The Dalles daily chronicle. [volume] (The Dalles, Or.) 1890-1948, 1897-07-13
is 1T PHILANTHROPY.


the Des Moines (Ia.) Baptist college
that he will give So for every dollar
the college will raise from other
sources. This is commendabIe way
to get rid of some of his money, and
yet there is a moral to the tale other
than would appear at first glance.
The spending of money for the en-
lightenment of the world for better
ing the conditions of man, are among
the noblest objects that move human
ity. On this coast was notable ex-
ample of this kind of philanthropy,
the establishing and endowIng of
Stanford university by Leland g.
Stanford. Yet the same moral may
be drawn from that story as from the
other. There can be no quarrel with
the donation, no looking of gift
horse in the mouth, no fault finding,
because forsoooth some of the money
that supports the college comes from
making of wine. The gift is only in
the nature of restitution, the money,
and much more, was taken from the
people. In Rockefeller's case the
money which lie so generously offers
was taken from the consumers of
coal oil, through charging a price for
it so far above the cost of produc-
tion that profit ceased and larceny
began. True, put in his place, prob
ably every man in the United States
that had his opportunities and his
business ability, would have done as
he did-paid as small wages and sold
for as big prices as he could get.
Yet, because of this we say the
gifts are not philanthropic, but re.
storative. Philanthropy would have
left the larger portion of the Rookie
fe!ler millions in the pockets of the
consumers of coal oil, instead of
reaching to the bottoms of their
pockets. 1t was the same with STAN
ford. He levied an unholy tax on
the people in railroad charges, robbed
the government, and eased his con-
science and gratified his vanity just
as the bandit does who exacts ransom
from prisoner and gives part of his
plunder in charity.
1t would be better if the money of
the people could be left with them
if business, especially such business
as Rockefeller and Stanford we're en-
gagged in, could be so regulated by
law that its profits could not 90 be
yond certain per cent. Yet this
will probably not be done this side
of Utopia. The gifts of these men
and others have been munificent, but
so were their schemes of plumber,
and their magnifcence is what blinds
the world to the criminal manner in
which the money that made the gifts
possible was produced. Had the
thefts been smaller, they would have
been looked upon in different light.
Down on the road between White
Pine and Phoebe, in Nevada, a man
named Charley DAILY took horse
from a rancher, not for himself, but
just to permit poor fellow who was
broke, sick and sore-footed, to ride
out of the country. The act in one
sense was pure philanthropy, and yet
that ranchman, assisted by some
hard-hearted neighbors who were not
esthetic enough to appreciate the act,
but set it down as case of horse
stealing, caught Charles DAILY, and
with scant time, but abundant rope,
hanged said Charles Daily to the end
of wagon pole, set on end for the
purpose. And yet DAILY gave all
that he took to the poor.
Wherein is the difference between
the cases of Rockefeller and Stanford
and Charles DAILY?