There is in the government of human affairs one order that is best for
all. What that order is and how it is to be attained should be the great
problem for all who have at heart the betterment of the human race.
Never in the history of our country were the people confronted with
greater social problems than they are to-day. The strikes, boycotts, and
general discontent of late years prove conclusively that there is yet
much room for improvement in our social order. What mean the great
outcry and muttering of the masses? What means the cry from the vast
army of discontented which wells up from the very heart of the nation,
_unless_ it signifies the rumbling which is often heard before the
storm? Gloss it over as we will, the fact stands out as prominent as
ever, that there is something radically wrong with our present
economical system.
Many remedies have been suggested, many reforms have been inaugurated
with the purpose of relieving the poverty and misery which press so
heavily upon a large majority of the people. Stop immigration! Prohibit
invention! exclaim some. The population is increasing too fast! reply
others. And so the many reforms are advocated, all of which are
discussed with more or less fairness. But when it is suggested that
wealth is becoming too concentrated, that limitations should be placed
upon it, the cry immediately goes up that he who suggests such a remedy
is an anarchist, and one whose name should be synonymous with whatever
is dangerous, lawless, and subversive.
Nevertheless, the question of wealth limitation cannot be dismissed with
threats, epithets, or sneers. It will not dismiss itself, and we cannot
dismiss it. Every observant person must admit that the great
concentration of wealth, whether it be in corporations, trusts, or
individuals, has reached a point dangerous to the future prosperity of
the nation.
Millions of people idle, wealth piled up for the few by the toil of the
many, paupers and millionaires on every side, and the conditions
growing worse and worse,--these things are enough to make even the most
optimistic painfully apprehensive of the future. Our government in some
respects is in no better condition than was the old Roman Empire just
before its fall, as described by James Anthony Froude. If we are to
believe that eminent historian, the Roman Empire was crushed by the same
power of unlimited, concentrated wealth that to-day is destroying the
life, the liberty, and the happiness of the many in the United States.
In mediaeval Italy, too, popular freedom was lost through a moneyed
oligarchy and proletariat. So in every country where individual wealth
has transcended the bounds of justice, the people--the toilers--have
eventually been enslaved.
Ours is fast becoming a moneyed nation; and a moneyed nation is
generally a weak one. Superfluity of riches, like superfluity of food,
causes weakness and decay. Individual prosperity or the prosperity of a
community does not mean general prosperity, or the prosperity of a
nation. Thus it has been shown that, in New York and Massachusetts and
those States in which the greatest wealth is concentrated, the largest
proportion of paupers are to be found. In 1833, when Tocqueville visited
America, he was struck by the equal distribution of wealth and the
absence of capitalists. Half a century later, when James Bryce, author
of "The American Commonwealth," visited our country, the trusts,
monopolies, and concentrated wealth so amazed him that he exclaimed: "I
see the shadows of a new structure of society--an aristocracy of
riches."
Fifty years ago there were no great fortunes here, and in fact but few
fortunes that could be called large, and in those days there was
comparatively little poverty. Now we have many gigantic fortunes and a
vast number ranging from $100,000 to $10,000,000. In the past, wealth
being more equally distributed, there was but little class distinction,
but there were a far greater number of what might be called fortunes,
and a noticeable exemption from that pauperism which has become chronic
of late years.
The Probate-Court records of the various States disclose the fact that
millionaires are becoming more numerous, while the smaller
property-owners are gradually sinking into the multitude of people
possessing nothing. In a valuable article by Eltweed Pomeroy on "The
Concentration of Wealth,"[2] some interesting figures and diagrams are
given, proving from probate records the exact extent to which small
fortunes have been crowded out or merged into enormous ones. These
records are valuable because they are official. But while they prove the
_extent_ to which wealth is concentrated, they do not disclose the
misery which that wealth is causing. For that, we must look to the
conditions about us. And in doing so it is not necessary to be a
philosopher in order to see the havoc which concentrated wealth has
wrought in recent years. Every day, it has been declared, America is
over four million dollars richer at night than in the morning. Who
receives this wealth? Surely not those who toil; else they would not
suffer so. They receive little of it. The national wealth, great as it
is, slips through their fingers to be collected in the vast reservoirs
of the moneyed aristocracy. They work, but it is the work of those who
labor to produce, but who receive none of that which is produced.
[2] THE ARENA, Dec., 1896, p. 82.
It is this condition that causes so many to declare that the present
distribution of wealth does not conform to the principles of justice.
And how can it be otherwise, when all wealth passes through the hands of
the producers and stops only when it reaches those who possess most?
Thus wealth is becoming with us not a power for general good, but a
power given to the few to control the many--a power of placing upon the
masses a yoke little better than slavery itself. The rich, becoming
further and further removed from the poor, are also becoming conscious
of being in a measure the proprietors of the poor. The poor have a
knowledge of this fact, and the strikes, boycotts, and general
discontent are but the expression of that knowledge.
