412 



THE POPULAR SCIENCE MONTHLY. 



in the world's great cities, with multiplied 

 luxuries, present temptations to self-indul- 

 gence and idleness, ultimating in poverty. 



If, as Mr. Smiley asserts, the benevolent 

 methods of relieving the poor have not dimin- 

 ished their number, it is evidently due not to 

 such altruism but to these antagonistic causes. 

 Can he prove that such benevolence has not 

 legitimately tended, in any measure whatever, 

 toward the checking of such evils as lead to 

 poverty, and to the forestalling of such cor- 

 ruptions as ruined the republics of Greece 

 and Rome as well as other great nationalities ? 

 Just here Mr. Sm ley does not recognize the 

 clear logical distinction between a mere oc- 

 casion and an efficient cause — between an in- 

 cidental result and a legitimate effect. Pro- 

 slavery men, both at the North and the South, 

 failed to make this distinction when they 

 declared that the anti-slavery men brought 

 on the rebellion, and that tlierefore they were 

 the culpable cause of it. No ! Slavery itself 

 was the cause — the abolitionist was only the 

 occasion. The one worked for evil, the other 

 for good : if evil came through the latter, it 

 was but incidental, not legitimate. Every 

 system, however excellent in itself — ^not be- 

 ing perfect, of necessity — implies or involves 

 occasional ills. Is Mr. Smiley logical in mak- 

 ing the incidental results of altruism, as evil, 

 its necessary and legitimate effects ? Is it a 

 causal force to human ills ? Granting, indeed, 

 that some among the poor have abused gifts 

 and become idlers, has this been the univer- 

 sal fact ? Has charity always made beggars 

 and tramps, or are such only sporadic and 

 exceptional cases, while, to a large extent, 

 social benefits and industrial results have 

 come from individual and organized benevo- 

 lences ? Docs not Mr. Smiley reason il logic- 

 ally and with a pessimistic spirit, taking only 

 a few isolated and unfavorable facts and the 

 worse aspects of the case from which to draw 

 a general deduction ? 



While, indeed, his argum.ent rightly pre- 

 vails against a heedless and indiscriminate 

 benevolence, it does not appertain to careful 

 and systematic giving. All properly organ- 

 ized institutions and all thoughtful schemes 

 of benefit to the poor take into consideration 

 and aim at the improved industrial condition 

 and moral advancement of their beneficiaries. 

 Such organizations are designed and formed 

 to operate for the very end of rendering beg- 

 gary dishonorable and unprofitable, and for 

 inspiring the poor with industrial self-respect. 

 They say to the charitable man, " Do not 

 give promiscuously, but through the medium 

 of those agencies which have regard to the 

 elevation as well as the relief of the poor." 



If, as 5Ir. Smiley assumes, the improvi- 

 dence and demoralization of the poor are 

 the legitimate cfi'ccts of charity working as 

 an efficient cause, then, of course, it is a 

 curse. But this is not the case. Rather the 

 primary causes are the ignorance, the illiter- 

 acy, the prodigality, and the lack of moral 

 training among the poor, as well as bad legis- 



lation and tempting surroundings. To charge 

 all this upon a self-denying charity is logic 

 ally wide of the mark. 



The first argument which Mr. Smiley of- 

 fers against orphan asylums is that "moral 

 corruption, brought in a little by each child, 

 leavens the whole lump." Here he assumes 

 that each child necessarily brings in more or 

 less corruption, and therefore he presumes 

 that no orphan has any inherent purity, 

 which is a virtual admission of a native de- 

 pravity such as he would, perhaps, be far 

 from positively asserting. As a general rule, 

 children are received into orphan asylums 

 before they are old enough to carry corrup- 

 tion into them. If this argument of Mr. Smi- 

 ley has any real force, it must equally pre- 

 vail against all schools, private or public, 

 against families and neighborhoods in which 

 children of different ranks and characters 

 come into close personal contact with each 

 other, and are more or less good or evil. 

 Would Mr. Smiley isolate these children 

 and segregate such communities ? Does he 

 not know that in all these orphan asylums 

 moral and Christian teaching is often more 

 clear, pronounced, and effective for the good 

 of the child than may be found in many a 

 school or household ? Is it not most likely 

 that, where one or two children may prove 

 corrupt, the moral tone of the many, under 

 right training, would tend to counteract and 

 correct the evil of the few ? 



In his second argument against these asy- 

 lums Mr. Smiley assumes that only incom- 

 petent teachers are employed in them, and, as 

 if in proof of this, he asks, " Who ever knew 

 a scholar reared in an orphan asylum ? " 

 Well ! who ever heard of one reaied in a 

 State - prison, a factory, or a coal - mine ? 

 Who ever expected orphan asylums to turn 

 out scholars ? Was this the design of their 

 establishment ? But, in answer to this charge 

 of Mr. Smiley, it may be truthfully said that 

 not all, and indeed very few teachers in such 

 institutions are incompetent. They stand, 

 generally, on a par with those of our public 

 schools, some of them being men and wom- 

 en of education and refinement, who, from 

 pure love of children and their moral good, 

 devote themselves, in some cases gratuitous- 

 ly, to such benevolent work. Mr. Smiley can 

 scarcely have studied the histoiies and sta- 

 tistics of orphan asylums, or he would not 

 have charged upon them bad food, poor train- 

 ing, and rejection from good families, in re- 

 spect to all which it m.ay be shown unques- 

 tionably that he is sadly mistaken. Neither 

 would he have ignored the fact that the chil- 

 dren of drunken fathers and mothers are 

 not usually taken into orphan asylums, or, if 

 they ever are, then they are saved from the 

 horror and ruin of a drunkard's home, in 

 which every true philanthropist should re- 

 joice. 



As to " foundling asylums," Mr. Smiley 

 is still more severe, asserting that every one 

 " in America should be instantly disorgan- 



