The Cecil Whig., 1886-03-20
fs''ps fjo'a', Scientific, bi,'o'i'nI.
An Original WING Feature.
WHO IS GUILTY OF THEFT7

WHO IS GUILTY OF THEPT7
There is general and wholesome hor.
ror 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 incredible. To certain
extent and up to a certain limit this is
true. 1t rO"ld be impossible for them to
steal money or other property from an
individual, to pilser from store or TO
cheat Intentionally in paying wages, or
in making change. Even though no eve
should see it. nor ear hear of it, their
own moral character and self-respect
would prevent such opportunities from
offering them the least temptation.
Yet beyond these gross violations of
honesty there is a 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 insignficance.
and sometimes because their injurious
effects are not concentrated upon one
loser, but spread over many, and perhaps
over society itself. There are various
petty acts of injustice which are excused
on account of trifling nature. Such are
riding i'll street car or train, unnoticed,
without paying, paying too little for
postage when accident renders it posi-
BILE, neglecting small debts that are not
collected, taking flowers or mementos
from public places, abusing privileges,
running by the toll-gate, making short
returns of taxable property or of outia-
bic goods. Hundreds of such dishonest
actions are committed without thought
of self-reproach, simply because so little
effect is supposed to be involved But
in the first place, no one can even calcu-
late the effect. 1t does not stop with the
immediate visible injury done to the
wrong party. 1t weakens the bonds of
social trust, puts everyone on the alert
to guard against being cheated, strength
ems the necessity of rules and penalties,
b!unts all delicate feelings of honor, and
sets an example to the young and others
which should bring blush of Shame to
every cheek. All would agree that if
everyone WHO had the opportunity did
these things, the result would be most
disa strous. Besides, if theft is the ac-
tual taking away what belongs to an
other 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 shock to many
such offenders to accuse them of steal
ing, 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 obi
cations are held. When injury is in
hicted on an individual 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 it SO strong feeling of re-
gret, or self-reproach, or indignation.
The imagination fails to depict what is
so far removed, consequently sympathy
iS dull on1 tho o,ncc;npaa ip,ntiua Va.
the nature of the act is the same in both
cases, and the result is the same IN the
| aggregate H. who defrauds corpora
tion is just as guilty Of stealing, that is
of taking the property of another for his
| own use, as he who picks a pocket or
pliers from till. Tlat the loss falls
upon many instead of upon one changes
| in no way the character Of the act. In
| both cases the offenders have tried to
benefit themselves by violating the
rights of Others, and public disgrace aud
censure should fall equally on each.
There are those who would scoru to
commit theft in the common acceptatiOn
of the word, who yet do not hesitate tc
evade paying their just dues to the city
or the State, whose privileges they ell,
JOY. Yet the latter is only theft on a
broader scale. The money which they
thus dishonesty retain must be paid by
others, and the iniury done is no less
| certain because they cannot trace it. All
misuse of Government funds or of Gov
ernment property is exactly the same in
nature. Some seem to regard the Gov.
ernment as great abstraction, and it.
| property as kind of spoil for the sharp
wtted. YET every cent Of it came fr0D,
the people, and is held fer the people, tC
be employed as their necessities demand
and as the best wisdom can devise
Therefore he who misappropriates q sin
gle dollar of it is truly guilty Of theft
He has stolen, not from one alone, bat
from every one of his fellow country
men.
If these plain but truthful terms o
disgrace were freely applied to all sucl
acts and others of similar nature, i
would do much to reform the public
honesty .and improve the public con
science. The habit of condoning often
ces because they are committed agains
many persons, instead of against one, il
il source of many crimes and much mis-
cry. Society should set its face agains
al dishonesty, great and small, no mat
ter by whom it is perpetrated or upol
whom the injury descends. Nor SHOULD
it discriminate in naming the offence
calling It in one case theft and in auothe
misappropriation. Let the same disgrace
that visits the one visit the other also
He who deserves the deepest censure i!
he who is the most intelligent and delib
crate in his crime, and no false feeling
should ever interpose to save such a on,
from the shame and obloqny that right.
attaches to the thief and the robber.-
IN Exchange.
News Topics.