Omaha daily bee., 1874-06-05

f~raternize with. Many of this
class hide their identity, and IN
some instances come to be upright
and moral citizens. But what Is to
be thought of that man who publicly
boasts of his criminality and pun
ishment? Must honest men, al
though they toll, be compelled to
consort with such? Do We under
stand that the BEE is to favor the
return of the forger to the bank, the
thief to the store, the incendiary to
the shop, the libertine to the society
of our families?
In a moral point of view We may
deplore the perpetual burden under
which the confessedly criminal Ia
borers, but We cannot, for all that,
allow him to c~ontaminate u sons
by an enforced association.
The painters who refused to go
out on the streets and into the
houses of our people, in their daily
labor-where many temptations Tor
the vile are presented-in company
with this ex-convict, simply main
tanned their own self-respect, and
no more.
The BEE does not hesitate to char
acterize these doctrines as infamous,
barbarous and contrary to the hui
name spirit of the nineteenth CEN
fury. "BlOod for blood, eye for eye
and tooth for TOOTH" was the doc
trine of the Mosaic law, but this
law has, thanks to a more humane
civilization, long ago been repudia-
ted. Has it come to this, that men
can be found i'm these days who
would close the door of reform
against the criminal, and thus force
him into a perpetual war against so
ciety?
If such monstrous teachings
should be accepted as law, it would
be far better TO execute every person
that happens to succumb to vicious
habits or temptation, than to turn
them out like so many Ishmaelites,
with everybody's hand raised
against them. and their hand raised
against everybody. Shame upon
the heartless wretch who would
seek to degrade man to the level OF
a wild beast.
The way of the transgressor l.
hard enough If he undergOes the
punishment melted out by our laws,
Penitentiaries are not only places
for the punishment of criminals, hut
their chief aim is and ought to be
their reclamation. When a man
has served his time in such an in'
stitutiOn, he is entitled to the pro-
lection and commiseratiOn of So
ciety. Instead of being kicked,
cuffed and scorned, he should be
taken by the right hand, and every
incentive should be offered him to
keep on the path of virtue and hon
esty.
The Union wants to know wheth-
or the BEE would favor the employ
ment of the forger in bank, the
thief in a store, or the incendiary in
a shop, and the BEE replies that
that would depend entirely upon
the confidence which their pledges
of future reform might inspire in
the men who owned or controlled
these institutions. And now let
the Union answer the following
question: Suppose Harry Ben
nett, the ex-convict, had
been lucky enough to in
herit $4,000 from some rich
relative. Suppose he had returned
to Omaha after serving his time in
the penitentiary for the purpose of
establishing a factory, would the
Union have advised workingmen to
refuse employment at his hands,
and would these honest working
men have paid any attention to
such advice? Would money have
wiped out the stain?
We have a very prominent gram
ger i'm our minds eye, who lives not
more than a thousand miles from
Omaha. He was convicted of a
most heinous crime and served his
term in the penitentiary. He is
wealthy now, and is a very liberal
patron of the Union. Suppose this
ex-convict should advertise for some
farm hands, would the Union
dare to advise all honest
laborers to spurn his offer
and keep out of his communicating
society? Now let the thirteen
highly moral editors answer these
questions squarely and unequivoca-
bly or be forever mute.