p. 8 | DRYING UP CHARITY

Pacific Press Publishing Company · Oakland, California · Apr 23, 1896

FromSigns of the Times, Vol. 22, No. 17.

DRYING UP CHARITY.

The tendency of the times is toward parentalism in government. There is much popular clamor for “reform” from various quarters, and, with few exceptions, the advocates of reform call upon the government to father their schemes. Men, and women too, become extremely benevolent or charitable—provided the public treasury will bear the expense. They become exceedingly anxious that the people become religious—but they want the government to assume the burden of bringing about the desired result. It is noticeable, however, that the effect of doing all good works through public channels is to lessen private or individual effort. Thus the call for benevolence on the part of the government in this or that direction is little less than a desire to shirk the responsibility of private duty. This principle was aptly illustrated by Congressman Hainer, of Nebraska, in a recent speech on the subject of government aid to religious or private benevolent institutions. We quote as follows from the Congressional Record of April 2:—

“The habit of appropriating for these institutions does another thing—it dries up the sources of private charity. Take the history of any of these institutions, and you will find that when they are supported by public subsidies, private contributions fail. The report from which I have quoted shows that in 1895 this institution which we are considering received but $30 from private sources. An institution which sustained itself prior to 1880 exclusively by private contributions received only $30 in 1895. The same is true in every state and in every community where this practice has prevailed, and in my remarks, with the permission of the House, I will quote from the experience of Pennsylvania and New York on this point.

“Mrs. Lowell, prominent in charity work in New York, states that of the 18,900 children supported by charity in New York City, 2,700, or one-seventh, are supported in private institutions at private expense (14 per cent. of the total expenditure), and that 1,200 are supported at public expense in public institutions. Of the total expenses for all purposes of the 23 institutions caring for the remaining 15,000, 8.8 per cent. is contributed by private benevolence. From this it appears that 21 per cent. of the expense of caring for dependent children is borne by private benevolence, while 79 per cent. is borne by the city.

“In Philadelphia, under a different system, the proportion borne by private benevolence is 97 per cent. In New York one institution that received in 1892 $250,000 from the city received from private sources less than $500, and in case of twelve institutions the receipts from private sources were less than 5 per cent. of the total expenditure.

“Commissioner Bolles, of Pennsylvania, says:—

“‘The state by appropriating so generally is drying up the interest of individuals in organized charities. Our people have acquired great wealth, and their sympathies should be cultivated in every possible manner. The state can never do through its long perfunctory arm acts of mercy with the same degree of kindly interest as individuals who live nearer the scene of relief and who have a more distinct interest in the sufferers.’

“What is true of these dependents is true of every other branch of charitable relief. It applies with equal force to the support of schools by subsidies. Divided responsibility means no responsibility.”