Perth Amboy evening news., 1912-08-06
THE UNCERTAINTY OF LIFE.

Perth Amboy was more than ordi-
narily interested in the shooting of
Joseph Fettretch, a New York law
yer, a short time ago, because Mr..
Fettretch was a native of this city,
although he had not lived here in so
long that even our Oldest citizens do
not recall him.
The New York Sun comments in
a striking manner on the mans
death as follows:
The murder of Mr.. Joseph Fett-
recht in his law Office suggests the
startling possibilities which surround
the lives of the most quiet and inof-
fensive professional and business
men in this community.
Mr.. Fettrecht vas a typical repre-
sentative of the reputable Ameri-
can lawyer who had achieved a very
considerable degree of success in his
profession, which he had practiced
in New York for more than forty
years. He was a religious mar and
there was nothing in his demeanor
or daily conduct likely to excite en-
nifty on the part of those with whom
he had business relations. He was
regarded by his brethren in the laW
as a fair minded man, eminently hit
to discharge the duties of a referee
in litigations which have to be tried
out of court. S~ingularly enough,
however, it seems to have been some
| fanciful grievance arising out of his
decision of a ease in this capacity
that led to his death.
The facts of the tragedy appear
to be so clear that no serious atten-
ton can be paid to the charge of his
assailant that some of the persons
in Mr.. Fettretch's office were the ag-
gressors-aCCompanied as 1t is by
the preposterous assertion that the
policeman who arrested him placed
cartridges in his coal pocket in CT
der to inculpate him in the homi-
eide. The contradictory and rather
incoherent statements of Conroy con-
sidered as a whole, indicate a frame
of mind something like that of the
disappointed city employee who shot
Mayor Gaynor. He had evidently
brooded over the adverse decision in
a lawsuit until he convinced him
self that he was w%ronged; and like
so many men smarting under lmag1-
nary injuries it seemed to him that
to infict death upon the wrongdoer
was simply a natural act OF punish
ment. 1
1t is the prevalence of this notion
manifested recently in so many
homicide cases that Is really a source
of serious apprehension. The lde
that 1t Is right to punish a man n
has injured you in any way by
shooting him to death is becoming
altogether too common in this com
munity. How to deal effectively
with the homicidal assaults based
upon this idea is a problem Of eX-
IRENE difficulty. Many a business
man, many a lawyer, in New York
today knows of characters like Con-
roy, irascible, illogical and almost
mentally deranged, who are not I'M
likely to commit a similar crime I'M
der similar temptation. We do not
mean to intimate that such men are
not legally responsible for their acts,
but the enforcement of this RESPONSE
bility by execution or imprlson-
ment does no good to the man who
has been killed or to his family.
The desideratum is some effective
means of prevention.
We are inclined to think that
might be done by dealing
with threats more vigorously than is
usual. If a man threatens an
other, either with death or bodily
harm, it would insure the safety OF
those whom he threatens, at least
for the time being, to shut him up in
Jail for a while and give him an op-
portunity to think better of 1t.
There are comparatively few cases
Of homicide for revenge which have
not been preceded by some sort OF
threat which is remembered after
ward. If it were commonly treated
as a justification for immediate i'm
prisonment this might in some cases
at least prevent the homicide.
At all events, the problem of how
to deal with such dangers is n
which demands the earnest consid-
Grafton of all persons concerned in
the administration Of justice and the
prevention Of crime.