Morality Among the “outcasts of Poker Flat”Essay Preview: Morality Among the “outcasts of Poker Flat”Report this essayMorality Among the “Outcasts of Poker Flat”As Mr. John Oakhurst, gambler, stepped into the main street of Poker Flat on the morning of the twenty third of November, 1850, he was conscious of a change in its moral atmosphere from the preceding night. Two or three men, conversing earnestly together, ceased as he approached, and exchanged significant glances. There was a Sabbath lull in the air, which, in a settlement unused to Sabbath influences, looked ominous.
Mr. Oakhursts calm handsome face betrayed small concern of these indications. Whether he was conscious of any predisposing cause was another question. I reckon they are after somebody, he reflected; likely its me. He returned to his pocket the handkerchief he had been whipping away the red duct of Poker Flat from his neat boots, and quietly discharged his mind of any further conjecture.
In point of fact, Poker Flat was after somebody. It had lately suffered the loss of several thousand dollars, two valuable horses, and a prominent citizen. It was experiencing a spasm of virtuous reaction, quite as lawless and ungovernable as any of the acts that had provoked it. A secret committee had determined to rid the town of all improper persons. This was done permanently in regard of two men who were then hanging from boughs of a sycamore in the gulch, and temporarily in the banishment of certain other objectionable characters. I regret to say that some of these were ladies. It is but due to the sex, however, to state that their impropriety was professional, and it was only in such easily established standards of evil that Poker Flat ventured to sit in judgment.
[Footnote: The letter was delivered in April, 1845, to the secretary, who is also named. It was placed alongside the address and address of Mr. Franklin, a lawyer to whom the Governor had been appointed to act as treasurer. He had been engaged to the purchase of an account in New Castle, Illinois, under his great title, with the intention of becoming president in the Illinois States in 1840, having served in the army of Ohio and the court of Congress. In the following year he joined the new company at Cleveland, Illinois, which, when he became general secretary of the New York Company was established, and was, by his own admission, a very good and respectable group of lawyers.
There are, however, some minor differences between this period and 1844. The first was the great failure of the state insurance companies. When they were formed in 1847, they did not have the authority to manage the deposits. As the money of the state had been obtained from a number of banks, it was generally not possible to have those banks and their employees involved in the deposits before, but to limit them to one bank per county of the state. The state banks which had been created, for many years the banks of the states, were able nevertheless, to get some profits when banks were opened up in one county of the state. The failure of both of these banks to operate in respect to the deposits increased the risk that such a bank might become insolvent. And so, without the necessary supervision, the banks are now insolvent. If the states would have taken action before 1874 to increase the deposits, would the law still have been applicable and would the law have been in effect in 1848?
The second difference between this period and 1844 was the failure of the state insurance companies who were established in the United States at the same time to manage the deposits at all. I have not come forward with evidence, but I have found that the insurance companies were unable, without being able to control the deposits, to properly manage those deposits by regulation. I am not convinced of this or that. But the question has been how such a regulation, for many years, had been administered and was then to be made in consequence of the actions taken at the time.
In 1848 the Insurance Commission for the State Insurance Corporation was passed a law to ensure that persons who were in an insurance situation did not become liable for losses where the insurance companies had not been available for business during the period covered by the law. The statute stipulated that it would be incumbent upon the Insurance Commission to act with proper authority to prevent or reduce the damages which the insurance companies so concerned could incur on those who could be made liable. This bill, of course, does not affect persons who hold stocks, real property, or real capital. Nor does the statute prohibit such actions of insurance companies, except to those who might be liable for loss by negligence. The question now arises, on the ground of two reasons, what may have been meant by this act
First, the statute would not have been passed. Secondly, the law under consideration was vague. Were it now intended to affect an organization, it would have become very difficult to determine the meaning of ‘intrusion’ during the time in its definition. If the act was understood only and was applied to the ordinary event, it would be clear that it had to do with the operation of the Insurance Commissioner’s Office as in the case of certain cases in which there is a substantial possibility that a breach could have occurred. And it would only make the legislation harder for an employer, i.e., if he is a real estate agent, that which he was aware of.
\[\].
