Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1906-05-26
PERKINS DISCHARGE
LARCENY CHARGE DISMISSED IN
CAMPAIGN FUND CASE.

Following the decision OF the appellate
division of the supreme court in New
York. as reported in The Star yesterday.
handing down a decision discharging from
custody George W. Perkins. whom The su-
preme court held to await action OF the
grand jury on a technical charge of grand
larceny in connection with the campaign
contribution of the New York Life Insur-
ance Company to the republican national
committee. District Attorney Jerome said:
4 shall appeal this case TO the court OF
appeals and get final decision there"
Each justice wrote an opinion that Mr..
Perkins could not be held guilty Of larceny,
Justice Mclaughlin. who wrote the prevail
ing opinion, said in part:
The defendant had right 10 give OF his
own funds to the chairman OF the repubi-
can national committee. The relatOr made
the contribution at the request Of the presi-
dent of the Insurance company. with tho
express understanding that II would repay
him The money belonging TO the insurance
company was appropriated openly and
aVowedly' by the relator, after all the
facts had been stated to the finance com
mittee-to reimburse him for the money
which he had previously advanced.
1T was not stealthlly taken, nor was
there anything secretive about it. The fact
that the check was drawn payable TO tho
order Of j. p. Morgan q Co. and so entered
on tie insurance COmpany's books IS OF no
importance because it does not appear that
the relator had anything to do with tho
drawing of the check or had any knowledge
of the entry on the company books
The relatOr. in receiving the money. did
not commit larceny at common law; nor did
he-ts1tain possession of the money by false
pretenses. The case IS devoid of every Gle
ment from which II could be claimed pos
session was obtained by false representa-
ton. The only remaining inquiry then IS.
Was the money received in trust and there
AZ 90 "a his nSpH II not
received in trust; on the contrary, 1t was
received to satisfy the REALTORS claim But
it il argued that the relltOr was vice pres!-
dent of the insurance company, chairman or
the finance committee, and as such was
charged IN law with the custody or inc
company's property, for which reason u
was his duty when the same was received
to turn It over to the treasurer or The prop
er custodian of the fund"
Liable to Civil Action.
Justice Patterson. while agreeing that Mr..
Perkins cannot be found guilty of lar
ceny, said he may be compelled by a civil
action to make restitution, inasmuch as the
officers of the company had no power to
make the contributions. He said:
The contribution for political purposes
was not at the time mentioned In the in
formation prohibited by law. The officers
and those in control of the insurance com
pany had no power to use the moneys OF
the company for such a purpose. and the
reIator may be compelled by a civil action
to make restitution Of what he received"
Justice Clark in his opinion. says:
THE contribution of money to a political
party for legitimate campaign purposes at
the time of the occurrence hereunder
considered was neither prohibited nor
crime in itself The federal government
having no control over insurance matters,
the contribution to a national political party
for such purposes in a national campaign
by an insurance company would not only
not be prohibited nor q crime IN itself, but
would not even be wrong officially TO the
extent of implying criminality without al
leging and proving a corrupt or wicked mo-
tive and feloniouS or evil intent"
Justice Ingraham says II must be under
stood the court is not now concerned with
the civil responsibility of Mr.. Perkins 10
the company. He said:
ut was Mccall who appropriated the
money of the corporation. and the officers
or employees of the company who obeyed his
direction In making his payment without
intent to do more than carry out the IN
structions Of the president Of the corpora
ton, we're not, as 1 view IT, responsible for
the act"
The proceeding against Mr.. Perkins was
instituted by District Attorney Jerome for
the purpose of securing ruling upon what
charge, II any, those who made sucn con-
tributious may be indicted A charge was
made against Mr. Perkins. who was former
" vice president of the New York LIE
Insurance Company, and his case was I'M
mediately taken before Supreme Court JUS
tice Greenbaum on a writ of Ia beas corpus;
Justice Greenbaum dismissed this writ ana
held Mr. Perkins for action by the grand
Jury The case was then appealed 10 the
appellate division.