THE DIFFICULT ART OF GIVING
It is, no doubt, easy to write platitudes and generalities about the
joys of giving, and the duty that one owes to one's fellow men, and to
put together again all the familiar phrases that have served for
generations whenever the subject has been taken up.
I can hardly hope to succeed in starting any new interest in this
great subject when gifted writers have so often failed. Yet I confess
I find much more interest in it at this time than in rambling on, as I
have been doing, about the affairs of business and trade. It is most
difficult, however, to dwell upon a very practical and business-like
side of benefactions generally, without seeming to ignore, or at least
to fail to appreciate fully, the spirit of giving which has its source
in the heart, and which, of course, makes it all worth while.
In this country we have come to the period when we can well afford to
ask the ablest men to devote more of their time, thought, and money to
the public well-being. I am not so presumptuous as to attempt to
define exactly what this betterment work should consist of. Every man
will do that for himself, and his own conclusion will be final for
himself. It is well, I think, that no narrow or preconceived plan
should be set down as the best.
I am sure it is a mistake to assume that the possession of money in
great abundance necessarily brings happiness. The very rich are just
like all the rest of us; and if they get pleasure from the possession
of money, it comes from their ability to do things which give
satisfaction to someone besides themselves.
LIMITATIONS OF THE RICH
The mere expenditure of money for things, so I am told by those who
profess to know, soon palls upon one. The novelty of being able to
purchase anything one wants soon passes, because what people most seek
cannot be bought with money. These rich men we read about in the
newspapers cannot get personal returns beyond a well-defined limit for
their expenditure. They cannot gratify the pleasures of the palate
beyond very moderate bounds, since they cannot purchase a good
digestion; they cannot lavish very much money on fine raiment for
themselves or their families without suffering from public ridicule;
and in their homes they cannot go much beyond the comforts of the less
wealthy without involving them in more pain than pleasure. As I study
wealthy men, I can see but one way in which they can secure a real
equivalent for money spent, and that is to cultivate a taste for
giving where the money may produce an effect which will be a lasting
gratification.
A man of business may often most properly consider that he does his
share in building up a property which gives steady work for few or
many people; and his contribution consists in giving to his employees
good working conditions, new opportunities, and a strong stimulus to
good work. Just so long as he has the welfare of his employees in his
mind and follows his convictions, no one can help honouring such a
man. It would be the narrowest sort of view to take, and I think the
meanest, to consider that good works consist chiefly in the outright
giving of money.
THE BEST PHILANTHROPY
The best philanthropy, the help that does the most good and the least
harm, the help that nourishes civilization at its very root, that most
widely disseminates health, righteousness, and happiness, is not what
is usually called charity. It is, in my judgment, the investment of
effort or time or money, carefully considered with relation to the
power of employing people at a remunerative wage, to expand and
develop the resources at hand, and to give opportunity for progress
and healthful labour where it did not exist before. No mere
money-giving is comparable to this in its lasting and beneficial
results.
If, as I am accustomed to think, this statement is a correct one, how
vast indeed is the philanthropic field! It may be urged that the daily
vocation of life is one thing, and the work of philanthropy quite
another. I have no sympathy with this notion. The man who plans to do
all his giving on Sunday is a poor prop for the institutions of the
country.
The excuse for referring so often to the busy man of affairs is that
his help is most needed. I know of men who have followed out this
large plan of developing work, not as a temporary matter, but as a
permanent principle. These men have taken up doubtful enterprises and
carried them through to success often at great risk, and in the face
of great scepticism, not as a matter only of personal profit, but in
the larger spirit of general uplift.
DISINTERESTED SERVICE THE ROAD TO SUCCESS
If I were to give advice to a young man starting out in life, I should
say to him: If you aim for a large, broad-gauged success, do not begin
your business career, whether you sell your labour or are an
independent producer, with the idea of getting from the world by hook
or crook all you can. In the choice of your profession or your
business employment, let your first thought be: Where can I fit in so
that I may be most effective in the work of the world? Where can I
lend a hand in a way most effectively to advance the general
interests? Enter life in such a spirit, choose your vocation in that
way, and you have taken the first step on the highest road to a large
success. Investigation will show that the great fortunes which have
been made in this country, and the same is probably true of other
lands, have come to men who have performed great and far-reaching
economic services--men who, with great faith in the future of their
country, have done most for the development of its resources. The man
will be most successful who confers the greatest service on the world.
