then, with a condition of affairs under which the best interests of the race are promoted, but which inevitably gives wealth
to the few. Thus far, accepting conditions as they exist, the situation can be surveyed and pronounced good. The question
then arises-and, if the foregoing be correct, it is the only question with which we have to deal-What is the proper mode of
administering wealth after the laws upon which civilization is founded have thrown it into the hands of the few? And it is
of this great question that I believe I offer the true solution. It will be understood that fortunes are here spoken of, not
moderate sums saved by many years of effort, the returns from which are required for the comfortable maintenance and education
of families. This is not wealth, but only competence, which it should be the aim of all to acquire.
but three modes in which surplus wealth can be disposed of. It can be left to the families of the decedents; or it can be
bequeathed for public purposes; or, finally, it can be administered during their lives by its possessors. Under the first
and second modes most of the wealth of the world that has reached the few has hitherto been applied. Let us in turn consider
each of these modes. The first is the most injudicious. In monarchial countries, the estates and the greatest portion of the
wealth are left to the first son, that the vanity of the parent may be gratified by the thought that his name and title are
to descend to succeeding generations unimpaired. The condition of this class in Europe today teaches the futility of
such hopes or ambitions. The successors have become impoverished through their follies or from the fall in the value of land....
Why should men leave great fortunes to their children? If this is done from affection, is it not misguided affection? Observation
teaches that, generally speaking, it is not well for the children that they should be so burdened. Neither is it well for
the state. Beyond providing for the wife and daughters moderate sources of income, and very moderate allowances indeed, if
any, for the sons, men may well hesitate, for it is no longer questionable that great sums bequeathed oftener work more for
the injury than for the good of the recipients. Wise men will soon conclude that, for the best interests of the members of
their families and of the state, such bequests are an improper use of their means.
. . .
As to the
second mode, that of leaving wealth at death for public uses, it may be said that this is only a means for the disposal of
wealth, provided a man is content to wait until he is dead before it becomes of much good in the world.... The cases are not
few in which the real object sought by the testator is not attained, nor are they few in which his real wishes are thwarted....
disposition to tax more and more heavily large estates left at death is a cheering indication of the growth of a salutary
change in public opinion.... Of all forms of taxation, this seems the wisest. Men who continue hoarding great sums all their
lives, the proper use of which for public ends would work good to the community, should be made to feel that the community,
in the form of the state, cannot thus be deprived of its proper share. By taxing estates heavily at death, the state marks
its condemnation of the selfish millionaire's unworthy life.
. . . This
policy would work powerfully to induce the rich man to attend to the administration of wealth during his life, which is the
end that society should always have in view, as being that by far most fruitful for the people....
then, only one mode of using great fortunes: but in this way we have the true antidote for the temporary unequal distribution
of wealth, the reconciliation of the rich and the poor-a reign of harmony-another ideal, differing, indeed from that of the
Communist in requiring only the further evolution of existing conditions, not the total overthrow of our civilization. It
is founded upon the present most intense individualism, and the race is prepared to put it in practice by degrees whenever
it pleases. Under its sway we shall have an ideal state, in which the surplus wealth of the few will become, in the best sense,
the property of the many, because administered for the common good, and this wealth, passing through the hands of the few,
can be made a much more potent force for the elevation of our race than if it had been distributed in small sums to the people
themselves. Even the poorest can be made to see this, and to agree that great sums gathered by some of their fellowcitizens
and spent for public purposes, from which the masses reap the principal benefit, are more valuable to them than if scattered
among them through the course of many years in trifling amounts.
. . .
is held to be the duty of the man of Wealth: First, to set an example of modest, unostentatious living, shunning display or
extravagance; to provide moderately for the legitimate wants of those dependent upon him; and after doing so to consider all
surplus revenues which come to him simply as trust funds, which he is called upon to administer, and strictly bound as a matter
of duty to administer in the manner which, in his judgment, is best calculated to produce the most beneficial result for the
community-the man of wealth thus becoming the sole agent and trustee for his poorer brethren, bringing to their service his
superior wisdom, experience, and ability to administer-doing for them better than they would or could do for themselves.