The commonwealth. (Scotland Neck, N.C.) 1882-1884, 1883-02-22

ich our institutions have been sub.
tted. If postponed until wealth
has corrupted the people, the fate of
Rome is repeated if until the poor
have plundered the rich, the story Of
the downfall of Greece is retold. One
or the or the other of these condi.
tlons will be fulfilled unless the
cause which has always, and will
always, produce these unhappy fates
is removed. This can only be done
by removing the temptation to plum
der and the means of oppression.
Ihe time to do this is befo.e the evil
becomes so great that 1t is beyond
the power of peaceable remedy, when
neither side has the upper hand to
any great extent, and when both can
be heard. 1t does not follow because
certain theories cannot be reduced to
practice at one time they are impos-
sible to e~ecute altogether. A peo-
pie highly civilized in time of pro-
found quiet can do much that those
in a period Of revolution or an age of
ignorance will fail to do.
What method then can we adopt
to limit the power Of wealth which
will prove satisfactory and success
ful /?
In order to place limit to the
power of wealth it is necessary to fix
a sum beyond which no mans pos
sessions shall go. The most practca,
ble step ever taken in this direction
IS the law forbidding Entails. The
long acquiescence in such law is
proof of its wisdom. The rapidity
with which enormous fortunes are
made. coupled with the power Of de-
vising them, has seriously impaired
the usefulness of the law against en-.
tails. Let US suppose another step
is taken in the same direction, and
the right to bequeath or convey by
deed of gift more than one hundred
thousand dollars to single person
Or association of persons, is denied.
In case of intesLacy limit the portion
of each heir, or distribute to the same
amount. Let the residue escheat to
the government to be used for edu-
cational aid other humane purposes.
This restriction should be subject to
the right of any one in his life time
to convey his property by deed tor
any Of ihe purposes to which the
government might apply it after
death. Would such a law be more
than tax on incomes or an inheri-
tance tax on large scale? Let us
examine and see how it would work.
1t would not destroy nor impair to
any appreciable extent the incentive
to labor and to accumulate. This is a
quality inherent in some persons in
fact, in all who amass by their own
exertion large fortunes. A man could
then accumulate as much as he can
now. The only difference is it would
be distributed sooner and more wide
ly. The elder Mr.. Vanderbilt did
not add a dollar more to his riches
because of his children nor Mr.. Gil
rard dollar less because he had
none, If it were profitable to take
out of the world our possessions
nine-tenths of us would do 81. Ex :
perience shows that the majority of
rich men virtually disinherit their
children leaving them The bare use
Of the money which is bequeathed to
grandchildren whom very often they
have never seen. They are prompted
to this course by a grasping desire to
exercise control even after death.
The same tyrannical spirit prompts
most men to make a will. l assert
that the fact of limit of one hun
dred thousand dollars to each bequest
hereafter to be made would not short
en- the pace Of avarice an inch in a
year IN the entire land. Knowing
that beyond a certain amount every
cent accumulated would certainly
escheat to the government, men
would in their lifetime and under
their own supervision contribute
largely to the happiness of their fell
lows. 1t is impossible that Mr.. Van
derbilt was prompted by affection te
disinherit all of his children but one
His object was to preserve his estate
intact in the hands of one person
trusting that his beneficiary woulo
initiate his example. The late Jam es
.lC. johnson. the contest over whose
will became celebrated, gave as {
reason for disinheriting his next o
kin that there we're so many of them
his property ''if equally divided
would be scattered to the four wind:
of heaven" 1t should be made i'm
possible for fortune of as much al