[p1] [p2] [p3] [p4] [p5] [p6] [p7] [p8] [p9] [p10] [p11] [p12] [p13] [p14] [p15] [p16] [p17] [p18] [p19] [p20] [p21] [p22] [p23]
The problem of our age is the proper administration of wealth,
so that the ties of brotherhood may still bind together the rich
and poor in harmonious relationship. The conditions of human life
have not only been changed, but revolutionized, within the past
few hundred years. In former days there was little difference
between the swelling, dress, food, and environment of the chief
and those of his retainers. The Indians are to-day where civilized
man then was. When visiting the Sioux, I was led to the wigwam
of the chief. It was just like the others in external appearance,
and even within the difference was trifling between it and those
of the poorest of his braves. The contrast between the palace
of the millionaire and the cottage of the laborer with us to-day
measures the change which has come with civilization.
This change, however, is not to be deplored, but welcomed as highly
beneficial. It is well, nay, essential for the progress of the
race, that the houses of some should be homes for all that is
highest and best in literature and the arts, and for all the refinements
of civilization, rather than that none should be so. Much better
this great irregularity than universal squalor. Without wealth
there can be no Maecenas. The "good old times" were
not good old times. Neither master nor servant was as well situated
then as to-day. A relapse to old conditions would be disastrous
to both -- not the least so to him who serves -- and would sweep away
civilization with it. But whether the change be for good or ill,
it is upon us, beyond our power to alter, and therefore to be
accepted and made the best of. It is waste of time to criticize
the inevitable.
It is easy to see how the change has come. One illustration will
serve for almost every phase of the cause. In the manufacture
of products we have the whole story. It applies to all combinations
of human industry, as stimulated and enlarged by the inventions
of this scientific age. Formerly articles were manufactured at
the domestic hearth or in small shops which formed part of the
household. The master and his apprentices worked side by side,
the latter living with the master, and therefore subject to the
same conditions. When these apprentices rose to be masters, there
was little or no change in their mode of life, and they, in turn,
educated in the same routine succeeding apprentices. There was,
substantially, social equality, and even political equality, for
those engaged in industrial pursuits had then little or no political
voice in the State.
But the inevitable result of such a mode of manufacture was crude
articles at high prices. To-day the world obtains commodities
of excellent quality at prices which even the generation preceding
this would have deemed incredible. In the commercial world similar
causes have produced similar results, and the race is benefited
thereby. The poor enjoy what the rich could not before afford.
What were the luxuries have become the necessaries of life. The
laborer has now more comforts than the farmer had a few
generations ago. The farmer has more luxuries than the landlord
had, and is more richly clad and better housed. The landlord has
books and pictures rarer, and appointments more artistic, than
the King could then obtain.
The price we pay for this salutary change is, no doubt, great.
We assemble thousands of operatives in the factory, in the mine,
and in the counting-house, of whom the employer can know little
or nothing, and to whom the employer is little better than a myth.
All intercourse between them is at an end. Rigid Castes are formed,
and, as, usual, mutual ignorance breeds mutual distrust. Each
Caste is without sympathy for the other, and ready to credit anything
disparaging in regard to it. Under the law of competition, the
employer of thousands is forced into the strictest economies,
among which the rates paid to labor figure prominently, and often
there is friction between the employer and the employed, between
capital and labor, between rich and poor. Human society loses
homogeneity.
The price which society pays for the law of competition, like
the price it pays for cheap comforts and luxuries, is also great;
but the advantages of this law are also greater still, for it
is to this law that we owe our wonderful material development,
which brings improved conditions in its train. But, whether the
law be benign or not, we must say of it, as we say of the change
in the conditions of men to which we have referred: It is here;
we cannot evade it; no substitutes for it have been found; and
while the law may be sometimes hard for the individual, it is
best for the race, because it insures the survival of the fittest
in every department. We accept and welcome, therefore, as conditions
to which we must accommodate ourselves, great inequality of environment,
the concentration of business, industrial and commercial, in the
hands of a few, and the law of competition between these, as being
not only beneficial, but essential for the future progress of
the race. Having accepted these, it follows that there must be
great scope for the exercise of special ability in the merchant
and in the manufacturer who has to conduct affairs upon a great
scale, That this talent for organization and management is rare
among men is proved by the fact that it invariably secures for
its possessor enormous rewards, no matter where or under what
laws or conditions. The experienced in affairs always rate the
MAN whose services can be obtained as a partner as not only the
first consideration, but such as to render the question of his
capital scarcely worth considering, for such men soon create capital;
while, without the special talent required, capital soon takes
wings. Such men become interested in firms or corporations using
millions; and estimating only simple interest to be made upon
the capital invested, it is inevitable that their income must
exceed their expenditures, and that they must accumulate wealth.
