Page:The Green Bag (1889–1914), Volume 05.pdf/92

 Feeders of Crime. FEEDERS OF CRIME. Bf ALBERT CLAYTON APPLEÜARTH, of the Baltimore Bar.

AMONG the many tendencies that our age is developing, possibly none is more deplorable or alarming than the fami liarity with crime in all its protean forms that characterizes the people of our time. The schoolboy on the corner can generally give a more lucid description of the circumstances connected with the latest murder than he can of the position of Brazil. The girls keep themselves equally well informed concerning all the social scandals of the day. If an iliicit amour of Lady Dunraven with Lord Dinsmore has been exposed by some inad vertence, nine times out of ten, the pupils of the various female schools will be in pos session of the minutiae. When such facts obtrude themselves upon popular attention, the extremely serious question presents itself, What shall be done to abate this already great and growing evil? Disclaiming any idea of a catholicon, and without making pretensions to exhaustive treatment, it might be remarked that the object in question would be immensely promoted by the intro duction of at least two reforms. Possibly, of all institutions in a city, none brings the inhabitants thereof into more direct contact with criminality of all sorts than does its criminal tribunal. Here as semble the youth as well as adults, and all alike drink in tales of the most disgusting vileness with apparent avidity. Now, in the large majority of our municipalities the greatest precautions are exercised, and properly so, against physical contagion. If a person has smallpox or other infectious disease, he is immediately despatched to the isolated ward in some pest hospital. No words, indeed, could express the condemna tion that would be visited upon the officials, were these functionaries to parade such patients among persons, who might be inoc ulated with this malady. The public are

always and rigidly excluded from such places. While thus recognizing the propriety of the conduct adopted in regard to physical disease, is it, therefore, the part of wisdom to adopt just the opposite policy in regard to moral (the worst of all) contagion? No matter what may be our opinion on the query as thus propounded, a moment's re flection will demonstrate that the conduct ordinarily approved justifies the accusation herein made. A concrete illustration will make this evident. A gambler, let us say, forms an attachment for some scarlet woman of his acquaintance. The pair begin to live together. A third party intervenes, and this brief tragedy closes with a homicide. Now the case is ready to be placed on the boards for the edification of the populace. The law of the land guarantees the accused a trial. The time is fixed. When the day arrives, the murderer is produced in court. On the bench sits the judge. There are the neces sary court attachés. Yonder are the jury in their box. At the trial-table are the attor neys. Beside them is seated the prisoner, and possibly the members of his family, if they still cling to him. But these individuals are not all. Outside of the rail, and fre quently inside of it, is a large audience, who are in no way interested or connected with the trial except by idle curiosity. How large this constituency is, only persons com pelled to attend this tribunal know. And as a rule, it should be further stated that the viler, the more obscene, the matters offered in evidence, the more popular the case be comes. Now, it certainly requires no effort of the imagination to be convinced what an irreparable injury such proceedings inflict upon any community. When the profes sional duty of the writer has compelled him to attend the sessions of this court, he has frequently noticed mere children, sometimes