« PreviousContinue »
close and technical analysis at all at variance with the lofty idealism of its general sentiments. In a large sense its object is to bring all mankind under fraternal, educational and humanitarian influences. The final establishment of universal peace among all the nations of the earth manifestly is an object of public charity. The comprehensive definition in Jackson v. Phillips, 14 Allen 539, at 554, is this: 'A charity, in the legal sense may be more fully defined as a gift, to be applied, consistently with existing laws, for the benefit of an indefinite number of persons, either by bringing their minds or hearts under the influence of education or religion, by relieving their bodies from disease, suffering or constraint, by assisting them to establish themselves in life, or by erecting or maintaining public buildings or works or otherwise lessening the burdens of government.' It was said, also, in Molly Varum Chapter, D.A.R., v. Lowell, 204 Mass. 487, at 493: 'Charitable institutions organized to administer trusts in aid of the general welfare, which are the outgrowth of the conditions of modern society,' may be found to be valid charities. The avowed objects of this corporation come within these accepted definitions.
“All the incorporators have devoted time, labor and service of great value to work of the corporation without material compensation or other reward than the hope of benefit to mankind. There is no pecuniary profit even remotely available to any of the members of the corporation. Massachusetts Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals v. Boston, 142 Mass. 24. There is an express decision in Tappan v. Dublois, 45 Maine 122, to the effect that a bequest to promote peace is a charity. The World Peace Foundation in its statement of corporate purposes sets forth a strictly legal charity.
“But it is contended that the nature of the work being conducted by the World Peace Foundation and its main actual activities stamp it as an organization striving for objects'opposed to the existing laws' and designed to bring about changes in the laws or political institutions of the country, and that this can not be held to be a charitable purpose within the rule formulated in the great case of Jackson v. Phillips, 14 Allen 539, at 555. The principle on which reliance is placed is settled. A bequest aimed at a change in the existing laws and constitutions can not be sustained as a charity. The laws do not recognize the purpose of overthrowing or changing them, in whole or in part, as a charitable use.' 14 Allen, at 571. These
COURT SUSTAINS BEQUEST
words were used in applying that principle to a trust fund to be expended in aid of the passage of laws securing to women the right to vote and other political and business rights, and it was held that such a purpose was not charitable but rather political.
“The description of the work done by the corporation up to the beginning of the great war shows that it was all charitable in the accurate legal sense, and that it does not come within the inhibition of the principle just stated. It consisted chiefly in the publication of literature and the employment of speakers and writers of ability, widely respected for their character and attainments, to attempt to propagate an opinion among the peoples of the earth in favor of the settlement of international disputes through some form of international tribunal and to cultivate a belief in the waste of warlike preparation, and in the practical wisdom of reductions in the armaments of nations, and in the education of children as well as of adults in the knowledge of peace and the superior advantages of peaceful solutions of international difficulties. It is not necessary to narrate in further detail the kind of work carried on by this corporation. The instrumentalities adopted in brief tended in the direction of educating the world in the true principles of international order as a cure for the waste of preparation for war and the horrors of waging war. The methods followed to attain this end were legitimate and were in harmony with the ideal which was the goal.
"It can not justly be said that the purpose was political, or the means other than educational. Efforts were not directed immediately to the change of existing laws, constitutions or governments. The general diffusion of intelligence upon the subjects taught well might result ultimately in a modification of governmental policies. A different kind of government would be demanded by a highly educated than by a densely ignorant body politic. A nation made up of individuals, each of whom believes and practices love of God and love of man, would be likely to pursue a diplomacy dissimilar to that of a nation whose subjects, as individuals, were actuated by selfishness, pride and greed. The constitution of the commonwealth declares that a constant adherence to the principles of piety and justice are essential to preserve the advantages of liberty and to maintain a free government and admonishes all legislatures and magistrates 'to countenance and inculcate the principles of humanity and general benevolence.' A conscientious following of these precepts by all people would result in the most enlightened government and wise and just laws perhaps differing in substantial part from those now prevailing, yet gifts to promote these ends would not come under the prohibition of the rule against gifts to change existing laws.
