The Columbus journal., 1910-06-15
THE ERA OF RICH WOMEN.

THE ERA OF RICH WOMEN.
1t is frequently urged, by the advo'
Gates of votes for women, that women
are taxed without representation. 1t
is, of course, quite impossible accurate
ly to estimate what proportion Of the
nations wealth Is ultimately held and
controlled by women; but some dis.
closed by q casual glance at the list Of
taxpayers on personal property in the
city of New York alone.
Seven persons in New York are tax.
ed on million dollars worth or more
of personal property. Three Of them
are women, and Q women heads the
list-Mrs. Emma B. Kennedy, widow
of the late John Stewart Kennedy,
who is taxed on 6 millions. Mr.. Ken
nedy, in his will, left his wife ID mil.
lion dollars, besides giving about 30
millions to charity. The next two
names, taxed upon ) millions each. are
Andrew Carnegie and Mrs. Margaret
Sage, widow of the late Russell Sage.
The third woman on the list is Mrs.
Florence Amsinck, widow of the late
Gustave Amsinck, the importing che
mist, who is taxed on l million dol
lars in personal property. By her
husbands will, Mrs. Amsinck received
all bis real estate in this country, in
Germany and in Italy. Is we'll as much
otherproperty. She is probably worth
today 20 million dollars.
Scanning the New York tax list rs
far down As those assessed at $4,000
We find listed by their Christian names,
so that they are recognized ~ females,
some eighty ether women. paying per.
sOnal tax on q total Of 81 millions.
Doubtless there are many others listed
only by their initials. Judging by the
usual difference between the assessed
value Of q taxpayers personal proper
ty and the actual size Of his fortune,
these figures must be multiplied .
good many times il We want to esti.
mate the total value of the property
held by the eighty women. 1t must
be remembered that some of the rich.
est people in New York pay no per.
sonal tax, and that others are rated on
a comparatively trifing assessment
not through perjury, by any means,
but because of the many exemptions
allowed by law. For instance, J.
Pierpont Morgan is taxed ON only
s4OO, 900 worth Of personal property in
New York.
For similar reasons, the list does not
include some of the largest fortunes
held by women usually classed Is New
Workers. For example, it does not
show the name Of Mrs. f. H. Harri
man, who, by the famous 9s.word will
of the late railroad magnate, inherited
all his fortune, which was estimated by
we'll informed people at from SO to "a
million dollars, though some much
higher guesses were made. Nor does
it include Miss Helen Gould, nor
many other women Of great wealth.
Avoiding as far as possible mere es.
Inmates and guesswork, and drawing
the figures largely from the published
wills of the husbands, parents or rels.
tives from whom they inherited, it is
possible to make up a list Of American
woman comprising less than twenty
names, who control q combined wealth
of halfa billion dollars. It'll easy to
to speak calmly ofhalf billion dol
lars, because the average mind is quite
incapable Of grasping the idea Of il;
but it is q larger sum than has ever
been accumulated by one man, with
the possible exception Of John ID.
Rockefeller.
Add twenty or thirty more names,
and the total would amount up toward
three-quarters of q billion. Nor, even
80, does the catalogue claim to be com.
plete. Doubtless if the full facts
could be secured, a list oftwo hundred
American women who control . CON-
bined wealth of one billion dollars
could be compiled without violence to
the truth.-Walter e. Patterson in
June Munsey's.
OUR CAPITAL.
TInl:l,o orJon ~. D. ~. Do.1:n