The Montgomery advertiser., 1903-04-10
DIscREDITABLE TRANS
 ACTION

ACTION
 Another incident going to show the diff ferent views which may be held as to any transaction is given in recent issue of one of the New York papers. The gist of the story is in this paragraph:
 An out-of-town merchant sent a large quantity of silverware to a firm in the trade with whom he was acquainted. with the request that the lot be sold. The firm selected from the consignment some pieces for their own use and offered the balance for sale. A bid was received and telegraphed to the owner. who accepted it He never knew anything about the consignees taking the pieces for them selves.
 Now, if the action of these members of the firm was not stealing. what was it. It is true that the owner of the ware knew nothing of the abstraction of part of the goods, and it may be also true that he was satisfied with the amount sent him. but that certainly doesn't change the moral status of the case. Had not the city merchants the same legal and moral right to keep all this silver ware that they had to keep part of it? If they had kept part of 1t as pay for their trouble, and had made satisfactory &C., counting to the owner 1t would have been all right but this they did not do. In plain language they abstracted part of the goods and sold the remainder. leav- ing the owner under the impression that they had sold all the goods for him.
 It really seems that there could hardly
 be two opinions as to the morality of
 this transaction. but one of the members
 of the firm boasted of it as an evidence
 of business ability. arguing that as the
 consignor had expressed himself satisfied
 with the amount sent him there was nothing wrong In it. We note that ex- District Attorney Philbin of New York differs very materially from the position taken by the member of the firm, and holds that the: silvcrware was a special trust assumed by the New York firm. which that firm was bound to administer faithfully. though he adds that the ordi- nary business man will not see anything criminal in tho action of the firm. And
 we also find in The Hartford Times some comments by a correspondent on the
 firms action, and among other things the writer says:
 The weak point in this argument, of course. Is it's overlooking of the tacit un- derstanding- amounting to a tacit con tract, that the consignees would get the best bid they could for all the goods. On that understanding the consignor ac- cepted the bid. and he was the victim of ' rzAI it was committed by men whom he trust ed
 That is pretty plain English but does 1t
 not express it fairly? Admitting that the consignor of the silver ware failed to have it stated in express terms that he l was to have the proceeds from the sale l of all the goods was 1t not implied when that is not 6 common sense and honest view of the matter we fail to see any req son why it Is not, and yet The Hartford Times declines to express an opinion on the transaction. It seems to us that 1t is | a case where neutrality is not altogether proper. and we commend to The Times an extract from .. newspaper which ex- presses a very decided opinion. The New York Commercial, whatever we may think \ of its politics. is certainly posted on busi- ness matters, and is thoroughly comps-
 tent to discuss question of commercial
 ethics and it thus plainly speaks of the l transaction:
 | The act of the firm was clearly crimi- l nal. It was theft. pure and simple. l And to the breaking of the eighth com mandment the firm added also the sin of lie, for the offer that it telegraphed | was not an offer for the goods as con \ signed. The act was just as baldly theft as if the firm had stolen the whole lot ! of silverware and reported that the goods had never been received-5ust as plainly | embezzlement as if the goods had been f sold and the consignor's money been ! pocketed by the firm. And the member of | 1t who defended its action was either ab- solutely lacking in the moral perception
 a pervert. or else mentally unbalanced
 Now. if one of the servants of this firm
 had taken part of this silverware and
 kept it would not the act, have been steal. tn0S Vhara ia tho aiffarance7