sow, neither shall he reap." Men of phenomenal sagacity, whose entire life efforts are devoted to moneymaking, sometimes accumulate immense fortunes. Their methods are frequently rapacious and unscrupulous, if not positively dishonest; but, so long as their acts are not illegal, society consents and even applauds, for millions of poorer men would do the same things, if they could, to earn money, and society can never be any better or wiser than the units that compose it.

When, however, it is well understood that a man's actual production of wealth in an ordinary lifetime cannot amount to more than the value of a few thousands of dollars beyond what he consumes, as statistics based upon the surplus wealth of society will prove, and when it is quite positive that his actual wealth production cannot even remotely approach the vast fortunes of from twenty to sixty millions of dollars that have been frequently aggregated within recent years, the exact justice of this kind of success may be questioned.

Its justice will not be disputed here, however, for such phenomenally rapid wealth accumulation is due more to defective morality and to defective laws of other kinds than to the evil principles that have been selected for investigation.

We are now considering the opportunities in general that men have for success, and not the special energy, skill, or chicanery by which some succeed at the expense of others; so, for the present we will admit that society is right when it applauds the success of a man who has heaped up millions of dollars, evidently at the expense and loss of his associates. 1

' Ruskin's classification of the qualities that make and lose wealth is more comprehensive and less favorable to the usual argument indorsing our existing conditions. He says: "In a community regulated only by laws of demand and supply, and protected from open violence, the persons who become rich are, generally speaking, industrious, resolute,

We will consider that any man is entitled to all the success he can achieve, no matter how great, provided he does not actually violate our laws, and we will call that success competitive justice. Compared with a humbler struggle, this success is like that of a trotting horse which is in some mysterious manner transferred from the beginning to the end of a mile track in one second of time. Everybody familiar with horses and mile tracks knows that a trick has been perpetrated and that the horse never honestly won; everybody conversant with men and money knows that millionaires like Jay Gould never justly and equitably acquired their fortunes; but the defects that cause these evils are mainly in speculative human nature and not in laws under which other men had the same opportunity to accomplish what Gould did, if they had possessed the requisite shrewdness, so, for the sake of concentrating attention on the essential wrong that is now being attacked, the lesser wrongs of bad government based on weak humanity, which permits the existence of gigantic gambling operations under the name of speculation, will be ignored.

Let Jay Gould, then, as the type of many of his class, both dead and living, retain his wealth. Honestly or dishonestly, it was acquired under fair competition, for its possessor was poor when he began the struggle and a multi-millionaire when it terminated. If other men gambled with Gould and were beaten, they are mere whining novices to complain. If he swindled his associates, they

proud, covetous, prompt, methodical, sensible, unimaginative, insensitive and ignorant. The persons who remain poor are the entirely foolish, the entirely wise, the idle, the reckless, the humble, the thoughtful, the dull, the imaginative, the sensitive, the well-informed, the improvident, the irregularly and impulsively wicked, the clumsy knave, the open thief, and the entirely merciful, just and godly person." The author might well have added among the causes which produce riches, the one which made him wealthy, that is, the accidental possession of a rich father.

right to complain Under competition exchanging property

should have jailed him; but if they neglected to enforce laws against crime, they have no because criminals become wealthy. some men will achieve success by and overreaching their fellows, while others will lose in making the same efforts. The result is not injustice where men consent to such exchanges, as all do in life, and success is the survival of the fittest. Misery and suffering of all kinds result from the struggle, but that is on account of the system of life-effort under which we exist. It is because men fight instead of help one another. They hunt their game competitively instead of co-operatively. If all of us unite in accepting our motto of "Devil take the hindmost," nobody must object if that industrious personage reaches out occasionally to seize some unlucky straggler; for it is the straggler's own fault or his own misfortune when he falls behind. Society at present will not complain seriously of a Jay Gould because he is in the front ranks of its financial army, for he worked his way to the front by his own persistent efforts, and had no better opportunities than other men at the beginning, nor desires more greedy than those of the average man. Equal wealth, or even approximately equal wealth, under lifecompetition is not possible, and it would not be just even if it were possible; for men must and should receive rewards for great effort and great ability, and they are entitled to whatever good fortune falls to their lot. Inequality is the morality of competition.

Equality of wealth, however, and equality of opportunity in the struggle to secure wealth, are two different things. Equality of wealth is a bauble that men would fling away even if they possessed it. Equality of opportunity is a priceless treasure that men will fight and die for if they do not receive it freely. Under the competitive system, before any man can justly claim equal wealth,

he must prove, at least, that he makes equal effort with other men, even if we consider that justice requires us to leave out of consideration all natural difference of ability between contestants, and to accept the charitable theory that all men who make equal effort should receive equal reward, no matter what variations in productive power exist. It is obvious that men do not make equal efforts for pecuniary success in life, and, therefore, until a cooperative system can be evolved that will satisfy humanity and supersede competition, there can be no near approach to equality of wealth. Equality of opportunity, however, is merely an expression of fair conditions that ought to exist in every contest, no matter whether it be a game of marbles between schoolboys, a fight between pugilists, or the struggle of life under competition. The nature of social relations is embodied in the declaration that equal wealth is absolutely inconsistent with competition for wealth, but that competition for wealth is absolutely inconsistent with justice without equal opportunities. Let us see whether equal opportunities really exist.

Our typical Jay Gould has joined the great majority beyond the dark river, and his fortune remains on earth, bequeathed entirely, we will assume, to two sons, although his family was really larger. The effort and ability that were exerted in the accumulation of that fortune did not emanate from these young men, but did emanate from Jay Gould, who is now dead, who is affected in no way by the affairs of earth, and who, consequently, retains no earthly rights and no claims whatever to the direction or distribution of the fortune. When the young men received this wealth they became its possessors, but not its producers. They were not even accumulators. Beyond whatever assistance they may have given Jay Gould in acquiring it, they had absolutely no natural rights of possession, except the equal right of all associated with them.

under the same government; for a special right can be justly acquired only by production, or, at most, by accumulation through self-effort. At the same time these heirs were born, perhaps a thousand other infants saw the light for the first time within a limited territory surrounding these favorites of unjust law, and they inherit nothing but two hands each and the strength to use them. Under the theory of competition, all must seek their subsistence and produce wealth. Justice demands that they shall have "a fair field and no favors; " but are such equitable conditions bestowed upon these competitors? With the millions of inherited wealth, which the two heirs have not produced any more than have the thousand youths who inherit nothing, the fortunate successors can buy millions of acres of the most productive land, in which every one of the thousand youths should have a natural inheritance, and thereafter the two may say: "We own the earth—at least a very large slice of it—and if you paupers wish to exist on it, pay us tribute." The tribute is paid in the form of rent, and the thousand men serve the two and maintain them in idleness and luxury, if that life be their choice.

The two heirs may buy bonds of the United States with the millions they gained without effort, and thereafter reap a princely income from the mere interest, while every one of the 65,000,000 of people in the country consents to place under the absolute control of two men a large body of wealth that should rightfully be the heritage of all. When these conditions are plainly before our eyes on every hand, can we truthfully say that our government is just, that it is based on equal rights, and that we are giving to all our people fair opportunities? I think not. It is always difficult to deal exact justice, but it seems, in the first place, that Jay Gould should have had no power to designate any heirs. It is enough to permit