Commercial enterprises that are needed by the public will pay.
Commercial enterprises that are not needed fail, and ought to fail.
On the other hand, the one thing which such a business philosopher
would be most careful to avoid in his investments of time and effort
or money, is the unnecessary duplication of existing industries. He
would regard all money spent in increasing needless competition as
wasted, and worse. The man who puts up a second factory when the
factory in existence will supply the public demand adequately and
cheaply is wasting the national wealth and destroying the national
prosperity, taking the bread from the labourer and unnecessarily
introducing heartache and misery into the world.
Probably the greatest single obstacle to the progress and happiness of
the American people lies in the willingness of so many men to invest
their time and money in multiplying competitive industries instead of
opening up new fields, and putting their money into lines of industry
and development that are needed. It requires a better type of mind to
seek out and to support or to create the new than to follow the worn
paths of accepted success; but here is the great chance in our still
rapidly developing country. The penalty of a selfish attempt to make
the world confer a living without contributing to the progress or
happiness of mankind is generally a failure to the individual. The
pity is that when he goes down he inflicts heartache and misery also
on others who are in no way responsible.
THE GENEROSITY OF SERVICE
Probably the most generous people in the world are the very poor, who
assume each other's burdens in the crises which come so often to the
hard pressed. The mother in the tenement falls ill and the neighbour
in the next room assumes her burdens. The father loses his work, and
neighbours supply food to his children from their own scanty store.
How often one hears of cases where the orphans are taken over and
brought up by the poor friend whose benefaction means great additional
hardship! This sort of genuine service makes the most princely gift
from superabundance look insignificant indeed. The Jews have had for
centuries a precept that one-tenth of a man's possessions must be
devoted to good works, but even this measure of giving is but a rough
yardstick to go by. To give a tenth of one's income is wellnigh an
impossibility to some, while to others it means a miserable pittance.
If the spirit is there, the matter of proportion is soon lost sight
of. It is only the spirit of giving that counts, and the very poor
give without any self-consciousness. But I fear that I am dealing with
generalities again.
The education of children in my early days may have been
straightlaced, yet I have always been thankful that the custom was
quite general to teach young people to give systematically of money
that they themselves had earned. It is a good thing to lead children
to realize early the importance of their obligations to others but, I
confess, it is increasingly difficult; for what were luxuries then
have become commonplaces now. It should be a greater pleasure and
satisfaction to give money for a good cause than to earn it, and I
have always indulged the hope that during my life I should be able to
help establish efficiency in giving so that wealth may be of greater
use to the present and future generations.
Perhaps just here lies the difference between the gifts of money and
of service. The poor meet promptly the misfortunes which confront the
home circle and household of the neighbour. The giver of money, if his
contribution is to be valuable, must add service in the way of study,
and he must help to attack and improve underlying conditions. Not
being so pressed by the racking necessities, it is he that should be
better able to attack the subject from a more scientific standpoint;
but the final analysis is the same: his money is a feeble offering
without the study behind it which will make its expenditure effective.
Great hospitals conducted by noble and unselfish men and women are
doing wonderful work; but no less important are the achievements in
research that reveal hitherto unknown facts about diseases and provide
the remedies by which many of them can be relieved or even stamped
out.
To help the sick and distressed appeals to the kind-hearted always,
but to help the investigator who is striving successfully to attack
the causes which bring about sickness and distress does not so
strongly attract the giver of money. The first appeals to the
sentiments overpoweringly, but the second has the head to deal with.
Yet I am sure we are making wonderful advances in this field of
scientific giving. All over the world the need of dealing with the
questions of philanthropy with something beyond the impulses of
emotion is evident, and everywhere help is being given to those heroic
men and women who are devoting themselves to the practical and
essentially scientific tasks. It is a good and inspiring thing to
recall occasionally the heroism, for example, of the men who risked
and sacrificed their lives to discover the facts about yellow fever, a
sacrifice for which untold generations will bless them; and this same
spirit has animated the professions of medicine and surgery.
SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH
How far may this spirit of sacrifice properly extend? A great number
of scientific men every year give up everything to arrive at some
helpful contribution to the sum of human knowledge, and I have
sometimes thought that good people who lightly and freely criticize
their actions scarcely realize just what such criticism means. It is
one thing to stand on the comfortable ground of placid inaction and
put forth words of cynical wisdom, and another to plunge into the work
itself and through strenuous experience earn the right to express
strong conclusions.
