AN IMMORAL DOCTRINE.

Evening Star, Issue 12970, 6 June 1908, Page 12

AN IMMORAL DOCTRINE.

A grossly immoral doctrine, which G often hinted by some speakers, and even by magistrates, hut seldom put forward iu its nakedness, was suggested by Senator Trenwith at the Central Methodist Mission on Sunday, May 10. 'talking discursively on various industrial mattcis. the Senator came to the hours and wages of bank clerks, and referred to an embezzlement latelv heard of:

Recently a young man was sentenced to twelve months’ imprisonment for having done to his employers what ids employers had done to him for years. The employers had robbed the man of his time, and the employee in turn robbed his employers of their moimv. The lives of bank clerks were rapidly becoming intolerable.

Tints stated and reported, the usually vaguely-hinted doctrine liecomcs a plain piece of dishonest casuistry. It sees society reduced to a state’ of thieving anarchy. Any bank clerk or any employee who is dissatisfied with, his salary, and lias access to the till, is invited to’b. dp himself when nobody is looking. He may salve bis conscience by calling it not robbery but restitution. The idea is intolerably outrageous, it is a sneaking excuse for dishonesty, against which all men of manly and moral tone, even though they are small-salaried men, will revolt immediately. No one will repudiate the suggestion more decisively tha.n hank clerks as a body. Senator Tree with does not actually father the doctrine as something which justifies crime. But he seems willing to regard it as a reason for condonation. He forgets, when he suggests that a breach of trust is a fair quid pro quo for a low sidary, that character is a priceless possession in a young man, and to be maintained at all costs, temptation or no temptation. —‘ Argus.’