The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1906-03-21
NO CRIME IN CAMPAIGN GIFTS.
JEROME SAYS He CAN'T FIND
ANY FELONIOUS INTENT,
Unless. OF Course. Insurance Officers were
Personally benefited Court Likely
TO Agree With the District Attorney
Other Phases Now to Bo Taken Up.

In a brief which he filed yesterday with
Judge O'Sullivan in the Court Of General
Sessions District Attorney Jerome holds
that the giving ,of political contributions
to political parties by officers Of insurance
companies was not a crime, because 1t cannot
be shown that such payments were made
with felonlous intent.
To be larceny, Mr.. Jerome says, such
appropriations Of policyholders' money
would have to have been made, under the
Penal Code, with intent to- deprive or
defraud the true owner Of his property,
or the use and benefit thereof" Mr.. Jerome
is of the opinion, as he says in his brief,
that that was not the case in the political
contributions from the insurance companies.
Judge O'Sullivan, it is expected, will hand
down this morning his answer to the ques-
tions put to him by the Grand Jury two
weeks ago in the matter of these contribu-
tions. The Grand Jury, it will be remem-
bered, handed to the Judge a presentment
embodying a statement of assumed facts
upon which five questions were framed
for the Judge to answer.
The Grand Jury wanted to know; first,
IL the officers or trustees making such
contributions had committed the crime Of
larceny; second, if not larceny, any other
crime; third, il the officers could have been
authorized to make such contributions 30
that it would not constitute the crime Of
larceny; fourth, if the intent governing
such contributions was the personal adj
vantage Of an officer or officers, was IL
then the crime Of larceny, and, fifth, IL IL
should appear uncertain whether the intent
was selfish or was to serve the interests Of
the corporation, should the benefit Of the
doubt be given to the officer or officers?
Mr.. jerome says in his brief that the FUN
damental idea in the English common law
of crime was that there could be no crime
without evil intent. He quotes many
decisions showing the courts have upheld
this, and then goes on to say:
From the above cases and similar ones
which could be cited very numerously. IL
appears that in the law OF larceny criminal
intent-or. as it Is usually called. felonious
intent-is something necessarily present or
there Is no crime, even II the act done is
prohibited by law and the doer is sane.
Now, In the presentment in question the
act or acts supposed in the four first hypo-
thetical statements to have been done are not
in themselves prohibited by law. There IL
no legal prohibition against giving to a pollti-
cal party. II these acts are criminal, they
must be 80 because the property was the
property of a corporation.
All our crimes to-day are statutory, and
unless the acts supposed constitute larceny
1 am unaware OF any statute making such
acts O. crime.
II 1t be suggested that the facts assumed
In two Of the assumed hypothetical date
ments constitute bribery. the groundless-
ness of such a contention at once appears
when an attempt Ia made to frame an lndiot-
ment on this hypothesis,
So also as to conspiracy,as a mere inspection
Of Section les. Penal Code. discloses.
Section SAL, Penal Code, obviously has no
application.
II the assumed statements OF fact consti-
tute larceny, why does not every ultra pires
disposition of the property Of a corporation
constitute larceny?
From an extended and careful examine
ton of the authorities | am led to the con-
clusion that the acts embodied In the four
statements OF facts found in the presentment
do not show the commission Of the crime Of
larceny or OF any other crime. This oon-
clusion is, Of course. based upon an assump-
ton Of the facts therein embodied alone.
without the addition or subtraction of any
thing.
If am correct in this oonclusiont. he answer
of the Court to the first three questions should
be as'aollows:
To the First Question-No.
% To the Second Question-No.
TIC the Third Question-lt is not necessary
to answer this question. as 1t falls with the
reply to the first two.
Al to the Fourth Question-lt is obvious
that acts of the character therein assumed,
done with the intention therein specified.
constitute larceny. 1t Ia clear. however. from
all the authorities. that the selfish interest
must not be remote or small.
AS to the Fifth Question-lt is elementary
that the Grand Jury must give the benefit
of a reasonable doubt to the person charged
with crime, as to every agreement essential
to be made out TO prove the commission Of a
crime.
The plan which Mr.. Jerome is pursuing
in his insurance investigation Is to take
up one phase after another. The first
was thai of the campaign contributions.
Among the other phases are the classifying
of reports and of accounts, which con-
stitute forgery and conspiracy.
It IL understood that these will be taken
up in Just the way that the campaign con-
tributions have been taken up, the Grand
Jury handing in q presentment n GER
tain questions based on assumed facts
and Mr.. Jerome following with a brief
e~mbodying his own views, the Grand Jury's
action in each case being dependent on
the answers of the Court,
The Grand Jury is to appear before
Judge O'Sullivan at 1890 O'Clock this morn
ing. and whether or not the first phase of
the insurance business will be further
acted upon or dropped will depend upon
what the Judge says. Mr.. Jerome re-
to indicate the next phase 20 be
He said he wanted TO get one out
of the way first. Those who read Mr..
Jerome's brief yesterday were inclined to
that the Court would side with him.
The officers of the Mutual Reserve In
surance Company who ave been indicted
were to have been arraigned to plead be-
fore Judge O'Sullivan yesterday morning,
their counsel. William Rand, Jr., was
unable to appear and the matter was put
over for a week. Mr.. Rand is to move to
the indictments.