“The aim of this corporation as manifested by the means it employed was to nourish a public sentiment and to develop a moral influence among all the people in favor of peace and against war. Ethical and religious sentiments, as well as social and economic motives, were or might properly be appealed to in order to attain this end.”
A second case, Parkhurst et al., Executors, v. M. Francesca G. Ginn et al., was decided at the same time. This was a petition by the Executors of Mr. Ginn for instructions upon various questions concerning the administration of the estate; and the decision, while of importance, is not of general interest.
WHAT WE ARE FIGHTING FOR
AMERICAN REPLY TO THE POPE'S PEACE
DEPARTMENT OF STATE, WASHINGTON, August 27, 1917.
To His HOLINESS, BENEDICTUS XV., POPE:
In acknowledgment of the communication of your Holiness to the belligerent peoples, dated August 1, 1917, the President of the United States requests me to transmit the following reply:
Every heart that has not been blinded and hardened by this terrible war must be touched by this moving appeal of his Holiness the Pope, must feel the dignity and force of the humane and generous motives which prompted it, and must fervently wish that we might take the path of peace he so persuasively points out. But it would be folly to take it if it does not in fact lead to the goal he proposes. Our response must be based upon the stern facts and upon nothing else. It is not a mere cessation of arms he desires; it is a stable and enduring peace. This agony must not be gone through with again, and it must be a matter of very sober judgment what will insure us against it.
His Holiness in substance proposes that we return to the status quo ante bellum and that then there be a general condonation, disarmament and a concert of nations, based upon an acceptance of the principle of arbitration; that by a similar concert freedom of the seas be established; and that the territorial claims of France and Italy, the perplexing problems of the Balkan states, and the restitution of Poland be left to such conciliatory adjustments as may be possible in the new temper of such a peace, due regard being paid to the aspirations of the peoples whose political fortunes and affiliations will be involved.
It is manifest that no part of this program can be successfully carried out unless the restitution of the status quo ante furnishes a firm and satisfactory basis for it. The object of this war is to deliver the free peoples of the world from the menace and the actual power of a vast military establishment controlled by an irresponsible government, which, having secretly planned to dominate the world, proceeded to carry the plan out without regard either to the sacred obligations of treaty or the long-established practices and longcherished principles of international action and honor; which chose its own time for the war; delivered its blow fiercely and suddenly; stopped at no barrier, either of law or of mercy; swept a whole continent within the tide of blood-not the blood of soldiers only, but the blood of innocent women and children also and of the helpless poor; and now stands balked but not defeated, the enemy of fourfifths of the world.
This power is not the German people. It is the ruthless master of the German people. It is no business of ours how that great people came under its control or submitted with temporary zest to the domination of its purpose; but it is our business to see to it that the history of the rest of the world is no longer left to its handling.
To deal with such a power by way of peace upon the plan proposed by his Holiness the Pope would, so far as we can see, involve a recuperation of its strength, and a renewal of its policy would make it necessary to create a permanent hostile combination of nations against the German people, who are its instruments; and would result in abandoning the new-born Russia to the intrigue, the manifold subtle interference and the certain counter-revolution which would be attempted by all the malign influences to which the German Government has of late accustomed the world. Can peace be based upon a restitution of its power or upon any word of honor it could pledge in a treaty of settlement and accommodation?
Responsible statesmen must now everywhere see, if they never saw before, that no peace can rest securely upon political or economic restrictions meant to benefit some nations and cripple or embarrass others, upon vindictive action of any sort, or any kind of revenge or deliberate injury. The American people have suffered intolerable wrongs at the hands of the Imperial German Government, but they desire no reprisal upon the German people, who have themselves suffered all things in this war, which they did not choose. They believe that peace should rest upon the rights of peoples, not the rights of governments—the rights of peoples great or small, weak or