For my own part, I have stood so much as a placid onlooker that I have
not had the hardihood even to suggest how people so much more
experienced and wise in those things than I should work out the
details even of those plans with which I have had the honour to be
associated.
There has been a good deal of criticism, no doubt sincere, of
experiments on living dumb animals, and the person who stands for the
defenceless animal has such an overwhelming appeal to the emotions
that it is perhaps useless to allude to the other side of the
controversy. Dr. Simon Flexner, of the Institute for Medical Research,
has had to face exaggerated and even sensational reports, which have
no basis of truth whatever. But consider for a moment what has been
accomplished recently, under the direction of Dr. Flexner in
discovering a remedy for epidemic cerebro-spinal meningitis. It is
true that in discovering this cure the lives of perhaps fifteen
animals were sacrificed, as I learn, most of them monkeys; but for
each one of these animals which lost its life, already scores of human
lives have been saved. Large-hearted men like Dr. Flexner and his
associates do not permit unnecessary pain to defenceless animals.
I have been deeply interested in the story of a desperate experiment
to save a child's life, told in a letter written by one of my
associates soon after the event described; and it seems worthy of
repeating. Dr. Alexis Carrel has been associated with Dr. Flexner and
his work, and his wonderful skill has been the result of his
experiments and experiences.
A WONDERFUL SURGICAL OPERATION
"Dr. Alexis Carrel, one of the Institute's staff, has been making
some interesting studies in experimental surgery, and has
successfully transplanted organs from one animal to another, and
blood vessels from one species to another. He had the opportunity
recently of applying the skill thus acquired to the saving of a
human life under circumstances which attracted great interest among
the medical fraternity of this city. One of the best known of the
younger surgeons in New York had a child born early last March,
which developed a disease in which the blood, for some reason,
exudes from the blood vessels into the tissues of the body, and
ordinarily the child dies of this internal hemorrhage. When this
child was five days old it was evident that it was dying. The
father and his brother, who is one of the most distinguished men in
the profession, and one or two other doctors were in consultation
with reference to it, but considered the case entirely hopeless.
"It so happened that the father had been impressed with the work
which Dr. Carrel had been doing at the Institute, and had spent
several days with him studying his methods. He became convinced
that the only possibility of saving the child's life was by the
direct transfusion of blood. While this has been done between
adults, the blood vessels of a young infant are so delicate that it
seemed impossible that the operation could be successfully carried
on. It is necessary not only that the blood vessels of the two
persons should be united together, but it must be done in such a
way that the interior lining of the vessels, which is a smooth,
shiny tissue, should be continuous. If the blood comes in contact
with the muscular coat of the blood vessels, it will clot and stop
the circulation.
"Fortunately, Dr. Carrel had been experimenting on the blood
vessels of some very young animals, and the father was convinced
that if any man in the country could perform the operation
successfully, it would be he.
"It was then the middle of the night. But Dr. Carrel was called on,
and when the situation was explained to him, and it was made clear
that the child would die anyhow, he readily consented to attempt
the operation, although expressing very slight hope of its
successful outcome.
"The father offered himself as the person whose blood should be
furnished to the child. It was impossible to give anæsthetics to
either of them. In a child of that age there is only one vein large
enough to be used, and that is in the back of the leg, and deep
seated. A prominent surgeon who was present exposed this vein. He
said afterward that there was no sign of life in the child, and
expressed the belief that the child had been, to all intents and
purposes, dead for ten minutes. In view of its condition he raised
the question whether it was worth while to proceed further with the
attempt. The father, however, insisted upon going on, and the
surgeon then exposed the radial artery in the surgeon's wrist, and
was obliged to dissect it back about six inches, in order to pull
it out far enough to make the connection with the child's vein.
"This part of the work the surgeon who did it afterward described
as the 'blacksmith part of the job.' He said that the child's vein
was about the size of a match and the consistency of wet cigarette
paper, and it seemed utterly impossible for anyone to successfully
unite these two vessels. Dr. Carrel, however, accomplished this
feat. And then occurred what the doctors who were present described
as one of the most dramatic incidents in the history of surgery.
