property is the foundation of the republic;" and, later, his namesake, Daniel Webster, said: "Liberty can not long endure in a country where the tendency is to concentrate wealth in the hands of the few." Such is the testimony of the wisest of mankind from the days of the Mosaic law down through the Grecian and Roman law-givers to the thinkers of modern times. Such is the lesson of history, emphasized in the downfall of Egypt, when two per cent of its people owned ninety-seven per cent of its wealth; of Persia, when one per cent owned all the land; of Babylon, when two per cent owned all the wealth; of Greece and of Rome, when 1,800 persons owned the then known world; emphasized in the sack of Constantinople, in the slow drying up of Spain's magnificent empire, in the lurid fires of the French revolution.

How will you remedy this concentration? This question is put bitterly, repeatedly, vehemently. It demands an answer, and woe to modern society if it does not answer. The sphinx destroyed every one who could not or would not answer her question. History has done the same with every nation that did not answer this question.

The causes which have permitted and produced such enormous fortunes should be stopped. They are class legislation, indirect and inequitable taxation, and special and monopoly privilege. But the removal of the causes will not remedy the present evil.

Can the money be taken justly and equitably from its present owners? A certain very wise Hebrew, some nearly two thousand years ago, spake a parable about tares being sown in a field of wheat. He advised the husbandman not to pluck them up when growing, lest the wheat also be pulled up with the tares, but to let all wait till the harvest. There is only one remedy for the present condition, which is to take the property when it has no owner, its former owner being dead. This will gradually, but surely, produce a more uniform distribution of wealth, kill the vain ostentation of enormous riches, check improper and harmful power, and help to remove the discontent now festering so sorely in our fertile land.

II.-The Inheritance Charge.

"The law of inheritance is the last step to equality. I am surprised that ancient and modern jurists have not attributed to this law a greater effect on human affairs. Through its means man acquires a kind of preternatural power over the future lot of his fellow-creatures."-De Tocqueville.

A progressive charge on inheritances is a charge on the estate of a dead person, or on the legacies to be received by the heirs, at a ratio increasing with the remoteness of the relationship of the heir to the deceased, or with the size of the estate, or with the size of the amount received by the heir, or with any two or all three of these ways.

It is unique in the means of raising revenue, in that it is not a tax in the ordinary understanding of that word. The right to inherit with or without a will is a right that is created solely by the law. Blackstone says: "All property must cease upon death, considering men

as absolute individuals unconnected with civil society. The individual law of almost every nation, however, has given the dying person a power of continuing his property by disposing of his possessions by will." And in another place: "There is no foundation in nature or in natural law why the son should have the right to exclude his fellow-creatures from a determinate spot of land because his fathers had done so, or why the occupier of a particular field, or of a jewel, when lying on his death-bed, and no longer able to maintain possession, should be able to tell the rest of the world which of them should enjoy it after him.'

Judge Lee, of the Virginia supreme court, says in a judicial opinion: "The right to take property by devise and descent is the creature of the law and secured and protected by its authority. The legislature might, if it saw proper, restrict the succession to a decedant's estate to a particular class, say to lineal descendants and ascendants; it might impose terms and conditions upon which collateral relatives may be permitted to take it, or may, to-morrow, if it pleases, absolutely repeal the statute of wills and that of descents and distribution and declare, upon the death of a party, his property shall be applied to the payment of his debts and the residue appropriated to public uses.'

Judge Butler, of the supreme court of Pennsylvania, said: "The estate does not belong to the collaterals except as a right to it is conferred by the state. Independent of the government, no such right could exist. The death of the owner would necessarily terminate his control over it, and it would pass to the first who might obtain possession of it. The right of the owner to transfer it to another after death, or of kindred to succeed, is the result of municipal regulation and must consequently be enjoyed, subject to such conditions as the state sees fit to impose.'

The supreme court of the United States has said: "Every state in the union has the authority to regulate by law the devolution and distribution of an intestate's property.'

This point has been decided not only by the courts of the United States, but by those of England, France, Germany, etc., and it is so stated by all writers on legal subjects, from Blackstone and Coke to Vatel and Cooley.

