New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1894-12-23
FELLOWS "NINDlCATED.'
THE CHARGES AGAINST HIM DISMISSED
by GOVERNOR FLOWER

THE GOVERNOR SAYS ARE Not PROVED. AID
oN OTHERS HE OFFERS EXCUSES FOR
THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY AZ
OTHER COURT NECESSARY
Albany. Dec Ex-Governor Flower has dis
missed the charges against Disuict-Mtorney
Fellows OF New-York city which were filed by
the committee Of I'VE. he AIDED by Prehic Tucker.
and 10y the German-Amcrican Union Of New
York city He based his action upon the report
on the case fled with him by John J. L.nson,
whom ne had appointed special commissioner
to consider the charge Tn" Governor gives Ms
rea sons for dismissng them ia memorandum IN
part a follows
/, Is clear to me that the important charse mat
the District ATTORNEY has n"elsctyd ID. dny ho nH
bringing indicted person To- TIA j. no HN me %
d.ncc All tho year. with the exception, 81 'uN,
sessions sit FOR the irIai Of cases In those months
two parts are assigned. AMI son' iimrs no n ere
fourth par exon II i, were physically pos,iss
judicial force receives assistance AT times IRON, an
oyer and Termncr. These courts ar. ana Nv
oesn 'h r nT bSsnS to KEEP them ted
ly WORK. day eaeniar ec a., r urf@s
pleas Of guilty but hat is not eoniinsI pyS
vded agaIns, If the Assistant District Attorney
in charge should provide too many cases. ne N'nli
much and witnesses wonid be- unrclsonaby de,
tained and annoyed. II ca.endars seem TOO .nAi'
monstrancc from the Court would procure the de-
sired result. but 10 such r'monsuance appears 70
have been made.
The Governor then quotes hgnfeS from '"'h-
missioner Lnsons report 10 show the magnitude
Of the work done in tho court o; General Se--
sors In 1894. and continues:
II is true that large number of BAL cases arc
untrcd but IL /. equally true ina The utmost ~,
dusfry on the part Of the District \ ii"ihry "'un
Lee. 10
pending In this county Ih"r" must thrf.i'i'. DC
9aff' bay nrdfrrence and il t. clear that such
discretion tn" absence II abus" Is not ne rnnlecl
Of review That tho D.stici Attorney. me "nstI
in whom By the con titutOn ana IN" statutes ms
discretion is vested. has Improperly OF c3,iriruP'iy
exercised this discretion or n"gigrniiy omitted 10
exercise II all. there - not a particle 81 PROOF
am prepared 70 conceIc that reasons Of public
policy which in the interest Of justice the District
have occasionei SOM ID"lpon.iin,Hr H. = .is"d -,
probabl. that such reasons exist IN IN" case "l
ass ASS specin,d in tho charges. on the face It
seems strange that she should be In prison await
and seven months But the context disc.oses SUI
hcent facts Of an eNtra,<dinary nature surrounding
Inc casa To apparently Justify the istrict-Atorney
i'm shielding himself from more curious inquiry
behind his professional and official 3blisnli on,
The same may be- said OF other cases where pubic
but unstate1 reasons are alleged as having de-
layed the trial OF indictments
MIR wErL.MAN's PRIVATE PRACTICE
The Commissioner has found. al the request OF
n. cOmplainantS,
the time Of the appointment OF Francis Weilman.
one Of his assistants agreed with the said Wel.Inan
Ia hermit him 10 attend 10 his private practice AMI
said Wellman during the year 1894 was frequently
absent from the .District-At,orney' ONCE or III
charge OF his private business As no ar;un,I
courts having power 10 Try indictments w.Ie W. ~,
s ~, Shicb me Charges relate fai find In
this arrangement anything when susti'hs '"e
II is provided by section 212 Of the code Of Grim
inal Procedure that IAN indictment. when found by
rne in their presence to he court and be
ned with the clerk and remain in his One Zee, az se
SON other than a public officer until the defendant
One Of the charges against the District Attorney
f. that he has been habtualy remiss IN the 90, on,
II is claimed that either he or any other person IN
his office has ever violated ne proh,p,,on ,ne, h
effect: but the claim is made that from the ti,ne
OF the finding of the Indictment until us maj as
is habitually with the District-Attorney. ana NOT
Win the GeTk not o1 ' hspu 9 1t is the rule also
and always has been as am iniormeni ,.SI +.
rnnsdered analogous 10 that Of attorneys In civil
actions who. save in exceptional cases retain con
,bogb in CONTEMPLATION Of they supposed to
be- and by the Code OF Civli Procedmre are 'ep'r"
to be. fled No evidence was offered OF any III, ~.
convenience resulting to any defendant from THIS
conformity to the universal es.Sm on the part OF
The charge is made ths, the , ha
hse hee remiss In the matter OF DILL ~ hpp'hIs
fyon, the evidence that the suficiency OF ball bonds
annually passed amounts to over sVW.w; ana
~ his large sum less than per cent IL forfeited
The aggregate amount OF forfeitures presented by
he charge is wholly misleading as a standard by
Witch TO measure the vigilance OF the District-At
,orney The object OF care In accepting or re-
iectng ball is not. primarily to procure FUNDS l1 10,
~. freasIirv OF the county, but TO secure the at
,,rdsnce Of the defendant for trial. The law has.
therefore wisely provided a manner In which Judg,
,nsnts entered on forfetures OF bail may be vacated
bv the court (New-York Consolidation act. Section
IL, in cases where the people have lost nothing
by the default. and nearly $4,000 OF The money
,ny.ntioned in the list submitted with this charge
a. Tor This reason to be deducted from the total
amount apparently uncollected and unaecounted
for.
ExoNERATED ON THE BAIL CHARGES
The Governor remarks that the law as to the
District Attorneys duty in the matter OF col
lecting forfeited bail Is in curiousy unsatis-
factory condition. and he thinks there Is need OF
legislation regarding that subject. lie goes on
to say:
I cannot see what more could have been reasona-
biy expected Of any District than has been
sccompllshed in this matter Of bail Nor is II mat
ter for criticism that professional bondsmen are