Year: 1877

occasion, in a recent article on the gen.


eral topic of pauperism, to speak of the


bad influences of charitable aid when


rendered to young men preparing for


the Christian ministry. As everything


we said was conceived in a spirit of The


warmest trendliness toward the profes.


sion, we were not quite prepared for the


acrid, not to say contemptuous, criti-


cism with which it was received by


portion of the religious press. We had


supposed that the desirableness of inde-


pendent means in the acquisition of an


education, for any profession, was be-
yond controversy. We had supposed


that clergy and laity alike regarded it a


misfortune to young man to be in any
way obliged to accept aid in preparing


himself for the work of his life. Indeed,
they undoubtedly so regard it still and
if it is for any other reason than that it
tends to degrade and pauperize HIM, we
have not learned it


But the religious paper, which ought
to be ashamed of its childishness, has
undertaken to controvert this very
widely held opinion. We have not its
words before US, but the point it makes
is that if it pauperizes young man to
have his education given him, it will
pauperize him equally whether it is
given bim by the hand of charity or by
the hand of his parents Another re-
ligious paper copies this with approval!


We should do both papers great injus


tice if we should assume that they do
not know better than this. The sophis-
tiy is SO puerile that one feels humiliat-
ed in being compelled to expose it. A


man who takes the responsibility OF in.
Producing child into existence assumes
certain duties and obligations which
place him in relations to bis offspring
such as he holds to no other human be-
ing. The child possesses certain rights
in his fathers labor, his acquired capi.
tai, his home, his conditions, that can
never be alienated except by his crimes.
Among these rights is chat of a prepara


ton for the work and duty of life Now,
the difference between the position of
boy who feels that in his education he
is receiving his natural and legal right,
and of one who knows that his educa-
ton comes to him as a gift of charity
to hel plessness, is about as wide as can
be conceived Nobody knows this any
better than the charity student himself.
If he is manly, his position gals and
worries him, and he is never happy un-
til he has in some way paid off his debt.
If he is not manly, it has powerful
influence in making him a pauper for
life. We say, then, that the religious
paper which declares chat the influence
of charitable aid is the same as parental
is not candid. 1t knows better and ought
to be ashamed of itself.


More plausible, and more candid
doubt, is correspondent of a
secular paper who compares the student
at West Point with the charity student.
At West Point, young man receives
not only his tuition, but his support,
without charge; and the influence of
this education is not regarded as pau
perizing one. Ga the contrary, it is
looked upon as most honorable and
one. Now, why should not
an education bestowed by the government
have the same effect upon the mind of
the recipient as one bestowed by the
gifts of the benevolent We may state
Is fact that it does not. We may
assume, therefore, that there is sound
reason for this difference in the facts.
The government thinks it worth its
money to have an educated body of
men, learned in the art of war, to be
always ready for service. This body of
men, in surrendering themselves to dis
,ipline, and holding themselves ready
or what is expected of them, have the
consciousness of rendering an equivalent
or what they receive. They are ready
o pay their debt in the only way in
which it is desired to be paid, or can be
,aid. The aid they have received is in
10 possible sense charity. 1t is given
" the country for consideration; it
S accepted by the student who perfect
y understands the nature of the equiv
lent he renders. j. G. Holland,
n Scribner for October.