In no country in the world does wealth, individual and corporate, exert
such an influence as in the United States, and as a consequence, human
life is becoming lamentably cheap. Capital is taking the place of men,
and is valued more than men. Property is becoming sacred, human life
profane. Laws are being made not for the good of humanity, but for the
sake of property. One instance may be mentioned here: in the spring of
1896 a bill was before Congress to remove all criminal cases from the
jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of the United States. It was argued by
those in favor of the bill that much of the time of the Supreme Court
was consumed listening to criminal cases (cases involving life and
liberty), while high-priced corporation lawyers, whose cases involved
millions of dollars, were required to wait in Washington until the
criminal cases were disposed of. The bill naturally passed the Senate,
but was defeated in the House.
This bill was but one of many indications that, in the eye of the law,
property is becoming of more value than life or liberty.
In Benjamin Franklin's time it was proposed to make the possession of a
certain amount of property a prerequisite for voting. The amount would
at the time have bought one ass. Franklin characteristically argued: If
a man with an ass could vote, and did vote, but when the ass died the
man could not vote, who was it, in fact, voted--the man or the ass?
Franklin's argument would hold good against many of the laws advocated
to-day--laws in which the object is the stability of property rather
than the freedom or happiness of man. This condition of affairs, this
conflict between the right of liberty on the one hand, and the right of
property on the other, has created a great political problem. Has the
state a right to limit wealth? Is there a limit to the accumulations of
individuals and corporations? Has the state the power to tax
concentrated wealth out of existence when such wealth has become
detrimental to the public peace and prosperity? In other words, has the
state the power to prevent the acquisition of wealth from becoming a
public curse? Government, if it stands for anything, stands for the
public interests, and one of the objects of government should be the
protection of its citizens from the encroachments of accumulated wealth.
Great individual wealth is an anti-social interest. It is the ascendency
of individuals over the interests of the public. Individuals have, it is
true, a certain amount of liberty, but it cannot be denied that society
has the right to modify the liberty of the individual where such liberty
is but the slavery of the public. The right to live also implies the
right to use the things about us which go to make life comfortable and
enjoyable, and which have not been already appropriated by others. It is
evident, however, that the use of anything by one must necessarily take
from the personal liberty of all others who otherwise would be able to
use it. And it is perfectly plain that just in proportion as one's
wealth increases, the wealth of others must decrease. This to a certain
extent is legitimate, and cannot be prevented. But when the wealth of
one increases to such an extent as to deprive others of food, shelter,
and even existence itself, it infringes upon the equality of personal
liberty far more than could any law that placed a limit to individual
wealth. When men are starving, when paupers are increasing, when to the
misfortune of poverty is added the curse of industrial slavery, when the
great concentration of wealth affects the life and liberty of all, is
not a law just which takes from a few a portion of their wealth and
indirectly restores it to the hands of the many? Does not the right to
property involve and rest upon the admission of the right to live?
Cardinal Manning startled the world some years ago when he declared:
"The obligation to feed the hungry springs from the natural right of
every man to life and to the food necessary to the sustenance of life.
So strict is this natural right that it prevails over all positive laws
of property. Necessity has no law, and a starving man has a right to his
neighbor's bread."
Strong words these for a cardinal. Sentimental philosophy it may be
called, but it is the philosophy of justice. Enormous wealth has always
been irreconcilable with equality. Its growth has caused the downfall of
many democracies. Will it bring about the ruin of the greatest democracy
in history? Are we, with the awe with which we regard the institution of
property, becoming a nation of millionaires and mendicants?
Property is only absolutely safe when those who hold it are far more
numerous than those who do not. When the middle class disappears from a
nation and the property falls into the hands of a few over-rich men,
then property is unsafe. We call such a condition an aristocracy of
money, and an aristocracy of money is always the child of a degenerated
or degenerating democracy. Some people, however, regard the
concentration of wealth as an indication of progress. In matters
political the obstacle is often taken for the cause. Monopolies,
trusts, and other forms of concentrated wealth are regarded by some as
the blessings of a prosperous nation. But examined in the light of
history we find that concentrated wealth has always been a means of
obstructing if not of destroying a nation. Our nation is not an
exception. We cannot say that the destructive power of concentrated
wealth is not now felt. All that is necessary is to observe the
conditions about us. Whenever the people of a nation become subservient
and dependent, and are oppressed and abused because they are so,
whenever there is little general prosperity but a great deal of
prosperity for a few, we naturally come to the conclusion that the cause
of the misery and lack of general prosperity is the great concentration
of wealth in the hands of the few. It is this conclusion, arrived at by
what are termed the masses, that has caused the many conflicts of recent
years between labor and capital. And such conflicts are natural. Man
always revolts when he suspects his misery is the consequence of a
social order capable of reformation. Force, of late years, has often
been called upon to subdue the spirit of resentment which agitates the
breasts of the poorer classes. The militia of the various States and
even government troops have been called upon in order to preserve
property and also maintain the supremacy of concentrated wealth.