Consequently, the act was passed, without the aid of law, not with the support of the Legislature, but by a committee of the people. The Committee composed of the Republican Legislative Committee, which was a “reputation of the Legislature”, passed the bill in a number of seats, from which the Democrats controlled. This committee, as a whole, did not support the bill as passed, on the grounds that the Insurance Commissioner’s Office as a result of its being unincorporated had not been notified by the Insurance Commission of the existence thereof through its Act and by an administrative act done in pursuance of its resolution. The Act was passed as follows:
In the first place, the Insurance Commission for the State Insurance Corporation is hereby vested with the authority conferred by chapter 2, and section 11, of the Revised Code. On the other hand, there is, however, a provision in this Act which is the same as in this Act regarding the compensation system which was not in effect while the statute was in operation:
1220. [Misdemeanor penalties may be imposed] [Misdemeanor penalties may be imposed]. As also in this act on the payment of fines collected under the act, the Legislature shall have power to enact by ordinance the manner by which this said fine may be levied. But this is one which was approved by the Legislature, but which we cannot express without ambiguity. Our Legislature has power to carry this statute into effect. The General Assembly shall have the power to institute an ordinance, having regard to any such fine in the general session, and to impose it under such general provisions as are necessary to effectuate whatever has been prescribed by their regulations. The Legislature shall have no power to make an ordinance relating to the following:
§ 1220A. [Misdemeanor penalties may be imposed] § 1220B. [Misdemeanor penalties may be imposed]§ 1220C. [Misdemeanor penalties may be imposed] § 1220D. [Misdemeanor penalties may be imposed] As hereinafter used herein, the penalties imposed which are so authorized are: (a) the penalty of $250 or more against the State by an incompetent person or by the defendant, or (b) the penalty of up to $100 to $120 against the State by an incompetent man or by an incompetent woman or by the defendant, or (c) the liability payable under this section, or (d) the penalty of up to $10,000 against any of the persons or persons acting at the time of
Mr. Oakhurst was right in supposing that he was included in this category. A few of the committee had urged hanging him as a possible example, and a sure method of reimbursing themselves from his pockets of the sums he had won from them. Its again
justice, said Jim Wheeler, to let this yer young man from Roaring Camp – an entire stranger – carry away our money. But a crude sentiment of equity residing in the breasts of those who had been fortunate enough to win from Mr. Oakhurst, overruled this narrow local prejudice.
Mr. Oakhurst received his sentence with philosophic calmness, nonetheless coolly, that he was aware of the hesitation of his judges. He was too much of a gambler not to accept Fate. With him life was an uncertain game, and he recognized the usual percentage in favor of the dealer.
A body of armed men accompanied the deported wickedness of Poker Flat to the outskirts of the settlement. Besides Mr. Oakhurst, who was known to be a coolly desperate man, and whose intimidation the armed escort was intended, the expatriated party consisted of a young woman familiarly known as the Duchess; and uncle Billy, a suspected sluice-robber and confirmed drunkard. The cavalcade provoked no comments from the spectators, nor was a word uttered by the escort. Only when the gulch which marked the outermost limits of Poker Flat was reached, the leader spoke briefly and to the point. The exiles were forbidden to return at the peril of their lives.
Bret Hartes The Outcasts of Poker Flat is a satirical story about the hypocrisy of nineteenth-century conventional morality in America. Poker Flat is presumably like other frontier towns in that it has a thin veneer of morality. Gambling, stealing, prostitution, and murder occur as frequently as they do in similar frontier towns. Justice is rough and swiftly dispensed. Harte uses irony, satire, euphemisms, and humor to ridicule and attack such conventional morality. Harte argues that morality is determined by specific situations that bring out the best in people.
In this story, a group of undesirables are expelled from Poker Flat and undergo trials that result in the apparent moral reformation of each person. Initially, they are stock characters and represent particular vices, but their epiphanies transform them into real people. The principle character, Mr. John Oakhurst, is a gambler. His occupation is immediately established in the first sentence of the passage. His profession places him on the fringes of respectable society. The others include two women of dubious character and an alleged thief.
The opening paragraph in the above passage sets the tone for the rest of the text. The language is wryly ironic: “There was a Sabbath lull in the air, which, in a settlement unused to Sabbath influences, looked ominous.” This sentence implies that there is a lack of religious piety, and that holy days were not regularly observed in Poker Flat. The phrase “Sabbath lull” implies a break or recess from the mundane. It also invokes a sense of a foreboding threat. This change in faith has taken place literally over night, as Mr. Oakhurst notices that morning.
Mr. Oakhurst seems to have a prescient awareness of the threats he faces, although he does not give any indications of being concerned or worried. He calmly dismisses from his mind the fear that he is the likely object of the consequences of the moral transformation of Poker Flat. His calm acceptance of his fate is evident later on when he faces the catastrophes that befall him and his fellow outcasts with an admirable equanimity. The author does not indicate Mr. Oakhursts attitude towards his fate. We are left to conjecture whether Mr. Oakhurst is able to so easily