New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1906-03-24

frrnT ma
nooence seek 10 conceal itself IN crime
QUESTION OF INTENT.
You have asked the question II should appeai
uncertain 40 whether the intent actuaIlnE ths
M esrborst.en. under he presumpton Of limo
sc are Ms, 20 ne intent ~ an ooer giving the
property "a serve his selfish interests be made e
sa aPS impress upon you too strongly gentlemen
fhat self-gain is not necessary 70 consul -,
lenTlv derived Of his property whether the takeI
ook 9r s2s on @ o 566 Of You aFe % @
low The rule applied by you 70 ali me cases wIIT
y, 4, ne oIbt the reasonable doubt which reason
able men NAV entertain after a careful and honest
review and consideration of the eyldence /. 80 ~,
nation YOU are 70 give The benefit OF it 70 me ne
n 20 seeking for doubt as an excuse behind which
10 take shelter from unpleasant or disagreeao DIE
Mr.. JEROME REPLIES.
Nj Jerome. who had listened Judge o'suili-
van with close attention, but with a look OF sur
prise on his face, got up before the grand jury
could be dismissed and began speech TO the court.
His sarcasm as he proceeded was 100 'hih9 '0'i'
10 20 unrOticed- He said
direction and the undoubted propositions OF Jaw
ton to know what the grand Jury desires 70 Ds
Informed in regard 20. II does not bother Je i
81 degree 10 identify the ordinary commonpl.aCe
hIv defined ID is manifest that man VINO
steals with the intent OF stealing steas LIt 80,
~, ~ tsa7 1-he dficuty in the present situ-
aJ -s r Ss Z, There are in connection with
recent investigation I'm this city va. IN Tfot
facrs and evidence within the control or me DstIcL
ar-0ruev ana within his knowledge. mere are, d
large number o. tRese tsass S ' iS Tad rv do
non constitute q crime There are large nuItoc5
Of transactions wheE fl can only he qeleTnliI 55
grand jury i= BODY thai mas one on, other
perform. iu connection Win otAei .ft.t
have errung uu from recent Investigation LltLt
j. one group ~ cases in which me eylosshgS 80
gl c,- 10y \. +he7r Isl why gentlemen. if the
men nays an t,- --,g ,..rsg5 iIr, knows that and
7 have 80 advised them What The Er"n59 q NY
have not 50. his feouious ntent-not whether they
me- ca.-t-uozt undoubtedly they have not But
what thelr duty is is 10 determine from the 0N'-
Ny lefoIl-l .l ',l'S .- rft iav- is that there
crime THAT The law without that fel9noes ana ana
3d. Whrr, trustee 81 apIolnts1 ot on U IN
t's court deed. VIII ~ oLltrIi 'i FL l9,,srts
r. Same conversion with knowledge thar he IS con
7eriag tbe funds constitutes the fel9niogs laIehi,
q he 7riv ~ ne furv 20 determine whether the
tslsl'oas ,ls :, -5n What The feionous intent Is
Now ME question that they put 10 our
honor u.s. briefly. This: If these men gave iheSe
in my judgment. misrepresentation gI .aF Ll'l Ie
and they were sane men ard knew WAT l'ey ~ Mar
kfrd-thcn. in that case, shall the grand jury IN
The Court viii say. with regard to That ,sIi
ana criminal intent is 10 take with the intent {3
deprive and aetfaua ana ll you lI qua lfra-d' Won
ind felouious intent YOU ind a crime defined OE
1rr Is-are-Rat what bothers them. sir. and
h0thers the District Attorney IS thar M LAS - n
~ people arr Flack. after much discussion I l
fr~y room. the jury came into open court dIa stL
20 peraars The most ell4 ftl F55srra+t What
III -rfr-fral intertr- and Mr. Justice Barrett, de-
n6 6r5 d % ' T-oBer legal s denit6a said IT he
defendant has no moral sense ar y VIM
frov-s ne rata-e of his act and the. act is pro
tent But the Court Of Appeals said that Is not
The court DO not think il IS 50 much The ,b eu i5
ness ~ ms jury 30 aeleILlaIg S 49, tbe Intent
in taking it.
Mr. JERoME's OFFER.
NJ Jerome s then sir that it is ,1p S ,ss
learned court, for which ] ana very sorry. The law
imposes upon me ne o9.gatgon M ile ~ sasy and
definite asceTTaiumeut A member Of the LIlA OF
dent Of ne view YORK life win entire frankness,
has testified on nc stand that he gave 10 George -
treasurer Of the national committee Of the Repub-
5 a 6 n tSs 5 f6 E o. The New rs York Lie
for that and that be toos The money knowing It
case 81 George Perkins not because n Is lrri0ue-
The executive officers OF most OF the financial IN
which acts should be pr. h5ited by law The cues
has been the habit from time 10 time Of judges II
volviHg legal Propositions arose. to sin as com
aa1 .5 magi5sts Jg 9 Pays Of ne supreme
recorder smyth sat in several. notably one a
charge Or rape be sat simply because of the irI-
ln the United sates sb -e RI a oe5ecllEe oiilcer
cese involving The question Of whether joe g rol
ms court that sts5 f 5og2sqon j. nov before
a- bCCo ---s4 t2-1s y makes Cornelius r. Bliss
steeiee when many were mere children y recsiLe-
power 70 I2ess vow me facts are an within my
80 FlA 3e there. II your honor VIII Cor ~
case IS magistrate viii Law tefl reilce OF this
Tbe vyifreeuee Nh - pa nc form OF dispositions
these qepostons. and II your h6Bo1 I Loss swear TO
them o1 ne V-rit ~ ,55ne Court does not deliver
Nc GUY o. the legal adviser 10 he r - g! llorarl.
speak 5f he ~ c5-Ly, VII be very pIain' anu
tbst els 50 ven known IN this oSr5 't'1se
PROBABLY iE THIS city some Of WH feiaa instituton
can rrrc-f-s p. ~ sven decision 10 be fel,T1iu
i.ATraFlsing IN any community y4hidb -essl prob
por1ant g-esfiots - S lIa sraver and a more i'm
lle pfoLretyr a judge OF the hirhest IN. WIN
ssH io- The prvege Of submitting 70 consider cons
George per.irs ne ne ease Of the People against
lelt IN the present. ment Of this grand t as are set
binding alike upon vow, bo6 decision which viii be
us 10 me grand jury and ali grand i5Iries az %
JUDGE o'sULLIvAN. REPLIES
The Court-Mr Jerome after % r~,,,. ,.
hs sei.ea what We might consider universal Treit
our political institutions down fo t h.ment Of
.-s9iro INTO the custom OF men ana i1sfi
psgns and have said when s2 R9 s1 nal cam m,
r1f frrsae