How long this can go on before a change comes we do not know. It cannot
be maintained long. Unless some law is enacted that will stop the
encroaching power of wealth, things will go on until the inequality
becomes so glaring, so oppressive, that the pent-up social waters,
gathering force, will break through the wall of concentrated wealth and
allow society once more to regain its natural level. Every statesman,
every thinker, should know that we cannot expect a healthy growth with
class arrayed against class. Every strike, every riot, is a
retrogressive step in our nation's history. If our American civilization
is to endure and progress we must bring about a change in the
distribution of wealth. If conditions are such as to be beneficial to a
small number and injurious to society in general, those conditions
should be changed. Unless limited, the alarming development and
aggressiveness of great capitalists and powerful corporations will
eventually lead to the absolute degradation of the toiling masses.
Unless checked, it will continue to grow until it usurps the entire
legislative and executive branches of our government, and, like a huge
vampire, slowly draws the life-blood from every healthy, helpful
creature. This power of wealth is the greatest danger that has
threatened our country since the civil war, and against it we must
constantly be on our guard. If the power is permitted to grow it may
become too late, and can then be remedied only by putting class against
class--by revolution, which always means the rejoicing of the poor at
the downfall of their oppressors.
This, then, is to be the battle of the future--concentrated wealth on
one hand, concentrated poverty on the other. The battle should not be
one of force, but one of reason and agitation until wealth shall be
bound by proper constitutional limitations; a battle in which law shall
triumph; for the true remedy, the remedy most conducive to equality,
lies in legislation. But this legislation should be immediate. If we
desire to prevent actual war between class and class, it is imperative
that a legal check at once be placed upon the growing power for evil of
aggregated wealth.
The limitation of wealth by law has received the approval of some of the
most gifted as well as philanthropic of minds. In our own country such
men as Horace Greeley, Theodore Parker, and William Ellery Channing have
advocated it. Still, a ready objection of some against the limitation of
wealth is that any attempt to remedy by legislation the inequality of
fortune at once infringes upon the right of personal liberty. Have we no
laws in existence now which infringe upon the right of personal liberty?
Do not our usury laws take some rights from the individual? Does not our
custom-house law, which permits the trunks of every new arrival to be
searched, infringe somewhat upon the right of personal liberty? The
citizen who would object to these laws would have but a very narrow
conception of the true purpose of government. If we examine our laws
closely we shall find many that encroach upon individual liberty for the
sake of public good. Then why should any objection be made to those laws
which tend to limit wealth?
Undoubtedly a tax levied upon all incomes, which would be progressively
raised and graduated according to the amount of the individual or
corporate wealth could be constitutionally enacted. And if a progressive
income tax can be enacted, the graduated inheritance tax can also be
enacted, for the principle is practically the same. Senator David B.
Hill, of New York, has called the progressive tax a "modern fad." It is
so modern, however that it can be traced back to the Romans, Greeks, and
Egyptians. During the palmiest days of Greece--the days of Solon and
Lycurgus--a progressive tax was a stern reality.
Our own country has not been without a progressive tax. In 1797 a graded
inheritance tax was levied by Congress. This law was repealed in 1802.
In 1862 a similar law was passed. But after having been decided to be
constitutional by the Supreme Court, it was repealed in 1872.
Other governments at the present time tax the rich. In England, besides
the income tax, many other items of revenue are contributed entirely by
the rich--contributed upon the principle that those who have acquired
riches shall bear the burden of taxation. In the United States we seem
to place the burden of taxation upon the shoulders least fitted to bear
it. Every effort to tax the rich, to properly tax corporations and
trusts, has met with failure. The lobbyist and corporation lawyer have
defied the tax-gatherer until they have worn out the patience of the
people. The time is now ripe for proper legislation. A progressive
income tax and a tax upon inheritances should be made a law in every
State. The power to tax, it has been said, is the power to destroy. If a
scale of taxation were wisely adopted it would eventually enable us to
reach without political disturbance the almost total abolition of an
aristocracy of wealth and thus solve the great problem of the day. If we
are to consider humanity of any importance at all, wealth must be
limited. The rights of all must be considered. When this is done we may
be able to have a truly prosperous nation--a nation in which prosperity
will not be confined to a favored few, but given to all.
"Prosperity," says Rousseau, "is best secured when the medium-class
income prevails, when no citizen is so rich that he can buy others, and
no one so poor that he might be compelled to sell himself."