The Birmingham age-herald., 1905-04-14
DR QUINCY EWING ON ROCKEFELLER GIFT Says There's No Sound Reason Why it Should be Rejected MIR. ROCKEFELLER'S SIN Has Sanctioned Methods That Have Enriched Himself at Expense of
 others"-He's Not the Only
 One, However.
MIR. ROCKEFELLER'S SIN


 of the Episcopal Church of the Advent. stated yesterday that there was in his Judgment, no sound reason why John D. Rockefeller's gift of S100,000 to be used for missionary purposes by the American Board of Foreign missions should not be accepted.
 q have no doubt" said Dr. Ewing, that the Rev Dr. Washington Gladden. and others are perfectly sincere in their protest against the acceptance on the part of the prudential committee of the Congregational church of MT Rockefel- lers slOO,OOO for foreign missions. But I must confess that, so far, l have seen no good reason advanced on which the prudential committee could base their rejection of the proffered gift.
 "This whole discussion. 1t seems to me, has savored very strongly on one side of the scripturas straining out of gnat and swallowing a camel; or, if you pre- fer, of choking at one camel and gulp- ing down a hundred others!
 "'fhe money, if I am correctly inform ed was offered not by the Standard oil company, the corporation, but by MT. John D. Rockefeller, the individual. If it would naturally arouse grave suspi- cions. Big corporations are not in the habit of sending s1OO,0OO cheques to churches to help spread the gospel of Christ in foreign lands. So offered. the prudential committee might well afford to live up to their name sufficently-to be prudent enough-to reject the money But, offered as it is by Mir Rockefeller. the individual, it can be rejected, 1t seems to me, only on the ground that MT. Rockefeller is too bad a man to be al- lowed to help pay the cost of Christianlz- ing the heathern; so bad man, that he can give no money to a good cause ex- cept stolen money-money, which he has no right to give away, because he has no right to possess it.
 Rockefeller Not Personally Bad.
 But may the prudential committee act reasonably and fairly on such ground as this? l think not For MT, Rockefel- Ter is far from being a bad man in his personal relations; and it has not been shown that in his business connections he Is one whit worse, essentially, than thousands of other men in their business connections, whose money for charitable and church purposes is accepted every day without question. There is nothing worse to be charged against Mir Rocke- feller business man than that he has sanctioned methods which were in- tended to. and did, enrich him at the expense of other peope. In other words he has gotten great deal from his fel- lowmen without giving them an ade- quate return for what he got That es- sentially is his sin against the ideal of Christian ethics. The fact that he has gotten more for himself in this way than most other captains of industry doesn't touch the gist of the question. It is principles and purposes that count in the Kingdom of God, not quantities and mag nitudes. And, when we pay attention to principles and purposes-to the funda- mental moralities-what reason have we for supposing that MT. Rockefeller is not just as fit person to help convert the heather as scores upon scores of other business men without whose cheques for eign missionary boards would fare badly?
 lniqoity ir Degree.
 Doubtless, the Standard oil companv Is an iniquitous corporation. that has done many iniquitous things; and MT. Rockefeller is identified with 1t in a busi- ess way But is it more iniquitous than other corp orations-or only just as ini- quitous and bigger? Must MT. Rockefeller have his money showed back in his. face by the Congregational church, because his iniquii ous corporation happens sim ply to be bigger than dozens of others equally iniquitous in principle and pur- pose?
 An Economic Illustration.
 There are many of us who believe that the so-ealed protective tariff Is one of giant iriquities of the time; that not only by taking advantage of its schedules. bat ty doing everything in their rower ta fx them in their interest hundreds of our captains of industry have nightly en- riched themselves at the expense of the millions of their fellow countrymen. Our democratic platform builders have not hesitated to call the protective tariff lob- pied through Congress, a 'robber tariff. And such it is. By means of it millions of dollars have been taken from the pockets of the people and transferred to the pockets of it's beneficiaries MT. Car negie for instance, has more than a hundred millions to give away, which would never have come into his possess sion but for the help of the 'robber tariff. : There can be no possible doubt that MT. Carnegie would have these millions to give away unless he had been enriched at the expense of other people-getting for himself vastly more than he gave in exehange-getting, in other words, great deal for nothing. l fail to see why Mr. carnegie's gifts for charitable purposes should be eagerly grasped at and MT. Rockefellers frowningly gagged at!
 ]. Pierpont Morgan.
 MT. J. Pierpont Morgan Is another great giver in ecclesiastical and philan- thropical circles. No proffered gift of his has ever been rejected, and none is likely to be-. But MT. Morgan is the great trust promoter of the country; and, if we have the right history of the trusts, they are not run on the principle that a fair ex- change of values is robbery They are run on the principle, rather as much as possible for us. and as little as pos sble for the other fellows Wherein is Mir. Rockefeller worse than MT. Morgan, or any other trust promoter?
 Al.