New-York tribune., 1906-11-18
MUTUAL CASE DROPPED.
Continued from nrst pASe

tention can be made that in law these pay
ments amounts to the crime Of larceny al
though the moral elements involved differ very
little from those involved in that crime.
Again paying his respects to the Insurance De-
partment, he adds:
It must be remembered that the superinten-
dent of Insurance knew, or had the power, under
the Insurance law of learning at any time the
salaries paid to all officers of the company, and
IT, in his opinion, these salaries were exorbitant
and he had no other method Of controlling
them--it was his duty, under the Insurance law,
to recommend to the Legislature such legisla-
ton as would have effectually prevented a rope
tition or continuation of the abuse
On the question Of "nepotisrn' he says:
AS in the case of salaries, so In this case. II
the most fragrant instance of favortism does not
involve the commission of crime, others of less
importance do not, because the circumstances.
SO Tar as they affect the criminality of the trans
actions, were Identical.
On the same subject regarding the Raymond
contracts, Mr.. Jerome says that the Insurance
Superintendent could have learned readily that
| such contracts were outstanding adding that he
is ''of the opinion that 1t cannot be successfully
contended that the crime Of larceny was commit
ted"
Regarding ex-President McCurdy's testimony
on this question. he saysi
However little one may be inclined 10 believe
the statement Of the president of the Mutual
Life Insurance Company in view of all the cir
cumstances, that he knew nothing Of the terms
OF the contracts between Raymond & Co and
the Mutual Life, and however irresistibly the
mind is driven to the conclusion that the con-
tracts between Raymond & Co and the Mutual
1ife were the result of the presidents son-in-
law being a member of the firm Of Raymond &
Co, there does MT seem to be any legal evidence
or the commission OF criminal offence And
here II might be proper to state that while 1t Is
difficult to believe-and to most minds impossible
TO beIieve-that the president of the company
M Of ont or
between Raymond & Co and the Mutual Life,
and therefore was committing perjury when
he testified before the joint committee to that
effect, yet have not been able as yet to obtain
any legal evidence other than the inherent i'm
probability of his testimony, which would tend
to show that the president committing per-
jury before the Joint committee. The inherent
tmpro Utilities of his testimony alone not
| sufficient evidence Of the commission of perjury
to warrant proceedings against the president for
that offence.
Under Legal Expenses" the subject of
the Mutuals "$25,O00 payments drawn from
the Morristown Trust Company deposit, Mr..
Jerome says:
What was done with any particular sum so
drawn 1t has not been possible to ascertain. The
committee on expenditures kept no books of
count. nor any memoranda showing for what
purpose these very large sums were expended,
and the evidence obtainable on the subject is of
the most vague character.
Mr.. Oyphant is apparently unable to explain
for what purpose the large sums of money pass
Mr. GilIette's account of what was done bv
him with the moneys received from the chair
man of the committee on expenditures is X
| tremely vague and unsatisfactory
Mr.. Jerome concludes" that the purpose for
| which this Morristown fund employed
| could not have been legitimate. and I think
| that no small part of 1t employed in what
was substantially bribery. He continues:
In considering this case it is not necessary to
discuss whether no Mr.. Gillette has or has not
| committed crime crimes in connection with
| this account. For, as Will subsequently, appear,
there are several indictments for felony pending
| against him because of his conduct relative to
affairs of the Mutual Life Insurance Company
| in which the crime charged is much clearer and
more susceptible Of proof than any acts of his
| in connection with the transactions under dis
cusSion. Nor will 1t be necessary to consider
whether or not Andrew c. Fields has committed
a crime or crimes in this connection. because as
will appear hereafter, it became absolutely nee
essary, in order to obtain legal evidence against
more important personages, that Fields should
| be accepted states witness and promised
immunity for the crimes. K any. that he had
committed
On the subject of forgery by causing false
entries to be made" he says
I have made careful inquiry from experts
skilled in the science of accounts and in the
art OF keeping books, and while those whom I
have consulted have condemned the method OF
bookkeeping practised by the Mutual Life In
surance Company in its apportionment Of ac-
counts and its methods Of entering charges 7
am yet Informed that to charge to the account
of legal expenses moneys employed in prornot-
Ing or opposing legislation is not so inappro-
pirate as to enable 1t TO be said by those skilled
In such matters that the entry is false one
On the bribery" phase of this question. he
says:
1t has been found absolutely impossible to
obtain any legal evidence showing that any nor
ton or this money drawn from the Morrstown
trust Company was employed for the purposes
of bribery.
His hnding is similar on the Conspiracy
phase OF this question. AS to general legal ex-
penses as charged the books OF the COM
pany." he says
The then general solicitor OF the company ia
dead, and have not been able TO obtain any
evidence which would show that the payments
made ana charged TO this account involved the
commission of crime.
AS to Andrew c. Fields. the ex-head of the
supply department, Mr.. Jerome states:
Fields has not been indicted because It was
necessary TO accept him states evidence and
promise MIN Immunity, in order To obtain legal
evidence against Walter r. Gillette, the first
Vlce-presldent OF the company, who is now
under Indictment. There is no legal testimony
which have been able 10 obtain that duplicates
In these transactions any one other than Fields
Gillette and possibly some OF tho parties not In