The Caucasian. (Shreveport, La.) 1900-192?, 1903-06-21
GIFTS FROM MONOPOLISTS.
MORAL STANDPOINT OF THE
PRINCIPLE INVOLVED.
Can Worthy Institution Afford t
Accept Money Wrongfu1ly
Accumulated?

Accumulated?
The article following is from The
Commoner Organs paper) of recent
date:
| There seems to be a wide difference
Of opinion as to the propriety of accept
ing gifts from men like Rockefeller.
| Those who solicit such gifts start in
with the proposition that a worthy OBJ
ject has right to call upon any one
for assistance, regardless of the manner
| in which he secured possession of his
| money; and the second argument in
such a defense is usually that the in
dividtal himself is man of generous
impulses and high character and tina.
even though part of the income is
derived from Objectionable sources, the
contamination does not extend tohtat
portion of the income derived from
legitimate sources.
The subject Is worthy of considera-
ton because if privatee monopo1ies con-
tinue to grow, it is likely to become a
more and more important issue. First,
can worthy institution afford to ac-
eept money that is wrongfully accumu
lated? In order to establish the GRIN
ciple, let us take an extreme case and
assume that gang of highWaymen
should succeed in aceumulating large
sum by robbing travellers and also sue
coed in so terrifying the authorities as
to escape punishment. Would any
Christian college or any other worthy
institution feel justified in accepting do
nations from such a group of indi-
viduals while they continued in Iawlees-
ness? II they reperted and as far as
they could made return of the stolen
goods, and offered to some worthy in
stItution that for which they could not
find the real owner, a different question
might arise, but who would defend such
donation while diisrespect for moral
and statute laws continued to be man
Tested
Does it really make any difference
from a moral standpoint whether the
sum secured is small sum and in VII
olat11on Of statute law, or a large sum
secured in the absence of law, but in
violation Of moral rights? In other
words, can an institution founded on
moral principles hide itself behind mere
statutory law and excuse thing which
Is wrong. merely because the law does
not specifically prohibit, or, if it does
prohibit. it is not rigidly enforced ?
a private monopoly has always been
an outlaw. and the principle involved
cannot be defended from moral stand |
point. Not only is monopoly morally |
wrong, but it is also a violation of |
statute law Within the last few days
the Federal Salt company has been con-
vtcted OF maintaining a monopoly con-
trary to the anti-Sherman trust law.
just as the meat packers were found
guilty in Missouri of violating state |
statute. The Standard Oil company,
like several other monopolies, exercises
an absolute control over the price of
oil. If the manager desires to make a
contribution to any fund he has it in
his power to raise the price of oil and /
then collect the amount contributed, and
such interest as he may think proper,
from the consumers. It is not only an
immoral Use Of the taxing power, but
an illegal use, even though these trusts
have SO far had influence enough to
an enforcement of the law.
Can benevolent institution afford to
pc the recipient Of money collected from
such source
Aside from the moral principle in
volyed, there is another question of
scarcely less importance Can friends of
institutions afford to risk the
s1lencing influence Of such a gift? CanI
hey afford to risk the restraining eff
fect Of such an acceptance upon theirI
fps The people who are interested inI
benevolent enterprises are, as a rule,
persons Of active mind and Of social andI
political influence. Are they in a POI
'ltlon to denounee as strongly and asl
as they should, the conduct