Nor is there any middle ground which such men can occupy, because
the great manufacturing or commercial concern which does not earn
at least interest upon its capital soon becomes bankrupt. It must
either go forward or fall behind: to stand still is impossible.
It is a condition essential for its successful operation that
it should be thus far profitable, and even that, in addition to
interest on capital, it should make profit. It is a law, as certain
as any of the others named, that men possessed of this peculiar
talent for affairs, under the free play of economic forces, must,
of necessity, soon be in receipt of more revenue than can be judiciously
expended upon themselves; and this law is as beneficial for the
race as the others.
Objections to the foundations upon which society is based are
not in order, because the condition of the race is better with
these than it has been with any others which have been tried.
Of the effect of any new substitutes proposed we cannot be sure.
The Socialist or Anarchist who seeks to overturn present conditions
is to be regarded as attacking the foundation upon which civilization
itself rests, for civilization took its start from the day that
the capable, industrious workman said to his incompetent and lazy
fellow, "If thou dost not sow, thou shalt no reap,"
and thus ended primitive Communism by separating the drones from
the bees. One who studies this subject will soon be brought face
to face with the conclusion that upon the sacredness of property
civilization itself depends -- the right of the laborer to his hundred
dollars in the savings bank, and equally the legal right of the
millionaire to his millions. To those who propose to substitute
Communism for this intense Individualism the answer, therefore,
is: The race has tried that. All progress from that barbarous
day to the present time has resulted from its displacement. Not
evil, but good, has come to the race from the accumulation of
wealth by those who have the ability and energy that produce it.
But even if we admit for a moment that it might be better for
the race to discard its present foundation, Individualism, -- that
it is a nobler ideal that man should labor, not for himself alone,
but in and for a brotherhood of his fellows, and share with them
all in common, realizing Swedenborg's idea of Heaven, where, as
he says, the angels derive their happiness, not from laboring
for self, but for each other, -- even admit all this, and a sufficient
answer is, This is not evolution, but revolution. It necessitates
the changing of human nature itself -- a work of eons, even if it
were good to change it, which we cannot know. It is not practicable
in our day or in our age. Even if desirable theoretically, it
belongs to another and long-succeeding sociological stratum. Our
duty is with what is practicable now; with the next step possible
in our day and generation. It is criminal to waste our energies
in endeavoring to uproot, when all we can profitably or possibly
accomplish is to bend the universal tree of humanity a little
in the direction most favorable to the production of good fruit
under existing circumstances. We might as well urge the destruction
of the highest existing type of man because he failed to reach
our ideal as to favor the destruction of Individualism, Private
Property, the Law of Accumulation of Wealth, and the Law of Competition;
for these are the highest results of human experience, the soil
in which society so far has produced the best fruit. Unequally
or unjustly, perhaps, as these laws sometimes operate, and imperfect
as they appear to the Idealist, they are, nevertheless, like the
highest type of man, the best and most valuable of all that humanity
has yet accomplished.
We start, then, with a condition of affairs under which the best
interests of the race are promoted, but which inevitably gives
wealth to the few. Thus far, accepting conditions as they exist,
the situation can be surveyed and pronounced good. The question
then arises, -- and, if the foregoing be correct, it is the only
question with which we have to deal, -- What is the proper mode
of administering wealth after the laws upon which civilization
is founded have thrown it into the hands of the few? And it is
of this great question that I believe I offer the true solution.
