The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1906-05-28
Iiv'tIN0 hriffH
tnaiuNa's Prsrtirr and wntam Watte'
Pheips's suaaestisn

frDnrt declaration ~ rfr flHut Houa1veli Iu
ftyor NJ N,tNs , iimf nn the inheritance NJ
wealth. ~, iudiyidualt has r,oiiei mu'h
creator t,'cnt .pn anl aroused = m,t'h wider
dI-pit'ipr than vouli have follow "l such =
declaration hr sty r~rapr not holding 80
prominent , r%"sitiur. aud no' hllira r"taonhhv
80 ntfr q place IN tho public yirW great
deal ~ the enauins iiAI irtsi0n has t"s'"1 On
tho assumption that 'h" prnpuA1l va some
thing entirely rev. and that Il adopted. In
any form. 1t would create 4 new practice
covering Tho disposition ~ p%roperty
It may be interesting. therefore, TO show
that n leral limitat lon Of wealth. ~ IN" NJ ~
forms, y not n novelty. and to cite a much
earlier dcclaration hy n man Of public position
and high personal standing IN favor Of a
limitation of the amount ~ wealth OF which
any citizen may be possessed.
The legal limitation I have In mind covers
the disposition Of real property bv VIII No
man in tho state of New York can 40 dispose
Of his real estate by viii that the suspension
NJ the title IN fee shall he deferred longer
than two Iives In being This laN was bor-
rowed from the English law and there II had
It's origin IN a desire to prevent the accumula-
tinn Of an immense fortune nv 40 leaving an
estate that II sho,fld he vested w q remote
heir when II had sv oflen enormously Chase's
Blackstone thus set forth the course Of the
English proceeding in tho matter
At nrst the courts were tender. even In the case
oi , will. Of restraining the devisee for Me from
an, nqung the term; but only held that In case he
Idicd without c%JrrtinE that act Of ownership the
remainder over should then take place; for the
rest raint Of the power Of alienation, especially In
any long terms. was Introducing a species Of per.
petuity. But soon afterwar I'd II was held that the
deviSee for HE hath no power Of alternating the term,
~ as 90 bar the remninde Tman, yet, In order to
prevent the danger OF perpetuitlcs. II was settled
that thcuA such remainders may he limited TO as
many perbns successfully as the dcv1SorS think
proper. yet they mus, all be IN CSse during the life
Of the nrst devisce.
This rest rio ion grew out of a celebrated
case. that of Peter Theluson. who had an
ambition to have one OF his remoter heirs
became the Nv ner Of an immense fortune.
HI devised his large estate so that it would
accumulate during the lives of his three sons,
and OF all their sons who should survive
him or be born afterw ard. On the death OF
the last survivor Of the latter the aocumn-
lated fund w as to be divided into three shares,
one Of these to 70 to the eldest male line4
descendant Of each of his three sons. or to
the sinking fund If there were no such de-
scendants. When he died" the account
sets forth, he had three sons living who had
four sons living. and twin soRs were born
soon afterward. Upon ca f~culation IL ap-
peared that upon the death OF the survivor
of these nine the fund would probably
exceed Ria, OO0, 900. and upon the supposition
of only one to take, and a minority OF ten
years, It would exceed fS2, 900, 900"
This will was sustained az being within the
statute, but it brought about the passage
of a new statute ts9-4o Geo. III. chapter asl,
which prohibited any settlements OF properly
for accumulations longer than. the life OF the
person making them, the period Of twenty.
person or persons living or en- renire at the
time of his death, or the minority OF any per
the profits under the settlement If Of full age.
President Roosevelt's. proposition Is; a
tax so framed as &c, put 1t out OF the power OF
the owner of one Of these enormous fortunes
to hand on more than a certain amount to
any one individual" In this view he is. in 3
S SifS her Sbiyec e9 oi t BY f fnsltsh m is%' In accord
The person 70 whose earlier We've on this
subject ! have referred was the Hon WIN;
a fortune large for his day. He was a public
man In n broad sense-representing his dis
trict several terms in Congress. being a Fellow
and after the expression Of the Views quoted
Minister to Germ ny X d hydb at the Con tine 81 Of N ais
death a i En1sfts 81 me ' a na@b eput Of O. cai hew
at his New Jersey home. one afternoon il
June. 1893, Henry Georges then new book
Progress and Poverty" came UP Tor dis
cnssIon. Mr.. Phelps said he had not read 1t,
but he went on to remark;
have made ~sufhcient progress M advanced"
political economy to avow the belief that some
method should be devised and applied TO put a
check to the enormous aggregation of wealth In
single hands, as Is seen in the case OF Vanderbilt.
II one man has. say-to make the limit extreme
So. 900 900, he has all the money that for any per
sonal good OF pleasure he can spend Anything
beyond this should be put into other hands for use
and distribution. The possessor OF ten, twenty or
thirty millions is only tempted to use his Immense
unnecessary surplus either TO dlsarrange the ordi-
nary and proper methods Of trade and trafnc, or 10
let IL lie Invested, adding the Income where II does
the public Tor the nation no good, II this surplus
can be made active, ina beneficial way, II VIII
enable Others to advance who. for want OF capital.
must remain where they are. ! was at a dinner
recently which was attended by a number OF mill
ionaires. and I was surprised to nnd how generally
my view Of this question was accepted
These remarks were made, a., | have said.
in private conversation. ! did not feel at
liberty to quote them as coming from Mr.
phelps, but they so impressed me by at least
their novelty, coming from a man OF wealth,
ga t'heirr author. They attracted some atten-
tjon-much less than in these days they would.
when the man Of enormous riches is so much
,Jnly ? THE SIN quoted the statement. md
after observing that the author OF II very
likely found OUT by experience That the m
come of Two millions Is what ne wants him
self, 7" said:
But ninety nine out Of one hundred not being
mllnonalrcs, and having no prospect OF becoming
m,nlonalrcs. Nigh, demand that the limit should be
6xed much lower. In the nrSt pace, lue surplus
wealth to be put into other hands for use and
distribution" would be far greater " the limit was
nxed at $1,000 for instance. There would be
more money for them to share. And again. they
would say that the income Of such a fortune was
enough for any man. To them 1t might mean
wealth, and doubtless II would purchase @or Its
nossessor all reasonable personal good or pleasure"
whether he Is now rich or poor. No man needs the
Income Of two millions, or OF one million. To make
himself comfortable. So long as lie has a com
petence sufficient to make him independent. to
nroyide for his rca s1nable wants, and 10 support
sIs family nc Is rich. And II t1crc was no wealth
greater than his nc would not be tempted to spend
NOR, In social competition. II, therefore,, the
MAN of the millionaire statesman to lmi, fortunes
/, ever carried out in practice, we warn him that
he will not he allowed 70 Keep his two millions.
Twenty-one years ago, when these views
Of MIR, Phelps we're expressed and these com
ments were made on them, possessors In this
country OF even a few millions were com
paratively few, and the then existing fortune
Of a Vanderbilt looked immense even TO an
ordinarily rich man. The situation which
President Roosevelt has in view Is a vastly
different one in degree. but his reasoning and
Mr.. Phelps's run along even lines.
H~ACKRSsAcK. May rs. READER.