New-York tribune., 1908-03-10
"MENDACIOUS--J
HIS REPLY To CHARGES.
Takes Up Specifications an Detail IN
.4nsscer Sent TO GOUernOr.
rBy Telegraph to The Tribune ]

rrsv Telegraph TO The Tribune
Albany March e-District Attorney Jerome filed
with Governor Hughes to-day his answer TO the
charges brought against MIN by committee Of
minority stockholders Of the Metropolitan Street
Hallway Company. characterizing the charges as
--,endacious and misleading Because OF the
,-oIur1inous answer the Governor made no an
naunce-ent Of procedure in the case. beyond
saving that whenever he reached decision about
the next move Mr. Jerome would have ample op-
ro--Dnity a hearing.
!. is believed the Governor will appoint com
missioner 10 consider the charges and answer and
ol5 hearings as provided by the constitution. This
-s done in the Iyeary case Governor Hughes will
hardly have time give il his personal attention-
Mr Jerome personally presented his answer TO
rf7e Governor. asking that he have opportunity at
some future time 10 be heard in his defence. The
Governor promised him abundant opportunity
either before himself some person deputed 10
consider the case Franklin Pierce. who with
William r King represented the stockholders
committee. asked for copies Of the reply aho
chance TO submit supplementary charges
We have five additional charges" said he IN
fairness TO Mr. jerome. / must say
oh. don't lets have any question pf fairness to
ne in this" interposed Mr Jerome. bitterly
NJ Jeron1e's answer as flied with the Governor
-o5s,- is contained in a volume Of 135 pages, ard
n addition there are two volumes Of exhibits Il
anything. little larger
-Thi-tv-rwo matters out of total Of more than
: hundred thousand handled during his term are
charges made. and twelve OF them relate to cases
arising in his first term
Mr Jerome has prepared SYNOPSIS ol l41e
charges with the answers. beginning as follows:
In me main the charges are based on the follow
ing Tla4 persons referred to in them
- Thaf the District Attorney had knowledge Of
the commission of these crimes; ,.-
f3l That evidence was available 10 him on which
.. RAJ he TefsIsed to prosecute such persons
and that his refusal TO prosecute under thess clI
curnstances sufices TO demonstrate MS ulil'iies0
SUMMARY OF ANSWER
Summarized roughly tn answer to these chaTges ssS
= Is purely gratuitous: that each case either
the matter referred TO did not as mater q Ia"
constitute crime or that II crime hao oeei Colil-
7itted il was by Of some defect OF evidence
such as the lack OF corroooFatl%n VIE Waec orroboTs
lion impossible sustain prosecution; ana tIltt
like for6a6e him 70 institute prosecutions in the
absence of evidence 10 justify them. ,,a ;,
Tne charges. though averrlng postiTely ana II
~. main fail TO specify wherein criminality was
irro-Ied and what crime il is thought was com
r5e "a ana pT9g f5 fd2 son yirrtponsi6le rt person
II say Of transaction that it involved criminal
conspiracy. or that il constituted fraud ] or mat
RAJ district attorney shall immediately lay the
ssci-e an indictment from that body
Taking the charges and Mr.. Jerome's answers
thereto in order the following serves TO sum
rnsrize them:
RT a 9 I5s 4ot 2ssee GIN nat Raa2 9ns M'R co
pary. not prosecuted for bribery, although
ags-rI .t hin and t6aT TlnEhast was later prose
cCTed by the District Attorney IN z manner NefE-
L ms the answer is that Justice seabury. then
judEe of the City Court, directed the dlsclarge %
NrfEshe and that the prosecution OF Tfllinghast
was undertaken a part Of the District Attor-
81 ~ G1lS y te CIV Goll-t on other charges. TO
which he pleaded guilty
ALLEGED JURY BRIBING CASES
SECOND CHARGE.-This charge has TO do with
the dismissal Of an indictment pending o when Nj
Jerome assumed Office. on January J. 1902 against
TEe answer Is tha. the motion TO dismiss the IN
6icrnenr was made because there was not enough
-i+4Pr CF4ARGF4Tbis is based on the failure
n institute prosecution against one Hecht- who
: 5u-o- u favor Of the Metropolitan Street Rail
The answer is that after careful investigation
n the facts made by Edward Sanford, then a
deputv Assistant District Attorney and after nt.
1ne-ous attempts 10 ProctTe ne . }6 T@eseT7ted
the raatre- attention Of the District Attor-
FOURTH CHARGE---This is based on a failure
q prosecute some officer OF the AetropeIllah @
jury Of one Apparte and one ScharfTnaT Ihe laI-
alleged 70 have made a written COMES
The answer is that scharfman had disappeared
when NJ Kresel. then deputy Assistant DlsIrlct
sttornev. Investigated the case, and that Apparte
vho was implicated denied the alegaIaoh IL s e9
.this crime upon the unsupported testimony OF
I alleged peEJlFef
CHARGES AGAINST G. ". PERKINS
FIFTH rF4ARGE-This charge is based on the
action of the District Attorney relation TO the
Investigation Of the crininality Of campaign con-
--fru-0- made George ". Perkins. or behalf of
-ha New York Life Insurance Company, TO the
Republican national campaign in 1894.
The answer that Mr. Jerome's unEllliigneSS
permit al Indictment was based on ms conElG-
-far as \ lawyer that the acts charged anu ad-
1i-ted did constitute crime that TINS peIIe-
II have been shared BY the Armstrong com
rnirtee since they found II necessary 20 advosaIe
amendment of the laW which vould make IuI-
ura campaign contributions criminal and that IN
THIS heIier sustained by both the aT'Ie-la1F
Division and the Court of Appeals
SIXTH CHA RCE-This relates 70 the 1ailuTe
prosecute George W Perkins for grand iar-
Cr-- ir connection with the transfer OF proht
made uv the New York Life Insurance Company
n -rsuS-crfo described on the books as under--
taken br the company 70 organization called
the -N--Ic~ conducted by that COMPANY Tor the
te7ef- = f-S agents and the reduction OF agency
--e answer is that the Investigation showed
+tat Transaction although in the name OF me
r0rnna~- was really undertaken for the 'Nytc
fund and the entry on the hooks 5al seemed
. g1va the corpany an interest IN the transaction
W. mistaken one
CORPORATION CAMPAIGN FUNDS
SEVENTH CIARGE-This related 70 the con