Waterbury evening Democrat., 1890-03-24
POVERTY AND RICHES.
asS. M. ). Savage on the Proper
 Use Of Money.
Humanity Is Better Served by Private Ownership of Wealth Than It Would Be by a Public Trossury-Gen-
 uine Philanthropy.


 Mass, Rev. M. J. Savage preached re- gently upon the subject of Wealth and Poverty" He began, says the Herald, by examining various popular defni- tions of wealth, pointed out their defcien- ries, and then proceeded to say that wealth is simply the accumulation of objects of human desire, for the measure of value was nothing else than the fact that the thing possessed and that was looked upon as having value was some- thing which a great many people de- sired. And if they analysed that desire they would find it only modification of the fundamental fact of hunger, and this was true from the lowest physical hunger to the highest spiritual aspiration. Is wealth, then, asked MT. Savage, desir- able thing? Would it be better if there were no rich and no poor? It seems to me most certainly not. For wealth-some accumulated value beyond that which is needed for the immediate necessities of the community-is the very condition of higher growth. Picture to your selves world in which every man, woman and child has shel- ter, food, clothing-in which there is no care for the morrow would this be desirable condition for the world? So far. yes. But if there was only enough in the world to give shelter, food and clothing, we might be well-fed animals, without care, for thousand centuries, but we could be nothing else. If there are to be higher hungers, and if men are to grow to be something moro than animals, then ha in hn hon of one and somewhere, food for supplying these higher hungers. If mon arc to think, to study, to travel, to exchange ideas, have social intercourse with each other, and be free from tho grinding roil needed for the merest animal neces- sites, they must have the means for doing all these things.
 The question now comes, when wealth has been accumulated, who shall own and control it? Before we can answer this question we must decide the ques- tion, who has produced it. A man who | stands alone can never be rich, and this even if we live in civilized com | munity. The essential feature of riches is the matter of exchange, the public use of these accumulations. Who owns wealth, then? The rich man and humanity, not the rich man alone. MT. Savage then took up the question of poverty. Defining the only poverty | really injurious to man as that which 1 took away from him the means Of growth |-prevented him from becoming what he is capable of becoming-the preacher considered tho various ways in which poverty originated. He thought that we had too much legislative action, and too little individual initiative. Vice brought poverty, and there were thousands of people in tho world | who, from one reason or another, were incapable of emerging from poverty, and were as much entitled | to our sympathy as were the crippled | and lame. l believe, said MT. Savage, | that it is possible to eliminate pauper- ism from tho world. If the community has right to support those who, for ono reason or another, are incapable of taking caro of themselves, then it has undoubtedly q right to see to it that it's resources are not ! lessened by the unthrift, the theft, the dishonesty of those who could sup port themselves if they would. It ought to exercise that right-to take tender and loving care of those who can not take care of themselves, and then to compel those who can to do one or two things-to earn their living or to starve, l And now, said MT. Savage, in closing, what shall the rich man do with his money? Or what shall he do with that surplus which he does not needP would have no laws touching l the matter. I would have men perfectly free to leave their prop erty to wife, daughter or son, 80 l r. k ;~4~ &~ on, though I believe that, nine times out of ten, sons are injured moro than they are helped by having too much money left to thcm. would educate | the thought and conscience of the world up to the point of grand use of these accumulated thousands. If I had thou- sands of millions of dollars would de. vote 1t to good uses while lived, rather | than leave 1t to be wrangled over in the courts after my death. It seems to me that should take delight in helping
 the world. I can sec men and women
 who are capable of doing work of public
 importance, yet who are hampered and l tied down to the necessity of simply filling their stomachs I would be glad | to relieve these from the necessity of earning their daily bread. Such use
 of riches, which I only throw out IS suggestion, seems much grander way of dealing with riches than that of hold
 ing them until the white fingers of death como to take them away. Why
 not take joy in doing the work well
 while you can see it done and can ob-
 serve the results? And if the poor
 gould only see the rich recognizing
 these principles and animated by thesa
 motives, enmity would disappear, tho
 world would flow together in love, ant
 the kingdom of God would be very nigh. | wideawake for Business.
 Here are some curious but expressive