The Ordway new era., 1909-08-27

nothing away. He would laugh at the
mere suggestion that 1t Is his duty to
give away money. or that he holds
his money In trust for the people or
for society at large. What he would
cry. My money Is mine! made II.
or inherited 1t. II Is mine. mine. my
very own! To do with as like!' And
everybody would agree with him. No
one in Europe would suggest that
millions entail n duty to society. Yet
here such a notion is quite prevalent.
1t Is even put forth gravely by mil
lionaires themselves. Mr.. Carnegie
expounded to me this very theory.
which to a European sounds SO eX-
traordinary. that the community at
large has an absolute right to share
in mans millions-that he is mere
ly a trustee of his wealth.
In Europe, as | said. millionaires
do not give away their money. At
least not while they are alive. When
they die they may have trifiing sum
to charity: and the general public
will exclaim: How generous!' In
England this is not SO much so as on
the continent. for the British aristoc.
racy. whose wealth is largely inner
tied from long generations. has always
been taught and has always recog-
nized that 1t has certain duties to So
ciety at large. This is not so on the
continent. can think of only one
millionaire in Europe who is public
spirited in his munificence. and this
one Is the French Baron Rothschild.
In America your millionaires give
away vast sums, but | do not believe
that even they give altogether because
they love giving. No millionaire
likes to give up his money!"
A broad. quizzical laugh put the ex-
clamation point at the close of this
sentence.
The Fundamental Difference.
But! Although your millionaires
are restrained in SO many ways. you
allow them to do some things which
we would never allow them to do in
Europe You allow them to found uni
versities. You. allow them to devote
their millions to founding and support.
ing vast establishments in which the
youth of the nation is to acquire its
ideals. If the millionaires themselves
cannot teach the rising generation the
ideals they would like them to ac-
qiure, they can at least select the men
who are to teach them. May there
not be some method in this kind of
giving?"
"Why do you say that a millionaire
could not found university in Eu-
rope?" asked the writer.
''The state would not allow it,"
came the reply. like shot from a rapid
fire gun. IF millionaire started to
do anything of that sort the state
would instantly step in and say to
him: No, my dear sir; do what you
like with your money, but leave the
training of our youth to me. l, the
state, have charge of that. 1t is for
me alone to say how the young men
and women are to be brought up: I
will place before them the ideals that
I think they should have. will allow
of no interference on your part. Such
an institution as Chicago university
is unimaginable in any country OF Eu-
rope. 1t would not be tolerated for
one moment. 1t is beautiful place.
| was glad to lecture there. but could
not help thinking what a peril to
America it might become. what sim
lister possibilities are latent within 1t.
Mr.. Rockefeller, I understand. does
not interfere at all in the manage
ment of that university: he does not
dictate the professors who shall lec-
ture there nor the curriculum that
shall be followed; and from what
have been able to learn 70 him don't
think he ever will. But some success
sor to his millions might choose to
WELD the power which Mr.. Rockefel-
Ter has thus far let alone. Think of
the power such man would have If
he wanted to exercise 1t! Think OF
the ideals that might be set before the
youth OF America by an unscrupulous
millionaire controlling a university
through his donations. It is too great
a power to be permitted to any man,
and am amazed that in America.