The Montgomery advertiser., 1909-04-07

even if they took the best of care of him. The abductors demanded a ram som of twenty thousand dollars. but it is . pretty general belief that the two men who were guilty. and who were supposed to be couple of peddiers. were fatally shot while attempting to burglarise . house in December, 1875. No one can tell, of course. what becasae of the boy if stiIi alive after the death of the kidnappers. but 1t has long been the belief that he died and was thrown Into the waters of Newark Bay only . few months after his abduction and there was no one left who would tell his fate.
 These are some of the facts and sur snises in connection with this famous case. and it is doubtful if anything more positive win ever be known about the boy or his fate. We have often thought that of all the crimes within the catalogue of human viIlainy there is none more thoroughly despicabIe and brutal than the stealing of . helpless child. It prsys on the tenderest and most sacred of all human feelings and enables the fiends who perpetrate 1t to exact tribute from the very hearts blood of the bereaved parents. vam- pires are not more inhuman than kid nappers.
 Much unfavorable criticism has been visited nsMr. whitla because he paid the ransom demanded for the return donation of crime. a compromise with iawiessness. an encouragement to other kidnappers, and much more of the same kind. but to all such critics it should be sufficient to say. put yourself in his place. No man with a proper parental love in his heart could hesitate be- tween technical compromise with crime and the safety of his child. If he has cause to believe that his boy win be put to death if the ransom is not paid he will throw ethics to the winds and save the child. That is human nature. and 1t is human na- ture controlled by the most sacred of all human feelings. MT. whitla had reason to believe that his child would be returned to him safely if the re- quired ransom was paid He had equal iy good reason to believe that if he refused to pay the ransom, or attempt cd to get the boy back without recom- pense the lad would be made away with.
 Under such circumstances what was left for a father who had proper love and affection for his son? Was he to abide by the strict letter and spirit of the legal and moral code and let his boy be put to death. or should he lay aside all scruples for the time be- ing. compromise with his conscience and restore the boy to his home in ssfety? Mir. whitla exhibited the hu- man side of our nature. and we sus- pect that all true parents would have done the same thing. law or no law. What punishment should be visited on such miscreants as the abductors of helpless children? When no life has been taken 1t would seem a dras- tie punishment to put the kidnappers to death, yet in some respects their erima is really worse than murder. If robbers should break into house and murder one of the inmates the family would know the worst. There would be no suspense. no dread of what might happen. and no uncertainty as to the fate of & loved one. but when 6 child is stolen and concealed there can be no more peace of mind for parents until the lost is found. For more than a score of years Christian Ross iabored and searched and suf- fored in the effort to find his boy and all in vain. Would not the murder of the boy have been more mercifui? And would death be too severe a penalty for such villains as those who brought all this suffering on iiim3
 Since the Whitia incident we notice that some of the State Legislatures have enacted laws making kidnapping capital offence for which the death penalty may be inflicted, and others may do the same. A few executions for this foul crime would doubtless do more to discourage 1t than all the im- prisonment that could be inflicted. If prospective kidnappers could be made to know that death would be the pen aity for their crime they would not be