formed as his habits are formed--by the time and place in which he
lives; it grows with his teachings, his habits and beliefs. With most
people it takes on the color of the community where they live. With some
people the eating of pork would hurt their conscience; with others the
eating of any meat; with some the eating of meat on Friday, and with
others the playing of any game of chance for money, or the playing of
any game on Sunday, or the drinking of intoxicating liquors. Conscience
is purely a matter of environment, education and temperament, and is no
more infallible than any habit or belief. Whether one should always
follow his own conscience is another question, and cannot be confounded
with the question as to whether conscience is an infallible guide to
conduct.

Some seek to avoid the manifold difficulties of the problem by saying
that a "criminal" is one who is "anti-social." But does this bring us
nearer to the light? An anti-social person is one whose life is hostile
to the organization or the society in which he lives; one who injures
the peace, contentment, prosperity or well-being of his neighbors, or
the political or social organization in which his life is cast.

In this sense many of the most venerated men of history have been
criminals; their lives and teachings have been in greater or lesser
conflict with the doctrines, habits and beliefs of the communities where
they lived. From the nature of things the wise man and the idealist can
never be contented with existing things, and their lives are a constant
battle for change. If the anti-social individual should be punished,
what of many of the profiteers and captains of industry who manipulate
business and property for purely selfish ends? What of many of our great
financiers who use every possible reform and conventional catch word as
a means of affecting public opinion, so that they may control the