The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1900-12-22
The Cudahy Abduction.


The crime of abduction for the purpose
Of holding the victim to ransom is not a
new one in this country. The difference
between the recent Cudahy case at Omaha
and previous crimes of the same nature
is that the criminals were successful. re-
ceived the full sum which they demanded
and made their escape with it. Fortunate
ly for society. there have been no au-
thentic cases heretofore recorded where
the abductors profted by their crime, al
though there have been cases where they
escaped arrest and punishment.
This is the evil feature of the Cudahy
case. The instinct for imitation seems
abnormal among criminals. One crime
which is at all peculiar in IT'S character
istics is generally followed by others Of
like nature. Particularly is this true
when temporary success has been en-
joyed by the criminals The lure which
now presents itself to the man of crimi-
nal instincts, at war with society, is that
SoNIc tcilOW CEltiliidiS, ny securing lem~
porary possession Of young boy the
son of people of large wealth. and by
playing upon the fears of the parents by
threats OF mutilation of the child, have
succeeded in obtaining fortune, have es-
capped unpublished. and possibly have been
guaranteed immunity from punishment.
The natural, the inevitable result is that
repetitions of the crime may be looked
for. and that the possession OF wealth at
all above the common will carry with 1t
for time new and dreadful burden of
fear for the lives OF the loved little ones
of the family. No man who has family
and who is In position to pay ransom
can feel an absolute assurance that he
and they may not be the victims Of such
a crime.
The payment Of the ransom for their
child by the Cudahys carries with 1t a
danger to society. This much must be
admitted, no matter what sympathy is
felt for them. and no matter how COM
pletely 1t is recognized that the motives
which prompted them were such as must
appeal strongly to every parent The
money was nothing to them: the safety
of their child was everything. Their child
may have been in no actual danger. The
devilsh depravity which would torture a
mothers heart by threats to mutilate
loved child might have stopped short
when It came to the actual carrying Of the
threat into execution. Nevertheless, the
women are few who would have hesitated
an instant over the ethical question pre-
scented. The actual result of the Cudahys'
action, however. is to invite repetition
Of the offence directed against other pa
rents. For every future outrage of the
character the success of this one win be
partially responsible. It is hard posi-
ton, but there is no escape from it.
The question remains, how can society
protect itself against such crimes? The
present case is an isolated one. The sue
cess which has marked 1t, however, rem
ders 1t reasonably probable that 1t win be
followed by others Of IKE character.
Crime of this nature may become cpl
demic. AS long as there are desperate
criminals, whose hands are against every
man, so long can 1t be expected that ev-
cry successful departure in crime will be
followed BY others. The only suggestion
as to the duty Of society at present seems
that of making the punishment for all
such offences the very highest possible. At
the present time there are states where
kidnapping ranks as nothing more serious
than misdemeanor. The penalty should
not be less than Imprisonment for life.