The progressive farmer. [volume] (Winston, N.C.) 1886-1904, 1896-02-18
POVERTY AND WEALTH.
Socia and Moral Demands Pertaining to
Individual Accumulation.

Individual Accumulation.
The first question that arises here is
as to the moral right and the social
effect Of personal wealth. In spite of
much that Is said and written to the
contrary, l must maintain that no
moral principle Is neces ,arily viola
ted in the simple accumulation of prop
erty, to whatever extent; also, that
there is a net advantage to the cOmmu-
nifty by such accommodations. What is
to be stipulated in each case is that
such wealth mus be of the individuals
own production, and not taken from
others
It ought to be clearly evident to
every candid man that some men have
larger facilities in the production Of
wealth than others. 1t Is an endOW-
ment that does not come to all alike,
any more than the various other kinds
of power. One mans intelligence and
menC8l competence Is very small,
scarcely sufficient, or ever less than
sufficient, for the conduct of lIte-per-
haps he never had a dcz9n thoughts
In all his hte;" another has extraordI-
nary ability he has vast learning, is
capable Of the most valuable scientific
research, is a literary or artistic ge
MUS of a hight order, an orator
swaying great multitudes, a statesman
controlling mighty political movements
and determining the whole course of
history in his time, and possibly for
ages. Such men are few, but the world
owes much to them; the great multi
tudes who have nos themselves these
marvellous powers are helped instead
of being hIndered by them. Why,
then, should it be denied that come
are endowed with q wealUh-prOducing
ability far above that Of their fellows,
and that, too, to the benefit Of those
who have this power in a lower degree?
Ii i5 sometimes admitted that this diff
ference exists, but it's limits are asser
ted to be comparatively narrow, and
to be unreasonable to believe thai such
great fortunes as are sometimes
INFLATED are the result of superior sa
gaCity. But there is hardly solid
ground for this assumption. If one
man has the ability to create ten or
twenty times as much as another, l
know not why a hundred or a thousand
fO,d should be deemed an imposslbility.
1t is said that while this, in a sense,
may be true, by the very constitution
OF human society this greater produc-
tive power of certain individuals is de-
pendent on the manual labor of the
great masses Of ordinary men, and
that these are, after all, the producers
OF this greatly increased wealth. II ia
true that the men Of ability are de-
pendent on the men Of muscle; but il
Is 8lsO true that the latter are still more
dependent on the former; and that for
two reasons: there are several times as
many Of the Iaborers as of the others,
and each Of the latter can do all that
the former can do, but the former can
not do what the latter an. The anal
ogy Is a close One bet ween the indus
trial and the military army. A great
general could achieve no conuuests
without the common soldier; but he
can do all that the average private can
do, while the average private and all
the privates together cannot do alone
what they can do under an organizt e
and controlling mind. We know very
well that a detachment of five hundred