The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1885-01-09
THE DOLLAR ARISTOCRACY.
The Views Held by Andrew Carnegie,
the Millionaire Manufacturer.
The Aristocracy Of Birth, of Education, and
of Money. and the Three Indict-
ments Against the Last.


Century Club in New York, and his views upon
socialism that the address itself is likely to be
read with great deal of interest. The speaker
OF the evening was Thomas Wentworth Higgin-
son, VINO was followed by Mr.. John swinton and
Rev. Mr.. Lloyd In review and comment upon
what had been said Mr.. Carnegie spoke as fol-
lows:
Dir. President Ladies and Gentlemen: We
have heard the position of wealth viewed from
3hree stand points
To our socaiistic friend, Mr.. Swinton, I
would merely say in passing. that he will not
md me disposed to quarrel very seriously with
his ideal Our reverend brother. Mr.. Lloyd, /
thank sincerely for his apparent willingness to
permit US to share with him the good things of
this world; he evidently feels how exceedingly
problematical it is that any of our class are
destined to enjoy with him the blessings of the
next
The principal speaker of the evening naturally
Absorbs attention ] sure the club values
highly the Keen polished and instructive adj
dress which has just been gracefully delivered
Scarcely less highly does it value, | am per
Buaded. the mere appearance before it of Mr.
Thomas Wentworth Higginson The objections
brought forward by him of the alleged 'Aris.
tocracy of the Dollar are three, upon each of
which desire to say few words.
First-He holds that it's manners are inferior.
/ question this Such has been my experience.
You will find among the aristocracy of birth
many instances of charming, fascinating man
ners but OF such you will find in any educated
circle. The most conspicuous instances l have
seen have not been those born to the purple, but
untitled ladies whose superior charms Of intel
lect and manner have captivated the ablest
mobiles.
Now what is the primary condition of that
urreStrained, graceful and unceremonious inter
change Of civilities which we know as good man
nersf Surely the social equality of the individ-
uals concerned. The manners of an aristocracy
OF birth, to strangers. and especially to Ameri-
cars, who, perforce, rank their equals, are
not the test. It is their bearing among them
selves which must be considered Now there is
truth in Dir. Julian Hawthorue's remark, in his
lecture the other evening, ethat some keen
critic had said there could not be gentleman in
England. In social hierarchy where neither
attainDlehts, culture, nor conduct are the tests,
but where precedence flows by fixed laws, mere
" from rank, and where neither public position,
nor eminence in any department. but where pro-
motion III this narrow circle is the object most
desired, imagine how the newly made baronet,
and more clearly the newly-made lady, bears
herself in the presence of the old aristocratic
lord aud ady-Or the latter IN the presence of
the rank above them, or the dukes in the pres
ence Of the prince. In such society there must
be. and there Ia, consciously unconsciously,
Difference which ssvors of sevility on the one
hand, and always. upon the other, what is called
gracious condescension An Euglishman never
meets his equal among his own people; he is
either looking up to somebody above him, or
looking down on somebody below him-a condi-
ton of affairs fatal to good manners.
The idea that kings and queens, princes and
princesses. dukes and lords excel in manners is
derived from story books for the young. written
by poor tnen and women who have never per-
haps, even spoken to one of high rank, certainly
never spent night at the house of one as guests.
Viewed at this distance these persons seem truly
grand, but It Is distance which lends enchant-
ment to the view. This idea is exactly on par
with another delusion derived from the same
arGfOnr9rv g
body is finer looking than any other class
This ia simply not the case. Let any visitor
the House of Lords when it is filled, which will
be for one or two reasous-either when the lords
can. in the character of national Legislators,
legis,ate for themselves, when they can reject
o measure beneficial to the masses. Upon such
an occasion would really think, as he
watches the peers pass, or rather hobble in. that
every reformatory, asylum or home for III
eurabes in Britain had been asked to send up to
Westminster fair specimens of it's inmates. The
peers are not fine looking body of men. They
form striking contrast to the House Of Com
mons III dress, manners and appearance; in all
that goes TO make up what we style the gentle
man.
An artstocracy of birth alone has never been
able to sustain ITSELF and if that of England had
not been constantly recruited from the classes
beyond its pale. it would long since have persisted
OF its inherent weakness Even as it is.
barrenness in the peerage amounts to 81 per
cent, while the average in the whole population
does not reach per cent This is great natures
revolt against the existence of an improperly
constituted order which she is ashamed to
perpetuate. The ablest peers to day are dis
satisfied with their colleagues. and are pro
posing reforms of their house in the vain
hope of obtaining creditable substitutes through
a process of natural selection. In other words.
brains not birth, is found necessary to protect
the order from contempt Let this present
gathering of ladies and gentlemen be compared
with equal number of the highest aristocracy
OF Britain, and In manner, appearance, certainly
IN Knowledge. obviously in dress the apostle
Of sweetness and light" himself being the judge,
j assure you the Nineteenth Century Club has
nothing to fear; upon ma iority of the counts
the gentlemen, class, of this republican
gathering. aud upon ell the counts the ladies,
as class, would be awarded the palm
The second contention is that aristocracy
of the dollar is selfish and dangerous.
The first charge is indisputahly true. All
aristocraeies have been, and must be- sell
fish. 1t is their nature But as compared with
that of birth. the arstocracy of wealth might be
considered generous in the extreme. The mill
ionaires who have devoted their surplus wealth.
mainly TO aims other than those which end with
self, have not been as numerous as they should,
or as they will be hereafter, but instances exist
in most countries. We have our Peter Coop
era, cur D0dgeS. and our Corcerans and
have had our Girards, Packers and Cornes.
England has their cOmpeers, but notfrom among
its aristocracy. Who ever heard of an aristocrat
from the throne d0wn-for even the throne be
comes miserly and boards days, perhaps
justi6aby SO, 10 anticipation of the rainy day
which must soon come TO all forms of privilege
from the throne down to the Prince of Wales,
whose yearly revenue of some six hundred thou
sand dollars no man spend worthly upon
himself aad falnily-even he instead of being
duly grateful, wishes to force upon the nation
just now the cost of keeping his eldest son
From this royal circle down through the various
grades Of the aristocracy, which of them has
ever devoted his wealth to any purpose other
Chan the ACKNOWLEDGEMENT of himself and his fam
ilyf Of all classes In the world. charge the ar
istocracy of birth with being the most selfish:
that class which. during life, gives the least pro-
portion of it's revenues for the good of others,
and leaves less of its estate for other than pri-
vate ends al death The Duke Of Buccleugh one
of Scotlands principal nobemen. died last
spring. as good as the class permits. and
credit 20 the Scotch nobility. But what part
of his immense revenues did he leave for any
nilblic andi Not dollar as far as l can gee hy