New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1888-06-14
WEALTH IN COMMON

A good many students Of society and govern
nent argue that the general good would be con-
served If more things were held in common
One reformer is for having the State own the
land. Another wants the State to become the
general manager Of the manufacturing estab-
| lishments. A third proposes that Uncle sam shall
embark in the railroad and the telegraph busl-
ness. These theorists, as rule, take gloomy
view of the existing order Of things. They
maintain that this a,.e Of ours although the heir
of all tho ages, instead of accomplishing the
greatest good for the greatest number, is simply
an age in which the rich grow richer and the
poor poorer.
In his recent address at the opening meeting
of the Boston Society for Citizenship, Edward
Everett Hale took issue with the pessimists.
at is not true" he asserted, "that
our present civilization is hard and
selfish. AS we 1.-Two now each man
bears his brothers burdens" In support
Of this proposition Mr.. Hale welded a novel but
most effective weapon He presented state
ment Of facts showing the amount of the wealth
in common Of the city of Boston. The valuation
of the city, as reported by the auditor in 1886,
was 81 O,6t1, 1886. these figures representing
the wealth Of separate persons and corporations.
The same year the real and personal property
Of the corporation of Boston was returned at
$68, 927,245. TO this wealth in common is to
be added the value Of the squares, pavements,
sewers, parks and bridges. This increases the
wealth in common, as Mr.. Hale figures it, to
S158, O83,792 Nor is this all or nearly all.
There is still to be added the property in real
estate and funds of all the Boston associations
which have been organized for the public goods
and the prosperity of 200 or more Boston
churches-since, as Mr.. Hale points out, "any
church not open to any person who wished to
enter would be taxed by the Commonwealth as
private club house which indeed it would be-"
Two other important contributors to the city's
wealth in common are the United States and the
State Of Massachusetts. The former is repre-
sented by navy yard Of eighty-three acres and
number of fine buildings The latter-well,
Mr.. Hale does not estimate the value of the
State House, but the hub OF the solar SYSTEM"
as we all know. is fine piece of property.
So it is that Mr.. Hale reaches the conclusion
that Boston's wealth in common is certainly
much more than one-haf the total wealth Of
all the separate properties" His table Of
figures may be open to criticism at some points,
for indeed, he only aims at an approximate
result. But, allowing generous margin for
errors, there remains an aggregate grand
enough to surprise and confound pessimSm.
The belongings of everybody in Boston hold
their own-not to put it stronger-with the
belongings Of anybody. Nor is Boston an
exception in this respect. What is true Of
her is true to greater or less extent of our
other American cities. A large part of the
wealth is the wealth in common. This is not
state Of things that argues that selfshness
lies at the foundation Of the community life
Of to-day. 1t argues the contrary. And yet
to listen to some of our theorists one would
imagine that the few had everything and the
many next to nothing.