All wrongs right themselves by "inhumanity," if permitted to go far enough. You are told by good authority, and you know without telling, that if you find a burglar in your house at night, you perform a public duty by shooting him dead rather than see him escape. From the humanitarian point of view, this is certainly more dreadful than it would have been to stop, by flogging, any minor offences that led him into your house. Indeed, if the penalty for the burglary itself were a "barbarous" laceration of his back, it would doubtless have more effect in keeping him from the burglary and from a bloody death, than does the risk of imprisonment. We must not whip him in obedience to the law, but we may safely shoot him dead without regard to it. It is our tenderness that becomes "inhuman" if it be not wisely bestowed. Would it be quite in keeping with the pretensions of "advanced" civilization to see the matrons and maids of the rural neighborhoods going about their dairies and summer kitchens with revolvers in their belts, and bowie-knives in their bosoms? That is the spectacle the "tramp" nuisance promises to produce. Would the whipping-post, set up in the slums of the great cities, where the miscreants among the tramps breed and form their characters, look any more like barbarism? The voluntary tramp has but shown the countryman during the summer what the city suffers during the winter. He is simply trying to distribute and equalize himself, and while enjoying his country air, collects the same taxes he collects all the rest of the year in town. Let the city continue to rear him tenderly, and not hurt his precious carcass, and feed and warm him, and punish only his sensitive spirit, until the country people get down their shot-guns and make a barbarous end of him. And this is being true to the cause of humanity. It is noble for the law to withhold its hand when one who has taken a wrong step can be won back to a good life by other means; and if the wretches hopelessly saturated with vice can be intimidated by anything milder than flogging, by all means be mild; but when we find one who cannot, why not acknowledge the fact and act on it? The reason why we do not so act is only a sentimental one. A sentimental reason, however, may be a very good one. Society feels that it is better to suffer, and to see its laws become a mockery to this degree, than to shock its own best instincts. This sentiment that obstructs absolute vindication of the law is respectable so long as it can be respected with tolerable safety and public satisfaction. But it interferes with justice by courtesy, and not by right. It is all very well so long as society does not complain. But if its mouthpieces are to be believed, society does complain. The public is not satisfied with the present punishment of certain offenders--indicated with sufficient accuracy by the tough old Langheimer and the English window-breaker--and is restive under the pecuniary burden they impose.