Waterbury evening Democrat., 1905-03-29

World. It is recognized that if such a gift is refused on the ground that it carries with it the taint of the busi- ness which produced it hundreds of millions of dollars would soon be cut off from the religious, charitable and educational institutions of the country.
 The ethical problem presented in this protest, made at time when the own CTS of vast and rapidly accumulated fortunes are increasingly interesting themselves in philanthropic enterprises, inspired the World to seek the opinion of men competent to speak on the sub- ject.
 Bishop Potter of New York, the head of the largest and richest Protestant diocese in America, was asked:
 What are the ethics that should gov ern a church or charitable institution in accepting gifts of money from a source on which there may be the sus- picion of taint?"
 "The means by which money has been made" replied the bishop slowly, 'is a legitimate subject for the inves tigation of any religious or charitable organization to which it may be given. Scruples of conscience as to the source of such donations are natural and prop CT, but in considering the propriety of accepting or declining gift it would be wise to be guided by known facts and not by mere rumor.
 "I know that many charges have been made against the Standard Oil company, for instance, but I am not aware that any of them has been ac- tually proved. But, as l have said, it would be legitimate to investigate the methods by which it has made its for tune before consenting to accept any share in it. This is not new problem; it has come up before in the case of several colleges. and, if my memory serves me rightly. several gifts of this character have been declined in the past"
 That is the opinion of bishop famil- far with the great American centers of money making. churchman who knows where and how millionaires get their money as well as he knows the necessities of churches, hospitals, col leges and asylums.
 Francis Lynde Stetson was also asked to utter his views. Mir. Stetson is J. Pierpont Morgan's lawyer. He is also a distinguished canonical expert and is a lay member of the house of deputies of the Protestant Episcopal church. This is Mir. Stetson's reply:
 "I deem it no duty of mine to pass judgment on either those who would accept or those who would reject Mir. Rockefeller's munificent gift to the worthy cause of foreign missions. But were such my duty could not act without further knowledge of the facts.
 Suspicion and rumor constitute in- sufficient basis for insult to one offer ing to benefit mankind. Personally would cheerfully and gratefully vote so that the world should not lose the ben eft of this latest of the many and vast liberalities of Mir. Rockefeller, whom I have never seen and with whom I have nveer had any relations; but, consider ing the magnitude and persistence of his efforts for the permanent good of mankind and also the personal con duct of the real man as attested by those who do know him. I cannot be- lieve him deserving the reproach i'm piled fin the objections published with out supporting evidence"
 Bishop D. $. Futile, the venerable presiding bishop of the Episcopal house of bishops. is a veteran of the western missionary fields. There Is no more virile and earnest figure in the re- iigious life of the country. Telegraph ing from St Louis. Bishop Futile says:
 'It seems to me that not individuals. but the courts of the land. are the prop CT authorities to determine that money is dishonestly acquired. Till so deter mined and rejected If the owner of money desires to give it for Gods cause and good work the gift should be thankfully received"
 . Against these views comes the fol- lowing telegram from the Rev. Ruen Thomas of Boston. one of the Congre- gational clergymen who protested against the acceptance of Mfr. Rocke- feller's S1O0,OOO:
 "The Boston clerymen have protest ed to satisfy their own consciences. Mir. Rockefeller stands before the whole country as the representative of un-C Christian. oppressive. cruel business methods. Clergymen cannot consist entiy indorse monopoly. tyranny. heart Iessness. The effect of applauded sue cess of this kind before young men ev- erywhere is morally disastrous We do not undertake to dictate to others what they ought to do. As far as possible we want our own hands clean
 These are the opinions of churchmen representing the three phases of thought aroused by the controversy. From Toronto comes a telegram rePre- epntins secular scholarship and moral philosophy Professor Goodwin Suftr was invited to give his views and re piled as follows
 "If it is certain and notorious that the money has been criminally made 90 that public scandal would be giver by acceptaDce- wouh reject But should not think it necessary to scru tinize. Good is being done. though i may possibly be coming out of evil Robert C. Orlen- the partner of Johr wanamaker in New Yo-f is pres5dea