The man with the bogus gold brick goes to jail. The man with the bogus
gold mine goes free.

Why this difference when the principle in the two crimes is the same? Is
it because the millionaire swindler has, in fact, been given rights
under the law that is denied to the smaller fry? Or is it because the
larger bird of prey makes enough to go all around? Certain it is, however,
that Labor in its contests with Capital never got a decision in its favor
yet - in time to be of any service.

These wholesalers found the concubining of justice herself a necessity
to the success of their rascalities and the delays and decisions of this
harlot are but the echoes of her paramour's orders. And at no time does
the debasement of this whited sepulchre display itself more than when
the miserable and friendless criminal whose crime is, assuredly, nothing
more than the natural and to be expected outcome of the wrong and
inexcusable crime developing conditions under which he is compelled to
live, is at her altar for Justice, which She renders in ringing tones
such as are never heard when Her paramour or his hirelings are before
Her.

When Labor does finally get a decision it is as worthless to it as is
its pass-book on the gutted savings bank.

Make the millionaire an extinct species, and the above assertion will
not have logic to sustain it, and our courts will not be making terrible
"examples" of the friendless, while the thief who ruins thousands is
allowed to go free.