The Washington weekly post., 1900-12-04
TIE CHEAP GIVING OF THE RICH.
Reflections suggested BY A. :. Hewitt's
Address q, Educational AlIlanee.


| Prom Ire clsvelEns Leader.
Abram s Hewitt. formerly mayor OF
New York and member OF Congress. has
| long been a man OF wealth and distinction.
| He has been successful IN business and
honored in society. No me could speak
severely OF the shortcomings of the rich
with less risk Of being written down an
envious or mischlevous person. seeking
| any unworthy end
Therefore when Mr.. Hewitt told the
Educational Alliance. at a meeting held
In his own splendid and tabulously
wealthy city. that the rich were very far
from doing their duty 10 the poor. and
asserted that their giving. even the freesI
and the greatest. is relatively small aud
Inadequate. he was listened 10 as ore
speaking with authority. He 5 out Of
1 politics. For two national campaigns he
has stood with the organization against
which he used 10 struggle in the more
conservative days OF Democracy. He has
nothing TO gain By sensationalism.
And the rich Manufacturer and ciyic
leader is right. The giving OF the rich.
even the most imposing and famous OF the
benefactions OF the very wealthy. Is small
and niggardly by contrast with the offer
ings or the poor. Ii il vast IN amount. In
! figures ii is the most notable giving ever
known. but weighed against the wealth
out OF which IL Is taken IL amounts 10 lit
tie Measured by the personal sacrifice
involved. by the narrowed opportunities
for enjoyment, the pinching and care re-
qured 10 get along without what Is given,
all the gifts of ell the millionalres co,n-
! bined cannot stand against the relief tha,
very poor people give those still poorer
when a simple tragedy of death or terrible
illness blackens some dark freside In the
slums Of a great city.
Can a man who retains $40. .Oo0 900. or one
| tenth Of that sum. out OF his yearly in
come be said TO make any personal sacri-
flee IL he devotes all the rest of his annual
gains to benevOence or philanthropy?
Does his generosity entail any lack
Does it make the least difference to him
except In the accumulation OF money be-
yond his utmost possible wants?
But the unnoticed giving Of the poor and
much of that which Is done by the middle
classes must always mean self-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
IL 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 giver. 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
I ample means of education in youth and
reasonable opportunities for se,f-improve-
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 If 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.
! 1t 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.