The weekly Republican. (Plymouth, Ind.) 1911-1922, 1911-08-10


that the wants and necessit;es of
every other member of the human
family were fully suppl ed, and ev-
cry one had enough and more than
enough to make him comfortable,
where would be the wrong or In
justice in Fields will?
Suppose that the averge lifetime
savings of the average industrious
man were two hundred million dol
lars. instea1 of less than four thous-
and dollars, as is the fact. what
possible harm or injury could result
to any person from the fact that
Mr.. Field had such fortune and
chose to perpetuate it in his family
in that manner?
Suppose. even, that he had seen
fit to hurl all his personal property
into Lake Michigan and raze his
| palatial stores and warehouses to
the ground, what moral wrong would
there be In such an act. when there
was an abundance remaining in the
hands of every person surviving
him?
1t is. therefore evident that right
and wrong, justice and injustice, are
relative terms and depend altogether
upon the conditions that surround a
transaction.
If every man had his pockets filled
with paper money, as much or more
than he could possibly need, would it
be moral offense, under such cir
cumstances. if some fool should see
fit to light his cigar with a ten dol
lar bill? No one would contend for
such proposition.
But unfortunately the riches and
natural resources of this earth are
not so lavish and abundant as that.
On the contrary, the sad and serious
fact is that the supply of things
necessary and useful to man. with a
few possible exceptions are limited
Without laboriOus toll and constant
work the masses of mankind would
perish. Nature has set its limitations.
and the natural food supply of the
earth would support but small por-
ton of its present population. with
out being supplemented BY the lab
OF of men. ..
All the workers of the world. toll
ing throughout the entire year. pro-
duce hut little more than the bare
necessities of life for all mankind.
and were it to be distributed equally
among all men, there would be no
more than the means of comfort
able living in the hands of any one
person.
1t is therefore manifest that for
one man to be immensely rich, many
more men must be poor. And to the
mind of those who look deeper into
This prof. -. it is likewise manifest
that for one man to appropriate to
himself vastly more of the products
of labor than he has, himself, hon
estlv produced by his own laboring
power. and that which is in excess
of his needs thereby depriving his
fellows of the necessaries of life, is
wrong in principle and indefensible
in morals
1t is hkewis> manifest that it
makes no difference, in its effect upon
society at large, or from any moral
viewpoint, whether Marshall Field
be permitted to gather together such
fabulous riches and TO enjoy and con-
troll them during his lifetime. or
whether he be permitted to hand
them down to others. by will, in such
manner that they continue under the
possession and control of his family
indefinitely The result is the same
in either instance, or if there be any
difference it is In favor of the trust
contained in Mr.. Fields will, for by
it's terms several persons are the
beneficiaries of his wealth, not one
alone, as was the case while Mr..
Field lived.
We may reasonably suppose that
the executors of Marshall Fields
will are just as capable Of success
fully managing the estate as was its
founder, or 50 shrewd a man as he
would not have made,suc DISPOSE
tion Of his property, and all reports
we get from that estate confirm the
supposition that it is being success
i fully managed, and that these mil
lions are marching on land adding
many millions more to the aggregate
lin dead hands-just the same as
in the lifetime of Mr.. Field. And 1
| understand that it is fact that the
number Of employees of the Marshall
Field estate are just as numerous,
faithful and we'll paid for their SER
vices as those who served him when
In life.
I There is a law that pervades the
J industrial and economic world, just
S@Sr-