The news & observer. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1894-current, 1902-06-04

It is really interesting to notice what
narrow margins change results. 1t is
alarming to consider how small how
weak, how poorly able to resist the prev
which is so precious to the vulture.
You may rest assured the vulture knows
where the prey is 1t is not worth while
TO attempt to defend this practice. There
can be no defence for it.
1t is now desired to invite your atten
ton 10 another condition which must be
taken into consideration.
The wealth of our country has become
so great and the interests of certain in
div;duals have become so vast that the
amount of money required to accomplish
a result desired is hardly a considera-
ton. Millions today are almost as com
mon as thousands in the early DAYS of
the republic. The wealth of the United
States in 1860 was $16,159, 900. In 1900
the wealth of our country had increased
to $94 300, 000,0 900. That is to say it was
six times as great in 1900 as in 1860. In
1860 the population of the United States
was 31,443.321; in 1900, 76303, 367 While
the wealth of our country has increased
skiold our population has only increased
two and one half fold. There are two
things which must be borne in mind in
this connection: First the margin be-
tween the two great parties since 1876,
excepting three elections, has been per-
haps smaller than during any other
period of equal length in the life of the
republic. Second. the great increase in
wealth has largely found it's way in the
hands of a few men. 1t is therefore
easier to raise large campaign funds
tie temptation to use them is greater,
ard the vote necessary to be changed is
so small as to constitute an almost
irresistible temptation for the use of
money.
We hear great deal said about the
distribution of wealth. Many of the
statements we see in the public prints
are entirely unreliable. Probably the
most reliable work on this subject is
that of Mr.. Rufus Cope, published in
1890 He quotes, with qualified endorse
ment certain statistics prepared by Mr.
Ihos. g. Sherman in 1889. At that time
the wealth of the United States was
slXty-one and one-half billions of dollars
Two persons owned three hundred mill
mons. Five persons owned five hundred
millions. One person owned seventy mill
lions. Sixty eight persons owned 50 700, =
OOO,O0O. Seventy families owned four per
cent, or one twenty-fifth of the entire
wealth of the nation. Eight hundred
and forty-fv families. or about one
fifteenth thousandth of the population.
owned one-eighth of the total wealth.
Less than one-ffteen hundredth owned
three-sevenths of the total wealth. and
one thirtyfourth of the popula ton
owned more than seventy per cent. of all
the wealth Of the country 1t is claimed
by some that there has been a still
greater concentration of wealth \s.nce
1889 but applying these estimates to the
wealth OF our country at the present time
1t is alarming to consider how easy il
might be to raise great sums of money
to shape the policies of the republic.
These estimates are used solely as q
part Of our argument. There should be
no envy of wealth. All appeals to envy
and every attempt to arouse prejudice
should be left entirely to the dema-
gogue.
Now when a few men raise a large
sum of money and sufficient number of
votes are thereby changed to cause the
election of certain candidates. such re-
suit is not the expression CT the will of
the American people, but it is a result
bought with money. it is not the ad-
ministration of the people, but the adj
ministration of money. Men elevated to
public position by this means arc not
the servants of the people. Unless they
are possessed of rare virtue and almost
Continued on 33rd page)