New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1876-01-12
7gJErES lyD 7HEIR L.UYERs.


Now we would not for the world intimate
that there is anything morally wrong or even
uuprofcssiona in the transaction we are about
TO record, bat there is about it what may be
called a peculiar flavor, to which we invite a.
tcntion. The other day, in Hartford, Conn,
bankirc-houSc WAS robbed in broad daylight
Of come Sl,1O0 III cash and large amount
OF valuable securities. The sufferers kept to
themselves the fact Of the robbery, ami quietly
went to work to recover 50 much ol the stolen
property ~ they could. Ii is BOW said that
shortly after the robbery Col. JOHN Il.
Fellows, an attorney OF ills city OF some
prominence as u Democratic politician pat
himself in communication with the
victims of the robbery for the purpose of
negotiating settlement between them and
certain clients Of bis who had possession of
tho securities and tie cash, the object beng
to arrange for the return Of the securities
upon payment Of a stipulated sum. The ncgo-
tiations ended in the payment Of $3.50 IN
addition to the Sl,10O cash proceeds OF the
robbery, and the return 10 the bank Of the
securities stolen. So that as the matter stands,
these clients of Col. Fellows, having planned
and carried ont their little enterprise, and
proceeds Of the same. Of certain securities
which they could not use and which were OF
10 value except 10 the owner, went I'M
mediately to their attorney Col. John
L.. Fellows, and informing him Of all
the facts employed him to-vhati Wei, TO
the unprofcssiOnai mind it looks very much
as though they employed him to finish up The
work they had only partly done, to secure for
them not only immunity Tor the oiienSe but
81 ,25O additional profits from the robbery.
That is the way it appears to the unproIes
sional mind, but We are aware that the rcla-
ton of counsel and client is not thoroughly
apprchcndcd by the average layman. They
RETAINED" Col Fellows then as their counsel
and attorney.
If the banker who suffered from this rob
| berry, and aftcrward paid 81 $50 to recover his
| securities, offered in addition to the money
| immunity for the crime TO the offenders, il is
! what the law calls compromising felony, and is
| itself n criminal Ollensc, subiccting the party
| TO severe penalties. Ii does not appear whether
! or not this was one Of the conditions Of the
| agreement between the robbers and the robbed.
! As the fact cannot be proved except upon the
testimony of the parties most interested in its
/
be any disclosure in that regard. But what
strikes the average mind in the case is the
convenient and easy method of it. Given an
ingenious thief or bold burglar, n practcing at
torncy, and n person to be robbed, who would
rather get back part of his property than vim
dlcate the law and take the chances, and you
have n condition Of affairs in which burglary
and theft become commercial transactions, d-
vested i'll a great degree of risk and danger and
accompanied by large and sure profits Society
of course has no business with it. 1t is a
matter that lies strictly between the robbed
and the robber, to be adjusted as any other
business matter might by the latter's attorney.
But mind you, the go-between IN these deli
cate negotiations must be an attorney, mem
Der of the bar in good standing. Else the law
would take hold of him "a an accomplics in
the crime So careful is the law to assure the
criminal bis rights and protect the profession