The Yakima herald. [volume] (North Yakima, W.T. [Wash.]) 1889-1914, 1902-09-23


placing limit upon the wealth in acres
. which one man may acquire from it
through homestead and other land laws.
1t has in numerous instances placed linn
its upon some one thing. 1t limits the
copyright, the patent, the number of
passengers which vessel may carry for
reasons N safety. Progressive govern
ments limit the power oOf their rulers.
1t is only in despotisms that the head of
the state is absolute. Shall government
not limit the power of wealth?
In the second proposition, the argu
ment is strong. If the energy of the in
dividual were turned into other chan
nels than money-getting, after COM
potency were acquired, would he not adj
vance instead OF retrograding? If much,
of the force devoted to mammon were
turned to art, invention; ethics, altru-
ism, would the individual suffer? The
world applauds when a Carnegie or
Stanford leaves millions for just such
purposes, though neither enriched his
own life by devoting his energies along
any Sf these lines.
The check to the advancement of the
nation is the chief argument kept in
} stock If the brainy en- of America
were devotlng their time, their energy,
to the advancement of the country in
} stead of dollar-grabbing, would not the
progress that would then ensue make
our present ratio, marvellous as it now
} seems, appear almost stationary by COM
parison?
1t is true that all changes in the rela-
ton of the individual to the state pro-
duce new problems. Doubtless limit
on wealth would introduce novel and
perplexing questions. There seems to
be an attendant evil along with every
good. Republican protection with its
prosperity has its trusts and the wealth
limit would not be without its trials,
but this confronts us: Would not the
maximum Of good with the minimum of
evil be the result in nation where the
wealth limit was law?
1t is objected that the limitation on
riches would forbid the son to acquire
what the father had striyed to gain for
him would it not be better for the son?
Perhaps there would be no less disso-
lutte lives if there were fewer sons of
wealth. The rich mans son has done
little for America.
The sweet uses of adversely are made
I to serve as the props for great riches. 1t
is told that it develops character to have
I the greater part OF the population poor,
: that the struggle with poverty makes
the nation. A little struggle OF this sort
for the son of the rich man might be
good for him, as it is good for everyone,
but when the struggle becomes hope
, less, as it has for large part of the
q American people, adversely is not a
=, sweetener of character. 1t makes peo-
pie logged, sullen, nagging fault-fnders
or criminals at heart if not in fact.
When man has enough wealth for
his legitimate wants, (our estimates may
. differ; mine may be hundred thousand
- uOlldTS, yours I'VE Iullujcu tnOuSdDu Ut
= only ten thousand, but to be more than
!, liberal we will fix enough at an arbi-
trary million) when man is worth Il
million dollars, isn't he hog if he keeps
on trying to pile up more wealth? There
, is much resentment shown where the
, youngster with plenty of this world s
goods tries to crowd into the places
where other yo ungsters are earning a
n living, that he may earn spending
, money.
: The analogy applies to the very rich.
The man with enough who keeps on ac-
; cumulating, thereby preventing some
4, one else from acquiring competency,
is paralleling the young woman with
wealthy parents who takes a place in a
store to earn pin money. and in so do
, ing deprives some wage owner OF the
means of getting livelihood.
II