A Brooklyn Supreme Court Judge, who is noted for his outspoken good sense, while sitting in a neighboring city trying criminal cases, severely rebuked some rich people for carelessly tempting working men employed on their premises. It seems that while certain persons were employed as painters and decorators in the home of a millionaire, that jewelry and other valuables were left carelessly within their reach. The result was that one of the men stole some of the valuables, and was sent to prison. It was shown at the trial that this workman was not a criminal and had always borne a good reputation. But the jewelry which lay around so carelessly in this home appealed to him. Such temptations arouse in men the worst passions, and even prey on their minds. A young man whom I met in the Tombs broke down and wept as he told me the story of his disgrace. He loved a young woman and desired to seal his engagement to her with a gold ring. He went down to a Maiden Lane store. He explained the object of his visit to the salesman. He had nine dollars in his pocket and was willing to pay a fair price for what he wanted. The salesman went to a case and took therefrom a handful of gold rings and placed them before him on a velvet cloth and then went away. As the young man examined the rings alone the temptation seized him to secrete one and conceal it on his person. He did so with the result that the salesman saw him. He had not only tempted him but he concealed himself and watched all his movements with aid of a mirror. Another way in which both men and women are frequently made criminals is by the present instalment system. For example, persons purchase watches, jewelry, typewriters, clothing and furniture and agree to pay for the same by weekly or monthly instalments. The buyer is compelled to sign an agreement in which he waives his right to his property till the last payment is made. If he has purchased a watch or suit of clothes and defaults on a payment he is compelled to surrender the property or be liable to an indictment for grand larceny. The trouble is, our legislature, to accommodate commercial sharpers, changes what has always been considered a civil suit into a criminal offence. Any one who sells another a typewriter takes chances to get his money back, the same as the baker who sells him a loaf of bread. If he is unable to pay that debt honestly the seller has no right to have recourse to an indictment to force him. This is all wrong. Just where our State or local authorities can draw the line between an insane and a rational criminal, it would be hard to say. And how far people who possess criminal tendencies should be allowed to roam at large is also important. But how far individuals and corporations should be allowed to tempt moral weaklings to commit crime is a question for the twentieth century statesman and penologist to decide. ------------------------------------------------------------------------