Pros and Cons of an Old Question Discussed
by J.D. Rockefeller, Jr.,
and Professor C.P. Fagnani.
Joseph's policy in cornering the visible supply of corn in Egypt has found
its defense. John D. Rockefeller, Jr., raised the question a short time
ago in his New York Bible class, and after discussing the transaction in
its different phases, said that he could not see how Joseph had done
anything unjust. The foresight and ability of Joseph, said Mr.
Rockefeller, saved the people of Egypt from starvation.
Mr. Rockefeller's talk, in substance at least, appears to have been as
follows:
One commentator says that Joseph bought the fifth part of
the corn crop of the years of plenty. If that was true, we
can find nothing to criticize in him, because he gave them a
market for their product. If, as another commentator says,
he levied this fifth as taxes, we can have no criticism, for
he created a reserve supply against the time of want.
In the distribution of the corn during the famine, did
Joseph act rightly? Should he have given away the corn
instead of selling it? They brought money to purchase it,
and when they had no money they offered their cattle, and
finally their land and themselves, for they did not want to
die....
Joseph let them have corn at their own terms. They did not
then become slaves as we think of slaves. The situation then
was that they were tenants of the land. The only difference
was that the people not only paid the tax as they had paid
it before the famine, but paid a rental of exactly the same
amount, the lands being held by Pharaoh. They had sold their
land to Pharaoh for the food.
A few days after this pronouncement Professor Charles P. Fagnani, of the
Union Theological Seminary, was addressing the New York Baptist Social
Union on "Christianity and Democracy," and among other things he said:
The corn corner of Joseph has been in the public eye
recently. That young man had a good private character, but
Joseph, the king's jackal, who took every advantage to take
away all the property of others, can be held up only to
obloquy. Compare Joseph, the enslaver of the people, with
Moses, the liberator!
What was the matter with Joseph? He was, like most men, only
fractionally converted. We think the conversion of a man in
his private character is enough; but he was not converted as
a citizen and as a man.
In conclusion we may note the Richmond _Times-Dispatch's_ remark that
"compared with Mr. Rockefeller's, Joseph's was a mere cozy corner."