It is a comparatively modern statute-created right. An inheritance charge is not a tax on property, but a charge for the privilege of inheriting. It can only be called a tax in the large sense of that word that every means of raising a revenue is called a tax. It is not a tax in the ordinary sense of a burden on person or property. Hence, it is much more properly named a charge, or a duty, as in England.

The United States is the only civilized country in the world that does not raise from one to twenty per cent of its revenue from an inheritance charge. It imposed one during the rebellion, but it was removed with the dropping of other war taxes. Twenty-one states have had an inheritance charge; in three of them it has been declared unconstitutional, mainly for reasons in the wording of the law, or of the state con

stitution; four others have dropped it, mainly because their revenue-raising laws were passed yearly, and it was dropped inadvertently, or from local reasons; fourteen still have it in some form, and of these six have passed it in the last two or three years. But, as a country, we are behind the world in this respect.

In England this charge ranges from one to eight per cent, according to the size of the estate left, and this usually furnishes about sixteen per cent of the amount raised by taxation. All of the Australian colonies have it, and it usually ranges from one to ten per cent, according to the relationship and the size of the estate, but in Queensland it reaches as high as twenty per cent in certain cases. The Cape of Good Hope has an inheritance charge, and the Canadian provinces take from one to ten per cent, depending on the size of the estate and the relationship.

France has a charge not only on inheritances but also on gifts during life, which is centuries old. It ranges from one and one-fourth per cent to eleven and one-fourth per cent, and produces over ten per cent of the total revenue from taxation. It appears in Belgium, Holland, Denmark, Prussia, and the other German states, Poland, Russia, Austria, Italy, Spain, and Switzerland; also in the South American states. In Prussia it produces fifteen per cent of the total revenue. In Russia its maximum is fifteen per cent of the estate, and in Austria thirty-three and one-third per cent. In Italy it takes as high as thirteen per cent in certain cases; in Spain, ten per cent. In Switzerland it has done more than any other one thing to secure an equitable distribution of property. It is a cantonal or state and not a national charge. Professor Vincent, speaking of it, says: "A study of the list shows that the inheritance tax is employed in those cantons which contain important cities, and consequently the busier and wealthier populations." In Geneva it takes from strangers to the blood fifteen per cent, and produces a revenue of two dollars per year per inhabitant. In Zurich it takes from two per cent to ten per cent, according to the relationship, and then, when the estate is over $10,000, it takes ten per cent more; when it is over $40,000, twenty per cent; when over $60,000, thirty per cent; when over $80,000, forty per cent, and when over $100,000, fifty In the little mountain canton of Uri it takes per cent. as high as seventy-five per cent in certain rare cases when large amounts go to strangers. This is the highest rate, as far as I know, in any country.

It has been in use in Pennsylvania since 1826, and is the oldest state revenue law in existence in that state, save certain fees for some legal records. It is only five per cent on property going to collateral relatives, and yet it produces a revenue of about a million a year. Judge Coleman says of it: "The tax has contributed so essentially to the firm establishment of the credit of Pennsylvania, and has been so long approved by the people, that it is not likely ever to be given up." It is so generally satisfactory in the other states where it is in force that it is being extended and strengthened. In 1893, New York got a revenue of

over three million, and this was nearly thirty-five per cent of the total revenue raised from taxation. And she only charged five per cent on collateral inheritances and one per cent on direct inheritances when the estate was over $10,000. The expense of collecting it was just four and one-half per cent of the amount collected. What are its advantages?

First-Ease of collection. At death, a man's estate goes into the hands of the state. It is valued by a public official, who is responsible to the courts for a correct valuation, and for its administration, and often this officer is not interested in its disposition. The man who knows the property thoroughly and, hence, is able to undervalue it, is dead. The heirs want it valued accurately or the division will not be just. The debts of the dead have to be paid, and the property divided, and so there is ready money and it is easy to pay the charge. It is sure to be gotten, as the administrators and executors should not be discharged until the charge is fully paid.

Second-It is easy of payment. This advantage is similar to the first. In fact, this charge does not really need to be either collected or paid. The property is in the hands of the state, which merely stops it out. All taxes are burdens, but to say that this is a burden on the dead is ridiculous. The heir is receiving an accession of fortune for which he has not labored, and he can easier pay a part of it then than to have the revenue collector making frequent visits after he has adapted his living to his increased fortune.

