CHILDREN AND CHEATING.

Dominion, Volume 3, Issue 841, 13 June 1910, Page 11

CHILDREN AND CHEATING.

, Canon Hor.slcy .writes as follows in tho London "Daily.News."-:— To see whether a group of children,, boys and girls,.in an elementary school in a poor district were' by instinct or domestic and school teaching, superior to the level of. commercial . morality expressed in the. adage .caveat emptor —tho habitual defiance of which has bemi assumed to bo universal in- horsedealing, and too common in. all trades —I put to them as ■an exercise tho solving on paper unaided the question: If a boy sold a pair of roller■; skates that were broken, and ho' knew -it, but tho purchaser did not, what would you say about it? . '• Ono child, a boy, and one child alone,; puts the matter entirely ' from the view of immediate self-interest dominating all other considerations. Ho says : boldly-.: > —' ' If'l had a pair of skates that" wero broken, I would not let him know it, because I would '-not be able to sell thorn. ..-'"'.'' Some, but not many, regard rather tho foolishness and carelessness of the buyer as blameablo while not excusing (as many of their elders would) tho immorality of tho transaction on this ground. Thus we have:— ' "The boy was dealing unfaro to the buyer, and the buyer is not sencerable for not cxamening the skates before he bought them." Another describes the vendor as ''an artful boy" and this buyor'as "silly, because he did not look first." Another .point of view is suggested -that the bitten is not bitten after all, for "perhaps he-only wanted them tof one purpose, for wheels or axels." Some 1 mistake the question, and take iv to mean: What would you say to the vendor if you were tho buyer* although tho great majority seo.that it means: What would you think of tho seller's act? .Therefore somo would demand their, money back, and others would point out the defect, and offer only sixpence for the lot. Most, however, both boys and girls, express entire reprobation /in unqualified, though varying, terms; "He, was a dishonest, not just, and not a"fair boy. He would not like anybody to do it to him,-' shows that the argunientum ad hominem is felt to be more compelling - that caveat emptor. "Ho was a cheat" — "a very bad boy"— "a fraud'-'—"ho hogli ' (ought) to be ashamed of himself!—"a thief and a downright,, cheat"—"a ' very wiked boy"—" a cowerd"—"deseatful"—"a liyocrip"—"he did a very cadish trick, and' I think ho ought to have a good hiding." ;

One righteous boy seems, however,to liave a precocious, if not personal, .knowledge of the ways of the. unrighteous, for he says. "The boy was unfair, was a cheat and thiof, and would run away happy, buy sonic sweets or some fried fish and potatoes. . And the hoy, perhaps, would not let his mother know. She will iuid out because. she' 'M'uitlrt ask h:tn where the skates were." A girl sees the value of integrity, although with distorted ideas of how to spell "character." Says she: "I would hi u very dishonest girl, and I would not do it beeaused 1 would bo taken my carchetor away."

'May they preserve, thoso straightforward ideas throughout life. lifay they "ever descend to that level of commercial "morality" in which tho maxim prevails of "Caveat .emptor," or even, as a burglar honestly gave me his creed, which, wan that of many, "Do everybody," and take care thev don't ..hi you." Will they have altered their minds for the worse 20 years hence, and have reason to sigh with Tom Hood,'"To me is little joy to think that Heaven seems _ further off than ■vhen 1 was a boy."