Waterbury evening Democrat., 1889-07-31
FATE or FORTUNES.
1t Doesn't Take Long to Scatter
 Them in America.
rhsre Arc Not Moro Than Three Gsnsrs.4 tlops Between Shirt Sleeves and Shirt. Sleeves .- Common Fallacy
 About Great Possessions.

Much apprehension is felt and often ei. pressed concerning the concentration OS enormous wealth in the hands of Q few per- sons, the idcu being that sort of plutocrat- ic dynasty may bc established which will tend to destroy rcpu bllcan institutions in time and to subvert the liberties of the peo- pie. The impression is quite general, says the San Francisco Chronicle, that there is source of great danger to tho Nation in these gigantic fortunes, and some reform CTS have even gone so far as to propose that hcreditabIe wealth shall be limited by law, the excess over certain sum to go not to the rich mans legatecs and devisccs, but to the State. This idea, however, has not been received with general favor. for it antagon- deeply seated to be uprootcd even by Henry George and his followers
 The danger of a dynasty of plutocrats is rather imaginary than real. Large fortunes become scattered in much less timo than might be imagined; or, to put 1t as it has been already expressed by an American writer, "there arc not more than three gen erations between shirt-slceves and shirt sleeves" This riso and fall of fortune could hardly be expressed moro tersely and epigrammaticaily, and at the same timo with moro truth. The representative of the first generation takes of his coat and gees to work in his shirt-slcevcs, and by un- ceasing industry accumuntes competence. To him succeeds his son, who inherits his fathers industry, and has, superadded to that industry, the gift of maney.makinR, and he dies very rich. Then comes his son, in whom the old stock shows marked signs of deterioration, and his life is given rather to spending money than to earning it, so that when he dies the fortune which he ip- herited has vanished into thip air, and his son has to pull of his coat and go to work Tn his shirt-sleevos, as did the founder of the family before him.
 This is reducing the case to the slimmest possible terma, for it must be apparent that with a family of sons and daughters tho acquired fortune will be dissipated even more speedily. Take few figures by way of further illustration: Our imaginary rcp- resontatiye of the second generation dies l worth, let us say, 2,OOO, 900, but he lenvcs 1 two sons and two daughters. His fortune 1 IS then divided into four equal parts, giving l $500 900 to each child. Should each of these | children have four children the share of | each would be but $l25, 900, even if the original fortune were to remnih unimpaired l but out of sixteen children 1t Is certain that 1 at least one-half would be improvident, es- pecially if born to fortune. So 1t Is safe to say that by the end of the second genera tion the fortune of s2,000,000 would bave dwindled to S1, 100000, and that third gen eration would sec the money scattered far l and wide:
 | America has presented thus far but two 1 exceptions to this rule, ip the families o1 l the Astors and the Vanderbilts, and the time has not yet fully run to say with cer- l tainty that they arc exceptions. But even l if they prove to be they do not destroy the force of the proposition as general truth that great fortunes can not be held together for very long period, but will become broken up and scattered, returning to the general mass of the wealth of the country from which they have 6een segregated. Of course the absence of the law of pri
 mogeniture and of the law of entail makes this dissolution of fortune moro probable iu the United States than it would be where those laws prevail In Great Britain landed estates descended from generation to gen
 eration because so strictly entailed that sxc cessive holders have what in reality h only a life interest in the land and only ono child
 takes that. With us entail Is practically unknown, and public sentiment, and 1I
 some States the law itself, insists upon ( division among all the children. so that 1t Is impracticable to transmit real property as it Is transmitted under English law. Init
 docs away with any danger of . landed
 aristocracy, and insures the ultimate distri
 button of tho land among the people.
 Again, there is a common fallacy abou
 great fortunes which often leads to con
 fusion. A man, Jay Gould, for example, 1.
 spoken of as being worth e5O, ,O0O, 900 ol
 S75, ,OOO, 900 and we picture him to ourselve,
 as sitting in front of his strong box ani
 gloating on 0 mass of gold coin which he hal
 withdrawn from circulation, and which hl
 might throw into the ocean If he pleased
 The fact Is that his wealth 10 represented
 in the main by certain printed or writtol
 pieces of paper called stocks and bonds, hay
 ing a certain negotiable value, but each on,
 of these pieces of paper, while it represent! | certain monthly or annual income for It.
 holder, also represents avenues of industry
 for hundreds and thousands of the Amer
 ican people, to whom tue greatest calamity
 that could befall them would bc Jay Gould' l failure and bankruptcy.