The Democratic advocate. [volume] (Westminster, Md.) 1865-1972, 1886-03-20
Who is Guilty of TheftP
PHILADELPHIA. Pa, Ledoer.

There is general and wholesome horror
in the minds of most persons at the idea of
theft. To be suspected of it would arouse
their extreme indignation; to be guilty of
it would appear to them thing wholly in
credible. To certain extent and up to a
certain limit this is true. 1t ,ooald be i'm
possible for them to steal money or other
property from an individual, to pilfer from
store, or to cheat Intentionally in paying
wages, or in making change. Even though
no eye should see it, nor ear hear of it, their
own mortal character and self respect would
prevent such opportunities from offering
them the least temptations.
Yet beyond these gross violations of
honesty there is large class of actions
which are not usually designated as theft,
yet which, when examined closely, really
belong to the same category. Their results
are less obvious, sometimes because of their
seeming insignifcance, and sometimes be-
cause their injurious effects are not concen-
trated upon one loser, but spread over many,
and pehaps over society ITSELF There are
various petty acts of injustice which are ex-
cused ON account of their trihing nature
Such are riding in street car or train, un-
noticed, without paying, paying too little
for postage when accident renders it posi-
Bile, neglecting small debts that are not col
lected, taking flowers or mementos from
public places, abusing privileges, running
by the toll-gate, making short returns of
taxable property or of dutiable goods.
Hundreds of such dishonest actions are
committed without a thought of self-re-
proach, simply because so little effect is
supposed to be involved. But, in the first
place, no one can even calculate the effect
1t does not stop with the immediate visible
injury done to the wronged party. Itweak-
ems the bonds of social trust, puts every one
on the alert to guard against being cheated,
strengthens the necessity of rules and pen
alties, blunts all delicate feelings of honor,
and sets an example to the young and
and others which should bring blush of
shame to every cheek. All would agree
that if every one who had the opportunity
did these things, the result would be most
disastrous Besides, if theft is the actual
taking away what belongs to another by
force or fraud, the value of that which is
taken cannot change the nature of the act,
nor should it change the name, 1t might
give a shock to many such offenders. to
accuse them of stealing, but it would be
wholesome shock, that might perhaps clear
and purify their moral atmosphere.
Still more of the dishonesty which hides
behind milder names may be traced to the
looseness with which social obligations are
held. When injury is inflicted on an indi-
didual the offence is obvious, and cannot be
ignored; but when it is spread over large
number, it is comparatively obscure, and
does not carry with is so strong feeling of
regret, or self-reproach, or indignation.
The Imagination fails to depict what is so
far removed, consequently sympathy is
dull and the conscience inactive. Yet the
nature of the act is the same in both cases,
and the result is the same in the aggre-
gate. He who defrauds corporation is
just as guilty of stealing, that is of taking
the property of another for his own use, as
he who picks pocket or pliers from
till. That the loss falls upon many instead
of upon one changes in no way the charac-
ter of the act In both cases the offenders
have tried to benefit themselves by violating
the rights of others, and public disgrace
and censure should fall equally on each.
There are those who would scorn to
commit theft in the common acceptation of
the word, who yet do not hesitate to evade
paying their just dues to the city or the
State, whose privileges they enjoy, Yet
the latter is only theft on broader scale,
The money which they thus dishonesty re-
tain must be paid by others, and the injury
done is no less certain because they cannot
trace it, All misuse of Government funds
OF of Government property is exactly the
same in nature Some seem to regard the
Government as great abstraction, and its
property as kind of spoil for the sharp
witted. Yet every cent Of it came from
the people, and is held for the people, to
be employed as their necessities demand
and as the best wisdom can devise. There
fore he who misappropriates single dollar
of it is truly guilty of theft. He has
stolen, not from one alone, but from every
one of his fellow countrymen,
If these plain but truthfal terms of dis
grace we're freely applied to all such acts
and Others of similar nature, it would do
much to reform the public honesty and
improve the public conscience. The habit
of condoning offences because they are
committed against many persons, instead Of
against one, is a source of many crimes and
much misery. Society should set its face
against all dishonesty, great and small, no
matter by whom it is perpetrated or upon
whom the injury descends. Nor should it
discriminate in naming the offence, calling
it in one case theft aud in another misap-
preparation. Let the same disgrace that
visit the one visit the other also. He who
deserves the deepest censure is he who is
the most intelligent and deliberate in his
crime, and no false feeling should ever in-
terpose to save such one from the shame
and obloquy that rightly attaches to the
thief and the rohber.