The Austin weekly statesman. (Austin, Tex.) 1883-1898, 1897-10-21
THE CHARITY OF PUBLIC OFF,
GALS

II is estimated that $10,000000 is an
nuay given away by public officials in
private charities. A contemporary, al
ludng to this fact, remarks that Moth
| ing is finer in the human makeup than
the charitable impulse, but it is easily
subject TO abuse If our contemporary
| imagines that any charitable impulse in
fuences the gifts of public functionaries,
it's observation has been very limited.
Our observation is that public officials
are charitable at only one season of the
year. and that is just before the cleo
tions are held. This kind of charity,
while selfish in its nature, not only in
creases general mendicancy, but it cor
rupts elections and is doubly vicious i'll
two ways.
We doubt whether or not there is any
benefit arising from indiscriminate char
ity, but we are very certain the donations
made by politicians create begging
class that adds its numbers to the indi-
gent already existing and directly cor
rupts the ballot box. At any rate, there
is no kind Of giving as offensive to good
morals and that tends so strongly to
break down manhood as the kind of char
ity in which $10,0O0,000 are annually
expended by public officials That is the
kind of charity(D that the law can reach
and cure. We are not in favor OF cur
failing organized charity, but when we
are Informed from reliable sources that
$10,OOO,OO0 are annually given away by
public officials. and when we know so
well that every dollar of it is in the shape
of q bride, we favor law that will meet
the case and cure the evil.
A law prohibiting promiscuous giving
by public officials would not limit the
charitable in the least, for there are
avenues of organized charity through
which the liberal might indulge their
charitable inclinations, and law as we
suggest would not curtail real charity,
but it would put Il stop to bribery i'll the
livery of charity. The present laws do
not provide any penalty for this kind of
giving, which always comes appealing for
aid in u shape apparently with no inten-
ton of influencing voters, but which Is
reduced to such Il system as to include
one way or another voters and which
really means bride for votes. 1t comes
in the questionable shape of building Il
church or some such charitable purpose,
but which is really understood at the
time 20 be bid for votes, as the can
didate who refuses to give will find out
on election day to his sorrow. If all the
churches were built for which subscrip-
tons are collected from candidates dur
ing election times, we would be crowded
with churches all over the land, but the
intention to build the church passes out
of the recollection of everybody as soon
as the election day is over and appears
next year just at the same time with
renewed audacity. We do not object
but favor building churches, but we Use
this as an illustration familiar to every
candidate for county offices, and on their
behalf quite as much as good morals we
favor law by which all such charities(D
shall be cut off, especially during an elec
ton. 1t would relieve the candidate of
an unnecessary expenditure of hard
earned money and it would cure a double
evil that is eating into the purity of the
ballot box