half as much residue for wages as the American manufacturers do. To put the case even as strongly as the most rabid socialist would do, namely, that it is "robbery," then it is robbery on both sides of the Atlantic ; and, if we are forced to a choice between two robbers, is it not better to choose the one that will give us enough of the plunder to feed and clothe us decently, than to permit ourselves to be victimized by the other, who will reduce us to starvation and rob our own "robber" manufacturers besides? I, for one, should certainly prefer to be "robbed" by our native monopolists, who generally keep the money in the country where I have a chance of getting some of it, even though it be not a fair share, than to throw myself and the fruits of my labor recklessly into the hands of foreign pirates, who spend it in Europe where we never have a ghost of a chance of getting back a solitary cent. If this argument is not clear and conclusive, common sense must be a very scarce commodity, and therefore an article of great value, according to the political economists.

One of the strong charges of the free-traders is that the former McKinley Law prevented importation in order to give the American market to "trusts and combines." Suppose, it will be granted for the sake of argument, that they were American trusts and combines, not British or foreign? This is simply the same argument, and the same answer applies to it. The McKinley Law was "A bill to reduce taxation, and for other purposes." Paradoxical as it may seem, it was more of a freetrade bill in one sense of the term than was the Wilson measure as the latter finally passed, which put only 48 per cent. of all our importations of merchandise on the free list, while the McKinley Law let in 60 per cent. of the whole list free of duty. There was this important distinction, however, with regard to the quality and class of the goods: The McKinley Law admitted as few articles as possible that came in competition with our manufacturers, artisans, farmers, mechanics, and laborers, while the goods which the Wilson measure admitted came largely in direct competition with all these. These five special classes of our industrial system have had the

object lesson which enables them to draw conclusions from their own respective standpoints; and they expressed their views very forcibly, more in actions than words, by the election of President McKinley by an overwhelming majority, and by the return of positive working majorities in both houses of Congress, in which the majorities four years previously were so decidedly in favor of something akin to free trade that the Democrats were predicting the enjoyment of half a century of unassailable power in office. But the people again proved that they themselves are the disposing power. It required this object lesson to teach the would-be reformers the great object lesson that was to be the forerunner of national prosperity.

And now what has become of all the free-traders, with their panaceas and specifics for all financial ills? If they are dead, have they no successors among their many admirers of the past? Seldom has there been in politics such a large conversion of a big majority into a vanishing minority.

It is important to note the fact that President McKinley favored revision, but not revolution of the tariff, and a remodeling of the currency without diminishing its volume. He did not propose "taking the government out of the banking business" either; but he did propose taking the currency revision out of politics by placing it in the hands of a commission composed of up-to-date business men, irrespective of party politics. "Taking the government out of the banking business,” “The endless chain," "The greenbacks must go,” and other phrases of that kind should now be considered as having gone down with the general wreck. One of the best and most reassuring utterances of President McKinley in his inaugural address is this sentence: "The value of silver already coined or to be coined must be kept at par with gold by every resource at our command. The credit of the government and the integrity of its obligations must be preserved." If Mr. Cleveland had made a similar statement in his inaugural address four years before, this country might have been saved from the disastrous panics which took place during his term.

