Talk:William Sulzer

Misuse of the term "Impeachment"
The article uses the term "impeachment" as if "impeachment" meant removal from office. It does not. Impeachment is merely a formal accusation of misconduct, which then leads to trial, the result of which may be acquittal or conviction, followed by removal from office. The article is poorly written for this reason, and it needs a lot of work.John Paul Parks (talk) 05:12, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I removed the tag. The article is correct about the proceedings. It distinguishes quite well the impeachment (by the Assembly) from the removal (by the Court for the Trial of Impeachments). Kraxler (talk) 14:29, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Expanded
I added in talk about his career before and after the impeachment, along with more detail about the crisis leading up to his ousting. Two of the books I used had the same title so for the more recent one I included the subtitle. So yeah. User:Jedibeatnik —Preceding undated comment added 01:57, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Untitled
This entry reads more like a work of hagiography than an encylopedic account. I didn't really know a damn thing about William Sulzer, except that he was impeached, before I read this article. Having now read the article, I know that A: he was impeached; and B: that some editor somewhere thinks he's Robin Hood.


 * Yeah, it's in bad shape as it now stands.Sylvain1972 14:43, 17 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I have added material from the Biographical Directory of the United States Congress , which adds some balance at least to the extent of more fully acknowledging the rest of his political career. To address the matter of the justice or injustice of his impeachment would take a lot more research, which is a task for someone who's actually interested... BPK 20:03, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

There is no question to the following facts:
 * He filed an incorrect campaign contribution statement, signed and sworn to, which is perjury according to the law.
 * He was, for a long time, a Tammany man who followed instructions from Murphy.
 * Nobody had ever been impeached until then for acts committed before taking office, this was the first time.
 * The accusation was made as a means to get him out of the way, when he ceased to follow instructions from Murphy.

There is still controversy as to how to evaluate the facts.
 * If Murphy had not pressed the charges, would anybody have said anything about diverted campaign funds? Certainly nobody ever had questioned before such statements filed with the Secretary of State.
 * Even convicted of this form of perjury, could the Court for the Trial of Impeachments have voted for his remaining in office, accepting it as "a mistake somebody made without Sulzer's knowledge"? The majority of the court being state senators under instructions from Murphy, they simply obeyed.
 * A long line of Governors had committed more or less corrupt acts during their time in office, but none was impeached, so why Sulzer?

These questions are still being debated, and anyone can make up his mind to arrive at whatever conclusion or opinion. Kraxler (talk) 20:09, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

image
Is this image "Sulzer Home" the home of William Sulzer? If so, since the image was taken before 1923 it can be uploaded and used here. Please do if it is the right Sulzer. Kingturtle (talk) 00:44, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Only NY governor without a portrait?
"William Sulzer's official portrait is the only one of a Governor of New York that does not hang in the "Hall of Governors," the main hallway leading to the Executive Chamber, located within the New York State Capitol in Albany." Elliott Spitzer should be added to that list. Saxophobia (talk) 21:54, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

The portrait has since been added to the Hall: http://www.timesunion.com/local/article/Hall-of-Governors-update-expands-stories-of-two-2261320.php

I saw this portrait in the Hall on April 12, 2017. It is really striking, leading to my interest in this subject. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.127.179.73 (talk) 18:11, 13 April 2017 (UTC)