New-York tribune., 1905-07-28
DEMOCRACY IN GIVING.

Mr.. Bryan makes a pertinent addition to
the tainted money" discussion Of character
which was hardly to be expected from him. He
is. of course, ready to condemn the men who
have made great fortunes out of trusts. He
Is as ready to hold gold piece responsible for
the moral standards of its giver as DR.. Glad
den himself. He does not want the colleges
to live on the bounty of fnanciers of whose
| methods he does not approve. Yet he has a
| decidedly practical eye and believes that when
men ask college president on whcm has been
laid the responsibility of carrying an institu-
tion to financial success to reject a gift from
some one whom they condemn they ought to
offer him the alternative Of adequate ''untaint-
ed" support. The colleges have to live as they
can, and 1t is not inspiring to see men who
themselves are the last to give q penny de-
nouncing somebody else who does give and
those who in their straits accept his contribu-
| ton. Mr.. Bryan says:
I have had some experience in this matter.
Illinois College, located at Jacksonville. H. is
one OF the most deserving of the small colleges.
It needs mone- 60 enable II to do the work It
has in hand. AS member OF the board of trus
tees, have opposed accepting money from the
trusts. and have appealed to the public for aid
for II. But a few-a very few-have responded.
the total amount received as a result OF the
appeal has been less than $1,000. The failure Of
the masses to support the small colleges is liable
to be construed Indifference to the insidious
efforts now being made by the trusts to subsl
die our colleges. Nothing would so much
courage the colleges to refuse tainted money 8
an outpouring OF contributions from those who
want to keep institutions OF learning free
from pollution. II the farmers business men,
professional men ano laborers would send what
they could spare with assurances of interest, II
would strengthen those colleges which still
independent No amount is too small to help.
There Is a good deal in this. If the people
are really concerned for the characterization OF
education. If they really want to keep the col
%hn 81 In,
fuence of the mulu-milIionares. they ought to
stir around and contribute their own ''untaint-
ed" money-so far as they have any. A few
institutions with large number of prosperous
and enthusiastic graduates are able TO raise a
good deal of money by popular subscription.
But the institutions whose constituents are al
most entirely persons Of moderate means have
great difficulty in securing support for the
work which they can do well and for which
their communities really have need. The old
days of popular interest in colleges, when citi-
zens OF small property made sacrifices to sup
port them, have passed away. Giving is not so
democratic as it once was, and consequently
the dependent are compelled to accept other
aid.
There is another side TO the question. suggest
ed by "The Springfield Republican" which
points out that the decay Of popular giving
may not be the cause but the effect Of the
vast benefactions. II may be that men who in
a popular movement would give $50 or S1OO
feel that it is hardly worth while If some trust
magnate can be touched" for half-million.
In a day when even great fortunes did not tre-
mendousy exceed a modest competence sense
of common responsibility prevailed. But now
the tendency with the average man Is to think
that those whose accumulatons are so vastly
beyond any human need must. with their I'M
mense surplus be the natural source Of largess.
The result is less self-denial and less close
popular interest in public institutions, and this
tendency is not greatly counteracted by the
habit of some large gvers of making the pub
lie match their gifts. 1t sometimes stimulates
to activity, but it is more or less resented and
does not promote real enthusiasm for the insu-
tuition to which persons are thus dragooned into
giving.