New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1906-03-31
MIR. PERKINS IN COURT
ParoIed, Ascaiting Decision of Jus
tice IN Test Case.

TIE second action in the legal fight TO deter
mine whether II is grand larceny TO contribute
funds OF corporations TO political parties was
waged yesterday before Justice Greenbaum, Of
the Supreme Court. George W. Perkins. Of the
banking firm OF J. P. Morgan & Co. and a former
officer Of the New York Life Insurance Company
whose arrest few days ago, charged with
grand larceny, was the first action, was IN court
as The result Of habeas corpus proceedings. His
attorneys. Louis L. Delafield and ex-Judge Will
fan n Cohen, demanded his release on several
grounds. but chiefly that there was no crimi-
naIty In such campaign contributions. District
Attorney Jerome, fighting more stoutly than
many expected he would, declared that the con-
tributions were not only Illegal but also i'm
moral and that the crime thus constituted could
De nothing but grand larceny. Justice Green
baum reserved his decision. promising an early
opinion. from which appeal 10 the higher
courts viii be taken by the party against whom
il is handed down.
Public interest in this test case-now popularity
known as the Perkins case-was great enough to
III Justice Greenbaum's little courtroom with
lawyers and curious insurance officials long be-
fore 80 o'clock when the case was TO be called.
Most interest seemed 10 centre in the argument
which District Attorney jerome would make,
There was nearly as much interest in the line Of
defence.
Ex-Judge Cohen and Lewis L. Delaheld, coun-
SCI for AIr. Perkins were first to appear. Shortly
afterward District Attorney Jerome and his as
sstant Isidor J. Kresel, entered the courtroom.
ATr Perkins who has been out on parole since
Wednesday last, when he appeared lacked his
usual smile. For the Information Of the Justice.
Mr.. Delaheld recited the facts IN the proceedings
briefly He said that he had not only fled veri-
fed traverse. but that he also dernurred to the
whole proceeding. He pointed out that the evil
denoe before the magistrate did not constitute a
crime. and that the magistrate WAS without jur-
tsdiotion- he asked that from this point on the
lines Of defence might be consolidated
COHEN ARGUES FOR DEFENCE
E1-Judge Cohen made the opening argument
for the defence. He said that, as a rule no
defences were made IN such cases. other than
technical defences He proposed TO disregard
both these and the manner Of procedure which
he said was most peculiar. The Perkins argu-
ment would be two questions: Was there a
crime committed?" and If a crime was commit
ted. was the relator guilty Of that crime?'
He outlined the facts much as MI DelafeId
gave them on Wednesday He told Of the con-
versations with the late President Mccall. Of the
payments made 10 the amount Of S4S 800 Of the
reference TO the finance committee and the final
reimbursement OF the amounts paid with inter
est. he made the point that It was INs< of neces-
sty that this subject was brought 10 the atten-
iou Of the finance committee as President Nc
Cali. by authority and custom had the power TO
reimburse him. He declared that Mr.. Perkins
knew nothing about the book entries until called
before the Armstrong committee in September
of hast year
The relator states that in making these pay
uents he had no idea Of doing anything wrong"
declared Judge Cohen. He believed rather that
he was doing what was the best thing for his
company And fl is at the request Of the relator
thar make this further statement: In saying
that he acted throughout under the direction Of
orr Mccall he has not the slightest idea of at
t-ihuung 70 Mr. Mccall any except honest mo-
lives. or Of any wish or idea except to protect
the interests OF the policyholders."
Nr Cohen then began the dissection Of the
grand larceny statute. He diagramed the SEN
telces. taking up clause after clause and asking
how they could be applied 10 the circumstances
of the present case
Justice Greenbaum interrupted after a time
asking why ii was necessary 10 dwell the
FIRST subdivision Of The law-that Of obtaining
money by trick. device, collusion or conspiracy
-Thsre is no contention that the crime of lar
ceay in this case comes under the first sub
division" interrupted the District Attorney. and
the question dropped.
Ar Cohen then declared that Mr.. Perkins
Wa not in control of the funds Of the New York
Lac 10 a degree sufficient 10 constitute grand
larceny even II the funds improperly paid
out
DO you mean 10 claim" demanded Justice
Greenbaum. that the vice-president Of a cor
D0ration cannot be said 10 be an officer having
control of funds within the meaning Of the
statute DO you mean that the only officers so
Included are those who draw the checks"
J thiuE that is the meaning Of the law" was
the answer.
so narrow as that exclaimed the justice