The Washington weekly post., 1900-12-04
TIE CHEAP GIVING OF THE RICH.
Reflections sssse.teS by A. :. IIewitt's
Address ts Edaeatieaaf Alliance.

From the cIsvelsaa Leader.
Abram s Hewitt. formerly mayor OF
New York and member OF Congress, has
long been man OF wealth and distinctiOa-
He has been successful in business and
hOnoref in society. No one could speak
severely Of the shortcomings of the rich
With less risk OF being written down an
envious or mischievous person. seeking
any unworthy end.
Therefore when Mr. Hewitt told the
Educational Alliance. at a meeting held
IN his own splendid ana fabulouS,y
wealthy city. that the rich were very far
trom doing their duty 10 the poor. and
asserted that their giving even the freest
ana the greatest. Is relatively small aud
inadequate. he was listened 10 as ore
speaking with authority. lie : out OF
po'ities For two national campaigns he
has stood with the organization against
winch ne used TO struggle In the more
conservative days OF Democracy He has
nothing 70 gain by sensationalism.
And the rich manufacturer and civie
leader is right. The giving OF the rich,
even the most imposing and famous OF the
eenefactions Of the very wealthy, Is snaH
and niggardly BY contrast with the offer
ings or the poor. II is vast n amount. In
ngures it Is the most notable giving ever
Known, out weighed against the wealth
out OF which II Is taken Il amounts 20 lit
tie Measured by the personal sacrifice
involved. by the narrowed opportunities
for enjoyment the pinching and care re-
quired 10 get along without what Is given.
all the gifts OF all the milii0naires coin-
bined cannot stand against the relief thac
very poor people give those still poorer
when simple tragedy Of death or terrible
Illness blaekens some dark nreslde In the
slunls OF great city.
Can a man who retains sl0.O00 600. or one
tenth OF that sum. out OF his yearly In
come be said TO make any personal sacri-
flee If he deyotss all the rest OF his annual
gains 10 benevoleuce or philanthropy?
Does his generosity entail any iack7
Does il make the least difference 10 him
except in the accumulation OF money be-
yOnd his utmost possible wants?
But the unnotlced giving of the poor and
much OF that which is done by the middle
classes must always mean sef-denial. It's
price is paid in less enjoyable food, less
satisfactory clothing fewer books and
pictures, narrower advantages for chill
dren. restricted travel and sightseeing.
II means less provision for the chances Of
adversely. more danger of want in old age
or long Illness. II is real giving OF the
very heart and spirit of the glyer Who
shall presume TO measure in the same bal
ance such gifts and the great sums set
apart by the very wealthy for purposes
Of charity or any other public object so
long as such use of riches implies no pr
vation and costs no self-denial?
Mr. Hewitt emphasized another phase Of
the meager giving OF the rich when he
pointed out that by letting the poor lack
ample means OF education In youth and
reasonable opportunities for se,f-improye
ment all through life the pOssessors of
wealth were neglecting the best possible
precautions against social disorder and
excesses. He laid great stress on the need
of schools, libraries. museums. and like
institutions as safeguards against danger
Gus forms of vice and ignorance. He as
serted that from a purely selfish point Of
view every rich man must do more giving
than he has done heretofore IL he is to be
guided by prudence.
The obligations Of great wealth are
much discussed at present, but there is
still more to be said on that great subject.
II is a matter Of the utmost Importance
in a country where great fortunes are
rolling up TO prodigious size with the
rapidity witnessed in the United States.