Weekly Arizona journal-miner., 1905-05-10
A DEFAULTER's POOR EXCUSE.

The excuse of Edward J. Smith, the
 defaulting tax collector of San Fran
 cisco is that he was Ca good fellow" l and robbed none but those who could | afford to be robbed. Like nearly ev-
 cry "good fellow" when he gets into
 trouble, Smith has an intense pity for
 himself. The "good fellow'' regards
 himself as a rather superior person
 to the steady, sober, saving, careful
 prudent man who prefers to live with in his means, be faithful to his wife
 and provide for his children instead of
 squandering his money, and money en- | trusted to him, in riotous conduct and
 the maintenance of lights-of-love.
 The "good fellow" is eompanionable
 enough. He is liberal in spending.
 and thus is pleasing both to those who receive his hospitality and those who
 profit by catering to his vices. But HIS udbiiltN lo du OH tHt SuIldCt 1Ht
 root of his character is an extreme sell fshness. He is light-hearted because
 he shirks the cares and responsibilities that duty imposes on him. A free spender of money. he wastes the sub
 stance that belongs to his family. AL
 ways gOod-natured and ready for
 lark. he neglects his wife and children, leaving them to pinch a living out of
 the slender revenue which he losses
 at them. The liberality of temper
 and of purse which he and his wan
 tons and parasites applaud as a virtue
 is nothing but despieable self-indul-
 gence. He will spend money for his
 own pleasure, though in doing so he
 deprives others of their due. His con-
 tempt for money is so large that he
 disdains to carry any of the dross home for the support of those whom he has brought into the world. but insists, to show that he is not mereenary, on throwing it away in revelry or gamb- ling. That is his notion of good fel lowship.
 Smith, in kis course as "good 'fel- low" has dragged to ruin not only himself. but others who trusted him. He has blighted the lives of his wife and child; the wife to whom he was faithless. the child whom he neglected | while he caroused with loose women | and showered stolen money upon his | paramOurs. Where was the good fel- lowship in his treatment of his wife | and little daughter7
 In prison Smith whimpers in maud lin fashion. after the manner of his | kind. when he thinks of the neglected woman and the abandoned child. He | tells the reporters in St. Louis of his wife s goodness and speaks of his great affection for the little girl. But he thinks of these things too late. His ap- preciation of his wife's goodness did not prevent him from disgracing her. His affection for his daughter did not keep him at home or hold him from peculation. Love and deceny are proved better by conduct than by words.
 When the "good fellow finds him self disgraced and imprisoned in con of long period of self-in- diligence he eraves sympathy. He feels that he is more sinned against than and that the fact that he has been "good fellow" and stolen only from the rich. is a justification for his offenses. But is it true that Smith has stolen only from those who could af ford to lOse2 Has he not robbed his wife and daughter and left them desti- ute and bowed by his disgrace? Has he not taken the bread out of their mouths that his harlots might have liamonds and champagne? Has he not stolen from them the good name of the family and left the memory of his 'FlWt 6S q tllttI utIAldEst iu lliN l laughter? What right has he. then. s 70 proclaim himself "goOd fellow md whimper about his wife and who wept on parting in he police headquarters at St. Louis ' with the woman with whom he --- way?
 The "good fellow" is not good fel , ow at all, hut a very bad fellow. The ( cal good fellow is the who does his { luty, even though he abstains from ( Irinking. gambling and leehery and ultivates thrift and self-saeriiee. for Ie is the kind that makes other peo- 'le better and happier. Willingness to acrifce self for others is the real test [ if good fellowship. Judped bv this l r