The Birmingham age-herald. [volume] (Birmingham, Ala.) 1902-1950, 1902-05-25
Dis elimination Between
Children Defies Spirit Of
the Constitution.

effort on record is that Ct Cecil Rhodes,
but one of still more recent date was
that of the deceased father of the broth
ers Paul and Malcolm Ford. In this was
demonstrated the effect of the dead on
the living
The tragic ending of these two young
men, related by the closest of human
relationship, needs no recalling as the
event is fresh in the public mind. The
father In the making of his will disin-
herited his son Malcolm, and yet when
dying, and long time prior thereto he
appeared to be on the most affectionate
terms. Malcolm sought to obtain his
birthright from his brothers and sisters
in the courts and by solicitation. Failing
he slew his brother Paul and himself.
No person will endorse Malcolm's ac-
tion or allow that the provocation should
have unhinged his mind, even though the
wrong done him was begun by his IA
Their and completed by his brothers and
sisters. Yet 1t brings up for general con-
sideration the question as to the rights
of children in the property of parents /;
and the rights of parents to discriminate
among their children so that some shall
be exalted and others debaseo.
The question Is of more than passing
interest as the evidences of parental dis
elimination In the distribution of large
estates Is becoming more and more ap-
parent and more and more an influence
In the social and civic conditions of great
communities. In this distribution of
wealth the testator clearly shows that
he regards wealth as a reservoir of DOW
er and In discriminating among his heirs
he makes a selection not as evidence of
affection or gratitude, but for the pur-
pose of nominating a successor to the
w hn 10 laI 60 OIL
dience to the unamendable laws and I'M
appealable judgments of Nature. Our
forefathers In formulating the Constitu-
ton of the United States, believed they
had placed bar against the building up
OF one son to the deprivation of others
py apolishing the laws of primogeniture
and entail. They did not contemplate
the accumulation of vast property rights
represented by certificates of shares in
corporations; they believed wealth must
be represented by acreage.
The eldest son can TODAY he left the
full enjoyment Of a trust estate. which
can be willed to his eldest son or his
eldest grandson. or he can reserve n
outright Nay, the father can pass over
the first. the second or the third child
and. In fact, select any and make hin,
a devise OF the bulk of his wealth. For
instance, the late William Aston died
leaVlnS Iour UauBnterS and one son
John Jacob Aston. To each daughter no
left a handsome fortune and the bun, or
the estate to his son. William H. Van
derbilt left to his sons Cornelius and
William X. Vanderbilt, an equal divis-
ion of a sum that Is supposed to have
to one hundred millions. ana
to all the other sors and daughters for
tunes supposed to nave amounted to about
ten millions each. When Cornelius died
he left the bulk of his estate, amount
ing to upwards of sixty millions. to his
third son, Alfred, and seven and a half
millions each to all his other children
save to Cornelius. his eldest living son,
to whom he left one million. This
however, was added to by Alfred
so that 1t equalled the shares Of the
others.
So far for the purpose of illustration
In the case of the Aston fortune that
which was distributed among the daugh-
tiers will. should 1t be divided In each
generation. result in short period. but
In one way. The fortune in all probabiii-
ty, will follow the name OF Aston and
John Jacob Aston will become poor by
comparison. IL not, in fact. 30 that one
branch will be exalted that all the others
will be debased. This is precisely the