Had the writer marked it that not even "fear of punishment" condign by the Almighty "restrains" by-choice criminals from "wrong doing," he would have made the best case possible against punishment as a "deterrent"; yet only the best case possible, since the efficiency of deterrence is to be judged by its effect upon the normal mass, and not upon the abnormal few. In such instance, the qualifying word points the difference as between the mere "tough" brawler, "restrained" from going the limit, and the ruthless blood-spiller whom fear of punishment eternal does not feaze. Monstrosities occur in all forms of animal life. When the monstrous human strikes, he must be struck accordingly. Moreover, before we reach final conclusions, we must know the order and ordering of our deterrence; must know it up through the gamut of the apprehension, the conviction, and the sentence of lawbreakers, and then through the gamut of their prison activities. False procedure as to any one of the four processes named will invalidate any general statement of negation concerning the efficience of punishment for crime. Procedure in America has been false in every named particular. Therefore, the actual effect of just and necessary legal punishment for crime cannot have been declared. Much of crude guesswork has been exploited by single-seeing fetichists of one or another kidney; but cardinal facts have remained hidden from such, for the very good reason that to uncover those facts requires hard digging strangest to their striving. When we shall have caught our thieves as surely as Canada catches hers; then fitted the punishment to the offense; then fitted the institution to the offender, and the offender to the institution, will be time enough to place stricture on punishment values. At a time when, and in a country where, the murderous footpad knows the chances are three to one against his being brought to trial; ten to one against his sentence to life imprisonment; eighty to one that he will not suffer the death penalty; and that the all-around odds are nearly prohibitive as against the practical application, both in and out of prison, of the least elastic predicates of penal codes: it is sheer gratuitous dilettantism to allege that punishment of crime in America doesn't punish. How can legal punishment punish, if only about five shots in the hundred of it hit so as to hurt? Here, again, "The shots that (miss) are the shots that count"; and that would still be true if criminals were favored only by so much as the gambler's throw; in fact, they would continue to jump at an even chance to outmaneuver agents of the law. Why not? Exhibit No. 2, offered by a highly-paid correspondent of a Chicago newspaper, is fully as informing as are our "minister's" conclusions: "There never was a time when theft was considered proper."