Another example about which some doubt might be expressed is that of a man struggling with his family on an income well below the limit, unable to develop his capacities and lead a decently useful life because of the constant pinch of want. Will not a gift of money which secures him a competence without affluence, frees his energies for higher work, and liberates him from the sordid and painful trials of poverty, will not such a gift be an unqualified advantage to him, and will not, therefore, the giver of that money be an exception to the axiom that superfluous wealth cannot be well spent? The gift and its acceptance are not the only determining factors in the problem. If such a case is quite fairly stated, it shows that the donor was not giving part of his superfluous wealth, taking the definition of superfluous which has already been given. He is giving something which, as it turns out, he personally has the capacity to give in a profitable and fruitful manner, and which perhaps involves a certain amount of sacrifice on his part. This money therefore constitutes part of his competence and the gift is justifiable. But this can only be admitted to a very restricted extent. He must use the utmost discretion not to give too much, otherwise he will overstep the mark of prudence. He may be encouraged to make this gift too frequently and less discriminatingly. In short, the number of such cases, where the recipient is unmistakably benefited by an isolated gift of money, are very exceptional. If we are presupposing that our donor has money to play with and that his gift is made out of his superfluity, in this case, as in that of the millionaire’s experiment, his balance is on the wrong side, and more harm is being done by the retention of his surplus than good is done by his small, spasmodic endeavours at charitable help and subsidy, even though now and then they may be perfectly well directed. Capital entrusted to companies, corporations, municipalities, or in the possession of the State, need not, from the bare fact of its being held conjointly by a number of people, be expended in a wise way or on remunerative works. But there is a very much better chance of its being well spent in the long run, where there is practically unlimited capacity in the joint efforts and united talents of a number of people, where there is disinterested control, and where that control is itself far from supreme, being subject to the direct supervision of electors or of the general community. Remonstrance, appeal, or protest in this case is always possible and effectual, but when an individual is the only dispenser of the funds, he is the sole arbiter and judge, has complete and despotic power, and is not answerable to any superior authority.