The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1903-07-12

u
apiece. numbered 5,500.OOr, had II an aver
age $3.50 to family, and their aEgregae
wealth was S800,OOO.OO0. The compiler
reached the conclusion that less than ono
nall the families in the United States are
what may be termed "propertyless;" never
theless, seven-eighths OF the families hold
but one-eighth of the national weallh,
while but l per cent. of the families hold
more than do the remaining 30 per cent
Are these statistics correct? Prof Ely il
inclined TO regard those given for Europe
az substantially trustworthy, but Or
Spahr's conclusions rest on assumptions
that have been disputed
Thus the late Prof Mayo-Smith, critl-
cizing DR.. Spalrs estimates, pointed nI.t
that, first. many men put real estate and
personal property in the names II their
wives or children during their ,wn life
time, 50 that this property never passes hy
inheritance secondly. the capital Of a busi-
ness enterprise is often transferr, d to mo
no that only a part r meme. Of the pICpcrty,
passes by inheritance, the wives and daugi-
ters being provided fer by notes given or
obligations assumed by the stns Who take
are often represented by his life Insurance,
which Is really property, bur do : rot
pass through the Probate Court. fourth
! ly, thousands Of small estates, Consisting
Of personally only, especially where there
| is q single heir or small family, are settled
| without recourse 10 the Probate court;
fftlly, among the so-called "pr"p'rty l,sr"
are thousands of young men WHO lave
not yet acquired farms, or homes, or bu-,-
ness capital, but are on the road 20
SUCCESS, and later will become prop
erty owners. The first three of these com
siderations scarcely compel us to reduce
the estimate Of the relative holdings of
the rich, because the omissions may well
amount to az much among the rich AS
among the lower classes. The fourth con-
sideration does undoubtedly indicate that
| the holdings Of the pc are somewhat
underestimated. The fifth consideration
brings out the point that, in a community
! in which all men acquired property a.
they grew older. statistical table NIGH,
| nevertheless, show that the wealth ut a
| particular time was concentrated in the
hands Of a few, namely, the older men.
+, The estimate In question, ftwevsr, Is not
open to this objection. because DIR. Spain,
| taking the probate returns as basis.
found what the distribution was among
the people who had died; and, in applying
| this proportion to the whole number Of
| families. he really stated the distribution
as it would be II all the families had ac-
quired all the property that they ever would
acquire. Prof. Ely regards DR.; Spair.s
method, however, as open to other critl-
| cisms. In England, comparis on Of the
estates admitted to probate in 1888 and
1891, II interpreted by DR.. Spahrs method,
attest a marked concentration. Thus, in
/ 1893, the richest estates, constituting hut
"A per cent. Of the whole number, repre-
! scented 500 per cent of the total wealth.
while in 1891 the richest estates, constitute
| ing 4 per cent. Of the whole number, rep
| resented 8S3 per cent. Of the aggregate
wealth. In the United States there are,
practically no statistics of the kind.
Passing to the indirect method of inquiry,
we note that some writer's. in order to show
| , ~ ucalfb MONT tn "a
| crease In wages and to the fact that the
| poor now consume many things that the rich
| could not have afforded a number OF years
ago. Prof. Fly holds that what they really
prove liz that the lower classes have not
been wholly excluded from the benefits
| Of the general increase In wealth; but, no
matter how firmly that point be established
| it is still pronounced an open question
| whether the concentration OF wealth be
greater or less than it used to be. Another
indirect mode Of checking the results of
the direct method is to appeal to the results
| Of common observation. What, it may be
| asked, do persons coming from dinerent
sections Of the country, or those who have
travelled widely, report as to what they
have actually OhservedP The answer ls
that those coming from the smaller towns
and from the country ESPECIALLY in the
middle WesD seem to he impressed with
the existence of a general well-being Com
Portable home seem to be the rule, and ex-
cessively rich families are exceptional.
These who live in the large cities, on the
other hand, are struck by the width Of the
gulf between the rich and the poor. Many
are In abiect misery. while some are spend-
ing on triAes what would be a fortune to
others. Prof. Ely would not, fora moment.
assert that such general considera tions
lead to very definite conclusions, but it
seems TO him that, on the whole, they do not
contradict the impression that one gets
.l,I . ..a iii
me thod. 1T doubtless il true. lie thinks.
that all classes have shared in the increased
wealth production, yet il is true that "A
considerable degree of concentration IN
the ownership OF wealth exists in the United
States at the prf sent time. rather small
part Of the population receives rather
large part Of the nations income" 1t must
not be inferred that the author Of this BOOK
dc sires an equal distribution of wealth.
On the contrary, he deems il desirable to
give men special rewards for special efforts.
which means inequality Of income. The cap
nins Of industry must be paid for their in
dustrial leadership, though II il pc ssiblr that
society 10 now paying them price some
what higher than liz necessary.
In chapter on "the inheritance of prop
erty," our author quotes with approva the
proposals for 1, reform in the laws of in
heritanoe formulated by Prof Bluntsrhl
OF Heidelberg These were; First, "a"
share of a child Is not to he taxed unless
il exceeds o., 900, but of any excess above
ga 900 the local political unit (Which, for
the sake of brevity, Prof. Ely calls in every
case q town. shall receive 10 per cent III
the share OF child exceeds 100000. the
State shall receive, of the excess above
$4,000, a child's share. Secondly, II the
estate falls to parents or gran iparenis
of the deoedent the town Is To receive
share of per cent. of the estate provided
the share of single ancestor is more tnan
81. 400 but does not exceed 3i2 900, and 10
nar cent of the excess of a share over
Sl2 600 II the share of a single ancestor
excseds 924, OO0 the State receives share
equal to 10 per cent. of the surplus. Thirdly,
the brothers and sisters and children OF
brothers and sisters of decedents are TO
be treated 40 far as inheritance goes, like
parents and grandparents. Fourthly, II
the heirs of the decedent are descended from
grandparents, but not from the same
parents, that is to say. if they are cousins,
aunts and uncles, the town is to be entitled
10 a share of 10 per cent of the estate II
this exceeds 81, 400, and 20 per cent. OF the
excess of the estate above Sl2 600 If the
estate exceeds S24, 600, 20 per cent. OF this
town Filthy II the heirs of the decedcnt
are descended from common great grand
parents, but not from common grand
parents or parents, the share OF the town
IL to be 20 per cent. if the estate exceeds
81 400, and 10 per cent. of the excess above
81, 900; and IL the estate exceeds $4,000
the State Ia 10 receive 80 per cent. OF the
excess Sixthly, il the deoedent had 10
relatives near enough to be descended from
common great grandparents the estate Il
TO fall to he town il II does moi exceed IN