I think, in conclusion, that a word of friendly counsel which

I have already suggested, might not be out of place, as far as the present Secretary of the Treasury is concerned. Mr. Gage favors taking up the greenbacks, thereby relieving the government from the responsibility of sustaining gold payments and putting that obligation upon the national banks. He admits that it would result in a contraction of the currency which would depress values generally, but he says the situation would adjust itself through that process, as values would go down sufficiently low to induce foreign buying, which would make gold flow this way, so supplementing the currency thus contracted. To bring about a condition of depression such as Mr. Gage suggests, for the purpose of making bargains in our securities and products for the benefit of foreigners, would be resented by the people injured thereby in every State. The very thing that reduced securities and commodities to panic prices would revive the silver mania, on the belief of the need of more money, and would justify foreign capitalists in believing that this country was surely going to drift to a silver basis. If once they believed that, they would not buy our securities, however low in price; but, on the contrary, the lower they sold, the more Europe would liquidate what they held. That was the experience during the last silver dementia. The taking up of greenbacks by the government would of course save the United States Treasury from being exposed to the suspension of gold payments; but it would be at the expense of the national banks, as it would take from them the money which they now hold for their reserves and for the redemption of their notes. The banks in times of severe depression and distrust would then be almost sure to suspend gold payments; besides, as soon as the government went out of the legal tender currency business, the national banks would immediately begin to contract their circulation rather than be exposed sooner or later to a default in payment when gold should be demanded for their notes. A severe depression in business, such as Mr. Gage proposes, would surely elect some such man as William Jennings Bryan as President of the United States in 1900. We had better "bear the ills we have than fly to others that we know not of."

PART III.

WALL STREET AND SOCIAL PROBLEMS.

CHAPTER XXVII.

THE MASSES AND THE CLASSES.

No room for jealousy where political equality, by virtue of the Declaration of Independence and of the Constitution, exists. - Sectional hostilities and class animosities should not be fostered, but suppressed. — Erroneous logic of those who want to get rich quickly. - The evil influence of communism and socialism on the body politic.-Geographical discriminations to be repudiated. — George Washington's opinion on the subject. The question of the distribution of wealth and its rapid progress in the division of large fortunes. If monopolies rule, whose fault is it ?- Accumulation of capital in the hands of a few, and how the socialistic remedy would work.― Advice to those who want to get rich rapidly. — Victims of soaring ambition. — How the Gould and Vanderbilt estates are distributed effectually without the aid of the socialists.

IT

T is peculiarly deplorable that class distinctions should exist in this country. The whole idea is semi-barbarous in its character and unworthy of a people professing advanced civilization. It is a feeling, moreover, that a man should be ashamed to acknowledge on cool reflection, for the reason that it detracts from his own dignity as an American citizen, and deprives him in part, especially in the eyes of foreigners, of that character which is one of his greatest marks of distinction wherever he may travel.

Then, too, the spirit of jealousy displayed against the East in many of the new States in the far West, because of the disparity in wealth which exists, is simply absurd. The people who cherish that animosity forget the fact that the Eastern people have had over a hundred years' start in the accumula

tion of wealth. The remoter new States occupy a position similar to that which young men just commencing life hold toward old men who have made their fortunes. Such starters in life should not become dissatisfied because they have to cope with powerful competitors. In assuming this attitude, they do not take into account that the older men have given three score or more years of hard work to the accumulation of wealth, and that they have the same opportunities to accomplish all that the older ones have done, providing they apply themselves to the effort with equal diligence. With the equality of opportunities in this country that most men possess, why should there be any feeling of envy simply because one part of the country has had a hundred or more years' start over others, and has become rich in comparison? England was rich, through the accretions of many centuries, before the United States came into existence. Did the people of the United States feel animosity toward the English people because they had the start of them in money-making by many generations? Take all the great fortunes in this country at the present time, they were founded by men on the common level of all the people and without any money backing. This applies to the Astors, the Vanderbilts, the Goelets, the Mills, the Huntingtons, the Pullmans, the Rockefellers, the Carnegies, the Havemeyers, and nearly all our other very rich men. What has been accomplished by them can be accomplished by others in the future, and there will be just as good opportunities to make money in the coming generation as there have been in the past.

There is no law of primogeniture or entail in this country by which the eldest son is preferred and falls heir to the whole estate, as in England and some other countries. Here, when the head of the family dies without making a will, the property, after his debts are paid, is divided equally among his children, or among the next of kin, in the event of direct issue failing. If he makes a will, he cannot do exactly as he pleases. He cannot tie up his property longer than for the life of the survivor of two lives in existence at the time of making his will.

The necessity for this restriction in the law of wills arose out