New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1906-03-21
NO CRIME" JEROME.
District attorney Says Insurance
Campaign Gifts We're Legal.

District Attorney Jerome yesterday sent to
Judge OSuIIivan a long brief regarding the
presentment of the grand jury early this month
in the Insurance inquiry In effect the brief says
that there larceny or other crime in
the contributions OF the insurance companies
to political campaign funds.
Judge O'Sullivan is expected to send TO the
grand jury to-day answers TO the questions in
the presentment, and. in view Of the fact that
Judge OSuivan has been comforting with Mr..
Jerome while Mr.. Jerome has been preparing
his writ. it may be guessed that the grand jury
will be relieved from further consideration OF
the question of legality Of campaign contribu-
buttons by the insurance companies.
AS a basis for it's questions the grand jury
assumed that it could he proved that trustees
or directors of the insurance companies gave
property belonging to the companies to the
representatives of one Of the rational political
parties shortly before a national election. wish
ing that party to win in the election because
of the economic doctrines advocated by it. The
grand jury then asked, first if the company
officials committed larceny: second if not lar
ceny did they commit any other crime. and,
n so. what crime; third If there was any way
in which the company officers could have been
authorized by the stockholders or pollcyholders
To make the contributions legally and. fourth.
if the intent in making the contributions was
the personal advantage of the officer giving the
property of the corporation. II given without
legal authorization the officer guilty OF
larceny?
Mr.. JerOme's brief begins with the statement
that the fundamental idea in the English
common law Of crime was that there could be
no crime without the evil intent" Mr.. Jerome
says the English common law Of crime became
the law Of this state and that 'as 70 common
! law felonies, and those crimes created by
English statutes which became a part Of our
common law. the principle applies in full force.
Mr. Jerome says that embezzlenent is the
only form of larceny which can have any rela-
ton 10 the inquiries of the grand jury, adding:
The officers Of a corporation having custody or
doubtedly belong 10 the group OF persons % men men
For such officers 10 give the property or the cor
poration or any part of il to a political organiza-
ton is undoubtedly. in the words of the statute,
to apPropriate 1t % the use Of Psrso9 other her
pronriation 10 be larceny must according to the
same section. be with intent to deprive or de-
fraud the true owner Of his property, or the use
and benefit thereof"
After citing several decisions OF the courts on
the point Mr.. Jerome says:
The term "feIonious intent is like the term
clear definition of it, but the authorties enable us
Guilty. From the above cases and similar ones.
which could be cited very nur3eTQusy, It appears
is usuaIIv called feIonious frtent is something
[ necessarily present there IS no crime, even II
the act done is prohibited by law and the doer IS
/ Now i'm the presentment in question. the act
supposed in the first four hypothetical state
meuts 10 have been done are not In themselves
prohibited by law. There IS no legal prohibition
against giving 10 political party. II these acts
I criminal they be because the property
was the property Of corporation, All our crimes
to-day statutory. and unless the acts supposed
constitute larceny 1 am unaware or any statute
making such acts crime,
If IL be suggested that the facts assumed In two
OF the assumed hypothetical statements constitute
/ bribery the grOundlessness of such a contention
I at appears when an attempt Is made to frame
indictment this hypothesis SO also as To
| conspiracy. a mere inspection or Section l5S
Penal Code disclOses Section j4l. Penal Code, Obvl
ments OF fact constitute larceny why does not
every ultra wires disposition OF the property OF
/ From extended and careful examination or
the authorities ( led to the conclusion that the
embodied in the four statements of facts found
in the preSentment do not show the commission or
the crime OF larceny or of any other crime. This
| conclusion is. of course based upon assumption
Of the facts therein embodied alone, without the
addition subtraction Of anything. lf l am cor
rect In this conclusion the answer OF the court to
the first three questions should be as follows To
No TO the third questiOn-It is not necessary to
answer this question. as IL falls with the reply 10
/ the first two
/ of the character therein assumed. done with the
intention therein specified constitute larceny II Is
/ clear however, from all the authorities that the
. selfish interest must not be remote or small.
Mr.. Jerome says in regard to another inquiry
OF the grand jury that 1t is elementary that the
4 grand jury must give the benefit of a reasonable
/ doubt 80 the person charged with crime as To
/ every element essential TO be made out 10 prove
/ The commission of a crime"