The weekly herald. [volume] (Amarillo, Tex.) 1906-19??, 1908-12-24
t*+tttttt++t+t*t%
4 NEUTRALITY-SUSPICIOUS. 1
\ DEFEND THEMSELVES. /


John d. Rockefeller aud Andrew
Carnegie on entirely different sub
jects, in The December Worlds Work,
each gives us an Illuminating justi-
fication OF his right 10 his great
riches. Mr.. Rockefeler's article is
mainly devoted to calculating "the
difficult art OF giving" and should
prove helpful TO any who experience
difficulty along this line, whilo Mr..
Carnegie's article H. in the main an
argument for taxing great fortunes
heavily by death duties. 1t will be
seen that each OF these topics natur-
ally prompts the reader to ask what
right the multimllllonaire has TO his
hundreds OF millions in the first
place, and neither one of these writ
ers flinchcs from the question. Mr..
Rockefeller says:
Investigation will show that the
great fortunes which have been made
in this country and the same is
probably true Of other lands, have
/ come to men who have performed
great and far-reaChing economic SER
vices--mcn who, with great faith in
the future Of their country, have
done most for the development OF its
resources. The man will be most
successful who confers the greatest
service on the world. Commercial
enterprises that are needed by the
public will pay, Commercial en-
tcrprises that are not needed fail,
and ought to fail
Mr.. Rockefeller then goes on 10
outline at considerable length his
philosophy OF giving, but again re-
writes:
at may be asked; How is it con
sistent with the universal diffusion
OF these blessings that vast sums of
money should be in single hands?The
reply is, as / see It, that, while men
OF wealth control great sums OF mon
ey, they do not and can not use them
for themselves. They have, indeed
the legal title TO large properties,
and they do control the investment
OF them, but that is as far as their
own relation TO them extends or can
extend. The money Is universally
diifused in the sense that it is kept
invested and it passes into the pay
envelop week by week.
"Up TO the present time no scheme
has yet presented itself which seems
to afford better method of handling
capital than that of individual own
ership We might put our money
turns to the defense of wealth. lie
into the treasury Of the nation and
Of the various states, but we do not
find any promise in the national or
state legislatures, viewed from the
experiences OF the past that the
funds would be expended for the
general veal more effectively than
under the present methods, nor do
we find in any Of the schemes of So
cialism a promise tina: wealth would
be more wisely administered for the
general good. 1t is the duty of men
of means to maintain the title to
their property and to administer
their funds until some man, or body
of men, shall rise up capable OF ad-
ministering for the genera! good the
capital of the country better than
they can"
Mr.. Carncgie's Views.
MIR. Carnegles argument for the
multimillionaire runs along much
same line. Evidently these two writ
ers, reasoning Independently, have
reached identical conclusions. Mr..
Carnegie says that practically every
thousand" of the wealth Of the
great financier lis at work for the
development OF the country, and
earning interest, much OF it paying
labor" while "the money-making
man, in contrast to his heirs, who
generally become members of the
smart or fast set, is abstemious, re-
firing and little OF spendthrift,
He goes on to correct a popular I'm
preston thus:
"Those who have not mad oppor-
tunity to study the operation OF
wealth in the werld are naturally led
astray. They see its possessors in
their palaces surrounded with every
luxury. their gorgeous carriages in
the park; they read OF their extrava-
giant balls, Of rlotous living, aud in.
ordinate expenditure, and worse than
this, of gambling at cards, aud up
on horses-horse-ra in Britain
is still unfortunately under the high
est patronage-sights naturally hard
to bear by those suffering for the