Third-It is no hindrance to production. Most taxes are a hindrance to production, but man's production always stops at his death. His business may be so efficiently organized, or it may be so incorporated, that it does not stop at his death, but such a business or corporation is not affected at all by a charge which falls on its value, or on the value of a part of the shares of its capital stock. Usually, inherited money goes into the hands of young persons unused to the care of money; hence, it is often squandered by ignorance or debauchery, and then inherited wealth, instead of being an aid to production, is a direct hindrance. It has been estimated that one-half of the inherited wealth injures the receivers and actually becomes an hindrance to production through its reckless management.

Fourth-There is no shifting. We know just who pays this inheritance charge, and it cannot be shifted onto any one else, as the man who pays the tariff duties shifts it onto whoever buys his goods, so that finally the consumer pays it. If a tax is laid on buildings, it is sometimes paid by the landlord, at times by the tenant, and again passed along by the tenant and included in the cost of goods that he sells or makes, so that the consumer pays it. This is not true of the tax on land values exclusive of improvements, which is the only means of raising revenue which shares with the inheritance charge this quality of staying just where it is put. The general result of this shifting of other taxes is that the strong, who ought to pay the most, shove the final payment upon the weak

and ignorant who are least able to defend themselves. Fifth-When once fixed, it does not need continual tinkering, but is self-regulative.

Sixth-It is a reform easy to gain, as it effects comparatively few people, and does not touch the interests of the politicians, who, as our government is now constituted, can postpone for a long time the practical carrying out of any thorough reform. It has been endorsed by a large number of scientific men, papers and periodicals, by all the labor organizations, many business men's associations and other bodies.

But the last two arguments in its. favor are more important than all the others put together. It reaches personalty as no other tax does and can be used to equalize the present distribution of wealth; and, lastly, it is a charge of the highest justice.

Jay Gould died worth $70,000,000 of personalty, and paid taxes, till within a few years of his death, on $250,000, and violently objected when his assessment was raised to $500,000 a few years before he died. This is not an extreme case. Within the last year Russell Sage's assesse valuation was raised, against his vehement objections, from $250,000 to $500,000. A slightly more stringent law as to the valuation of personalty was passed in Pennsylvania and it opened up $250,000,000 more for taxation.

The comptroller of New York state declares in a recent report: "It is, therefore, an astounding fact that over $2,500,000,000 of personal property within the state escapes taxation."

Comptroller Ackerman, of Chicago, says: "It is a notorious fact that many instances occur every year in which reputable citizens have made returns equal to about one-fiftieth and, in some cases, to one-hundredth part of the value of their personal estate."

These are only sample quotations; many more might be given. The inheritance charge reaches personalty because the estate must go through the courts before the heirs can obtain possession. It has been estimated that all the property in the United States goes through the probate courts once in eleven years. A similar estimate has been made for Holland, and put at seven years. And personalty can be reached in this manner where it is impossible to touch it by other taxes.

Lastly, what moral right has a man to the wealth of his ancestors, or to any wealth which he has not produced himself? No moral right. In a purely natural sɔciety a dead man's property was either burned or buried with him or became the property of the tribe. An Arab sheik to-day holds the property, not for his own use only, but for the whole tribe-he can not throw it away or give it away to strangers during life, or bestow it after death on any but his successors, who hold it in like trust. By Mahometan law, more than twelve centuries old, a man cannot bequeath more than one-third of his property.

Sir William Harcourt, the present English chancellor of the exchequer, has recently said: "The title of the state to a share in the accumulated property of the deceased is an anterior title to that of the interest to be taken by those who share it. The state

has the first title upon the estate, and those who take afterwards have a subsequent and subordinate title. Nature gives man no power over his earthly goods beyond the term of his life. The right of the dead hand to dispose of his property is a pure creation of the law, and the state has the right to prescribe the condition and limitation under which that power shall be exercised."

It is a tax of the highest social and economic justice, and, by making the progression in its rate rapid, in a few generations a much more even and equitable distribution of property can be attained, without injustice to any, and, at the same time, the state supplied with an ample revenue.

