Arizona republican., 1921-01-24
The Worthless Check Matter

are not sure that the proposed amendment to the law prohibiting the issuance of worthless, fraudulent fictitious checks will the i'll it aimed at It is a rather revolutionary amendment in that it dsresards specific intent which has always held to be an essence of the crime of fraud. well as of many other crimes.
 It would change the present law only by striking out the words "wilfuly. with intent to defraud'
 There are many kinds of people who issue and float such worthless checks. There strangers. the saturday afternoon" operators who cash such checks and gone immediately. Then there is the man whose immediate need for goods or money is so that he will satisfy it with the expectation of remaining and facing the music, hoping that when the deluge comes he may make terms with the man whom he has defrauded. He has a faint hope that somehow he will be able to reimburse him.
 Then there is the individual who knows that his funds in the bank insufficient to meet the check he gives, but he hopes least, that the of which he long has been patron will in his permit a slight overdraft He has no intent to fraud either the bank or the man who cashes the check the chances many to that his check would ultimately be made good. He is only disturber of the current of business.
 Lastly, there is the that thinks his funds in the bank sufficient the man who does not know, and there is astonishing lot of such de- postors who know nothing their cash status cept when they receive monthly statements from their banks.
 So, we have here violators the law ranging down from the actual forger, the wilful maker of fraudulent checks, the who is merely careless.
 With little cooperation the part of the public and on the part of prosecuting officers and courts, the present law, with slight change, would seem to be adequate Before accepting check, the public should know the person who offers it. If it knows him it should have idea as to the proba- bility whether the check will be paid presentation. The public should, in that case, decide whether or take its own risk.
 But in case of actual fraud, and there will be such in spite of all precautions except that Of rigid rule against the acceptance checks only from people of known character and financial nteg- rity. there should nothing but prosecution. Neither the the prosecutor the should consent compromise or compounding of the affair by the check having been made good.
 The actual forger. the wilful issuer of worth less check with intent to defraud will always make good necessary. to the consequence of his crime. hoping have better luck time. If not, there is always open the same avenue of escape He risks nothing except the financial success of his criminal enterprise. He needs only available capital to meet his checks in case the necessity arises
 A criminal law should never be made to be an instrument in a collection agency. Nor should a criminal law be so broad as to cover the misconduct of those who are without criminal intent
 Such a law would only work an injustice upon those who without intent but it would rather elevate forgers and defrauders into more ol less respectable company.
 The proposed amendment. we think. should b, amended so as to apply to the first two classes o offenders have mentioned-the forger, or the vii. ful defrauder and the man without definite purpose to defraud who takes a chance. hoping somehow that he will make good