Aberdeen herald. [volume] (Aberdeen, Chehalis County, W.T.) 1886-1917, 1903-07-06
ACCEPTING GIFTS
FOR PUBLIC INSTITUTIONS FROM
MONOPOLlSTS.
I i Time Both Giver and the Gift We're
Condemned Who're the Money is Accu.
mulated :,by Questionable METHODS. A
Worthy Institution. Cannot Afford to Ac.
sept Such Money.

ghere seems to be wide difference of
,scin;on rs TO the propriety OF accepting
ITS from men like Rockefeller. Those
sl.C, solicit such gifts start in with the
proposition that worthy object has a
cigEs to call upon any one for assistance,
regardless Of he manner in which he Sc.
1seons argument in such defense is
usually hat the individual himself is a
ac::E D. generous impulses and high char
scter 21J. that even though a part OF tt e
hIcomt n derived from Objectionable
sources the contamination does not ex-
tend toahat portion Of the income derived
from legitimate sources.
TIE subject is worthy Of consideration
becarso if private monopolies continue to
yros Is IS Likely to become more and
.&ore important issue. First, can a
worthy institution afford to accept money
lhat is wrongfully accumulated? In
sr3er to establish the principle, let us
age an extreme case and assume that a
gsrg OF highwaymen should succeed in
accommodating q large sum by robbing
travellers and also succeed in SO terrifying
,he authorities as to escape punishment.
Nowld any Christian college Or any othec
worthy institution feel justified in accept
.ng donations from such group Of indi-
5itA.als while they continued in lawless-
Ness II they repented and rs far as
;hey could made return OF tie stolen
goods, and offered to some worthy insti-
i2tion that for which they could not find
ne real owner, a different question might
arise, but who would defend such a dona-
ion while diarespect for moral and
statute laws continued to be manifested?
Does it really make any difference,
.solR a moral standpoint, whether the
SIM secured is a small sum and in VIOLA.
Jon Of Statute law, or large sum Sc
cured in the absence OF law, but in viola.
sion of moral rights? In other words,
tan an institution founded on moral
principles hide itself behind mere statu-
.ory law and excuse thing which is
wrong, merely because the law does not
specifically prohibit, or, if it does pro.
-2bit, is not iigidly enforced? A private
monopoly has ALWAYS been an outlaw,
and the principle involved cannot be de-
ended from . moral standpoint. Not
9nly is Il monopoly morally wrong, but it
Is also violation OF statute law. Within
She last few days the Federal Salt Com
Many has been convicted of maintaining
: ,n@nopoll contrary 70 the anti sherman
crust law, Just as the meat packers We're
fOund guilty in Missouri of violating a
s.a.e stntute, The Standard Oil Com.
pany, like several o.ner monopo!ies, eX-
eFcises al absolute control over the price
81 oil. Ii the manager desires to make a
contribution 10 any fund he has it in his
,ower to raise the price OF oil and then
collect the amount contributed, and such
interest as he may think proper, from
The consumers. 1t is not only an i'm
moral use o! the taxing power, but an
Illegal use, even though these trusts have
80 tar had influence enough to prevent
IN enforcement of the law.
Can benevolent enterprise afford to
NJ .le recipient of money collected from
such source2
Aside from the moral principle in.
ydved, there is another question OF
5csr,ely less importance. Can the friends
0. !. benevolent enterprise afford to risk
ahe siiencing influence of such a gift?
Can hey afford to risk the restraining
effect of 3nCh an acceptance upon their
l.fs? The People who are interested in
oeneyclent enterprises are, as a rule,
persons OF active mind and OF social and
Ptli.ical influence. Are they in posi-
.yyH to denounce as strongly and as con-