In my opinion, there should be two forms of this charge. First, a charge ranging from one to twenty per cent, according to the relationship, and with exemption of bequests of $1,000 and under. Near relations should not be charged as much as distant ones or entire strangers to the blood. Second, there should be a progressive legacy or bequest charge. The first $10,000 going to any one person should be exempt, the second $10,000 should be charged one per cent, the third $10,000 two per cent, the fourth $10,000 three per cent, and so on, increasing one per cent with each $10,000, until all was taken of bequests of over a million. Most countries place the progression on the size of the estate as a whole and not on the size of the bequest. This may possibly be more effective for raising revenue, but it will not be as efficient for securing a more equitable distribution of property.

I cannot close better than by giving quotations from two of the most eminent economists and thinkers of the world:

John Stuart Mill says: "Private property, in every defense of it, is supposed to mean the guarantee to individuals of the fruits of their own labor. The guarantee to them of the fruits and labor of others, transmitted to them without any merit or exertion of their own, is not of the essence of the institution, but a mere incidental consequence, which, when it reaches a certain height, does not promote, but conflicts with, the ends which render private property legitimate.

Were I framing a code without regard to existing opinions, I should prefer to restrict, not what any one might bequeath, but what any one might be permitted to acquire by bequest or inheritance.

see nothing objectionable in fixing a limit to what any one may acquire by the favor of another, without any exercise of his faculties, and in requiring that, if he desires any further accession of fortune, he shall work for it."

Jeremey Bentham asks this question: "What is that mode of supply of which the twentieth part is a tax, and that a heavy one, while the whole would be no tax and would not be felt by any one? The larger the share of the public the better, even with reference to his (the heir's) feelings; for the larger it is the more plainly will it show as a civil regulation in matters of succession; the smaller, the more palpably will it have the air of a fiscal imposition-the more it will feel, in

short, like a tax. Pass, instead of the tax, a law of inheritance, giving the public fifty per cent upon certain successions-the burden may be next to nothing; pass a law of inheritance, giving the public the whole -the burden vanishes altogether."

Manual vs. Technical Education.

BY D. J. O'DONOGHUE.

Many, and often very complex, are the subjects named and dilated upon by the "friends of the workingmen" of the present day as cure-alls of existing difficulties in the way of the masses in fighting for a living. Strangely enough, too, the arguments of the sophist and the cleverly concealed intent of interested class mentors influence a larger number of working people than do the utterances of those of their own class who may happen to "speak by the book" of close observation and long experience. Stranger still is it to be told, in effect, that the people in every phase of life know far better than do the working people themselves just what is best for working people in almost every step in life. There is neither time nor space to enter into detail of this phase of the question in the columns of THE FEDERATIONIST, nor is it the desire or intent to encourage controversy. On the contrary, the object is to set the minds of its readers thinking on a specific subject and in a particular direction.

In view of the marvelously rapid changes which science and invention have succeeded in bringing about in almost all industrial pursuits and methods, mainly within the last fifty years, the artisan, the mechanic, and even the ordinary manual laborer, has been and is obliged to look for and adapt himself to new and, in most cases, narrower means of securing a living. Almost without exception, the specialist in a given line of business stands first to-day in the chances for employment. The old-time carpenter, tailor, printer -in fact, every tradesman of by-gone days, is being, or is already, driven out of the market. While this change has been going on another factor was operating in a totally different sphere of life. Education was made more general and a great deal cheaper than ever before, and, as a necessary consequence, the learned professions ceased to be any longer the specific preserve of the wealthy only. That class of the community, ever sensitive of any encroachment upon what time and favorable circumstances had made to appear as their especial privilege, saw with amazement that the sons of the mechanic and laborer, with a fair field and no favor, were showing themselves the equals always and often the superiors of other competitors in all the branches of higher education. The cry was raised at once, and is as loud now as it ever was, that the professions are being over-crowded. This was and is being heeded, and laws are enacted enabling "the professions" to protect themselves in the many ways that are so familiar to a mechanic or laborer who seeks to educate his son as a lawyer or a doctor. That this may not be too noticable, certain good people very conveniently discovered that what working people

wanted most was a system of manual training in the public schools—that is, a training in tool work as an educational discipline. So persistently and so ably has this system been lauded that to dare offer a contra or deprecatory opinion as to its real object and only demonstrable result is to run the risk of being anathematized.

