The times., 1899-09-03
sIoney-Making and Money-saving.

Some people are hard to satisfy. The
very individuals who. had the late Robert
C. Ingersoll died rich man, would have
inEeighed most bitterly against his pursuit
Of wealth, are now finding fault with him
because he left his family little more than
the amount of his life insurance. They de-
clare that he should not have ''squan-
dered" his money on the help of those who
needed help, but should have made ample
provision for his wife and children in case
Of his death, even If he had closed his
heart to the appeal Of the needy during
his lifetime.
1t is not necessary to discuss Colonel In
gersoI in this connection except as an ex-
ample of a certain way of living. There
from what they probably call indiscrimi-
nate giving, that they may leave their fam
lilies a fortune of gocdly size, and perhaps
bestow other fortunes on educational and
religious institutions, when their time
comes to stop making money. There are
others who like TO see where their money
goes. and what it is doing. and desire pres
ent comfort rather than future credit for
themselves. 1t is easy to call such men
spendthrifts, but in this present age OF
the world perhaps it is as well that some
OF them exist.
There is one argument in favor of the
man who lives from day to day, even from
an aItruistic point of view. He is not in
much danger of making a mistake in his
charities. lie knows where to put dollar
so that it viii be Of real help and does not
cut off a large slice of his fortune and be-
stow it on an association which is man
aged by several expensive officers. He is
his own dispenser OF aims, and usually i'm
presses his benefciaries, not only with the
goodness of the world in general, but with
the beneyoIence of one particular man,
which, all things considered, is good les
sen to learn.
The poor who receive aid from an or
ganized charity are in some danger OF COM
ing TO think that aid is their right; if
they are helped by a man whose person
aliiy is associated with his gifts, and whom
they accept in some sort as their guide.
philosopher, and friend, the effect is likely
TO be more salutary Moreover, the man
who has taken some especial proteges un-
der his care for several years knows their
wants and needs better than the average
agent of charities, and is less likely to
injure their -respect-if he is the right
sort Of man And finally, the personal con-
tact between man and man. felt in an in
dlvldualistic system OF charity, creates a
kindness between the rich and the poor
which is too often absent in communities
where all the money for the poor is doled
out by associations. All things considered,
it seems best both for the individual and
the community that the man who has
money should attend to the disbursing of
It himself.
The argument that man should leave
his family a fortune sufficient TO supply their
needs has been used by many persons for
very evil ends. II has been an excuse for
the pillng up OF enormous fortunes by ques-
iionable means; 1t has made men truckle.
and grovel, and steal, and lie, and sell their
self-respect. Has It never occurred TO the
specious moralist that man can leave
his children no better legacy than the mem