If both share the guilt, then both must share the burden.  If one shirks, the other must assume the whole.  The great victim is the child.  That child must get a Christian bringing-up, or some one will suffer for it; its faith must be safeguarded.  If this cannot be done at home, then it must be placed where this can be done.  If it is advantageous for the parent or parents that their offspring be raised in ignorance of its origin, it is far more advantageous for the child itself.  Let it be confided to good hands, but let the money necessary for its support be forthcoming, since this is the only way to make reparation for the evil of its birth.

I would add a word in regard to the injustice, frequent enough, of too long deferring the fulfilment of marriage promises.  For one party, especially, this period of waiting is precarious, fraught with danger and dangerous possibilities.  Her fidelity makes her sacrifice all other opportunities, and makes her future happiness depend on the fulfilment of the promise given.  Charms do not last forever; attractions fade with the years.  If affection cools, she is helpless to stir up the embers without unmentionable sacrifice.  There is the peril.  The man who is responsible for it, is responsible for a good deal.  He is committing an injustice; there is danger of his not being willing to repair it, danger that he may not be able to repair it.  His line of duty is clear.  Unless for reasons of the gravest importance, he cannot in surety of conscience continue in a line of conduct that is repugnant alike to natural reason and common decency, and that smacks of moral make-up that would not bear the scrutiny of close investigation.

CHAPTER XCVI.  PAYING BACK.

A man who has stolen, has nothing more urgent and imperative to perform, on this side of eternity, than the duty of refunding the money or goods unjustly acquired, or the value thereof.  He may possibly consider something else more important; but if he does, that man has somehow unlearned the first principles of natural honesty, ignores the fundamental law that governs the universe, and he will have a difficult time convincing the Almighty that this ignorance of his is not wholly culpable.  The best and only thing for him to do is to make up his mind to pay up, to disgorge his ill-gotten goods, to make good the losses sustained by his neighbor through his fault.

He may, or may not, have profited to any great extent by his criminal proceedings; but there is no doubt that his victim suffered injustice; and that precisely is the root of his obligation.  The stolen goods may have perished in his hands and he have nothing to show; the same must be said of the victim the moment his possessions disappeared; with this difference, however, that justice was not violated in one case, and in the other, it was.  The lawful owner may be dead, or unfindable among the living; but wherever he may be, he never intended that the thief should enjoy the fruit of his crime.  The latter’s title, vitiated in its source, cannot be improved by any circumstance of the owner’s whereabouts.  No one may thrive on one’s own dishonesty.