The Manitowoc pilot. [volume] (Manitowoc, Wis.) 1859-1932, 1905-11-30

result of the above mentioned transac-
ton, is passing strange. A person that
really believes that B lost - by the
transaction in question cannot but be
devoid of common sense Even absolute
illiteracy would be no excuse whatever
for the egregious nonsense INDUCED In
by person claiming that B lost IS by
the transaction under consideration in
the above article.
Every person possessed Of very little
common sense-even If he does not know
the names of the letters of the alphabet
Of his mother tongue and if he is incap-
able of writing his Iame-will at once
see that b lost S, if he sold the shoes at
cost 81 Of his loss being in the shape of
cash and 81 in the shape of the pair of
shoes sold. If b sold the shoes at a profit
OF IS per cent, then his net loss was, of
course "a. 73 2l-23, 81 being l Is per cent.
of the cost of the shoes, which cost, in
the case supposed, WAS $l.73 2l-23-the
base on which the Is per cent. prof! is
computed.
The proposition can, OF course, be
correctly approached in several ways;
but no discussion or solution can possibly
make the conclusion arrived At, clearer,
or more absolutely evident, than it
should appear at sight
Suppose b. when he received the
counterfeit fve.dollar bill from A, had
had the change in the store, how much
cash would he have paid ont? Three
dollars How much value did he receive
from the purchaser in question? No
value. How much, then, in this case,
would he have been outf Three dollars
plus the cost Of the shoes-a total OF -,
if the shoes were sold at cost; total OF
g. 70 II %, if the shoes were sold at
profit of 10 per cent But let us disre-
gard the profit and assume that the shoes
were sold at cost. II must then be clear
M light that inasmuch ~ the shoes had
gone out and three (presumedly) good
dollars had gone out and no value, from
this transaction, had come in, the loss
suffered by the merchant was ~ plus
the value of the shoes Tor 81, making a
total of g. But b having no change in
the store, the proposition Tor transaction
assumes new aspect in the drst in
stance b secures five good dollars
from G in exchange for thing Of no
value. the counterfeit five.dollar bill.
Now, at this stage, G is out -; and Is is
| out OF nothing at the time A leaves the
store with the shoes and three good
dollars received from b. A got S. or ~
plus pair OF shoes, for nothing, II b
sold the shoes at profit of Is per cent,
he at this stage, gained 26 223 cents by
the transaction. But we see that, "A
month later, C's loss is made good by Il.
Then how much il b out M n final re
suit Of the original transaction, disre-
garding the matter of profitY Ofcourse,
81. How much il b out If the shoes
were sold Mt n profit of % per cent.
Three dollars plus 81 80 tthe cost of the
shoes, In this case or "a total of +! 60.
The above article says, "A then walked
gu. Of the store with the shoes and 81,
which was right, of course" No, this
was wrong if A knew that the five
dollar bill which he had given the mer-
chant was II counterfeit bill, 1t was
wrong also, IL A was u person who was
not willing to make good the sellers loss
after ;nat ;oas hai been proven At all
events, it was q mistake; it was not
right. of course
The AZ .icle quoted further says that
THE first transaction WAS on the level,
Il receiving the MONEY for his shoes and
giving back the change No, this is "A
mistake. The first transaction was not
on the level for the merchant had given
the shoes and 81 in exchange for n thing
Of no value-a counterfeit five. Cs
temporary loss of s. and Bis eventual
loss of - (disregarding the profit on the
shoes were due to the very fact that the
| first transaction was not on the square.
The aus,cer given by the writer of the
article above quoted il, of course,
| correct,
In conclusion we repeat that no ex
PLANTATION can render the solution of the
proposition in question more clear and
Enthusiastically obvious than it should be
to any person Mt the very moment when
the question is propounded to him.