Random Reminiscences of Men and Events
extend.
It may be beyond the pale of good taste to speak at all of such a
personal subject--I am not unmindful of this--but I can make these
observations with at least a little better grace because so much of
the hard work and hard thinking are done by my family and associates,
who devote their lives to it.
Every right-minded man has a philosophy of life, whether he knows it
or not. Hidden away in his mind are certain governing principles,
whether he formulates them in words or not, which govern his life.
Surely his ideal ought to be to contribute all that he can, however
little it may be, whether of money or service, to human progress.
Certainly one's ideal should be to use one's means, both in one's
investments and in benefactions, for the advancement of civilization.
But the question as to what civilization is and what are the great
laws which govern its advance have been seriously studied. Our
investments not less than gifts have been directed to such ends as we
have thought would tend to produce these results. If you were to go
into our office, and ask our committee on benevolence or our committee
on investment in what they consider civilization to consist, they
would say that they have found in their study that the most convenient
analysis of the elements which go to make up civilization runs about
as follows:
1st. Progress in the means of subsistence, that is to say, progress in
abundance and variety of food-supply, clothing, shelter, sanitation,
public health, commerce, manufacture, the growth of the public wealth,
etc.
2nd. Progress in government and law, that is to say, in the enactment
of laws securing justice and equity to every man, consistent with the
largest individual liberty, and the due and orderly enforcement of
the same upon all.
3rd. Progress in literature and language.
4th. Progress in science and philosophy.
5th. Progress in art and refinement.
6th. Progress in morality and religion.
If you were to ask them, as indeed they are very often asked, which of
these they regard as fundamental, they would reply that they would not
attempt to answer, that the question is purely an academic one, that
all these go hand in hand, but that historically the first of
them--namely, progress in means of subsistence--had generally preceded
progress in government, in literature, in knowledge, in refinement,
and in religion. Though not itself of the highest importance, it is
the foundation upon which the whole superstructure of civilization is
built, and without which it could not exist.
Accordingly, we have sought, so far as we could, to make investments
in such a way as will tend to multiply, to cheapen, and to diffuse as
universally as possible the comforts of life. We claim no credit for
preferring these lines of investment. We make no sacrifices. These are
the lines of largest and surest return. In this particular, namely, in
cheapness, ease of acquirement, and universality of means of
subsistence, our country easily surpasses that of any other in the
world, though we are behind other countries, perhaps, in most of the
others.
It may be asked: How is it consistent with the universal diffusion of
these blessings that vast sums of money should be in single hands? The
reply is, as I see it, that, while men of wealth control great sums of
money, they do not and cannot use them for themselves. They have,
indeed, the legal title to large properties, and they do control the
investment of them, but that is as far as their own relation to them
extends or can extend. The money is universally diffused, in the sense
that it is kept invested, and it passes into the pay-envelope week by
week.
Up to the present time no scheme has yet presented itself which seems
to afford a better method of handling capital than that of individual
ownership. We might put our money into the Treasury of the Nation and
of the various states, but we do not find any promise in the National
or state legislatures, viewed from the experiences of the past, that
the funds would be expended for the general weal more effectively than
under the present methods, nor do we find in any of the schemes of
socialism a promise that wealth would be more wisely administered for
the general good. It is the duty of men of means to maintain the title
to their property and to administer their funds until some man, or
body of men, shall rise up capable of administering for the general
good the capital of the country better than they can.
The next four elements of progress mentioned in the enumeration above,
namely, progress in government and law, in language and literature, in
science and philosophy, in art and refinement, we for ourselves have
thought to be best promoted by means of the higher education, and
accordingly we have had the great satisfaction of putting such sums as
we could into various forms of education in our own and in foreign
lands--and education not merely along the lines of disseminating more
generally the known, but quite as much, and perhaps even more, in
promoting original investigation. An individual institution of
learning can have only a narrow sphere. It can reach only a limited
number of people. But every new fact discovered, every widening of the
boundaries of human knowledge by research, becomes universally known
to all institutions of learning, and becomes a benefaction at once to
the whole race.
