Evening star., 1935-07-25
Et Tu, Brute!

A heavy blow was dealt to private
charity by President Roosevelt yester-
day when he followed his expression of
opposition to making corporation con-
tributions deductible upon tax returns
with the seemingly gratuitouS personal
opinion that corporations should not
give to charity anyway. His position
becomes the more inexplicable as one
recalls his repeated insistence that pri-
vately supported welfare agencies must
share the burden of emergency relief
with the agencies dispensing public
funds, and that they must ultimately
be prepared to reassume the entire load
of national philanthropy.
In consistent effort to meet all earlier
presidential requirements, a bill has
been introduced in Congress making
corporation contributions to charity
deductible from their annual tax returns.
Sponsored by Senator George and Rep
resentative Mccormack, it has been
strongly urged by the National Council
of Community Chests, the National Con-
ference of Catholic Charities and the
National Council of Jewish Fedora
tionS. 1t was felt by each OF these
organizations, representing vast ma
jority OF all private charity endeavor
throughout the Nation, that the equity
of permitting corporate deduction was
- 10
derived from such a change in the
present law as to make this possible
would appeal strongly to those who
recognize the importance of continuing
and strengthening privately supported
agencies. 1t has been hoped that the
George Mccormack bill would be made
a part of the general tax measure.
The Presidents bitter opposition to
the proposed change in existing law
comes as a complete surprise in view
of his earlier expressions. A total of
s8O,OOO0 900 is annually subscribed to pri-
vate charities through the 400 Com
munity Chests throughout the Nation.
OF this sum twenty-five per cent, or
$20,000000 is given in the form of con-
tributions by upward of $4,000 individual
corporations.
The President today holds that this
giving toward the alienation of ma
tional distress needs no encouragement
in the form of making such gifts de-
ductible from taxation, as is the case
with individual contributors. He asserts,
making no exceptions, that such gifts
amount to the purchase of good will"
on the part of the corporations in
Volved. And then, striking even more
ruthleSSly at the foundations of private
philanthropy, he asserts that corporate
contributions to charity are, as such, a
misuse Of corporate funds by those
making such gifts.
1t is not the first time that the Presi-
dent, fired by a conviction that the
motives of some business enterprises are
in certain instances unworthy, has seen
fit to impute base motives to all busi-
ness. His willingness to hamstring pri-
vate philanthropy, despite his earlier
insistence upon its Importance to the
country, will be held by many to be
indicative of unreasoned animoSity to-
ward American business as today Or
ganized. There can be, he holds, no
sincere interest on the part of a cor
poration in communal distress. Gifts
toward its alienation are, he insists,
fundamentally and, in general, selflshly
motivated for the purchase of COM
munity's good will.
The effect of the presidential attack
on vital phase of private philanthropy
would be dangerous to predict. If his
position is Endorsed by the public and
If the corporations involved use it as
an excuse for declining further gifts
toward local needs, the future of such
institutions as the Washington Com
munity Chest is indeed dark. But if, as
may well be, it be deemed that there
is at least as much propriety in the
elected officers and directors of a cor
poration deciding upon the obligation
of that business to the community in
which it operates as there is in any
individuals Slurring of private policies,
American business and American social
welfare may still proceed to healthy
and much-to-be-d desired destiny in the
future scheme of things.