The Republican. [volume] (Oakland, Md.) 1877-current, 1885-07-04
HEALTH AND WEALTH.
Two Conditions Which Have Many Points
in Common.

Two Conditions Which Have Many Points
in Common.
Health and wealth have many points
i'll common; first of all in their very
names. To have health is to be well;
to have wealth is also to be well-well
S9.
Wealth is for tho most part got in
three ways-by Inheritance, by self-de-
NAL, by care, labor and attention; often
by some combination of these three.
Wealth is lost by extravaganza expendi-
ture or by carelessnes5 and neglect
Health may also be got in these three
ways. man may inherit it from his
| ancestors; he may gain or keep it by de-
nying his appetites for luxurious food
| and drink, and for excuses of all kinds;
he may besides have to work for it, by
painstaking exercise, and constant SUI
| pervision over his habits. In brief, I'M
, less man has inherited a large and
! vigorous stock of health, he must do as
| he has to do when he does not inherit
wealth-earn it.
He may also lose his health by extrav-
agant demands upon it, by reckless ex-
| penditure or by carelessness in nurtur-
ing and preserving it.
Moreover, the connection between
! health and wealth is so close that if he
| spends his wealth lavishly and recklessly
| on luxurious living and dissipation at
| the gaming table or other improper
! places far into the night, his health will
90 with his wealth. So again it often
happens that he can not have both an
excess of health and an excess of wealth
at the same time. He often loses his
health acquiring his wealth, and if he
has to care anXiously for his health he
is not likely to accumulate wealth.
Again, health is like wealth in that a
man may accumulate health not only
without wronging anybody, but in doing
so actually benefits the world A man
who gathers health and vigor from the
air and the water, from proper exercise
and a correct life. does not take one
| particle of health from anybody. There
still remain in the earth and atmos-
| phere plenty of the elements of health
! for all the rest of the world. He, more.
over, provides in himself and his off
| spring a certain number of persons who
| will not burden the community with
sick and feeble members.
SO, too, a man by his labor and his
self-denial may, without injuring any
/ person whatsoever, gather wealth from
| the soil, from the manufacturing forces
! of nature and art or from his capacity
/ to organize business enterprises and sc
/ reduce the friction of commerce. The
wealth thus created is besides a posi-.
] tive addition to the comfort and pros.
| perity of mankind.
Man can not voluntarily be deprived
/ of his health. He may sacrifice it him.
/ self, Just rs he may sacrifice his wealth,
| for the benefit of his felow-men But
no one can take it from him. If there
| We're any way OF doing so there Woult
be but one result. No man would deny
himself or take any pains whatever tc
! acquire or preserve his health. only foI
the sake OF being obliged to give it W
to some person, too luxurious or tee
| lazy to acquire it for himself
The same is true of wealth, Nomar
! would accumulate wealth if he knew il
| would be confiscated by the self-indul.
gent or the lazy the moment he had got
enough of it to tempt them to take il
| from him. This is the fatal defect of al
| socialist and communist schemes. Ii
| put in practice men would cease to ac.
quire wealth. and the civilization woulG
degenerate into savagery.
In some conditions men are forced tC
give up their wealth to other people.
! Slaves have to do it. Heavily-taxed
! people have to do it. What is the re.
suit? Slaves and the heavily-taxet
cease to produce much more than
enough to keep themselves alive, and
the races or nation which long suffer
such state of things become impoyer.
ished and 90 to decay.
There is one particular. however, in
which health seems to, but really does
not, differ from wealth. If it were pos.
sible for a shrewd and cunning man tc
obtain health from other people leaving
them sick and feeble, he would then be
| Ike the Spectator or gambler who OBJ
tains property from others without pro
ductiye labor. But man who should
| get health in this way would add moth
ing to the common stock of health
He would merely transfer from other
people to himself, This, however,
would be an unequal distribution, not
an accumulation OF health. SO the
gains of gambler or Spectator are not
an accumulation of wealth but an I'M
equal distribution of property.
Such transfers add no more to the
general wealth of the country than
transfers of health would add to its gen,
eral health. But any man who by self
denial or labor accumulateS either
health or wealth is not only entitled to
| what he opuuirpS hut his onnuiSition ia
a positive addition to both the health
and the wealth of the world. detroit
Free Press.