Show I i 1 11 I WHEN IT IS NOT LARCENY I Once upon a R time a Cache valley valle jus justice f tice of oC the th peace held that a man who 5 had secured official ballots in advance a ance i of the th election and in violation of ot the ho hoci ci j statute was va not guilty of ot wrong The justices reason was ns that the man who t 1 sneaked the Ule ballot and held it ft until he q was exposed by a curious voter voters did dill t j not lot Intend to do anything wrong The b Herald made some acrid comment on i that notion of ot the law at the time be believing s lieving that even ven en a Cache valley alley jus justice N ii I j tice was under obligation to enforce the 1 i i statute not to make a r of ot himself for tor the th benefit of oC his friend I A the defendant 4 Now ow comes a much more distin distinguished court with much the same ame no notion notion notion tion of or justice George W TV Perkins of or i ii the firm of ot J S J P Morgan forgan Company i I and at ut the time vice Ice president of ot the i I New Kew York Y rk Life Insurance company I J 5 gave the Republican national commit committee i tee a large largo sum of or the mon money monI I I ey er the property of 0 the policy polley holders i t without warrant Tant of ot law lati 4 By a vote ote of four to three the court I i holds that he was not guilty of larceny 1 1 as Ita charged and find It U tiles flies this curious da dm I i 1 tense of Its decision n It fl Is ts undeniably I I true trU says as the learned court that the I purpose for tor which the money mone was used I 1 was VU foreign to the chartered pur purposes purposes poses posea of OC the U e corporation but that fact tact ii does not mot make the payment criminal I FJ f The innocent motive of Indirectly pro promoting rooting the corporate affairs through 1 P 1 the supposed advantage of ot the contin continuance contino continI I o fi 1 in power of at the Republican ad administration adi i td ministration purged the act of immoral immorality i c ity and it lacked the criminal Intent 1 L I M Th The minority of or the court three out J 1 1 i of ot seven even of the judges holds that lar larceny Cl I ceny consists in n taking money belong belonging Si P ift log ing to some one else even though for fora I f 1 a 1 commendable purpose 4 H i How did the majority of ot tho the court know that Mr Perkins purpose was to promote the corporate affairs legitimately I i I t U jJ How did It know whether the tho Ij cash was as paid to secure from S l such uch exposures as Mr Hughes finally t made jade or to make certain the continuance J I ance arca ince In office of ot such Insurance corn cora as had permitted the whole wholesale If I sale di dk of ot policyholders mon men money mORy 9 ey C y And how caa caim a contribution to any aay 4 pOn party garty direct e et at its im immorality morality By Hy that at token any aRY ef of t I fleer of ot any or tl might plead lea j jr i A 1 r if he committed larceny with Impunity eo cc long ML CUl he could show the money went to advance what he sup eup po c l were the tha th Interests of or the th corpo corporatIon ration Possibly if It Mr Perkins had given the time money to the Democratic commit committee tee another view would have ho pre prevailed pr ailed but bul whether the decision Is po political political political or not It does not tend to ad advance advance vance anco the UIO court of New eW York in public estimation Meanwhile let It be ob observed observed served that Mr Cortelyou who ho re received receIved received the contribution aa not refund refunded ed ad It nor have he and nd the president apologized to Judge Parker for tor their attack on him when wh n he accused them of receiving just such illegal to their campaign exchequer chequer e |