The Montgomery advertiser., 1905-04-14
TAINTED MONEY
FOREIGN CHURCHES ENDOWED
 WITH FUNDS OF EVIL ORIGIN.
BishOp Who Gets ss0,OoO n Year From Gambling Resorts--English Charf- ties Benefit By Funds of In-
 famous Unurer.

famous Usurer.
 Marquise De Fontenoy in New York Tribune.
 So much has been written about tainted money in connection with the offer of S100.000 by John D. Rocke1ei- Ter to the American board of foreign missions that it may be almsot super fluous to recall to mind the fact that an enormous number of churches, as well as religious and philanthropic In stitutfons in Europe, owe their origin, their endowment and their mainte- nance to money that cannot be describ- ed otherwise than as not merely taint- ed. but actually of evil origin. Thus, the great public gambling establish ment at Monte Carlo contributes each year the sum of $3O,000 toward the pay ment of the salary of the bishop of Monaco and toward the stipends Of the Chapter of the Cathedral, which latter was entirely rebuilt and endowed by the casino company: that is to say, by the proprietors of the most elaborate gambling establishment in the world, with their earnings from the tables.
 In nearly all the continental coun- tries of Europe state. provincial and municipal lotteries with money prizes are run for the benefit of the various public charitable institutions, while in France the government with the ob- ject of putting an end to the robbery of the public by dishonest bookmakers and poolroom owners. has taken charge of all the betting on races. runs, in fact a huge state bookmaking estab- lishment, the profits of which are en- tirely turned over to the various phil anthropic institutions maintained by the state.
 The whole of Europe. from one end to the other the Continent &s well as the United Kingdom, is dotted with churches, hospitals and charitable in stitutions which have been erected and endowed with money wrongfully ob- tained by the pious or impious founder and benefactor. I think 1t was Mark Twain who described this form of mu- nificence and liberality as insurance against fire; that is to say, against the fire of hereafter. But no matter what the origin of the money, whether 1t be obtained by pandering to the worst pas- sions of the human race. such as gam bling, by usury or from sources even still more tainted, 1t Is accepted abroad and devoted to the purposes to which 1t has been assigned without anybody dreaming of demanding that 1t should be returned to the donor on account of the evil nature of its origin.
 There was no more infamous usurer in England than the late Sam" Lewis, who is responsible for the ruin of more houses of the British aristocracy than any other of his calling. At his death he left his widow with fortune of nearly S2O, 900, 900, ignobly acquired Since then she has made a practice Of giving each year a subscription of s50,- 900 to the kings hospital fund, organ ized by Edward VII for the purpose of extricating the great London hospitals from their financial embarrassment and in order to help them to continue their work of relieving the ills and the suf- ferings of the poor. Neither the king nor any of the great prelates of the church of England and of the church of Rome, nor yet the eminent states men who are associated with the sov- erign in this hospital fund work. have ever dreamed of declining this sub scription of the widowed Mrs. Sam Lewis on account of the source of her wealth. They accept the money with gratitude, knowing the opportunities which 1t affords of helping the poor, and they vaunt her charity, the king and the queen, recognizing her gener- osity by receiving her at court, despite the antecedents of her husband.
 Surely If money such as that given by the widow of Sam" Lewis can be accepted for good works by commit tee to which the archbishop of Canter- bury, the Roman Catholic primate of Great Britain, the leading Noncon- formist divines and the chief rabbi of the united kingdom belong there should be no squeamishness on the part of the board of foreign missions at Boston In accepting a donation from John D. Rockefeller. who, after all, has violated none of the accepted ethics of trade and industry in building up his enormous fortune, and whose violation of the law regarding trusts-if violation there has been-has, at the worst. been merely a technical offense.