Waterbury evening Democrat., 1908-05-26
contribution case, the brief says:

Tt is undisputed that MT Jerome would not furnish any evidence to- the March grand jury, and We have his own statement that if they had found an indictment against George w. Perkins that he would have re- fused to sign 1t.
 Such conduct on the part of the district attorney and his position that he would not sign an indict- ment of the grand jury, is in and of itself misconduct-gross misconduct and it affords ample reason for his removal.
 For the purpose of shielding MT Perkins from criminal prosecution he instituted proceeding before Justice Joseph l.. Moss, city magis- trate. In that proceeding instead of invoking the admissions of MT Perkins before the Armstrong com- mittee to the fact that the matter of these campaign disbursements did not come before the finance commit tee and was wholly the work of Per- kins and President Mccall, he pre- pared evidence directly to the con- trary, and placed before the magis~ trate the affidavit of E. D. Randolph, contradicting his statement before the Armstrong committee, and final ly as continuation of this miscon- duct permitted letter from Mir Perkins, declaring his innocent in- tent in the transaction, to be used as the basis of the whole proceed ing.
 The criminal proceeding before Judge Moss was, so far as the dis trict attorney and the defendants attorney were concerned, collusiye, and there is no doubt about it. At least such case would have been collusive, but for the official rela- tion in which MT Jerome acted.
 The fact that it appeared from the affidavits laid by MT Jerome be- fore Justice Moss that this money Gnvolved in the Perkins easel was devoted, with the knowledge and consent of the finance committee of this corporation, to the purposes Of aiding the campaign of MT Roose- welt, and the declaration of MT Per kins letter as to his innocent in- tent, were the foundation of the de- cision of the appellate courts, and thereby MT Jerome has procured a decision which he says controls his action as against all other com- panies making campaign contribu- tions.
 ''ls it necessary for me to urge upon your honor that this kind of crime is ,he most dangerous to pub lie morals, the most dangerous to the political and civic life of our country of any existing? Is it nec- essary for me to urge upon your honor that Mir Jerome, in failing to prosecute this class of law-break- CTS, is failing along a line of duty which endangers the welfare of the s,ate and of the nation? His failure to do his duty is clear and the pen alty of removal ought to be visited without hesitation"
 Of the charges relating to the failure of the district attorney to procure an indictment against Thom- as F. Ryan in the Wall and Cortland Streets Ferries company deal, the brief says:
 "On the Sth day of October, 1907, Anthony N. Brady came before Commissioner Wilcox of the public service commission, who was inves- tigating the affairs of the Metropoli- tan Street Railway company, and testified to some startling facts, which are the basis of this charge. MT Jerome was present and he knew of the existence of Mir Brady's testimony. Our contention here is that that testimony alone, with such facts as MT Jerome could cas- fly have ascertained without avail ing himself of the testimony of Mir Ryan, was sufficient to have gone at once before grand jury and to have procured indictments against MT Ryan, and probably against Thomas Dolan and P. A. B. Widener, for grand larceny"
 After reviewing the charge that the district attorney was negligent in failing 10 find an indictment against the American Ice company, the brief says:
 Now, again, We say that the question here is not whether Mir Je- rome could convict, but whether there was reasonable cause to call upon him for action. and whether he neglected the performance of his duty. 1 confidently maintain that much of the evidence here tends to show that he not only neglected, but that he was really acting in accord ance with the desires of the Amer ican Ice company"
 The brief concluded with a long review of "Mr Jerome's conduct in this hearing and his character as shown by his acts" In this review reference is made to the allegation that MT Jerome sought to intimi- date witnesses during the hearings; that he advised E. R. Thomas to employ John NJ. Davy as attorney in place of Mir Lauterbsch, when Thomas was about to be indicted in the banking cases: that he vio- lated the law against gambling by shaking dice at a dollar a throw in a restaurant with the sons of Thomas F. Ryan. and that he dined with William Montgomery. banker. who was under indictment, and talked over the project Of trap ping another man-an alleged pub lie officer-into the commission of a crime and consented that this man under indictment shall go forth on such an errand as that. and the man goes forth and claims to have ac- complished t.
 Surely" said Mr Pierce. ''fhe Montgomery case together with the Thomas case affords ample grounds