New-York tribune., 1906-12-09
rHARITY, oRqAyIzEp Ayp rERsoxAL.


Whatever his attitude toward the event which
our Christmas festival commentaries that man
must be singulary deyod Of sentiment whose
charitable impulses are not stirred 10 liveer ac-
fivity by the approach OF the holiday season
The contrast between the lot Of the welI-to-do
Bnc that Of the poverty stricken IS never so
glaring. the necessity apparent for the rich
10 share their plenty with the poor Many who
rail against the perfunctory exchange of gifts
DO so with keen appreciation of the fact that
the money expended upon presents grudgingly
made and indiferently received might II intel
ligently directed into the proper channels, bring
real Christmas Joy TO the giver and the recipient
But how shall the Christmas spirit Of helpful
ness where help is most needed best be fos-
sered7
The practical man is prompt with his answer !:
rOrganized charity" The sentimentalist is in
stant with a contemptuous fling at its coldness
and crcumlocution Office methods That lively
satirist OF things British. Mr.. q. X. Chesterton,
recently cbampioned the Londoner who threw
gold among the street arabs, asserting that if,
,n the opinion Of political economists. casual
charity did harm, So. IN the opinion of political
economists, organized charity did harm likewise.
He continues:
We are told that IT is our duty 10 consider
whether tho little almsgiVing will make the
heggar more drunken or more idle But
we are not expected TO calculate by al elab-
orste psy ychology whether giving q gorgeous
wedding present 10 a fashionable couple win
leave them ethicaliy better or worse than they
sre- As things stand, have only a choice
between giving money To men whom we know
nothing about ana giving money to institutions
that we know nothing about. OF course we
may know OF an institution that II Is in the for
nal and futile sense. respectable, that il is
solvent. but that IS not what We want TO know
about a charity. We want TO know about a
charity that il is 10 be trusted, not only with
mems bodies, but with mems souls We want 10
know Of a charity that II is human, comprehend
ing, sympathetic with free men, magnanimous
in short. queerly enough We want TO know OF a
charity that Il Is charitable.
These arc the words OF a lover OF paradox.
but they are not altogether unjust, even if ap-
piled 10 charitable institutions this side OF
The Atlantic. Dealing with the same problem in
IN article written for Charities and The Com,
MONS" DR. Lyman Abbott. while protesting his
thorough belief in organized charity, says "Or-
''ganized charity obyates the evils 10 the com
'muniiy which unOrganiZed and thOughtlcss Civ
ling promotes. but there f. more real charity
In giving $40 10 a society and a ticket 10 the
'beggar than there Is in giving a beggar penny
'or dime. What we do through organization
"will be true charity only as II supplements what
I'VE do with tboughtfulness and consideration as
individuals" Such supplements To organized
charity DR. Abbott sees in the efforts of great
and small employers 10 keep their workpeople
with them in hard times even al !, loss: In the
resolve of the rich and well-to-do TO employ as
much aid as possible, not as little Let the boy