The Washington times., 1910-03-11
Object TO Be Systematic,
Worldwide Philanthropy,
Says S. ]. Murphy.
CITES PRECEDENT
FOR THE MEASURE
Declares Il Similar 20 Act Under
Which General Education Board
Was incorporated.

Philanthropy which VIII be syste-
matte, scientific. and worId-wide IN lis
scope. Is the object sought by John D.
Rockefeller by means OF the RockefeI-
Ter Foundation, according TO starr !
Murphy, a member OF the general edu-
cation board. who appeared before the
Senate Committee on the District OF
Columbia today in support Of the Dill
introduced by Senator GaUinger incor-
p0raung the foundation
Mr. Murphy nc. only explained the
motives which actuated Mr.. Rockefeller
in proposing 20 distribute on a-rr5fe
elaborate scale than has heretofore
been attempted. but discussed the crit
icisms which have been directed at the
bill since its Introduction in the Senate.
He was unable 10 enlIEhteu the com
Hittee as 10 the amount OF money which
Mr- Roekefeller aould Ultimately
place al the disposal OF the officials O.
the foundation but expressed the opiu-
ion that IF precedents counted for any
thing The funds would be ample 10 en-
able the Foundation 10 carry on its
work throughout the world In a most
satisfactory manner.
Necessarily Indefinite.
Nj Murphy told the committee al the
outset OF MS remarks Ihat the language
Of the incorporating bin was necessarily
indefinite. because Of the desire Of the
donor 10 have the scope OF the proposed
work 10 be without limitations Of any
kind. That the bin was not unDrece-
deuted, said DIR. Murphy. was Indicated
by the fact that II vas almost word for
word Ike the act under which the
general education board was mcorporat-
ed. the only changes made beirg those
necessary 10 allow the foundation 70
enter into almost every field Of en-
deavor for the benefit Of humanity, IN
stead OF confninz itself 10 education. as
is required OF the general education
board. 10 which BIr. Rockefeller has
given s53.o0o.00o.
Mr.. Murphy explained to The commit
Rockefeller 10 have the foundation
which bears his name be prepared TO
cope with situations as time goes on
The charities Of the nineteenth cen
tury-' he said, will not be the charities
or the twentieth century. The dead
hand should be removed from charitable
beQuests and they should be LETT N the
hands OF living men. II IS impossible
10 define the scope OF The work proposed
by the donor, and it is his desire to
avoid limitations"
Board Hampered
Mr. Murphy traced the work done ~
the General Education Board through
the generosity Of Mr. Rockefeller from
its modest beginning with his first gffr
Of Sl.o00.o0O in IS0l up 70 the present
time, when his total contribution
amounts TO s5S,00oo00. The work Of that
board, rs said, had been successful al
though with the many millions at its
disposal 1t had been unable 10 comply
with the requests from educational in
stitUtions from all over the country. He
said that the work Of the board was
carried on in the same systematic man
ner as that which characterized All of
Mr. RockefeIlers charitable works. and
that the practice would be followed bv
the officials Of the foundation.
There is more danger IN giving m
wisely said SIR. Murphy. than in Civ
ins not It all The donor OF this foun-
daion always insists upon the same in
Nestlg2tlon and care in his works OF
philanthropy as he demands when max
ing a business investment from which
ne expects cash dividends. In this in
stance he expects that his dividends
VIII not be in cash, but homes To get
dividends in the shape OF the welfare
Of humanity. The general education
board has been hampered by lack OF
funds and at its last meeting was un-
able 70 comply with many requests be
cause Of lack Of resources.
Would Go Farther.
'Mr. Rockefeller wants 10 push IN,
principal Of the general board farther
He wants the charted TO have the same
freedom Of scope so that he can meer
the needs of humanity wherever ir
arises. II IS not his intention 20 sun
plant existing agencies, but to supple
ment them; to work through existing
channels and not 10 duplicate"
Mr. Murphy called to the attention OF
the committee criticisms OF the pro-
posed foundation credited to former
President Charles w Elliott, OF Har-
yard University. To refute these state
ments attributed 10 Dr. Elliott, who Is
a member Of the genedal educ tional
board, he presented 10 the corlmittee
correspondence between DR.. Elliott and
John D. Rockefeller. jr-, in which the
noted educator emphaticauv denied
having criticised the foundation or even
discussing il for publication.
Suggestions from numerous sources
that the public would net ba nrOrsofaT