Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1895-08-15
THE CASE OF ERNEST GREEN
Rev. MI. Brooks Has Some Remarks to
Make.
His Characterization of the Act of
Taking the Fruit-A Reply to
MIR. LeDuc.
To the Editor of The Evening Star:


Washington Heights" Mr.. H. NJ. lie Due
gave to the readers of The Evening
Star Friday last an article, in which he
takes me to task for a certain remark
n ade by me at the funeral of the unfortu-
rate victim of Miss Elizabeth Flaglers
awakened wrath-Ernest Green-as to the
moral quality of the last earthly act of
the dead boy.
Mr.. LIE Due thinks that I made a great
mistake and am guilty of the minimizing
Of crime when speak of that act as an
act of indiscretion. In his opinion, the act
was a simple case of fruit stealing" His
opinion, however, Is not founded upon
truth. 1t is mere assumption. In asking
the readers of The Star to accept his state
ment as correct Mr.. LIE Due says: "The
facts are, witnessed by the boys them
selves before the coroner's jury, that they
went to Gen. Flagler's for the purpose of
getting the pears.'' I have the testimony
of the lads before me- printed in The
Evening Star Saturday August 3, 1895.
c. c. H. Perry, one of the boys in question,
according to that testimony, had passed the
F'lagler residence repeatedly and never had
touched the fruit, and at the time of the
tragedy the eight boys who were fired upon
were ION their way out to play ball. There
is absolutely nothing in the evidence sub
mitted by the boys before the coroner's
jury that in any manner indicates that they
set out from home for the purpose of steal
ing or otherwise securing the fruit which
grows on Washington Heights. 1t is ad-
mitted that when they reached the Flagler
residence and saw the fruit some of the
party stopped there to get some pears"
Charles Male says all the boys stopped
1t was the sight of the fruit that caused
the boys to Slacken their pace, but such
was their appreciation of the property
rights of others that they made no attempt
to enter Gen. Flagler's premises nor to
touch the trees of his orchard. Mr.. LIE
Due wrongs both the living and the dead
in putting into the mouths of the boys
who testified before the coroner's jury at
the inquest of Earnest Green words which
their lips never uttered. The act of Earn
est Green which l call an indiscretion
consisted in taking from the parking in
front of Gen. Flagler's residence a cast-off
pear by reaching his hand through the
openings of the iron fence. The one way
to determine the moral quality of that act
is to ascertain the moral state of the actor
at the time of acting. If Earnest Green
intended to take what belonged to Gen.
Flagler and appropriate 1T to his own use
or qualification without Gen. Flaglers
permission, the act was one of theft.
What l krow of Earnest Green prompts
me to say that in taking a discarded pear
from the ground in front of Gen. Flaglers
residence it was rot his intention to take
it without the consent Of Gen. Flagler.
That consent was inferred Was not the
inferer ce reasonable? Does not the hunter
pursue his game from forest to forest on
the inferred consent of the land owners
over whose lands he passes? Do not many
of the poor patrons of every dry goods
house, in the moment of special need, pick
from the floor and appropriate to their
own use pins which lie here and there in
their path, on the inferred consent of the
owners of these establishments? Do not
he " hn al rp1 Sf mi Sarf
CT land owrers-a consent inferred from
the mere force of custon-scour the woods
and the corners CT the fences of such per-
sons for miles around, in order to secure
and carry away uncultivated berries, which
they use or sell for their qualification, or
the advancement of their own personal in
terests?
And it is by such unwritten consent, in
ferred, because it is well-nigh universal in
some sections of the country, that the
passing stranger tastes, with impunity, the
discarded fruit which covers the ground be-
meath trees near the public highway.
1t Is not to be supposed that Earnest
Green so young and altogether unused to
people whose niggardliness of soul prizes
bit of half-ripe, worm-eaten fruit, which is
theirs, above the value of human soul,
which is Gods and His Christ's, would
have concluded that the guardian of the
discarded pear which he picked from the
ground and ate was an exception to the
ordinary owners of orchard trees. Herein
was the mistake Of the child. His was an
error of judgment. A child of wider and
closer observation would have acted differ
emily. 1t is not well to presume that city
people, who use city property as orchards
in which are grown their favorite brands
of fruit, are as liberal to the passing
stranger as the old farmers of the Vir-
ginias, the Carolnas and the states gener-
ally in which colorei people for centuries
have had their being.
But Mr.. LIE Due is not satisfied with
drawing upon his Imagination for testi-
mony in his effort to convict Earnest Green
of theft and me of undertaking the de-
merits of a crime. He cites an experience
of his own with merciess thieves who rob-
bed his orchard of every single bit of fruit
ere it was half ripe, and adds the following
strong alike in invective and the element
of the untrue: And this is what our
Brother Brooks calls an indiscretion, and
even intimates 1t is parallel to. the act of
our Savior in plucking ears of corn on the
Sabbath day."
Now the truth is. I never heard of Mr.
LIE Dues fruit trees until now, and, there
fore, could say nothing about them at the
funeral of Ernest Green: nor have at any
time said that stealing in any form, or by
anybody, is an act of indiscretion. Judging
Earnest Green by the character of the mo-
tive which 1 conceived that he entertained
in his last earthly act, and the customs Of
fruit growers in many parts of the country
I pronounced his deed guiltless of all moral
obliquity. 1 spoke of a specific case, and in
the handling of that case intimated a par
allel between Earnest CTeen act ana the
act of Christ's disciples. who ate of the
standing grain in passing through the fields
on the Sabbath day.
In both instances the food eaten was Sc
cured without leaving the ordinary path Of
travel in both the consent of the rightful
owner is inferred, and in both only an in
significantly small portion of the owners
possessions are touched. Mr.. LIE Dues
statement, like his testimony of the boys
before the coroners jury, is wholly a thing
of his own making. There is a vast diff
ference between taking cast-of pin from
the floor and the willful and malicious rob-
berry of a store of all the packages of pins
to be found in the place. In the one case
the consent of the owner is implied; in the
other it is not; and therein lies the moral
difference of the acts, difference of quail
ity, and not one of mere quantity.
l am truly amazed at Mr.. LIE Dues art
of putting things.
Let me say to Mr.. LIE Due in conclusion
that anticipated his one wise suggestion,
and on Sunday morning, August 4, 1926
preached special sermon to children from
the words, Remember now thy Creator in
the days Of thy youth QIccl. l2:D. In that
sermon I urged the little children CT my
church and congregation never to do or
undertake to do anything in life without
first consulting God. and to avoid whatever
He does not incline them to do, after
prayer reflection and the reading of His
word In so doing they would be protected
sgainst acts of willful sin and the pains of