New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1906-03-24
GRAND JURY IN MIDDLE
Wonders What Judge O'SuliUaa' 5
AdUice Really Means.

There was presented in the Court OF General
Sessions yesterday the spectacle Of Judge O'SaI-
Hvan disagreeing with District Attorney Jerolca
as 10 advice 10 be given TO the gIand jury abO
the legality OF campaign contributions by in
surance officials AS a result OF the disagree
ment the grand jury was left in an apparently
hopeless state Of doubt as 70 the Insurance iu-
qUiry which was started az the beginning oc
the month.
Mr.. Jerome had submitted a brief. dec.a-i-=
in effect that neither the crime OF larceny n p
any other crime had been committed IN the con-
tributlons Of the insurance officials TO the Re-
publican National Committees campaign funds
because there was no evil intent in making ST. n
contributions Judge C'SuIlvan told the grand
jury that It must decide On the evidences cb-
tained in the inquiry if there was any evil in
tent.
Mr.. Jerome. IN language nearly disclosing a
feeling OF contempt 1or Judge O'Sullivan's posi-
tion. insisted that there had not been q fair
answer tc the questions presented n the grand
jUry's recent presentnenJ- He went furth-r
and offered TO place the facts IN the case OF The
New York Life Insurance Company's conc-fbu-
tons before Judge C'SuIIivan as a commitJiag
magistrate. so there could be no lodging OF tn
question whether George w Perkins commtt.e
larceny and George B. CorteIyou and Cornell
y. Bliss were receivers Of s-olen goods
JUDGE O'sULLIvAN-s OPINION
Judge OsuHtvan declined TO hear the case az
magistrate. although Mr.. jerome declared t---
there would be prompt appeal TO the Suprel-=
Court in the case. and. that he would enssgs sz-
Judge Alton B Parker 10 represent the Fs-pl.
in the argument
Mr. Jerome was IN Judge O'SuIlivan's parr CT
General Sessions when the grand jury reported
in the afternoon, and Judge O'Sullivan inlme-i-
ately took up the recent presentment on the in-
surance inquiry. saying, in part:
Gentlemen OF the Grand Jury: WITH regard 70 the
Contributions u must be SAID az the outset tt Jhz4r
hypothetical character precludes sirsctly -c
sve reply. You cannot inquire into crimes coma
before you In such a situation speci-i instructi5ns
for your guidance cannot be directed with -l--
fore you may develop facts. conserving waieh a.
wee nov glVe9 would oe lTreieyant ~ not aosolle-
transactions which are likely 70 eau loT your co-
tribuuons, the court in answer 20 your roques-.
That contributing to political party is not usccs
"a 5SIly Gr1le t ~ may . o. +j 4Il y4l 80 49,
% 3 3Ta az Pom l5Ci sS ana 81 1 "a "a 'aS. Io = m may - '
5is1iv ho1esr 51t ,slS arrenfI ~ 1stro-ic r|s
which IS rssponsihle for It's exIsterce No sudL5
Giar iadgsstion can deg%ajs it 20 the !ese Of crime
In1ividuals and poss ply cert@;n corporations Ufy
tribute 70 a2ytllE,g else and be gui.tsss but my
tney contribute IN sGeh ma -ner a. 70 rem
question must be determined BY the e5araete- e
can hardly be necessary to owen ar aGy IerEtE
on wrongful intent essential element Or
crime. That IS easily first pri1c1pie i0 law ant
morals and IS pretty universally understood Toar
investIga ions not limited % political
tributi0ns TO determine II crime has been COM
miJted You 10 inquire T. prohibited bv
law has been committed with the intent wlici,
makes il crime.
Your question assumes that the intent gOvervI1.-
the contribution 70 the state political parry H
50 ingrattats the said corporation in the favor o.,
the political party tTf q no ttiCol party. II sue
cessfUl in the then ensuing campaign. would pre-
vent any legislation or Investigation which mighs
affect the peCunlary tUteIcSls Of said C0rp0rar on
or would secure legislation which would advance
the pecuniary interests OF the corporation. c-
would. least. prevent the enactment OF IaF.sIq-
ton which would iljuriOusly affect the pecunlary
interests OF said corporation hostile investigation
II its affairs. Without going into the aDparen- ~
questionable nature OF such purposes, permit ms
| say that YOU cannot infer intent. good bqF
before inQuring into the facts and Circumstance
surrounding the transaction. From TIE srataula0-
/ in your question evidence to establish the nh--sl-
cal transaction OF approprtaJing money the usa
Of q person other than The true owner aDpesrs 20
he available. which seems 10 bring least per-
Or II within Section as Of our Penal Code. wEer.
/ larceny Is defined In the absence OF criminal
tent u goes 70 further, ana no ind ctuleDt be-
found. But II intent to deprive defraud the -rLsr
OF his property be established then vOu nav
hnd that the CRIME OF larceny has been Conlr,'
It is not withiS the province Of the to cav
whether or no there was Intent. That is for yoa
Gentlemen, q Cere~T'sre. from all TIE factz arF
circumstances IN the case