The Caucasian. (Shreveport, La.) 1900-192?, 1907-03-10
PERKINS RESTITUTION.

1t was not until the criminal proceed
5ngs instituted against George W. Per
kins, former vice president of the New
York Life Insurance Company, had
been dismissed that this distinguished
gentleman sent to this company his
check for $54oIoI9, which represents
the aggregate of funds contributed to
the Republicarnparty.
AS explained i'll a recent issue OF he
Caucasian, four OF the judges OF the
Court of Appeals of New York declared
that MIR. Perkins was not guilty OF lar
ceny. So much for Mr. Perkins and
his influence which operated in his
favor. Three of the judges gave il as
their opinion that larceny was the taking
of the property of another. In this in
stance the money was held IN trust to
protect widows and orphans. Net only
has George w. Perkins by his act con-
eeded his sirregularity' which IN the
case of an ordinary man would be un-
qualified as larceny, he has had the an
dacity to write letter of explanation In
which he admits that in 1904, at the re :
quest of the then president of the COM
pany he advanced $48,5oo as payment on
behalf OF the New York Life Insurance
Company to the Republican National
Campaign Committee, with the under
standing that he would be reimburse
by the company, and it was SO re,I.l
bursed
Now comes the pertinent query: #
Perkins advanced his money to the Re-
publican Campaign Committee. aid as
he says was subsequently reimbursed to
him, why should he have sent his check
to the New York Life Insurance Com
pany for S54,oIoIo? And one of the
amazing features of the explanation is
that the payment was made without any
thought on the part OF the president or
myself of personal advantage, but solely
in the belief that it was for the best and
broadcast interests of the policy holders
both at home and abroad. This is the
sublime of the ridiculous which would
not have been tolerated on TIE part of
any man occupying an humble position
in life. Such blatant sophistry leaves
on the mind unprecedented and governed
by honest principles one of two eoncll
sIons: That Perkins was Cf not now
Ii TO- 81, ia
of wrong-doing or expectation of any
personal advantage when he contributed
this money to secure the defeat Of the
candidates of the Democratic parry. but
he was possessed with the belief that
he and the president of the New FORK
Life were acting for the best and broad
est interests of the policy holders both
at home and abroad.
Is it singular that men are induced TO
go astray and that morals are al a low
ebb when men of Perkins stripe be ,eme
of all criminal acts on restittit- |
ing the money of others they diverted or
used unlawfully Twaddle as he may
Perkins can not escape the discredit OF
his unwarranted action. He should have
known, if he did not know, that the
money diverted from the trusts funds
of the New York Life was for thu prr- !
pose of debauclling the electorate and
TO secure the triumph of the candidate
of the Republican party for the pr-si
dency.
1t is fortunate that Perkins has been
retired from the New York Life. AID ]
he is doubly unfortunate that trough his |
influence he was not held amenable 10 |
the crime of larceny He is all right |
now; he reimbursed all the money with |