The morning call. [volume] (San Francisco [Calif.]) 1878-1895, 1894-04-23
THE PEOPLE ARE MOVING.

The CALL receives great many letters
suggesting legislation to prevent the ac-
emulation Of wealth into a few hands.
Most Of these suggestions have merit but
Z general disposition is manifested 20
bring into operation new principles Of law
or methods Of redress which society might
adopt under the operation Of the law Of
self-pFeservation but which many friends
Of tie cause are not ready for. For ex-
ample. valued correspondent writes:
maintain that the progress Of the nation
will not be checked il limit Is placed upon the
amount Of wealth man may possess. For
Illustration, Will any one maintain that IL all
our mullEmilllonaiTes we're banished to-day the
American people would falter ia their Onward
march of Industry or OF art or Of science
Would not The mlIlonsJes themselves be bet
ter satisfied II they were all placed upon an
equal footing. none being worth more than
one miiion2 Would they not be likely 10 turn
their fertile intelects into more commendable
paths. into pure politics. pure arts and the
welfare Of their feIioB-men Instead Of this in
senszie, Improbable strife for wealth.
While the right to limit the amount Of
money man may lawfully hold may be
among The reserved rights Of society the
exercise at present would place an IN
necessary Limitation upon human en-
deaVor. TIE end aimed al can be reached
In a way that would leave all men free TO
do the beat they can for themselves. The
right Of a man 70 bold and enjoy what he
has honestly acquired does net carry with
it the unlimited right to make disposi-
ton Of thar property. to take effect after
death. Society may prohibit the enforce
nent Of viii at all. or Of will that looks
TO disposition Of property pfeiud cial 70
the welfare OF the general public. Il may
tax inheritances aud all forms Of beQuests
to any extent which may seem dssirabls.
Ii may make more edecti ys provisions TO
bring large estates under the Assessors
notice 1t is little absurd TO talk about
double and treble taxation On the property
of the rich while we have not yet sue
ceeded in taxing the rich once. Il may be
said without fear Of contradiction that no
mulii-mIllionalre pays taxes on one-half Of
his possessions.
The proposition to allow man to ae-
Quire one million and then require him to
direct his attention 10 some other pursuit
than money-getting ignores nature. In
most cases the mOney-getter Is a money
getter by nature. He cannot do anything
else well. lie must work 10 his own way
In bis own country, or be will pick up his
million and 60 where he can. We might,
Of course, get along without the man, but
the millionaire's money is needed to de-
vslop the country with.
There Is one method of Limitation that
no fault can be found with. The law
should cease 70 aid In the accumulation
Of vast estates. 1t should not give the rich
exceptional privileges. Itshouid not allow
transportation company TO combine with
an industrial corporation TO crush out
competition. The richest trust In the
United States to-day would probably
never have been heard Of had not a COM
bination with transportation companies
enabled 1t to gain mon opoly Of the sale
Of its product. The same is partially true
OF other trusts The law has permitted
the strong to trample upon the weak.
Now, THE CALL asks It's correspondent if
IL is not better that the law should act
within its admitted province than to ex-
pertinent with methods that would antag-
onize conservatives who have the good of
the people at heart? Let us tax The very
rich once before we attempt to tax them
twice. Let US limit the right Of the very
rich to perpetuate themselves through com
ing generations before we say to one Of
them that when be has acquired 50 much
property he shall quit business or give his
money away as fast as he gets It, Let MS
do what we know we can do, and perhaps
try afterward to dc things that we prob
ably cannot do.