s, as a rule, pretty hard upon roguery, but he
atones for his austerity by an amiable toleration of rogues. His
only requirement is that he must personally know the rogues. We all
"denounce" thieves loudly enough, if we have not the honor of their
acquaintance. If we have, why, that is different--unless they have the
actual odor of the prison about them. We may know them guilty, but we
meet them, shake hands with them, drink with them, and if they happen to
be wealthy or otherwise great invite them to our houses, and deem it an
honor to frequent theirs. We do not "approve their methods"--let that be
understood; and thereby they are sufficiently punished. The notion that
a knave cares a pin what is thought of his ways by one who is civil and
friendly to himself appears to have been invented by a humorist. On the
vaudeville stage of Mars it would probably have made his fortune.
If warrants of arrest were out for every man in this country who is
conscious of having repeatedly shaken hands with persons whom he knew to
be knaves there would be no guiltless person to serve them.

I know men standing high in journalism who today will "expose" and
bitterly "denounce" a certain rascality and tomorrow will be hobnobbing
with the rascals whom they have named. I know legislators of renown who
habitually in "the halls of legislation" raise their voices against the
dishonest schemes of some "trust magnate," and are habitually seen in
familiar conversation with him. Indubitably these be hypocrites all.
Between the head and the heart of such a man is a wall of adamant, and
neither organ knows what the other is doing.

If social recognition were denied to rogues they would be fewer by many.
Some would only the more diligently cover their tracks along the devious
paths of unrighteousness, but others would do so much violence to their
consciences as to renounce the disadvantages of rascality for those
of an honest life. An unworthy person dreads nothing so much as the
withholding of an honest hand, the slow inevitable stroke of an ignoring
eye.

For one having knowledge of Mr. John D. Rockefeller's social life and
connections it would be easy to name a dozen men and women who by a
conspiracy of conscription could profoundly affect the plans and profits
of the Standard Oil Company. I have been asked: "If John D. Rockefeller
were introduced to you by a friend, would you refuse to take his hand?"
I certainly should--and if ever thereafter