The Middleburgh post. [volume] (Middleburgh, Snyder Co., Pa.) 1883-1916, 1900-04-12
Should Wealth Have a Limi-
tation ?
Communicated.

Great individual wealth is an
anti-soCial interest. 1t is the ascend
ancy ofindividuals over the inter-
ests of the public. Individuals have,
it is true, . certain amount of otliberty,
but it cannot be denied that society
has the right to modify heliherty of
the individual where such liberty is
but the slavery of the public, the
right to live alsoimplies the right to
use the things about us which go to
make life comfortable and enjoyable,
and which have not been already
appropriated by others. 1t is evi-
dent, however, that the Use of any.
thing by one must necessarily take
from the personal liberty of all
those who otherwise would be able
to use it, and it is perfectly plain
that just in proportion as one wealth
increases, the wealth of others must
increase. This to a certain extent
is Legitimate, and cannot be prevent
ed, but when the wealth of one in
increases to such an extent as to de-
prive others of food, shelter, and even
existence itself, it intringes upon the
equality of personal liberty far more
than could any law that placed a
limitto individual wealth, when men
are starving, when paupers are in
creasing, when to the misfortune of
poverty is added the curse of indus
trial slavery, when thegreat concen-
tration of wealth effects the life and
liberty of all, is not law,just which
takes from few position of their
wealth and indirectly restores it to
the hands Of the many? Does not
the right to property involve and
test the admission OF the right to live?
Cardinal Manning startled the
world some years ago when he de-
clared: "The obligation to feed the
hungry springs from the natural
right of every man to life and TO the
food necessary to the sustenance of
lite, so strict is this natural right
that it prevails over all positive laws
of property. Necessity has no law
and starving man has a right to
his neighbor's bread.'
Strong words these for Cardinal.
Sentimental philosophy, it may be
called, but it is the philosophy of
Justice. Enormous wealth has al
ways been irrcconcilable with equal
ity. Its growth has caused the
downfall of many democracies. viii
it bring about the ruin of the great
est democracy in history? Are we.
with and with which we regard the
institution of property becoming a
nation of millionaircs and mendi-
cants ?
Property is only absolutely safe
when those who hold it are far more
numerous than those who do not
When the middle class disappears
from nation and the property falls
into the hands of a few over-rich
men then property is unsafe. We
call such condition an arlstocracv
of money, and an aristocracy Of
money is always the child of a de-
generated or degenerating democracy.
Some people, however, regard the
concentration of wealth as an indi-
cation of progress. In matters po-
litical the obstacle is often taken for
the cause. MOnopolies, trusts aud
other forms of concentrated wealth
are regarded by some as the bless
ings of prosperous nation. But
examined in the light OF history, we
find that concentrated wealth has
always been a means of obstructing
if not of destroying nation. Our
nation is not an exception. We can
not say that the destructive power of
concentrated wealth not now felt.
All that is necessary is to oobserve the
condition about us. Whenever the
people ofa nation become subservient
and dependent, and are oppressed
and abused because they are so,
whenever there is little general pros
perity but great deal of prosperity
for few, we naturally come to the
conclusion that the cause Of the
misery and lack of general prosper
ity is the great concentration Of