The independent. [volume] (Lincoln, Neb.) 1902-1907, 1905-04-27
THE RAID ON RocKEFELLERIsM


100000 press and pulpit have generally COM
mented upon the moral aspect OF the contribu-
ton. While many pulpits and religious journals
have defended the acceptance of the gift, the
secular press as a whole has severely condemned
1t. Rev. Washington GLADDEN. has led in the OPP
position by the clergy and Rev Joseph Strong of
New York is also among the prominent oppo-
nents DR.. Strong raised the following objec-
lions:
fa3,s I'VE are told by those who approve the ac-
ceptance of the gift that it is not the business
OF a church, charitable organization or mission
I, airy society to sit in judgment on the character
!, of the contributions to it's work. This simply
j, begs the real question at issue. Can church
% society thus wash it's hands of all responsibility
touching all gifts which may come to it's treasury
without violating fundamental principles of ethics?
A man may become possessed of money to which
he has no moral right in great variety Of ways,
4 but whatever the method the fundamental ethi-
cal principle remains the same-namely, that
man has no right to give that which is not his,
and no one has right to receive gift which
the donor has no right to give. This ethical
principle which is beyond all possible question,
is precisely applicable to the case in hand, and
the prudential committee can not vacate it by
fusing to recognize it.
ut is charged by many that Mr.. Rockefeller
has acquired large proportion of his wealth
through illegitimate methods and that to such ill
gotten gains he has no moral right illegal rights
dc not enter into the discussion). Multitudes be-
lieve that undisputed facts raise reasonable
doubt, to say the least, whether Mr.. Rockefeller
has a moral right to the money which he gives
away.
"It follows, therefore, that the board has no
right to accept his gift until that reasonable doubt
Is removed. ! would not say that the prudential
committee has right to accept this principle. It
has right to reject it. The acceptance of ethi-
cal principles is not optional For more than TWEEN
ty years we have deplored the fact that working
men, class, refuse to attend church. When
ked why, the habitual reply is that the churches
belong to the capitalistc Glass; which is not deal
ing justly with labor When men who have kept
back the laborers' hire contribute largely to the
religious objects and their gifts are accepted,
workingmen believe that the church condones in
justice and are embittered against her. The con-
science of the church touching wealth profoundly
needs quickening The new conditions of society
demand higher ethical standards. This is most
favorable time to respond to the new need"
af Mr.. GLADDEN. also deplores the fact that the
Christian church has no hold on the aboring
classes and thinks its willingness to become the
beneficiary of corrupt riches largely accounts for
1t. t5 b
-4' The secular journals constitute cloud of
witnesses to the unrighteousness of the accept
dIfC0s oI WHICH d lew Only Inlay ne SulIHOHeu mere
The Philadelphia North American treats the ques-
ton with jocular sarcasm: $50 Mr.. Rockefeers
100000 contribution was business investment,
based the theory that trade follows the mis-
sionary.' Soon, no doubt, wsll see Evangelism,
common and preferred, listed on the exchanges"
The Kansas City Star has persistently con-
demned the acceptance of the gift Following are
samples of it's many home thrusts:
IF the conscience of the church should con-
denim and refuse to be made rich by the gains of
the trusts" said the Rev. Dr. George F. Pente-
COST of the Madison Avenue Baptist church in
New York on Sunday, mo power earth could
prevent those trusts from being overhrown:" A
+ moral vital and automatic truth has been uttered
by no man in the progress of the discussion of the
trust evil. That it has not been accepted for its
palpable worth and acted upon, shows, alas the
lamentable failure of the churches to rise to the
measure of their great opportunities"