St. Paul daily globe. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1884-1896, 1889-05-12
JAY GoULD's CHARITY.

to become philosopher in his old days,
and is rapidly earning the title of the
Sage of Wall street. His recent reply
to Bishop PoTTER's sermon was fair
exhibit of his peculiar vein OF philoso-
ply, and one of his chief philOsOphic
utterances related to the disposition of
charity. No one has suspected Mr..
GOULD of being public benefactor;
and yet, according to his theory OF what
constitutes charity, ne is to-day the best
friend to suffering humanity in the
world. He says that he commenced life,
which is true, a poor man, and that he
accumulated his vast wealth by hard
labor. which is probably not true. That
he is industrious and an interchangeable
worker is admitted; but his accumula-
tons are the results of his Shrewd deals
and the opportunities he has had to
scoop his rivals in business. There Is
many a hOd carrier who has done harder
work than JAY GOULD ever performed,
and yet did not get ahead in the world.
But to return to Mr.. GoULD'S philO-
sophie proposition concerning the dis
tributiOn of charity. He says that 1t is
useless to give money to the poor, be-
cause it only affords temporary relief
and leaves the victim worse off in the
end. His theory is that the man who
can give employment to the greatest
number of persons is the greatest bene-
factor; and for that reason the pluto
Gratis, of whom he is chief, ought not to
be the despised sect that Bishop POTTER
makes of them. In his case his wealth
is largely in railroads, telegraph lines
and other useful industries that give
employment to large number of per-
sons, who are thereby enabled to pro-
vide for their families; and thus he con-
graduates himself that he is doing
more for the poor than all the church
fellows who are making such fuss
about his parsimony.
In one sense Mr.. GOULD is right, but
in another he is wrong. 1t is true that
the man of wealth who puts his money
in useful enterprises and gives employ
ment to the working classes is bene-
factor. But where he does it from
purely selfish motives he deserves no
credit for it. Nor is it true that money
given to the poor. OF for any charitable
purpose, is wasted. We have but to
look at the magnificent benefits that
have been realized from Mr.. PEA
BoDY's donations for contradiction of
MIR. GoULD's theory. There have been
other rich men who have made direct
use of their money for charitable pur-
poses, and yet no one has had reason to
complain that they wasted their wealth.
There was STEPHEN GIRARD, for ex-
ample, whose college is to-day one of
Philadelphia'S proudest monuments.
Mr.. GoULD's former business rival,
the late Commodore VANDERBILT.
left a monument to his memory
in his princely donation to the Nash
vile university that will endure long
after his business fame and his great
fortune have passed away. Last week
the largest, most richly endowed and
completely equipped hospital in the
world was formally opened in the city of
Baltimore, land hundred years from now
the memory of JOHNS HOPKINS will be
as fresh in the hearts of the people of
his native city as it is to-day. Did he
waste his wealth when he endowed the
Johns Hopkins university and the
Johns Hopkins hospital? If Mr.. GOULD
will go down to Baltimore and study
JOHNS HOPKINS methods of public
benefaction. he will get some valuable
pointers. Mr.. HOPKINS did not leave
hospital when he died, but what he did
leave was complicated piece of ma
chinery in the form of various invest
ments, capable of evolving the power to
construct and maintain hospital. Then
he said to the trustees: "You shall
receive into this hospital the INDECENT
sick of this city and its environs, without
regard to sex, age, or color, who may
require surgical or medical treatment,
and the poor of this city and state of all
races who are stricken down by any
casualty" The trustees so managed
the investments as to build hospital
costing over 100000, not only without
taking dollar from the principal
placed in their hands, but with an
judicious investments by the sum of
$4,000.
Thus it will be seen that there is a
marked difference between the JAY
GOULD and JOHNS HOPKINS theory of
charitable distribution. Mr.. GoULD's
wealth is employed in carrying on in
dustries that would have been carried
on by some one else, If he had not frozen
everybody else out. Whatever charity
results from his business management
results indirectly, and would flow as
steadily, and, perhaps, more CO.
piously, under the management of
any one else. JOHNS HOPKINS made
a direct disposition of his fort
une to charities. The fortune re-
mains intact, and yet it pours OUT per-
petual stream Of benefaction. :The
beneficlaries Of MI. GoULD's charity
give him an equivalent for his benefac-
lions i'll their days toll. For every dol
lar they get from his hands they give
him in return 50 worth of sweat and
muscle, and when their physical
strength fails his charity ceases. On
the other hand. the JOHNS HOPKINS
benefaction demands nothing in return.
Its benefciaries are the helpless, the
sick and the manned, the classes who
need charity.
JUDICIOUSLY MATERIALlZED
There was peculiar case on trial in
the district court of Covington. o., the
other day, and decision rendered by