New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1891-09-14
RICH AND POOR IN AMERICA.
A REPLY TO SOME OF THE RECKLESS AT.
TACKs BY GENERAL WEAVER.
INCLUDING, AMoSG OTHER ENTERTAINING NAT
TIERS. FEW REMARKS ON MLLIoNIREs.

Molnes the capital city OF Iowa. where General weaver
has his home ] would like very much TO have MI
Herr some Of the assertions which are being
made here In Iowa by General Weaver and MS toi-
lowers. They continually telling the people OF
this State that laws framed in the Unitea
States that the rich all the time growing roher
and the poor poorer" and they claim that tfe Gouias
and the Corneges, the Astors and the Vanderbts sae
only possible under such laws are enacted In TINS
country. They tell that there should be limit
placed upon the ownership Of property in this and in
all countries, so TO prevent the accumulation OF
large fortunes.
Win Mr. Horr be kind enough to give his version
rs TO the ownership Of property, aud tel US now
be framed TO prevent such enormous fortunes
nom being made in this Republcf Can there not be
some method devised that will result in a more even
distribution of wealth. FRANZ W. hoANh'
Des MOines Iowa. Aug. 81, 1891.
The assertions referred TO by this correspondent
are not by any means confined to General Weaver
and his followers in the State of Iowa. They ere
the everyday statements of large class oil
people in this country who are always complain
ing of the condition of business affairs in the
United States Such men are TO be found in every
State and Territory of the Union.
To answer the queries of Mr.. Roach is small
task The constant assertion of General Weaver
and his class of thinkers that they seeking TO
help the weak against the strong, 10 assist the
poor against the rich, is very taking in it's mere
statement and is well calculated TO capdvate the
large class OF men who are struggling to gain
livelihood in the world Being myself IN such
circumstances that general redistribution OF
property would work no injury TO me, / can the
more readily ask my readers to give attention
10 a few suggestions upon these modern theories
In the outset / assert that the Ot-repeated
statement that in the United States our laws
are framed that the rich all the time getting
richer and the poor poorer " is misleading Ill us
very form. II is an assumption that such c0ndl-
tion OF affairs is peculiar TO the United States
alone and that it is due TO some singular leglSla-
ton here in this country Neither assumption is
true. AS rule rich people, no matter in what
country they live, accumulate property more
rapidly than these who have no means In the
progress from poverty to it is often said that
the first 81 900 is the slowest and hardest 81 900
of all TO earn; and that, with favoring circum-
- stances it has generally been found that he who
has accumulated some means can add to them
faster than a man who is poor. But this IS true
all over the world. On the other hand, while
some rich people in the United States become
richer others merely hold their own. and many
lose all they have and become poor The same
thing is true of people living in every civilized
nation on the face of the earth.
The balance of the statement that in this country
the poor are constantly becoming poorer is an
soluteIy false. The great majority of the people
who live by the work of their hands in this coun-
try are much better oil to-day than they were
forty years ago and are constantly improving their
condition Nearly ali of them enjoy untold bless
inQs which we knew nothing of when i was a
boy and when | worked on farm in new c0un-
try More than that, the wOrking-people OF the
United States are not only not growing poorer but
are better Of than in any other nation in the
world. 10 begin with, we have far less very poor
people than can anywhere else be found and those
who begin with nothing more frequently geJ wen
of than in any other country
OF course man who has $4,000 Of accumulated
wealth 10 start with can get another $4,000
easier than man who begins with nothing, If
the good management is equal in both cases. 1t
needs no argument TO show that with the same
skilful management man who has capital to Use
can make money easier than one who has nothing
That is true everywhere, always has been true,
and if | ain not mistaken, always will be true.
More than that, it always ought to be true Am.
l wrong about that Ii man is industrious ana
frugal and finally saves $500 out of his earnings,
ought he not to be permitted to gain something
from the use of that $500? Is he not entitled tn
all the benefits which come from ITS use as
much as he is to it's new earnings? To say that
he is not is simply to say that man has no right
TO any accommodations, and that the ownership Of
property is all wrong; and that is Socialism or
Communism in its boldeSt form.
ORIGIN OF PROPERTY RIGHTS.
One of the first evidences of civilization is no
doubt the ownership of property. When the
human race first appeared this earth, and for
many years thereafter, no doubt everything was
owned in common; or perhaps it would be more
accurate to say that the idea of ownership did not
exist
At first there were very few people and a very
large amount Of land. The human then
lived by hunting, fishing, and gathering roots and
fruits which grew spontaneously on the face OF
the earth The right of possession at first
the only one recognized, and even that was of
little value in the hands OF the weak against
the strong. No doubt might made right" for
ages 1t took centuries for the human family
20 learn that the capture Of wild animal by
any man gave the captor the right to control and
use the result of his labor While all the fruit on
the face Of the globe may have belonged at first
to all alike, in time il came to be understood that
gathered fruit was subject TO different law
That came to be considered as belonging to the
person who had gathered it; his title came
through the labor it took TO gather it, So when
q man tanned wild animal il in time came TO be
looked upon as bis animal, simply because OF
the labor he had expended in DEMONSTRATING it,
The first ownership Of land came precisely in
the same way. Some early genius discovered that
by sowing and cultivating ten acres of land he
could raise and secure more food from the ten
acres than could be gathered from 1000 acres
left in its natural wild condition. The improved
field came to be looked upon as belonging to the
person who improved ii, only because II had been
made thus productive by his labor 50 that
the right of ownership at first was simply the
recognition Of the right Of every individual to
enjoy the fruits Of his own work
And mark this fact: At that early day the
ownership Of property did not in the least hamper
those who had no accommodations in getting O
living. The who titled ten acres of land
and thus produced the food for himself and
family from ten acres, when 10 support them In
the old way would have required one thousand
acres or more, actually benefited those who did