The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1906-03-31

no active transportation by Mr.. Perkins,
and we must look to his intent when he paid
out the money to Bliss"
"A mans motive may be perfectly good, .
rejoined Justice Greenbaum, and yet he
be guilty Of q crime
Certainly, your Honor. We are not
here to discuss the motive, but the intent,
and to determine whether there was any
criminal intent such az the law requires.
This money was paid out in the usual course
of business. There was no subterfuge,
no concealment and In every way the entire
proceedings are open and above board"
ITO determine the question OF intent, '
said the Justice, you must go baCk to the
original circumstances and the reasons OF
paying out the money. 1t was done for a
certain purpose, be that good or bad"
MIR. Cohen then entered into a long tech
meal argument on the question of intent.
He read numerous decisions, in one Of which
it was laid down that while the officers OF a
corporation might exceed their rights
under their charter, by, for instance, Civ
other charity, yet they could not be accused
Of a crime by this action. MIR. Cohen main
tanned that the intent could be looked into
on habeas proceedings and need not be
left, as Justice Greenbaum seemed to think,
for determination at a trial, after indict-
ment.
Campaign contributions canno be called
criminal in. themselves" said Mr.. Cohen.
They are neither NAHUM in sc nor NAHUM
prohibitum, for there is no such statute"
Suppose the money had been used to
corrupt the Legislature?" asked the Court.
That would be both nahum in sc and
nahum prohibitum, answered Cohen, but
there is no such contention here. Take
for instance the contributions made. by
Mr.. Mccall. as president Of the New York
Life, TO the Johnstown food sufferers, to
the New Orleans yellow fever subscrip,.
tons, or suppose that in time OF war he had
ordered $50, 900 spent in feeding soldiers
or fitting out a ship. Would that constitute
larceny For all Of these acts the trustees
might be civilly liable. but surely not Grim.
inafly, when they were acting for the best
interests OF the pohcyholders. 1t could
scarcely be said that they had robbed the
company.
so we return to the issue. What is
there in this case that by any stretch OF the
imagination can be called m intent?
Secrecy there was, but for good reason,
as / have shown. Mccall could have paid
the money back without letting the other
officers know, but he was not seeking to
hide anything, and when Mr.. Perkins was
asked about the money he stated the iacts
fully and without reservation to the Arm
strong committee.
we have come here concluded Mr..
Cohen. satisfied that there can be but one
outcome. We ask no special favors. no
special laws. We only ask the %strictest
justice, we Assn Pio,eS'ioh u ~ h'
titled to il, and know that we will be cast
out of court if we shonld be cast out. l
repeat merely, Does IL not strlhe your nonor
as opposed to common sense mat one VINO
has held a long reputation Tor integrity
should be declared guilty OF larceny oes
cause he sought and gov repayment OF
money he had been authorized 10 spend
for the company
Mr.. Jerome began his reply by saying
that MIR. Cohen was straying Tar from the
- - I,-,1y chat ANU n NJ
point II he did not think that any Queer Vi
a corporation who AIDED or aDoeleed an
other in a larceny was MT lust as suhty
as the one in actual control OF tne iunas'
The question OF intent was me real one
Mr.. Jerome said; ana lhe lac's! as ulsGioseu
by the papers, showed ample intent IN MS
opinion.
peheVe ons' IN They do not, II il
uonor 70 decide, The question
IL no To the right of the relator to pay the
money to a political organi-
zation to influence an election: ms is
very far from being a case In which there
IL an absence OF moral Ruill OF tuIplluue;
oeheVe t1a' IL . oN
You mean tllal an T "
are cr1mlnhli askeu - ~ shown Rut
Yes, "hen lhteL' 20. rhis ia ,ol;ov.
that uoes nov apP'1rh ra,.tor doas not
nolue,s ~. IN, Eah;Iitv so we come 10
uIspuoT - os casas where there is a wrong
on%nno;ttad and we must discover whether
- IL q felonious wrong or not. | think it il,
The money has been converted, misappro-
priated, for a purpose which a great many
of the policyholders, having dlnerent UToHu-
cal views, would certainly
The District Attorney went into a long
argument. quoting numerous oeclsiohs;
to show that a CRIME Eau oe ~ nn.t
WllipOuI oNsee = -. a.Lz.