The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1876-04-02
The Crime of Rrench of Trust.

The Crime of Breach of Trust.
1t is not pleasant TO think how lightly
breaches OF trust are regarded now
adays. Once destroy mems confidence in
each others fidelity, and everything goes.
Ofall the virtues, that of personal honor is
the highest and the most inclusive. 1t may
indeed make itself not unsatisfactory
substitute for a formal religious incentive
to right doing. Whatever prevents man
from injuring his fellow or violating his
trust, whether II be religious conviction or
personal pride, the result is a benign one.
If neither religion nor honor fosters In
him detestation of every sort OF betrayal
| OF trust, his case is bad indeed.
Take recent examples. HENRY NIcoLL
one of the officers Of the Bar Association,
converted to his own use money intrusted
to his keeping on the strength of his reputa-
ton rs lawyer of high character aud
sound judgment and q man In every way
deserving OF confidence. Only less sacred
than those between the priest and his con-
Tossing parlshloner, are the relations be-
tween the lawyer and his client. The one
holds the spiritual treasures Of his pentent;
the other guards the honor and the money
of his client Especially in the cases where
lawyer holds in trust the property of
women and children, il his obligation of
spotless fidelity sacred duty. Because
they are weak, ignorant of their rights, I'M
| equal to the maintenance Of them, and
| dependent on his honorable performance
OF his trust In their behalf. any failure to
guard ali their interests with a scrupulous-
a.. l..
est of crimes in the trustee. But when
HENRY NIcoLL- instead of protecting hi,
confldng clients, robbed them, what hap
penedi Why, nothing. he was not turned
out of the Bar Association; he was not
thrown out OF the barr he was not re-
jected by society. He still practises the
law which Is his condemnation, and has q
pretty good time of it. There was even q
subscription started 10 idemnify him for
the losses he made in specializing with the
money OF his clients
Judge VAN BRUNT forced his wife TO
get divorce from him through cause
which he unblushingly gave her. Though
the decree denied him the right OF suisse
quent marriage, he went out Of the coun-
try, and away from the Jurisdiction OF our
| INV llN NblAl Su'u u tllullltEt. lutH
he came back, resumed his seat on the
bench, and proceeded TO administer the
law he had so shamefully evaded. Is he
made uncomfortable IN his chair2 Oh. mol
| lie is all right Though he had connded
| to him public trust, he violated IL by his
acts, and he is unpunished-just "a secure
in his position as ever he was. and just ne
powerful to interpret the law he out
ragged.
Mr.. GEORGE II. PENDLEroS was Presi-
dent of railway company in Kentucky
and the guardian of his sisters children,
whose estate owned the majority OF the
stock OF the road. The company had
clam Of slis,0O0 against the Government.
II the claim was sound, II was plainly Mr..
| pESDLEToN's duty 10 use every effort TO
collect II. That was what he was made
President and trustee for. He did collect
the money, but when the rlghtful owners
OF 1t We're paid, the sum was short by
$4,000 or 100000, retained by Mr. PENDLE-
TON for his services in doing what II was his
business TO do without such pay. 1t was IA
case OF breach OF trust utterly indie
fensible, an act which ought to have
damned man aud driven him from the
society of decent people. But what has
happenedi He has, il is true, forfeited his
chances of "A Presidential nomination, be-
cause the people are not lost in iniquity /;
but he seems to keep his countenance, and
men shake hands with him as of old and
invite him TO their houses.
The case of Mr.. WILLIAM c. BARRETT
has not yet developed sufficiently TO en-
able us to say exactly what the result of
his breach OF trust will be. Probably,
however, the Bar Association Will say no.
thing, and the bar will continue to enroll
him among its members. The treatment
OF HENRY NIcoLL aud Judge VAN BRUNr
suggests what will be that Of Mr.. BARRETT.
1t surely would be unfair to make him Il
scapegoat. If they are all right, so Is he.
All through our moneyed corporations
there runs this loose notion of the obliga-
ton imposed by trust. The officers oi
the Bank Of the State OF New York afford
recent examples. Though they suffered
the funds OF the bank to be misapplied
aud wasted, nobody troubles them. So
cihlly and financially they seem TO be
altogether secure. Neither does 1t hurt
Presidents and directors generally to use
their trusts for their own advantage; TO
speculate In the stocks of their corpora
tions, with the assistance OF knowledge OBJ
tanned from the inside, and manpulations
OF the corporate affairs undertaken with
direct reference TO the rise and fall on the
Stock Exchange of the property of the
stockholders which they hold in trust, but
which they manage primarily for their
own benefit. Everybody knows this is SO,
l...s
The unfaithful trustees lose no conse
! Q4enes W the church OF in society. They