It will be understood that fortunes are here spoken of,
not moderate sums saved by many years of effort, the returns from
which are required for the comfortable maintenance and education
of families. This is not wealth, but only competence,
which it should be the aim of all to acquire.
There are but three modes in which surplus wealth can be disposed
of. It can be left to the families of the decedents; or it can
be bequeathed for public purposes; or, finally, it can be administered
during their lives by its possessors. Under the first and second
modes most of the wealth of the world that has reached the few
has hitherto been applied. Let us in turn consider each of these
modes. The first is the most injudicious. In monarchical countries.
the estates and the greatest portion of the wealth are left to
the first son, that the vanity of the parent may be gratified
by the thought that his name and title are to descend to succeeding
generations unimpaired. The condition of this class in Europe
to-day teaches the futility of such hopes or ambitions. The successors
have become impoverished through their follies or from the fall
in the value of land. Even in Great Britain the strict law of
entail has been found inadequate to maintain the status of an
hereditary class. Its soil is rapidly passing into the hands of
the stranger. Under republican institutions the division of property
among the children is much fairer, but the question which forces
itself upon thoughtful men in all lands is: Why should men leave
great fortunes to their children? If this is done from affection,
is it not misguided affection? Observation teaches that, generally
speaking, it is not well for the children that they should be
so burdened. Neither is it well for the state. Beyond providing
for the wife and daughters moderate sources of income, and very
moderate allowances indeed, if any, for the sons, men may well
hesitate, for it is no longer questionable that great sums bequeathed
oftener work more for the injury than for the good of the recipients.
Wise men will soon conclude that, for the best interests of the
members of their families and of the state, such bequests are
an improper use of their means.
It is not suggested that men who have failed to educate their
sons to earn a livelihood shall cast them adrift in poverty. If
any man has seen fit to rear his sons with a view to their living
idle lives, or, what is highly commendable, has instilled in them
the sentiment that they are in a position to labor for public
ends without reference to pecuniary consideration, then, of course,
the duty of the parent is to see that such are provided for in
moderation. There are instances of millionaires' sons unspoiled
by wealth, who, being rich, still perform great services in the
community. Such are the very salt of the earth, as valuable as,
unfortunately, they are rare; still it is not the exception, but
the rule, that men must regard, and, looking at the usual result
of enormous sums conferred upon legatees, the thoughtful man must
shortly say, "I would as soon leave to my son a curse as the almighty
dollar," and admit to himself that it is not the welfare of the
children, but family pride, which inspires these enormous legacies.
As to the second mode, that of leaving wealth at death for public
uses, it may be said that this is only a means for the disposal
of wealth, provided a man is content to wait until he is dead
before it becomes of much good in the world. Knowledge of the
results of legacies bequeathed is not calculated to inspire the
brightest hopes of much posthumous good being accomplished. The
cases are not few in which the real object sought by the testator
is not attained, nor are they few in which his real wishes are
thwarted. In many cases the bequests are so used as to become
only monuments of his folly. It is well to remember that it requires
the exercise of not less ability than that which acquired the
wealth to use it so as to be really beneficial to the community.
Besides this, it may fairly be said that no man is to be extolled
for doing what he cannot help doing, nor is he to be thanked by
the community to which he only leaves wealth at death. Men who
leave vast sums in this way may fairly be thought men who would
not have left it at all, had they been able to take it with them.
The memories of such cannot be held in grateful remembrance, for
there is not grace in their gifts. It is not to be wondered at
that such bequests seems so generally to lack the blessing.
The growing disposition to tax more and more heavily large estates
left at death is a cheering indication of the growth of a salutary
change in public opinion. The State of Pennsylvania now takes -- subject
to some exceptions -- one-tenth of the property left by its citizens.
The budget presented in the British Parliament the other day proposes
to increase the death-duties; and, most significant of all, the
new tax is to be a graduated one. Of all forms of taxation, this
seems the wisest. Men who continue hoarding great sums all their
lives, the proper use of which for the public ends would work
good to the community, should be made to feel that the community,
in the form of the state, cannot thus be deprived of its proper
share. By taxing estates heavily at death the state marks its
condemnation of the selfish millionaire's unworthy life.