The blood from the father's artery was released, and began to flow
into the child's body, amounting to about a pint. The first sign of
life was a little pink tinge at the top of one of the ears, then
the lips, which had become perfectly blue, began to change to red,
and then suddenly, as though the child had been taken from a hot
mustard bath, a pink glow broke out all over its body, and it began
to cry lustily. After about eight minutes the two were separated.
The child at that time was crying for food. It was fed, and from
that moment began to eat and sleep regularly, and made a complete
recovery.
"The father appeared before a legislative committee at Albany, in
opposition to certain bills which were pending at the last session
to restrict animal experimentation, and told this incident, and
said at the close that when he saw Dr. Carrel's experiments he had
no idea that they would so soon be available for saving human life;
much less did he imagine that the life to be saved would be that of
his own child."
THE FUNDAMENTAL THING IN ALL HELP
If the people can be educated to help themselves, we strike at the
root of many of the evils of the world. This is the fundamental thing,
and it is worth saying even if it has been said so often that its
truth is lost sight of in its constant repetition.
The only thing which is of lasting benefit to a man is that which he
does for himself. Money which comes to him without effort on his part
is seldom a benefit and often a curse. That is the principal objection
to speculation--it is not because more lose than gain, though that is
true--but it is because those who gain are apt to receive more injury
from their success than they would have received from failure. And so
with regard to money or other things which are given by one person to
another. It is only in the exceptional case that the receiver is
really benefited. But, if we can help people to help themselves, then
there is a permanent blessing conferred.
Men who are studying the problem of disease tell us that it is
becoming more and more evident that the forces which conquer sickness
are within the body itself, and that it is only when these are reduced
below the normal that disease can get a foothold. The way to ward off
disease, therefore, is to tone up the body generally; and, when
disease has secured a foothold, the way to combat it is to help these
natural resisting agencies which are in the body already. In the same
way the failures which a man makes in his life are due almost always
to some defect in his personality, some weakness of body, or mind, or
character, will, or temperament. The only way to overcome these
failings is to build up his personality from within, so that he, by
virtue of what is within him, may overcome the weakness which was the
cause of the failure. It is only those efforts the man himself puts
forth that can really help him.
We all desire to see the widest possible distribution of the blessings
of life. Many crude plans have been suggested, some of which utterly
ignore the essential facts of human nature, and if carried out would
perhaps drag our whole civilization down into hopeless misery. It is
my belief that the principal cause for the economic differences
between people is their difference in personality, and that it is only
as we can assist in the wider distribution of those qualities which go
to make up a strong personality that we can assist in the wider
distribution of wealth. Under normal conditions the man who is strong
in body, in mind, in character, and in will need never suffer want.
But these qualities can never be developed in a man unless by his own
efforts, and the most that any other can do for him is, as I have
said, to help him to help himself.
We must always remember that there is not enough money for the work of
human uplift and that there never can be. How vitally important it is,
therefore, that the expenditure should go as far as possible and be
used with the greatest intelligence!
I have been frank to say that I believe in the spirit of combination
and coöperation when properly and fairly conducted in the world of
commercial affairs, on the principle that it helps to reduce waste;
and waste is a dissipation of power. I sincerely hope and thoroughly
believe that this same principle will eventually prevail in the art of
giving as it does in business. It is not merely the tendency of the
times developed by more exacting conditions in industry, but it should
make its most effective appeal to the hearts of the people who are
striving to do the most good to the largest number.
SOME UNDERLYING PRINCIPLES
At the risk of making this chapter very dull, and I am told that this
is a fault which inexperienced authors should avoid at all hazards, I
may perhaps be pardoned if I set down here some of the fundamental
principles which have been at the bottom of all my own plans. I have
undertaken no work of any importance for many years which, in a
general way, has not followed out these broad lines, and I believe no
really constructive effort can be made in philanthropic work without
such a well-defined and consecutive purpose.
My own conversion to the feeling that an organized plan was an
absolute necessity came about in this way.
About the year 1890 I was still following the haphazard fashion of
giving here and there as appeals presented themselves. I investigated
as I could, and worked myself almost to a nervous break-down in
groping my way, without sufficient guide or chart, through this
ever-widening field of philanthropic endeavour. There was then forced
upon me the necessity to organize and plan this department of our
daily tasks on as distinct lines of progress as we did our business
affairs; and I will try to describe the underlying principles we
arrived at, and have since followed out, and hope still greatly to
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.