the institution. This is particularly the case in cities. There has been too much hesitation, in American cities in particular, about the regulation of the use of land; and many a presumptuous private owner feels that he has a right to injure his neighbor to the full extent of his resources. It is entirely consistent with the institution of private property to exclude stables and offensive. manufacturing establishments from certain parts of the city, and to make provisions regarding the width of houses, so that certain streets shall have an ornamental character, etc. Regulations designed to prevent injurious speculation are also consistent with the institution of private property. Taxation, as in New Zealand, may be invoked to bring property into its proper use.

An able follower of St. Simon, early in this century, proposed that inheritances should be abolished altogether, and that property should be distributed in each. generation among the persons who could use it to the best social advantage. He desired to maintain private property, but to select anew in each generation the proprietors. The difficulties and disadvantages of such a system become apparent upon careful investigation of the proposition; and it must be said that it has not at all stood the test of time. Other proposals of reform, however, and actual operations of government with respect to inheritances, have not, improbably, grown out of the discussion which followed upon the suggestion of this plan for the redistribution of private property. There is a growing tendency to regulate inheritances, and to tax them in such manner that private property may better subserve the purposes for which it exists. We witness a tendency, even in the United States, to limit the power of disposing of property by

last will and testament— a power which is no essential part of private property, as we see in the fact that during the greater part of its history private property has existed in the absence of a power to provide for its disposition by last will and testament. Greater attention is given to the claims of one's family; and the proposition that no one should be allowed to disinherit his children meets with increasing approval. Many countries recognize the rights of children in the property of the father, rights of which the father cannot dispose by gift or by a will. We in America have, as a rule, developed the rights of the wife in the property of her husband as far as any country, but we have not made sufficient provision for the children; although their claims may be considered superior even to those of the wife, as they have no voice in determining their relationship to their parents. What is to be recommended is, that we should follow the practice of the Roman and the German laws, and provide what the Germans call a “ duty part" for each child, allowing a parent to dispose of his property by will and testament only in case the claims of the family have been fully satisfied. There would seem to be no reason, however, why the "duty part" of a child should exceed fifty thousand dollars, however great the fortune of a parent. The Illinois Bar Associa tion has indorsed a bill limiting the amount which any one person can inherit to five hundred thousand dollars; and long ago John Stuart Mill favored a limitation of this kind. This is, perhaps, too radical a proposition for consideration at the present moment. The civilized countries of the world are, however, increasingly inclined to favor the taxation of bequests and inheritances, and the tendency is to make the tax doubly progressive increas

ing it, on the one hand, as the relationship of the person inheriting the property becomes more distant, and, on the other hand, increasing the rate as the amount of property taxed becomes greater. The tax amounts, in some instances in parts of Switzerland and in some of the Australasian colonies, to twenty per cent in cases of large estates inherited by distant relatives. There is a general feeling, however, that distant relatives should not inherit at all, because they do not constitute a part of the modern family. There seems to be no good reason, whatever, why intestate inheritance should not be limited to persons who are nearly enough related to be able to trace descent from a common great-grandfather.

The wider diffusion of property which proper laws of inheritance would bring about, would prove beneficial to society, both from the standpoint of production and that of distribution. It would render monopoly in many instances more difficult, as a few men of enormous wealth would not be able to acquire a monopoly by the purchase of the sources of production. The result of this wide distribution of property would be that we should have more men living in a degree of ease and comfort favorable to the cultivation of their powers, but not so many Cræsuses. We should also have the further advantage, that a few men would not be separated from their fellows to such an extent as they now are by excessive wealth. Men of moderate means, existing in large numbers all over the country, may prove helpful in the social development of their kind. Men of moderate wealth are also able better than the excessively rich to use their wealth to alleviate distress, because they come in closer contact with their fellow-men. Even if a very rich man were able as easily as a moderately rich man to enter into

friendly relations with persons needing assistance, or who could profit by the aid which he extended to them in one way or another, one very rich man could not reach so many people as could ten men of moderate means. Great wealth also tends to concentration in one or two immense cities, while men of moderate fortunes are more likely to be found in every part of the country.

CHAPTER VII.

THE DESIRABILITY OF A FIELD OF PRIVATE INDUSTRY, BUT A NARROWER ONE, WITH A HIGHER ETHICAL LEVEL THAN WE NOW HAVE.

COMPETITION is desirable where we can have it in a normal form, as a regular, steady pressure. It is, when properly restricted, upon the whole, a beneficent force; and there seems to be no reason why we should not still have competition in agriculture, manufactures, and commerce. The monopolies which we have already discussed are a new field superimposed upon the old field, with which the founders of this republic had to deal. While those great men desired to abolish special privileges, the plans which they proposed were in the main designed for the field of private competitive industry. The post-office then constituted a collective enterprise, which was in its own nature a monopoly; and this business, at that time something entirely exceptional, was placed under public ownership and management.

Many of the reforms which have been proposed in the previous chapters are calculated to strengthen private industry in its own field. Cheap gas favors many small private businesses; and if electricity reaches the high development which is now anticipated, there is no reason why, under public control, affording light and power at the lowest prices and under like conditions to all, it should not be favorable to a multitude of small industries. The post-office at the present time makes it possible for