It is desirable that nations should go much further in this direction.
Indeed, it is difficult to set bounds to the share of a rich man's
estate which should go at his death to the public through the
agency of the state, and by all means such taxes should be graduated,
beginning at nothing upon moderate sums to dependents, and increasing
rapidly as the amounts swell, until of the millionaire's hoard,
as of Shylock's, at least
" ---- The other half
Comes to the privy coffer of the state."
This policy would work powerfully to induce the rich man to attend
to the administration of wealth during his life, which is the
end that society should always have in view, as being that by
far most fruitful for the people. Nor need it be feared that this
policy would sap the root of enterprise and render men less anxious
to accumulate, for to the class whose ambition it is to leave
great fortunes and be talked about after their death, it will
attract even more attention, and, indeed, be a somewhat nobler
ambition to have enormous sums paid over to the state from their
fortunes.
There remains, then, only one mode of using great fortunes; but
in this we have the true antidote for the temporary unequal distribution
of wealth, the reconciliation of the rich and the poor -- a reign
of harmony -- another ideal, differing, indeed, from that of the
Communist in requiring only the further evolution of existing
conditions, not the total overthrow of our civilization. It is
founded upon the present most intense individualism, and the race
is prepared to put it in practice by degrees whenever it pleases.
Under its sway we shall have an ideal state, in which the surplus
wealth of the few will become, in the best sense, the property
of the many, because administered for the common good, and this
wealth, passing through the hands of the few, can be made a much
more potent force for the elevation of our race than if it had
been distributed in small sums to the people themselves. Even
the poorest can be made to see this, and to agree that great sums
gathered by some of their fellow-citizens and spent for public
purposes, from which the masses reap the principal benefit, are
more valuable to them than if scattered among them through the
course of many years in trifling amounts.
If we consider what results flow from the Cooper Institute, for
instance, to the best portion of the race in New York not possessed
of means, and compare these with those which would have arisen
for the good of the masses from an equal sum distributed by Mr.
Cooper in his lifetime in the form of wages, which is the highest
form of distribution, being for work done and not for charity,
we can form some estimate of the possibilities for the improvement
of the race which lie embedded in the present law of the accumulation
of wealth. Much of this sum. if distributed in small quantities
among the people, would have been wasted in the indulgence of
appetite, some of it in excess, and it may be doubted whether
even the part put to the best use, that of adding to the comforts
of the home, would have yielded results for the race, as a race, at all comparable
to those which are flowing and are to flow from the Cooper Institute
from generation to generation. Let the advocate of violent or
radical change ponder well this thought.
We might even go so far as to take another instance, that of Mr.
Tilden's bequest of five millions of dollars for a free library
in the city of New York, but in referring to this one cannot help
saying involuntarily, How much better if Mr. Tilden had devoted
the last years of his own life to the proper administration of
this immense sum; in which case neither legal contest nor any
other cause of delay could have interfered with his aims. But
let us assume that Mr. Tilden's millions finally become the means
of giving to this city a noble public library, where the treasures
of the world contained in books will be open to all forever, without
money and without price. Considering the good of that part of
the race which congregates in and around Manhattan Island, would
its permanent benefit have been better promoted had these millions
been allowed to circulate in small sums through the hands of the
masses? Even the most strenuous advocate of Communism must entertain
a doubt upon this subject. Most of those who think will probably
entertain no doubt whatever.
Poor and restricted are our opportunities in this life; narrow
our horizon; our best work most imperfect; but rich men should
be thankful for one inestimable boon. They have it in their power
during their lives to busy themselves in organizing benefactions
from which the masses of their fellows will derive lasting advantage,
and thus dignify their own lives. The highest life is probably
to be reached, not by such imitation of the life of Christ as
Count Tolstoï gives us, but, while animated by Christ's spirit,
by recognizing the changed conditions of this age, and adopting
modes of expressing this spirit suitable to the changed conditions
under which we live; still laboring for the good of our fellows,
which was the essence of his life and teaching, but laboring in
a different manner.
