The Irish standard. [volume] (Minneapolis, Minn. ;) 1886-1920, 1912-07-20
sPURNlNG TAINTED MONEY.

The objection Of certain members
of the city council and of certain So
cieties of the city to the acceptance
by the city of sum of money Of
fered by Andrew Carnegie for the cs-
Establishment of a number of branch
libraries has again raised the ques-
ton whether or not it is advisable
to accept money which it is gener-
ally thought has been accumulated by
business methods that the public
would not countenance. The question
involves an abstract proposition which
it will never be possible to decide
finally by weight of argument. Diff
ferent people will take different vie US
of it as their interests happen to lie.
In refusing to accept Mr.. Carnegie's
gift the city council, 1t is true, is de-
priving the people of the city of adj
ditional library facilities that, ITO
doubt, would be very beneficial. The
establishment Of even two or three
additional branch libraries would put
the resources of the city library with
in easy reach of many persons who
task to make as full use of it as
they would wish. In word, Mr.
Carnegie's gift, If accepted and used
wisely, would benefit many of our
people.
But there 10 a moral question in.
volved. 1t is charged, and generally
thought, that Mr.. Carnegie's fortune
was made by methods that, to say
the least. are not moral. He grew
rich by under-paying and overwork-
ing his employees, by charging for his
product price that netted him an
extravagant percentage on his invest
ment. He has more money now than
he can use. 1t is doing him no good
no one gets any good out of money
except from what he spends. The
world has called Mr. Carnegies for
tune tainted and the faint has gotten
on his name. He has turned to phil
anthropy to get rid of hiso burden
some cash-and to add lustre to his
name 1t is to this latter that people
have a right to object. If Mr.. Car
negie wants to get rid of his wealth,
let him do it; but let him not show
Sc much eagerness to perpetuate his
own fame. He goes about Smelling
out cash, but always STIMULATING how
it shall be used for his glory. Why
can he not trust others to devise
means for using it in way that will
result in the greatest amount of
good?
None of Andrew Carnegie's mil
! lions is of any benefit to him except
what he can use or give away. If
the public resolutely refused. to ac-
cept the tainted millions of million.
be for them? Would that not be
the most efflcacious means imaginable
to discourage the accumulation Of
immense fortunes?
We need libraries and we need to
encourage our people to use them.
But we need also to promote honesty
consider that we were doing that if
we We're to accept donations from
highway robbers. call it philanthropy
and emblazon their names on our
public buildings. Now the highway
robbers money is as good and useful
as an honest mans money: but the
idea of holding him up for admira-
ton as a philanthropist is very bad
If we are convinced that Mr.. Car
negie's or any other mans fortune
has been gained by dishonesty why
| should we accept donations from
them and advertise them as philan-
thropists? Would we not be doing
J evil to do so? We can get along
without Mr.. Carnegie's money. Re-
fusing gift is not, technically speak,
ing, suffering a loss. BY refusing the
gift in question we prove OUR belief
in the principle that the good done
by distributing fortunes accumulated
by immoral business methods can
! never wholly right the wrong done
! in their accumulation. If Mr.. Car
| negie wants to do an act Of real
| charity let him send an anonymous
contribution of $125.000 to the city
council with the suggestion that it be
used for extending library facilities
and his money will be accepted and
his suggestion carried out.