Show THE OF 0 o there is at present a somewhat contagious tendency to protest against certain gifts of money tor public purposes on the ground that the money thus given has not been honestly earned the rockefeller donation Is of course fresh in the public mind and now andrew carnegie is similarly requested to pass under the harrow of criticism mr carnegie has presented to the franklin institute of boston and alderman linehan objects to this gift and to all similar gifts from the same source the money he says is tainted and he is even so impolite as to cambare mr carnegie to the caribbean pirates it must be confessed that there is a certain charm about this modern coyness to accept money or rather to allow other people to accept it it seems that there are still some that have not bowed the knee to baal and if they would but mingle their virtue with a little reasonableness we might be tempted to hall the dawn of belter days in the commercial world now there can be no question that in the matter of gifts for public purposes a line must be drawn somewhere the fruits of a burglary tor example could not be accepted for such objects because the rightful owners of the stolen property could presumably be found with a slew to restitution but suppose the owners p such property could not be found what then is the penitent thief to do with bis ill gotten gains surely the only ay in which he could prove his sincerity would b by donating the said gains either to charity or to some object of public utility now there is in this no contention that either sir carnegie or mr rockefeller are in the position of penitent thieves who elsh to make timely restitution such however is somewhat the position in which their entirely disinterested critics wish to place them and so from their own standpoint it might be well for those protesting gentlemen to ask themselves what the criticized criticised millionaire ought to do with his money the critic maintains that he obtained the money dishonestly from the public but that ho must on no account be allowed to restore it to the community from which he took jt it might ba supposed that such would bathe only possible course but the new morality says no the stolen property must never be restored 0 o its owners because it was stolen no doubt the intention of the protesters is admirable but their logic is faulty the millionaire has then no alter native he must either destroy his leave it in as entirety to natural heirs ahda successors who being still impendent will receive it without reluctance and who will apply it of course to strictly secular pur deposes it is no t easy to see in what way the cause of commercial virtue will benefit by such a proceeding but it is quite see that the franklin institute will benefit by mr carnegles Carne gies gift and that the whole nation will profit by mr rockefellers Rocke fellers donation in aid of higher education so far from such money being criticized criticised it should be received as the unexpected payment of a debt even the most virtuous cannot afford to dispense with common sense and the indisputable fact is that objects of the highest value will be aided by these substantial contributions |