Glorious Larceny
February 8, 1908
Summary
William J. Bryan speaks at the Civic Forum about the consequences of larceny claiming that “There is a distinction that can be drawn between direct and indirect larceny” and the discrepancies must be addressed.
Transcription
New York, Feb. 5.-- Taking the Eighth Commandment as his text, William J. Bryan pointed out to the Civic Forum last night the possibilities of larceny in violation of the law- what he said was of still greater importance- larceny through the operation of law.
Mr. Bryan declared that,while the law recognized two general forms of larceny, petit larceny and grand larceny, there had been a disposition recently to subdivide the greater crime. “So now,” he added, “we are inclined to think of stealing as petit larceny, grand larceny and glorious larceny.” So great had become the tendency to overlook rascality in amazement at the genius of the man who had stolen a million that it had been suggested, he said, that the commandment be amended to read “Thou shalt not steal on a small scale.” Larceny through operation of the law was possible, he said, if the laws were unjust or permitted an unfair advantage to any class of citizens. Watered stocks and fictitious capitalizations were placed by the speaker as among the forms of polite larceny. Carnegie hall, as usual at gatherings of the Civic Forum, was filled by an audience representative of business and the professions and in which was reflected the various shades of public opinion. Edward M. Shepherd introduced Mr. Bryan, who was received with spirited handclapping, the applause being frequently renewed during the course of his address. Mr Bryan said:
“If a man picks your pocket or enters your house in the dark or accosts you upon the highway and takes from you a few dollars, you regard him as a vulgar thief. No one can have respect for such a person, and the punishments of the law are in such cases swift and sure if the offender is caught. Even in the case of grand larceny if the amount taken is not very great the thief finds it difficult to escape, for he has no influential friends, and he cannot hire skillful lawyers to present his technicalities in his defense. If, however, he steals a large sum, it becomes quite a different matter, and the sum may be so large that we overlook the man’s rascality in our amazement at the genius which he has displayed. As a rule, the man who steals a million dollars has a better chance of escape than the man who steals a thousand. So true is this that it has been suggested that we amend the commandment to read, “Thou shalt not steal on small scale.”
“Judge Jerry Black, the celebrated Pennsylvania lawyer, in his argument in the Credit Mobilier case quoted a man of affairs as saying that to rob an individual was criminal; to rob a corporation was reprehensible; to rob a municipality was a matter of doubtful morality; to rob a state was meritorious, but to rob the United States was the highest achievement of human virtue. “But my object tonight is rather to draw your attention to the various ways in which larceny may be committed. There is a distinction that can be drawn between direct and indirect larceny- that is, between the one who does the stealing himself and the one who does it through another, and this is a larger subject than at first appears, for those who produce conditions which result in such gross injustice that the victims of the injustice are driven to destitution, to despair, to desperation and finally to theft-- those who produce these conditions are not entirely guiltless.
“Inequality in taxation is merely a form of larceny. If two men live side by side and one contributes in taxation $10 when his just share is only $5 and the other pays $% when he ought to pay $10, one loses $5 that he ought to keep, while the other keeps $5 that he ought to give to the government.
“And now, at the risk of being accused of sacrilege, I venture to introduce to the Stock Exchange the commandment which we have been considering. I am aware that here in New York the Stock Exchange is regarded with a certain amount of veneration and that many who vehemently denounce gambling in a back room where winnings and losses are small remain strangely silent in the presence of the enormous games that are played upon the stock market often with loaded dice. Gambling is one of the worst vices, and gambling in stocks and in farm products is the most destructive form in which the vice appears. Measured by the number of suicides caused by the New York Stock Exchange, Monte Carlo is an innocent pleasure resort by comparison. Measured by the amount of money changing hands, the contrast is still greater in favor of Monte Carlo, and measured by the influence upon those who do not gamble the evils of Monte Carlo are insignificant when compared with the evils of NEw York’s commercial gambling houses. The New York Stock Exchange has graduated more embezzlers than Fagin’s school did thieves. “If time is permitted, I would call attention to the adulteration of food which sometimes involves a violation of the commandment against killing as well as the commandment against stealing.”
