Connecticut western news., 1893-02-09
THE LEAVING OF MONEY.

Why Jay Gould Was Justified in Bequeath-
 ing His Fortune He Did.
 Jay Gould left his great estate to his children, as might reasonably have been expected of him. When men accumu- late 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 man should rightfully look first aAer his own household prevails among the people.
 When the estate is as vast as MT. Gould's, however, some newspapers utter exclamations 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 Lad not made.
 If mopil obligation to give away his money thus rests on a man, it rests on him personally and during his own life. He does not discharge it by keeping the moner 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. erosity, 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 his offense 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.
 It was made evident during MT. 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 att tention to his religious obligations as he understood them. He became diligent attendant upon Presbyterian church, and he gave his open adherence to its se- were doctrines of future accountability for his conduct in this life. He was not an infidel 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 compulsion 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 money. He made each of them his own almoner, with power to use his own in- come in his own way, as he himself had done and insisted on doing. That is all. New York Sun.