Virginian-pilot. (Norfolk, Va.) 1898-1911, 1900-10-14

ltS power IN an age In which the uni
versal object of desire is money. with
the enjoyment which money provides"
Shall supreme power pass finally into
the grasp of accumulated wealth? Shall
1t?
What are the general tendencies of
great wealth when in contact with
democracy? 1t is idle 20 deny that in
n social sense. the leveling and bleak
surroundings furnished by democratic
institutions do not satisfy 1t.
AS Professor Smith says. ut is use
less to rail ut class for following it's
natural bent. But what are the facts?
AT heart IT signs for a court and arts.
tocracy.> 1t Is even introducing the
powdered-headedf ootman, while he is
going out OF fashion in England Its
social centre is shifting more and more
from the United States to monarchical
and aristocratic England, where 1t can
take hold on the mantle of high soci-
ETY., get more homage and subser-
viency for it's wealth. hope perhaps
IN the end to win it's way to the circle
OF royalty, and. If it becomes natural
lied. to obtain a knighthood or even q
nccrage. 1t barriers the hands of its
daughters and its millions for aristo-
cratic connection. One of it's leading
members has just abandoned his native
country for the country Of his class,
while he continues to draw n royal in
come from the industry of New York"
Nothing Is ..uer than this. And
much more than Professor Smith has
said could be asserted regarding the
natural social bent of American
wealth. There can he no doubt that
by It's matrimonial alliances with Brit
ISM aristocrats, and even more by its
eaSerness 10 contract them. it has re-
inNiGoratcd and enveloped with a new
ana magnificent prestige the institution
OF Il hereditary nobility. No true
American need fear to assert that such
tendencies, while perfectly natural.
perhaps. are antagonistic to democracy
ana, therefore. menace to 1t.
what arc the general tendencies of
great wealth politically? Are they less
Il menace 10 democracy than its social
tendencies? Every student knows what
those tendencies have been throughout
the past. Professor Smith recalls one
instance of how republic fell under
the domination of mere money. The
republic of Florence, without change of
It's political forms. was cffectually en-
shaved by the wealth OF the Medicis.
Florence WAS small. it is true. But
compared with the collective fortunes
OF the United States" 1t would he
difficult. indeed. for any one to point
to an era. or II country at all devcl-
opcd. in which wealth showed real
sympathy with democracy. Wealth
has always opposed democracy's rise,
and at dcmocracy's fall wealth has be-
strobe il like n colossus. When Hamil-
ton said To the convention of 1857 which
framed The Constitution of the United
States, "a democratic government OF
the mass OF the people can never he
good" and "all communities divide
themselves into a few and the many;
the first are the rich and well born;
the others the mass of the people,
when ne said these things, and also,
see the eXcelcncy of the British eX
ecutive," he WAS fighting the democ-
racy OF Jefferson in behalf of wealth
which ut heart preferred mcnarchical
institutions. Wealth is almost ipvari-
ably. in crisis opposed to democratic
principles. whether in England. where
Burlle's passionate outcries against the
French revolution unhappily melted
the twenty-five years war between
England and France. or In the United
States when the slave power of the
South enjoyed the support of the mo-
ney power of the North.
1t seems to he an instinct with a
colossal money power resting in pri-
waite hands to ally itself with forces or
causes which are not in true harmony
with the Democratic principle. II i'm
presses Prof Smith. therefore. as not
in the least surprising that wealth
should now almost soidly support the
policy OF Imperialism in America.
THAT the plutocracy," he writes, lis t
once conscious OF the general identity
of its interests, and feels that Imperial
ism is congenial to it. is shown by the
unanimty With which it ranges itself
under the imperialiSt banner in this
contest Even With silver maEnatcs,
the bias of class. it appears, e stronger
than that of silver" 1t might he said.
too. as a logical converse, that the very
Soidity of the support OF Imperialism
by wealth indicates that wealth in
stinctively sees in the impcrialistic
venture an attack upon uncongcnial
nIinciplQS Prof oil G,o1
dencc OF the growth of an alliance
against Democracy in this circum-
stance OF our politics:
In the Republican platform of 1896
continental union was n plank Ii has
now been struck out. The immediate
cause of the omission. no doubt. is the
tacit alliance of the Republican marty
with the conservative party, which is
now dominant in England. andLiS- in
-tetteeft- opposed 70 continental union,
hoping always in its heart to found in
Canada n power differing in spirit and
institutions from the Democracy of the
United States. But plutocracy also
cannot help viewing with secret, per-
haps half-unconscious, complacency,
the outpost of monarchy and aristo-
cracy with its little court and minia-
ture peerage on this democratic hemi-
sphere. This again is but n natural
tendency. about which il would be folly
to utter hard words, but of which it is
necessary to take note.
Socially and politically, great wealth
is naturally, instinctively out of SYM
pathy with Democracy Is it of no
significance. therefore. to the American
people that in the present great contest
over an Endorsement of Imperialism by
the nation this power of wealth should
be so solidly, so aggressively rallied to
the support of imperialstic policy?
This attitude of the colossal money
power is part of that drift of things
which it is necessary TO observe at
every quadrennial election 1t is an at
tilll1n A,.hinh