The Caucasian. (Shreveport, La.) 1900-192?, 1907-03-03
WAS NOT LARCENY.


An extraordinary decision has been
rendered by majority of the Court o.
Appeals of New York. of the seven
Judges, four have reached the conclusion
tina, Geo w. Perkins is not guilty Of
larceny, while three of the judges dis
scented.
George w. Perkins was vice president
Of the New York Life Insurance Com
pany, who gave away thousands Of dol
lars of money to the Republican cam
paign committee from the funds of the
company According to the decision of
the four Judges. Perkins did not COM
NIT larceny as he had no criminal IN
tent when he appropriated these thous-
ands of dollars from the trust funds as
contributions to defeat the candidate of
the Democratic party.
1t is fact notorious that millions OF
money were secured to defeat Bryan,
and Judge Parker of New York suffered
defeat through the same agency. 1t was
these contributions of millions which as
sured the election Of Roosevelt, notwlth-
standing his radical denunciation and his
challenge to Parker for proofs, which
at that time could not be produced, but
developed later on Investigations which
involved Perkins and other heads of in
surance companies of New York.
The decision of four of the Judges of
the court of New York will have a ten
dency to encourage rascality i'll high
places. The plain construction of this
decision is that an individual, entrusted
with millions, may apply these millions
as he may elect, and he can not be held
amenable for larceny if at the time he
gave away these millions he was not &C
tuated by criminal intent. Is it not fair
to infer that it is only the common herd
of society who commit or can be held
| for larceny, and that the heightened, the
high roller, the man away up in the
scale, who handles hundreds of thous-
ands and millions of money may scoop
the whole pot, if at the time of his TAX
ing or his giving away this money en-
trusted to his keeping, there was no
| criminal intent on his part to commit
larceny
| Let it be, noted that, according to this
decision, men in high places are not to
be classed with the petty thief who sell
dom escapes the pen for larceny. How
would Perkins have Jared if he were not
OF the select, the favored and the ex-
copied whose ample cloak bearing the
insignia of the dollar covers all short
comings and exempts from the crime of
larceny?
| Fortunately, the minority of the Court
of Appeals of New York have dissented
declaring that larceny consists in the
taking of the property of others, which
is responsive to the good old common
law, which recognizes all individuals as
being alike when called to the bar OF
justice to stand trial for larceny. 1t is
common sense to assume that the appro-
|priation of the money or the property OF
another, without his consent, is GRIM
inal, which may be condoned. as i'll this
case, when prompted doubtless by the
desire to relieve te Republican campaign
Icommittee of the stigma, which can not
be evaded or removed.
At any rate, viewed in whatever phase
this extraordinary decision may be pre-
scented, its effect is deplorable, as it vii
encourage population and speculation
with trust funds and other funds by mel
in high places who can have little fear
as in New York. where the taking of the
property of others is not larceny, unless
it be proven that the individual who may
appropriate or steal the money had nc
intent to commit larceny