The Montgomery advertiser., 1906-03-30
Jraomr,s psrEnma.

tributing it to political campaign funds is larceny then there is nothing less that can be done than to indict George W. Perkins and other officials of the New York Life for stealing the money ,f that company. But he goes further and adds that if this is done it will also be the correct thing 10 in dict Cornelius N. Bliss. former Treas urer. and George B. Corteiyou, present Chairman of the Republican National Committee. on the charge of receiving stolen goods.
 l Probably Jerome is correct in that view, but as he contends that those who gave away the money and those wha received it were not guilty of any crime he thinks nobody should be in- ! dicted and that is the position taken by him which so many are unable to understand We may agree with him that if it was a crime to take the money from the trust funds and give 1t away it was also a crime to receive 1t. We think both acts were criminal. Jerome to the contrary notwithstand- ing.
 The wall that stands in the way of conviction lies in the wording of tho New York statute. which looks az if it had been drawn for the purpose of shielding such criminals. The import ant portion of the law reads: "A per son who, with intent to deprive or de- fraud the true owner of the property. approprlates the same to the use of any person other than the true owners thereof. steals such property and Is guilty of larceny"
 There is the rock. It cannot be de- nied that money belonging to the policy holders was taken without their con- sent and given to the Republican cam paign managers, but how is the prose- cutor going to prove that 1t was taken and used with intent to deprive or defraud"? Will not the guilty officials conterd, and probably prove, that they only borrowed the money and intend ed to replace it? That will be the natural defence for them to make and in all probability it will be a success ful one in the hands of shrewd law yers. There are so many quips and quiddities in legal matters that 1t is dificuit to convict rich and infiuen- tial man if there is the slightest shadow of ambiguity in the statute under which he is tried.
 Admitting all this, however. does not relieve Jerome. He either believes that no wrong was done by those who di- verted the money or that no conviction can be had If the former is really his settled opinion we can only repeat that we are unable to see or under stand how he arrives at it, for certainly the money was taken and used and it was done without the consent of the true owners. On the other hand, if his only reason for not wishing to prose- cute is that he has no hope of convic- tion because the intent cannot be proven. he is in no better position. The guilty parties should be prosecuted whether they can be convicted or not, and let 1t be seen that an earnest eff fort Is being mado to punish crime, and MT. Jerome should not discourage such | prosecution.
 | And it is because of these things and | this view of the case that, as The New York Post says, ''so many of us regret l MT. Jerome's unwillingness to put the | insurance misdeeds to the touchstone of criminal trial. It Is not his prime duty to convict, but to ascertain what will be the verdict of juries and the decisions of courts in connection with these offences. Only so can 1t be de- | termined what the law really Is. And to have that settled, the people are clearly entitled. IL may be that the judges of the higher courts will agree with Judge O'Sullivan; that they will b4lieve the time has come to enlarge by judicial interpretation the applica- ton of the sections of the code which cesm to define perversion of trust funds as larceny. If so, they will find the law for 1t. That is their business, not the District Attorneys. It is certain that by such re-interpretation the criminal statutes have been made more comprehensive, more of terror to evil -doers. in the past. and it cannot be that wholesome growth in that way IS no pobSADlG' put H. OlA tie other hand, Mr. Jeromes fears should he realized, and the courts decide that | Massrs. Perkins, Alexander and Mo Curdy are not larceners, Messrs. Bliss and Cortelyou not the receivers of stolen goods (and President Roosevelt not their benehciary), that demonstr- | ton would itself be of great public value. No more blame would attach to Mir. Jerome for the escape of these men, if they were indicted and com pelled to stand trial than for the es- cape of Nan Patterson. And in the act the public would be informed of just what changes are required in the Penal Code to prevent the repetition of such performances.
 Notwithstanding his opinion MT. Jerome, in deference to expressions from the bench, has presented an in- dictment of Mir. Perkins and will try to bring him to trial.
 --s-a-S---
 One of the best recommendations for high official position in certain, great corporations Is to be a good forgetter. "The man who does things" must give place to the one who knows how and