Memphis daily appeal. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1847-1886, 1883-04-05
THE DANGEe PROM RICHES

The Rev. DR.. Howard Crosby, Of New
York City, has aroused strong attention, by
his article in the North American Review, to
the greatest of the evils that threaten the
Liberties, the individual welfare, and the
prosperity of the American people. That
evil is the tendency, under existing laws and
customs, toward the rich becoming richer and
the poor poorer. That such tendency Is
strong in this country has become especially
evident within the last quarter Of a century
during which time individuals have sccumu-
lated larger masses of wealth than were ever
possessed by rich Americans in former days.
The const quence of this accumulation OF
large amouots OF wealth in lew hands has
been, as a necessary consequence, that less
amount of wealth remains TO be distributed
among the mass of the population. This
has resulted in the increase Of
absolute poverty at one end Of
the social scale, in proportion as
there has been an accumulation Of extrsva-
giant we allh at the other end. The display
of we lth by one stimulates another 10
struggle for a similar acquisition. This
struggle to get rich entails disregard Ct
the means by which wealth may be OBJ
tanned, and we therefore see INSCRIPTIONS
speculation, corners, monopolies, the coIrup-
ton of legislative and official persons,
cheating, embezzlement, robbeKies by bank
presidents and cashiers and by persons in sll
sorts of trusts; manIacal greed for riches,
INSCRIPTIONS grasping for wealth, abandon
ment Of conscientious scruples and disregai d
of honorable dealing. sect money
honeatly if you can, hut get money"
is the creed Of the vCtaries Of
the white mans god-Mammon. How
is this greed for riches TO be checked?
The most pregnant sentence of DR.. Howard's
article in the North american answers this
question. 1t sage: There must be a limit
10 individual wealth if we are TO be pre-
served as republic" These are words OF
truth and sobernes', unexsggerated and IN
deniabe; but can we say 10 MAE, you
shall not own above a certain amount Of
wealth? Manifestly we cannot; TO do so
would be the destruction of the very liberty
such denial of a citizens liberty was in
tended to preserve. Every American citi-
zen has the undoubled right to get as rich as
he honestly can, and to demand that the law
shall protect him in the secure possession OF
his riches. This being done, however, the
law-which already forbids him 10 "entsiP
his property, 10 settle it SO that it shall de-
sceud unalterably from generation to gen.
eration-must go further still in limit
ing his power when making his will. II
must say, Not only you shall not entail your
property, but il it amounts to certain value
you must leave it TO more than one person
if 10 a certain higher value, to more than
two persons, and 50 on. And this must be
done because the public welfare demands it.
Such a regulation would prevent any per-
manent continuance Of an unwholesome &C
emulation of wealth, would take away a
main incentive TO such accumulation, aud
would preserve a desirable distribution OF
wealth. By this means the Objectionable
existing tendency of the rich to get richer
and the poor poorer, would receive an effect
ual check. Under the operation oil such a
law there would still b. rich and poor, but
the rich would be less rich and the poor less
poor.