The united opinion. [volume] (Bradford, Vt.) 1881-1970, 1893-01-06
THE LEAVING OF MONEY.
Why Jay Gould Was Justified in Bequeath-
ing His Fortune as He Did.

why Jay Gould was ID uStined IN fSequcatn-
ing His Fortune as He Did.
Jay Gould left his great estate to his
children, as might reasonably have been
expected of him. When men accumu-
ute money, much or little, it is natural
that they should hand it down to their
children, if they have them, and gener-
ally the public sentiment commends
them for so doing. The feeling that a
man should rightfully look first after
his own household prevails among the
people.
When the estate is as vast as Mr..
Goulds, however, some newspapers utter
ordinations of surprise and protest If
some of it is not bequeathed for public
purposes or for organized charities. They
seem to proceed on the assumption that
the man is bound to take away from his
children money which he himself would
not give up during his life. In other
words, they would require him to force
his children to make benefactions which
he himself had not made.
If moral obligation to give away his
money thus rests on man, it rests on
him personally and during his own life.
He does not discharge it by keeping the
monev while he lives and compelling his
children to give it away for him after
his death. If his money or any part of
it belongs to the public of right, it be-
longs to them during the life of the man,
not merely at his death He is respon-
sible for the stewardship and is account
able for its performance, and he cannot
transfer to others the obligation.
Really it cannot be called noble gen.
crosby, high altruism, for a man to give
away his money only after he is dead
and he has no more use for it. He should
be his own almoner during his own life.
If the methods by which he obtained his
fortune were culpable in his own estima-
ton and he wishes to make atonement
for them in departing from this life, he
can do it only by returning to the indi
viduals the money which he took from
them wrongfully. He does not whiten
lis ofense by giving it to somebody else.
If it belongs rightfully to others besides
himself, it belongs to those from whom
he got it by unjust means.
1t was made evident during Mr.
Gould's life that he had no such consci-
entious scruples as to the means by
which he accumulated his great estate.
Death did not come to him unexpected
ly. For years past he must have been
forewarned that his life was approach
ing its end. The consciousness that his
time ON earth was likely to be short
probably induced him to pay special at
tention to his religious obligations as he
understood them. He became diligent
upon Presbyterian church,
and he gave his open adherence to its Sc
we're doctrines of future accountability
for his conduct in this life. He was not
an infdel. He was an orthodox believer.
He must have died thinking that his for
tune was rightfully his own and had
been obtained by means consistent with
the obligations of religion. He could not
have felt that he was under the moral
of making restitution to any
body.
In leaving his fortune to his children
he put upon each of them the burden of
his own moral responsibility to use his
He made each of them his own
almoner, with power to use his own in
come in his own way, as he himself had
lone and insisted on doing That is all.
New York Sun.