Mr. Bryan declared that,while the law recognized two general forms of larceny, petit larceny and grand larceny, there had been a disposition recently to subdivide the greater crime. “So now,” he added, “we are inclined to think of stealing as petit larceny, grand larceny and glorious larceny.” So great had become the tendency to overlook rascality in amazement at the genius of the man who had stolen a million that it had been suggested, he said, that the commandment be amended to read “Thou shalt not steal on a small scale.” Larceny through operation of the law was possible, he said, if the laws were unjust or permitted an unfair advantage to any class of citizens. Watered stocks and fictitious capitalizations were placed by the speaker as among the forms of polite larceny. Carnegie hall, as usual at gatherings of the Civic Forum, was filled by an audience representative of business and the professions and in which was reflected the various shades of public opinion. Edward M. Shepherd introduced Mr. Bryan, who was received with spirited handclapping, the applause being frequently renewed during the course of his address. Mr Bryan said:
“If a man picks your pocket or enters your house in the dark or accosts you upon the highway and takes from you a few dollars, you regard him as a vulgar thief. No one can have respect for such a person, and the punishments of the law are in such cases swift and sure if the offender is caught. Even in the case of grand larceny if the amount taken is not very great the thief finds it difficult to escape, for he has no influential friends, and he cannot hire skillful lawyers to present his technicalities in his defense. If, however, he steals a large sum, it becomes quite a different matter, and the sum may be so large that we overlook the man’s rascality in our amazement at the genius which he has displayed. As a rule, the man who steals a million dollars has a better chance of escape than the man who steals a thousand. So true is this that it has been suggested that we amend the commandment to read, “Thou shalt not steal on small scale.”
“Judge Jerry Black, the celebrated Pennsylvania lawyer, in his argument in the Credit Mobilier case quoted a man of affairs as saying that to rob an individual was criminal; to rob a corporation was reprehensible; to rob a municipality was a matter of doubtful morality; to rob a state was meritorious, but to rob the United States was the highest achievement of human virtue. “But my object tonight is rather to draw your attention to the various ways in which larceny may be committed. There is a distinction that can be drawn between direct and indirect larceny- that is, between the one who does the stealing himself and the one who does it through another, and this is a larger subject than at first appears, for those who produce conditions which result in such gross injustice that the victims of the injustice are driven to destitution, to despair, to desperation and finally to theft-- those who produce these conditions are not entirely guiltless.
“Inequality in taxation is merely a form of larceny. If two men live side by side and one contributes in taxation $10 when his just share is only $5 and the other pays $% when he ought to pay $10, one loses $5 that he ought to keep, while the other keeps $5 that he ought to give to the government.
“And now, at the risk of being accused of sacrilege, I venture to introduce to the Stock Exchange the commandment which we have been considering. I am aware that here in New York the Stock Exchange is regarded with a certain amount of veneration and that many who vehemently denounce gambling in a back room where winnings and losses are small remain strangely silent in the presence of the enormous games that are played upon the stock market often with loaded dice. Gambling is one of the worst vices, and gambling in stocks and in farm products is the most destructive form in which the vice appears. Measured by the number of suicides caused by the New York Stock Exchange, Monte Carlo is an innocent pleasure resort by comparison. Measured by the amount of money changing hands, the contrast is still greater in favor of Monte Carlo, and measured by the influence upon those who do not gamble the evils of Monte Carlo are insignificant when compared with the evils of NEw York’s commercial gambling houses. The New York Stock Exchange has graduated more embezzlers than Fagin’s school did thieves. “If time is permitted, I would call attention to the adulteration of food which sometimes involves a violation of the commandment against killing as well as the commandment against stealing.”
About this article
Source
Location on Page
Upper Left Quadrant
Topic
Contributed By
Emma Alvarez
Citation
“Glorious Larceny,” Black Virginia: The Richmond Planet, 1894-1909, accessed October 9, 2026, https://blackvirginia.richmond.edu/items/show/509.