The daily morning journal and courier. [volume] (New Haven, Conn.) 1894-1907, 1905-03-23
ROCKEFELLER'S GIFT
TO AMERICAN BOARD
ITS REFUSAL A MOST PULLING
MORAL PROBLEM.
Questions That Prominent Ministers Are
Asking Themseives-Rev. DIR. Henry
A. stimson Thinks Gift should be Ac-
cepted-Dr. Parkhurst's Condemna-
tion-Confldence in Board of Foreign

+~~S.
New York, March 22-In the protest
against accepting the 100000 gift of
Board Of Foreign Missions of the Com
gregational church, ministers and char
ity workers of New York see an ex-
ample of one of the most puzzling NOR
al problems Of the time. Should only
such money be accepted for charitable
purposes as has been earned by honest
methods? Or are the methods of earn
ing the money and the motives OF the
giver questions that need not be consid-
cred. SO long as the money is devoted
to a good end?
The Rev. Dir. Henry A. Stinson, min
lister Of the Manhattan Congregational
is church at Broadway and west Sew
enty-siSth street. and recording secre-
tary to the Board of Foreign Missions,
to the commissioners of which the pro-
test was addressed, said to-day:
There is a growing sentiment that.
there should be a closer scrutiny as to
the origin and motives Of gifts for
charitable purposes. This sentiment is
right, but 1t can have no reference to
the present case. Whatever the means
by which Mr.. Rockefeller accumulated
the 100000, it is not the duty of the
board to inquire into his business meth
DDS. nor into the business methods OF.
any one who makes a gift for charit-
abb purposes.
The duty of the board is simply to
accept the gift and dispose of it ac-
cording to the purposes for which 1t
was made. This is the board s duty
for the simple reason that the board Is
not the recipient or beneficiary Of ths
gift but merely the agent to effect a
transfer for parties wishing to make
gifts for charity. 1t has no more of
moral problem than an express COM
pany. when it undertakes to carry a
package from one address to another.
Moreover, from stiIf another point Of
view, the board has no moral question
to consider in accepting money for
charitable purposes. whatever its origin
For the board is only the trustee for
the poor or the heather for whom the
money Is Intended That the board is
only the trustee would be upheld by the
common law In courts. AS trustee, then,
the board has no right at all to refuse
to accept or manage money. already,
by the act of the donor. belonging to
the beneficiaries. The board itself is
not beneficiary. Only one or two per
cent. Of the gifts goes to It, in order to
pay the expense Of maintenance and
the disposition Of the money.
3"All the rest goes to the foreign
heather, They alone are the beneficia-
ries, and 1t is for them alone, and not
for the board, to refuse to accept the
money. IL they feel any moral scruples
as to the method BY which it was ac-
quired.
"It would be prepostefous. obvious
ly, to require credentials as to the bus
mess straightness Of every one wishing
to make a gift for charity. You SIMPLY
can't tell how money has been earned.
If you attempted to find out, you would
bring to standstill the machinery Of
good things. Charities would stop. As
/ say. it is only the beneficiaries who
have the right to refuse a gift. The
trustees, in case they object to taking
charge OF certain gift, have only the
option OF resigning their positions.
The Rev. DR.. Charles II. Parkhurst Of
the Madison Square Presbyterian
church held the opposite view, though
he thought the problem too complicat-
ed for categorical yes or no.
IF people should object, as would"
said DR.. Parkhurst,. 'to going to Dry
Dollar Sullivan for missionary money,
they would object to taking it if Dry
Dollar Sullivan brought it to them Of
his own accord. II the phraseology in
the petition in regard to Mr.. Rockefel-
Ter is valid, don't wonder IL a degree