Quite as interesting as any phase of the work have been the new lines
entered upon by our committee. We have not been satisfied with giving
to causes which have appealed to us. We have felt that the mere fact
that this or the other cause makes its appeal is no reason why we
should give to it any more than to a thousand other causes, perhaps
more worthy, which do not happen to have come under our eye. The mere
fact of a personal appeal creates no claim which did not exist before,
and no preference over other causes more worthy which may not have
made their appeal. So this little committee of ours has not been
content to let the benevolences drift into the channels of mere
convenience--to give to the institutions which have sought aid and to
neglect others. This department has studied the field of human
progress, and sought to contribute to each of those elements which we
believe tend most to promote it. Where it has not found organizations
ready to its hand for such purpose, the members of the committee have
sought to create them. We are still working on new, and, I hope,
expanding lines, which make large demands on one's intelligence and
study.
The so-called betterment work which has always been to me a source of
great interest had a great influence on my life, and I refer to it
here because I wish to urge in this connection the great importance of
a father's keeping in close touch with his children, taking into his
confidence the girls as well as the boys, who in this way learn by
seeing and doing, and have their part in the family responsibilities.
As my father taught me, so I have tried to teach my children. For
years it was our custom to read at the table the letters we received
affecting the various benevolences with which we had to do, studying
the requests made for worthy purposes, and following the history and
reports of institutions and philanthropic cases in which we were
interested.
CHAPTER VII
THE BENEVOLENT TRUST--THE VALUE OF THE COOePERATIVE PRINCIPLE IN
GIVING
Going a step farther in the plan of making benefactions increasingly
effective which I took up in the last chapter under the title of "The
Difficult Art of Giving," I am tempted to take the opportunity to
dwell a little upon the subject of combination in charitable work,
which has been something of a hobby with me for many years.
If a combination to do business is effective in saving waste and in
getting better results, why is not combination far more important in
philanthropic work? The general idea of cooeperation in giving for
education, I have felt, scored a real step in advance when Mr. Andrew
Carnegie consented to become a member of the General Education Board.
For in accepting a position in this directorate he has, it seems to
me, stamped with his approval this vital principle of cooeperation in
aiding the educational institutions of our country.
I rejoice, as everybody must, in Mr. Carnegie's enthusiasm for using
his wealth for the benefit of his less fortunate fellows and I think
his devotion to his adopted land's welfare has set a striking example
for all time.
The General Education Board, of which Mr. Carnegie has now become a
member, is interesting as an example of an organization formed for the
purpose of working out, in an orderly and rather scientific way, the
problem of helping to stimulate and improve education in all parts of
our country. What this organization may eventually accomplish, of
course, no one can tell, but surely, under its present board of
directors, it will go very far. Here, again, I feel that I may speak
frankly and express my personal faith in its success, since I am not a
member of the board, and have never attended a meeting, and the work
is all done by others.
There are some other and larger plans thought out on careful and broad
lines, which I have been studying for many years, and we can see that
they are growing into definite shape. It is good to know that there
are always unselfish men, of the best calibre, to help in every large
philanthropic enterprise. One of the most satisfactory and stimulating
pieces of good fortune that has come to me is the evidence that so
many busy people are willing to turn aside from their work in pressing
fields of labour and to give their best thoughts and energies without
compensation to the work of human uplift. Doctors, clergymen, lawyers,
as well as many high-grade men of affairs, are devoting their best and
most unselfish efforts to some of the plans that we are all trying to
work out.
Take, as one example of many similar cases, Mr. Robert C. Ogden, who
for years, while devoting himself to an exacting business, still found
time, supported by wonderful enthusiasm, to give force by his own
personality to work done in difficult parts of the educational world,
particularly to improving the common school system of the South. His
efforts have been wisely directed along fundamental lines which must
produce results through the years to come.
Fortunately my children have been as earnest as I, and much more
diligent, in carefully and intelligently carrying out the work already
begun, and agree with me that at least the same energy and thought
should be expended in the proper and effective use of money when
acquired as was exerted in the earning of it.
The General Education Board has made, or is making, a careful study
of the location, aims, work, resources, administration, and
educational value, present and prospective, of the institutions of
higher learning in the United States. The board makes its
contributions, averaging something like two million dollars a year, on
the most careful comparative study of needs and opportunities
throughout the country. Its records are open to all. Many benefactors
of education are availing themselves of these disinterested inquiries,
and it is hoped that more will do so.
A large number of individuals are contributing to the support of
educational institutions in our country. To help an inefficient,
ill-located, unnecessary school is a waste. I am told by those who
have given most careful study to this problem that it is highly
probable that enough money has been squandered on unwise educational
projects to have built up a national system of higher education
adequate to our needs if the money had been properly directed to that