Wald’s house on Henry Street), and active social service outreach by syn-
agogues (Stephen Wise’s Free Synagogue). Further afield he encouraged
and underwrote scientific research, both medical (at Montefiore) and ar-
chaeological (excavations in the Near and Far East). The larger goal of
such contributions, he would have said, was to benefit society as a whole.
Similarly, as a patron of the arts he meant his gifts for public enrichment.^60
Schiff’s views on philanthropy fit well his American surroundings. Merle
Curti has shown how the country’s emphasis on individual achievement,
self-help, and private initiative, as well as its acceptance of the Judeo-
Christian doctrine of stewardship, were woven into the tapestry of Ameri-
can philanthropy. Schiff shared those ideas as well as the American prag-
matic outlook. Others, like his contemporary, John D. Rockefeller, also
used the tactic of matching gifts.^61 But different from many among the
wealthy, Schiff did not wait until he had amassed his fortune before turning
to serious philanthropic projects. Nor did he believe in leaving his entire
fortune to his family. On observing that wealthy people with descendants
rarely made contributions, especially for educational purposes, Schiff said:
“If some of these people could only foresee how frequently the very wealth
which they... so carefully guard for their descendants becomes the very
means through which these grow degenerated, they would not hesitate to
direct part of their wealth during a lifetime into channels where lasting
benefits are to accrue from it.”^62
Schiff once referred publicly to Carnegie’s principles on the uses of
wealth, but there is no evidence that he was consciously prompted by the
famous article, “Wealth” (1889), that Carnegie wrote. There are, however,
striking similarities between his views and Carnegie’s “Gospel of Wealth.”
Schiff too believed in “laws” of individualism, private property, and com-
petition, and he too talked of the responsibilities of stewardship over sur-
plus wealth. He also insisted that inequities resulting from the concentra-
tion of wealth in the hands of a few did not justify any radical redistribution
of wealth. Rather, the remedy lay in the obligations of the wealthy. When
his gift of a new building to the YMHA was dedicated in 1900, he ex-
plained: “The chief value of wealth consists in the opportunities it creates
to make others contented, to expend it freely in an endeavor on the part of
its possessor to equalize the accidental differences in human life.” At the
same time, he claimed that the philanthropist benefited, because his was
the privilege of doing good. In answer to “An Open Letter to the Rich”
that once appeared in the New Republic,Schiff argued that if a man like
Rockefeller was stripped of his resources, he would hardly be able to func-
tion as a philanthropist!^63
Both Carnegie and Schiff talked of the allocation of surplus wealth dur-
Leadership and Philanthropy 63hyphenated last word of recto to avoid loose line