The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1906-03-24
I'VE After Court
Wouldn't Instruct the
Grand Jury
WOULD HIRE JUDGE PARKER
To Help Prosecute the Insurance
Officers for the Campaign
Contributions.

Hhe thdSt " NEtuhihi huuui ~ AINtt
the Afr by Judge O'sullINan Putting
Larceny Question Up to the Jurors to
Decide for Themselves and Then Re.
fusing to SIT as a Committing Masly.
trate-"Are Bliss n CortelyOu Re.
delivers OF stolen Goods" the Dis.
trlct Attorney Asks COurt-JerOme
wont Tell What His Next Step Win BE.
1t was left to the discretion OF the Grand
Jury by Judge Thomas C. O'Sullivan in
General Sessions yesterday to determine
whether the officers OF life insurance COM
panies committed larceny when they made
campaign contributions to political parties.
District Attorney Jerome had advised the
Grand Jury that in his opinion larceny
had not beer committed, and the Grand
Jury had asked Judge O'Sullivan for his
advice.
In substance Judge o'sullivan said that
it was the duty Of the Grand Jury to decide
from the evidence presented if there was
a criminal intent on the part Of the officers
Of the companies when they gave money
to the political parties.
AS the views Of Judge o'Sullivan and Mr..
Jerome differed radically, Mr.. Jerome
sprung a surprise. He asked Judge O'Sul-
Ivan to sit as a committing Magistrate
and issue a warrant charging George W.
Perkins, vioe-president Of the New York
Life Insurance Company, with larceny,
Mr.. Perkins testified before the Armstrong
committee that he, as a representative Of
the New York Life. had contributed $4,000
to Cornslius N. Bliss, then treasurer of the
Republican national campaign committee.
Mr.. Jerome said that IL George W. Perkins
had committed a crime 1t ought to be de-
cided one way OF the other at once. 1t
ought also to be decided, added Mr.. Jerome,
wherther Mr.. Bliss and George B. Cortelyou
had received stolen goods.
Judge O'Sallivan said he couldn't see
why the hypothetical questions presented
by the Grand Jury had been asked Of him
at all. He pleaded stress Of public work
and suggested to Mr.. Jerome that there
we're fourteen other Magistrates before
whom the matter could be taken. He sug-
gested Recorder Gof as a Judge Of long
experience and a good man to handle the
question, 4
Mr.. Jerome then asked Judge O'Sullivan
point blank If he would consider the evie
dence and sit as a Magistrate. If it was
decided that Mr.. Perkins had committed
a crime he could be held for the Grand
Jury. Then Mr.. Perkins would emplos
the best lawyers in the country and tn
question could be finally settled by th{
Court of Appeals. And l." said Mr.
Jerome, shall engage Alton B. Parker
to represent the people, Judge Parker
has been quoted recently AZ saying that
crimes have been committed by insurance
officials.
After a long argument the members
of the Grand Jury found things left in the
air. Judge O'Sullivan refused to act as
a Magistrate unless the other Magistrates
refused TO act. As they left the court room
some of the grand jurors were asking each
other where they stood. Some of them
thought that they had been advised by the
Court to indict and others thought that
they were told not to indict. OF course.
the Grand Jury could act against either
the advicel of the Court or the Dist riot
Attorney, but this is seldom done. They
refused t. say what they intended to do.
MIR. Jerome declined to outline what he
intends to do. He will take no action,
however, until next week. Questioned
as to whether he would go to Recorder
Goff and ask him to sit as a Magistrate,
he said:
Il shall not, as I understand the Re-
corder is a p~ofcyholder in the New York
Life"
1t wal about / o'clock when the Grand
Jury marched into court. Judge O'Sullivan
had his speech prepared and read from it.
He said that contributing to a political
party by individuals or corporations was
not necessarily a crime, 'but may they
contribute in such a manner as to render
the transaction criminal is the question"
He then went over the questions p~ropounded
by the Grand Jury regarding contributions
for the purpose OF influencing favorable
legislation or preventing hostile legisla-
ton.
In the absence OF criminal intent it goes
no further said Judge o'Sullivan, "and no
indictment can be found. But il intent
10 QepTlV6 OF ueiTduu tHe ITu5 oWneI Ol
his property be established then you find
that the crime Of larceny has been COM
mitted. 1t is not within the province Of
the Court to say whether or no there was
intent. That is for you to determine from
all the facts and circumstances in the case"
Judge O'Sullivan then reviewed forgery
and Justification Of books. He said that
self gain is not necessary to constitute
larceny-it was whether the taker took it
for self gain or the gain Of another. 1t is
not within your province to speculate as
to how a crime has been avoided. 1t is your
duty to decide whether a crime has been COM
mitted, and to do that you should proceed
without delay to consider all the legal
evidence available
When Judge o'Sullivan finished he was
abeAk n tsA ths. Gza1a;siproEs that they