, 1922-06-02
Wealth and Public Office.

WHE QUESTION of the possession of wealth
by a person who aspires TO public service is one
of deep concern in many sections OF the country.
Wealth, honorably secured, could not reasonably
be considered a bar to any further ambiuon tne
possessor might have The use oil II corruPuy,
however. to attain any object is of a certainty
open to criticism and condemnation In elaoor-
ating the subject the Boston Transcript thus
speaks:
abetted by the Burlington News, has been maintain
ing the startling thesis that the fact that a man Is
rich constitutes in itself a fair Indication that he
is fit for public service-ft to hold an office OF
importance. The Vermont reasoning is not at all
that the mans money helps him or should help him,
IN getting or in holding an office in any direct way;
the idea is that in this country the fact that a man
has won a fortune is generally an indication that
he possesses initiative, activity and ability and
man in private business says the Burlington
News, ought to be a fair guage of his ability to
yield good public service To defeat a man for
an office because he is wealthy is therefore, in
ordinary cases, to defeat him because he is COM
petent.
@This reasoning seems to be good, in as far
as the majority of instances are concerned. 1t
appears, however, to take no account of inherited
wealth. 1t is not necessarily an indication of
ability, of initiative, of activity, or of anything else
except consanguinity, that a man possesses in
herited wealth. His fortune, unlike that of the
'self-made man, cannot be said to have proved his
powers. But neither does it prove his lack of them
and the inheritance of a fortune at least relieves
an aspirant from the assumed necessity of using
office for the purpose Of accumulating wealth.
Respect for wealth-we might even say the vener-
alton of wealth-is a very common characteristic
of Americans. Why, then, should its possession
often. and often quite successfully be urged against
a man in conjunction with any proposition to put
him into public place? Obviously, for one reason,
because some rich men have used the expenditure
of money to help them in a short cut to office;
and for another and more important reason be-
cause captains of industry are commonly suspected,
m their relation to public affairs, of putting their
heads together for the increase of their already
large interests. The people do not dislike or sus,
pect the rich man merely because he is rich; if
they suspect him it is because they fear he is too
man does not brighten them; it is the interests
above all the corporate concerns, of a number of
men that give them apprehension and lead to op-
position.
at is the combination of capital, in short, which
has brought about the unfortunate circumstances
that our public life, in many cases, has lost the
large advantage of the experience, the sagacity,
the character, of men of wealth. In the days be-
fore the corporation it was not so. Nobody thought
it anything else than an advantage for the people
to obtain the services, in public life, of men like
George Washington, Robert Morris and Albert Gal
latin. But the 1interlocking directorate has risen
like a bogy before the eyes of the American voter.
The fear is not of individual wealth but of COM
bined wealth. And this fear may yet be counted
as one of the greatest of the disadvantages result
ing from the process of combination, by means If
which the individual surrenders ONE part of his
freedom. 1t was remarked by Proudhon long ago
that all men would prefer to be alone in business
if they could-that partnerships and corporate or
CARNATIONS are resorted to only to overcome the
disadvantages of insufficient capital for a large
purpose. 1t may also be remarked that the voting
mass apparently has no aversion to the individu-
ally placed rich man like Mr.. Henry Ford, but
pected of connection with corporate interests The
capability of exercising n larger measure of dis
elimination in this regard would be a happy adj
dition to the faculties of our electorate"