Deseret evening news. [volume] (Great Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1867-1920, 1907-01-12
Dangerous

Herald and Deseret News)
gv wmlam q. sumner. Professor Of
Political and Social Science Yale Uni
vefslty.
n 10 socialstic notions ana 'al'h :,
IN socialIstle deyiees spFg ,Sa
through our society? IN tne
elections of the last autumn
,hcyo seemed 10 be much evidence tha'
,bev do and that property is to be en-
dapeered by sociaustic lesis'atlol''
MANY or Ne believe that there is dan
Ger from corporations that y to soy
from combined and cooperative enoIts
of numbers Of men, II ls worth Whl'e
AZ the review Of the year to spend q
few Minutes 10 trying 10 realize wheih-
or these notions arc sound and JUST
what they mean.
IN the first place. II may be promptly
taken for true that the existing form oil
tbe state viii not be abolished ir order
10 mt in its place q socialisuc state ana
ia abolish the guarantees Of property.
we see no signs of a deep ana general
loss OF confidence In the democratic re-
public and no decline in affection Tor
ID. and there can be little outreaehink OF
affection toward soclallsuc state
which Is not even presented IN single
ana definite form 10 the imagination.
Moreover, the present guarantees OF
property are not excessive. ana the dls-
position to struggle IN defense ot what
one has shows no sign of dinlnutlon'
We must also believe that, II there
should be an attempt to use the present
form of the state against property the
state would be changed back TO one or
- xsh thg1I
faults, ga,s adequate guarantees 70
property. Property Is the most prlrni..
tive and original. the deepest ana
broadcast Interest of men. II Is an es-
sential condition of education, religion
and science and It is essential 70 tine
family. We may therefore nave discus
sion about many socletal dispositions
bur where any serious proposition is
made TO alter the rights of property, or
to diminish It's guarantees, the men wiz
all 20 back TO the old ideas and iHsttu-
tons
In France within a century there have
been Two or three occasions on when
this has been proved. The revolution
goes on prosperously while II consists IN
tinkering constitutions and trying re-
publcs but when II put property az
stake every thing is turned back into
the old grooves again. This Is so, not
because o few grandly rich men de-
feat the revolution. IL is because the
army Of small people who have rev
hundreds all act together to preserve
their small capitals from peril or loss.
n IL not worth while, therefore. to
spend discussion on the danger OF
popullktic state or of q revision OF
property rights and guarantees accord
Ing TO some now doctrines of social
philosophy. The doctrines will vanish
In moment II they come into COLI
sion with great interests,
WHERE THE DANGER LIES.
The SETTLING and vague notions in the
minds OF the people and the whims OF
political experiment which people WIN
approve are not so idle. All notices
and experiments produce social DIS
turhance aud political CONFUSION. ihsy
produce or allow bad legislation whlch
has ultimate consequences that We're
not forseeu or desired, but which have
TO be endured It is danger of this Kind
which We may reasonably fear.
II win hardly be denied that broad
doctrines of social philosophy arc &C
cepted more and more confidently by
modern people. They are nearly all
fallacious. They need criticism ana
ietinItlon which costs thought and re-
auIres knowledge. v thin year the
no,iap that men may became TOO rich
nnd Mai thaY, then become dangerous
10 society appears to have won iar
more general consent than formerly.
There Is disposition to use such no.
lion as the basis OF projects to restrict
and control tho old fashioned indivld-
nai liberty. What is the sense OF the
notion of EXCESSIVE wealth" OF
an Individual and what truth is
there In It, There is, more
over. behind this notion an assump-
ton that 1t IS wise and proper for
those who are not too rich to form
ethical judgments about the use of
wealth and to formulate rules about
that use for the guidance and control
Of those who own the wealth. This
amounts to an assumption that those
who do not own the wealth ought to
have the spending of II, not those VINO
own It. for those who make the rules
IN effect win spend That is q very
dangerous notion. IL VIII lead to
waste and 10 social abuses of many
kinds.
II may be fully admitted that the
use of wealth is an ethical matter OF
the first Importance. IL calls for the
Strictest principles OF honor and high
character on the part of those who
own wealth. and every public and prl-
Vate enigma OF education and training
ought TO be strengthened 80 far az 1t
can reach and effect them. After
this doctrine Is recognized as true,
what remains OF the notion that the
wealth OF individuals may be too
great" SO that they may be danger
ous2 Nothing AT all The ethical
question is one OF private morals and
Responsibility. and there IL no such
thing as too much wealth for one
man. Tho Year OF social danger from
great wealth is childish and Idle.
MANY BTLLIoNAIREs IN FIFTY
YEARS,
In the first place, It Is evident that
cur ideas of excessive wealth are those
OF today and are dependent on facts
of today. In every century for the
last 500 years the current maximum
of wealth for individuals has greatly
advanced IN 1867 the number Of
mon IN New York city who had sey-
eral millions each was very SMALL
There were quite a number who had
nn0 million each. one million was
not then thought excessive or unreal
sOnable, Perhaps 10 millions would
then have been thought the limit be-
yond which las excessive wealth." IL
u had thcn been tho fashion 10 en-
terrain such question, Many people
now think hundred millions excess