Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1908-05-26

IL
submit to your honors that Il more serious
and more dangerous condtio of affairs
has never developed than the evidence
here shows. Yet Mr.. Jerome treats such
an opinion mere hiiaiutin.
The circumstances attending a hearing
o-iore Justice Seabury in the supreme
court. i'm which Mr.. jerome Withdrew
after an argument with the Justice.
Mr.. Pierce declared. show las discredit-
ini. an act ever done by public
official" Then taking up the testimony
of the present hearing regarding certain
uncomplimentary remarks which the dis
trict attorney is alleged to have made
with reference to Justice SeaDur!, the
brief continued:
Yet this district attorney, who has
been, recreant to every official obiiga-
ton, to every trust contided in him, who
went before Judge Seabury on his in
vestiSatiOn claiming that he wanted to
help him. and then used every effort to
obstruct Judge Seabury's investigation.
ends up by insulting he judge and leaving
tn" hearing in anger. and still persists in
vilificatDn of this honorable judge. upon
whom he heaps every epithet which he
can command \ greater calamity
could not visit the people of New York
than the continuation of the evil eN-
ample and the disgraceful conduct of
William Travers Jerome in the Office of
public prosecutor of New York county"
Withheld Evidence in Perkins Case.
Taking up the case of George W. Per-
kins in the so-called political contribu-
ton case, the brief says:
1T is undisputed that Mr.. Jerome would
not furnish any evidence to the March
grand jury. and we have his own state
ment that if they had found an indict-
ment against George W. Perkins he Won d
have re used to sign it,
Such conduct the mart the dis
trict attorney and his position that he
would not sign an indictment o. the grand
jury is in and of itself observation-disclosures
miScondct-and it affords ample reason
for his removal
For the purpose Of shielding Mr.. Per-
kins from criminal prosecution he insti-
tuted a proceeding before Mr. Justice Jo-
seph l.. Moss. city magistrate. In that
proceeding instead of invoking the admis-
sions o. Mr.. Perkins before the Arm
strong committee TO the tact that the
matter of these campaign disbursements
did not come before the finance commit
tee and was wholly the work of Perkins
and President Mccall. he prepared ev.-
dence directly to the contrary, and plac I'd
before the magistrate the affidavit of Mr..
f.. d. Randolph. contradictinS his state
ment be ore the Armstrong comm tee,
and finally as elimination of this mis-
conduct permitted letter from Mr.. Per-
kins, declaring his innocent intent in the
transaction to b. used as the basis of the
whole proceeding.
Collision With the Defense.
The criminal proceed nS before Judge
Moss was. far as the district attor-
ney and the defendants attorney were
concerned. collusive, and there is no
doubt about 1t. At least such case
would have been collusive but Cor the
official relation in which Mr.. Jerome
acted.
The fact that ii appeared from the
affidavits laid by Mr.. jerome before JUS
tice Mcss that this money Involved IN
the Perkins case) was devoted. with the
knowledge and consent of the finance
| committee of this corporation. to the pur-
poses of aiding the campaign of Mr..
Roosevelt. and the declaration of Mr..
Perkins letter as to his innocent intent.
| wer. til. foundation OF the decision of the
appellate courts and thereby MIR. Jerome
has procured a decision which he says
controls his action as against all other
companies making campaign contribu-
lions.
lis it necessary for me to urge upon
your honor that this kind of crime is
the most dangerous to public morals, the
most dangerous to the political and civic
life of our country Of any existing? Is
|. necessary for me to urge upon your
honor that Al. Jerome. in failing to