This, then, is held to be the duty of the man of Wealth: First,
to set an example of modest, unostentatious living, shunning display
or extravagance; to provide moderately for the legitimate wants
of those dependent upon him; and after doing so to consider all
surplus revenues which come to him simply as trust funds, which
he is called upon to administer, and strictly bound as a matter
of duty to administer in the manner which, in his judgment, is
best calculated to produce the most beneficial results for the
community -- the man of wealth thus becoming the mere agent and
trustee for his poorer brethren, bringing to their service his
superior wisdom, experience, and ability to administer, doing
for them better than they would or could do for themselves.
We are met here with the difficulty of determining what are moderate
sums to leave to members of the family; what is modest, unostentatious
living; what is the test of extravagance. There must be different
standards for different conditions. The answer is that it is as
impossible to name exact amounts or actions as it is to define
good manners, good taste, or the rules of propriety; but, nevertheless,
these are verities, well known although undefinable. Public sentiment
is quick to know and to feel what offends these. So in the case
of wealth. The rule in regard to good taste in the dress of men
or women applies here. Whatever makes one conspicuous offends
the canon. If any family be chiefly known for display, for extravagance
in home, table, equipage, for enormous sums ostentatiously spent
in any form upon itself, -- if these be its chief distinctions,
we have no difficulty in estimating its nature or culture. So
likewise in regard to the use or abuse of its surplus wealth,
or to generous, freehanded coöperation in good public uses, or
to unabated efforts to accumulate and hoard to the last, whether
they administer or bequeath. The verdict rests with the best and
most enlightened public sentiment. The community will surely judge,
and its judgments will not often be wrong.
The best uses to which surplus wealth can be put have already
been indicated. Those who would administer wisely must, indeed,
be wise, for one of the serious obstacles to the improvement of
our race is indiscriminate charity. It were better for mankind
that the millions of the rich were thrown into the sea than so
spent as to encourage the slothful, the drunken, the unworthy.
Of every thousand dollars spent in so called charity to-day, it
is probable that $950 is unwisely spent; so spent, indeed, as
to produce the very evils which it proposes to mitigate or cure.
A well-known writer of philosophic books admitted the other day
that he had given a quarter of a dollar to a man who approached
him as he was coming to visit the house of his friend. He knew
nothing of the habits of this beggar; knew not the use that would
be made of this money, although he had every reason to suspect
that it would be spent improperly. This man professed to be a
disciple of Herbert Spencer; yet the quarter-dollar given that
night will probably work more injury than all the money which
its thoughtless donor will ever be able to give in true charity
will do good. He only gratified his own feelings, saved himself
from annoyance, -- and this was probably one of the most selfish
and very worst actions of his life, for in all respects he is
most worthy.
In bestowing charity, the main consideration should be to help
those who will help themselves; to provide part of the means by
which those who desire to improve may do so; to give those who
desire to rise the aids by which they may rise; to assist, but
rarely or never to do all. Neither the individual nor the race
is improved by aims-giving. Those worthy of assistance, except in rare cases,
seldom require assistance. The really valuable men of the race never
do, except in cases of accident or sudden change. Every one has,
of course, cases of individuals brought to his own knowledge where
temporary assistance can do
genuine good, and these he will not overlook. But the amount which
can be wisely given by the individual for individuals is necessarily
limited by his lack of knowledge of the circumstances connected
with each. He is the only true reformer who is as careful and
as anxious not to aid the unworthy as he is to aid the worthy,
and, perhaps, even more so, for in aims-giving more injury is
probably done by rewarding vice than by relieving virtue.
The rich man is thus almost restricted to following the examples
of Peter Cooper, Enoch Pratt of Baltimore, Mr. Pratt of Brooklyn,
Senator Stanford, and others, who know that the best means of
benefiting the community is to place within its reach the ladders
upon which the aspiring can rise -- parks, and means of recreation,
by which men are helped in body and minds; works of art, certain
to give pleasure and improve the public taste, and public institutions
of various kinds, which will improve the general condition of
the people; -- in this manner returning their surplus wealth to
the mass of their fellows in the forms best calculated to do them
lasting good.