regarding a conversation he had with the Governor in New York City the week before the convening of the Court of Impeachment, contained a most suggestive revelation of the way the "system" works, and, coupled with the Governor's failure to take the witness stand and deny the Ryan testimony, served to alienate many of Mr. Sulzer's supporters. Mr. Ryan testified that on the occasion mentioned the Governor asked him to go to Washington to plead with Senator Elihu Root to intercede for the Governor with William Barnes, the Republican "boss" of New York State, and induce Mr. Barnes to order the Republican members of the Court of Impeachment to vote that the impeachment of Sulzer had been illegal. This request being refused, according to the witness, the Governor asked the younger Ryan to go to Mr. De Lancey Nicoll, a New York lawyer, and request the latter to take the same request to Charley" Murphy, the Tammany Chief, that Senator Root was to have taken to Mr. Barnes, according to the alleged plans of the Governor. If Mr. Murphy called off the impeachment proceedings the Governor promised, according to Mr. Ryan, that he would do whatever was right."

PRO AND CON

Whatever the legal merits of the case may be, before sentence is passed upon William Sulzer in the court of public opinion, his antecedents and training should be considered. Perhaps he was unscrupulous in his handling of campaign funds, certainly he was careless, and the fact that politicians are wont to cultivate what have been well called "easy ways with easy money," does not excuse his carelessness, although it may explain it. There