The Montgomery advertiser., 1903-01-21
xNrrnRLY. Too souEAMIsH.

pr. John Bascon, who was once Presi- dent of the University of Wisconsin. re gently advanced theory of monetary ethics that Is causing no little comment and discussion in the country. Among other things he said:
 No money that is obtained at the ex- pense of the people can ever be used for the good of the people. There are no trusts in the intellectual world, ana no cor. ners in the Kingdom of Heaven. I doubt the power of any university or coneke that has been made at the expense of the communfty into the welfare of the com munity, The taint of bad temper VIII cling to it, will lurk in it like Q flavor in an unclean infusion.
 The theory. or sentiment upon which this opinion is based Is that money which has been obtained in any doubtful or dis reputable manner cannot be beneficiaily used by any educational or religious in stitution. At the outset we are reminded of the needy old woman who received some money from q bad source and was criticised for accepting it. well" she replied maybe the devil brought 1t, but NIO0 cChS ". 6lAS Wod AlOS WttiAtS to eA0T init that a gift to her was injurious be- cause the source from which it came might not have been pure.
 And at the beginning we might inquire what he means by Money that is ob- tained ct the expense of the people" if he had not in another part of his dis course made 1t plain that he referred to gifts from men like Rockefeller and Carnegie who have growp immensely rich and have been making gifts for educa- tional and religious purposes. His mean ing is that these vastly wealthy men ob- tained at least a portion of their wealth by expressing the poor and by other methods which are not strictly in accord
 with the golden rule. Professor Bascom tells the colleges, as a contemporary puts 1t, that If they share the swag they
 cannot escape some of the infamy that attaches to the theft" In other words, the colleges and other institutions which accept gifts from these magnates place | themselves in the position of receivers of
 stolen goods.
 Now, whether these rich givers made | all or any portion of their money by dis reputable methods might be question of ethics as well as of facts, but leaving that mooted point out of the discussion | it is certainly fair to inquire how or
 in what way could money, wrongfully
 obtained, be better used than by giving
 it to educational or religious purposes? Let us admit, for example, that MT. | Rockefeller has ground the poor, has | taken advantage of the needy, and has accumulated vast wealth by morally ille- gal methods, what shall he do with it! He cannot possibly return it to his vic
 tins or divide it out among the many l thousands from whom he obtained 1t. In short, he cannot return the money to those from whom 1t was obtained, and it
 occurs to us that, admitting that it was
 obtained dishonestly, the best possible
 use he can put 1t to is to establish insti-
 tutions of learning, pay off church debts
 assist colleges and schools and in other I ways put it where It will benefit others
 Is not that better than to lock 1t up in his vaults, or to use it to accumulate
 more millions in the same way the other
 was obtained?
 We admit that colleges and other in. stitutions should not toady to the rich
 in order to- obtain benefaetions. but il
 men will obtain wealth unfairly foi
 Heavens sake let them devote a portion
 of 1t to good uses.