Theoretically, the advocates of manual training in primary public schools have many honeyed phrases which please the ears of the unthinking, and which they ring in very often when met with the unpalatable and stern logic of fact. Speaking generally, the champions of manual training dilate on the great necessity for a proper training of "the eye and the hand" at one and the same time; that the object is to familiarize children with the use of certain tools, but not to learn them trades; to afford an opportunity of ascertaining the natural trend of the mind of the young pupil as to what trade he would be most likely to excel in, etc., and all for the purpose of fitting him the better to fight the battle of life in due time, and so keep him out of "the learned professions" is always intended, though rarely said.

There is no scarcity in the ranks of any known mechanical calling, nor is it likely there will ever be. More especially is this true of carpentery and iron work, and yet in almost every instance where manual training is part of the primary school system in the countries where that system prevails, a carpenter's bench with certain necessary tools, a forge, a lathe, an anvil and requisite tools, wood carving, and modeling in clay, complete the outfit for training of the pupils. The great bulk of the children of working people in the United States and in Canada leave voluntarily, or are obliged to leave school, before being seventeen years of age. This being true, no thoughtful person will assert that there was more than reasonable time in the previous years to secure a fair and necessary education in the ordinary branches taught in every English school. As a matter of fact, even now too many children are obliged to leave school and fight for a livelihood long before they are grounded in even a fair elementary education, and yet we are told, and many of us are gullable enough to believe, that the time which is now devoted to imparting such an education in our public schools could, with advantage, be reduced so that our children may receive a technical education-and their minds directed away from any higher pursuits! When boys leave school, through any cause, the first thought suggesting itself naturally will be what work or calling to pursue for a living. What, then, will be more natural than that the boy will seek employment in that trade or calling with the use of the tools of which his manual training has made him more or less familiar? A little careful attention on the part of the careful workingman will readily demonstrate that the first aim of the average advocate of manual training in the public schools is that of utility, rather than physical or intellectual improvement.

These schools do not turn out trained mechanics

and so much the worse.

On the contrary, from the very nature of their limited equipment, these schools only impart a superficial knowledge of certain tools in common use in a few given trades, and the knowledge of each pupil as to these tools, and how best to use them, is in proportion, as a rule, to the time he is able to spend at the school. When finally leaving school, the average pupil will believe he is possessed of much more practical knowledge than is his, and he feels correspondingly elated, but time and bitter experience strikingly demonstrates that he is only a botch. Yet he has to live, and very likely the whirligig of time has placed a family of wife and children dependent upon his efforts as well. His employment is intermittent, and when competent men are forced into resistance of outrageous exactions, or to fight for justice, the graduate of the manual training school, if not otherwise employed at the time, will be on hand to replace, for the time-being, the other man. Apart from this, having realized his own inferiority as a mechanic, he will be much less independent and, conscious of his own market value, will accept less remuneration for his labor than would a competent mechanic. Hence, he becomes a potent lever in lowering wages. The employer is ever ready to use an incompetent man, and in doing so very, often pays more than he knows such a person to be actually worth, in such emergency as a strike, but when the trouble is tided over, out goes the "tool." The world's labor market is always but too well supplied with incapable mechanics-manual training schools are not required to still further augment the glut. Those in the ranks of labor who have opportunity of examining the handiwork of pupils of manual training schools, as exemplified in cabinet work, patterns, frames, and various articles of woodwork, in pincers, hammers, nippers, stop-cocks, etc., in ironwork, and in other lines of mechanics, will have no hesitation in asserting that, while the work was of a very inferior character, yet those capable of executing it, such as it was, would find ready employment by any employer whose workmen were "out" through any cause-at least, they would well serve the purpose of "dummies" in the shops to prove that the employer's business was "going on as usual." Is there a union man who does not understand this game?

Again, especial attention is directed to the very significant fact that among the warmest advocates of manual training in our public schools is the teacher, and for very obvious reasons, he is directly interested. While much stress is laid upon the spread of this system of modern teaching as an evidence of its popularity and its usefulness, so far not one of its most ardent supporters has been able to show by facts and figures, or by specific example, where boys taught in a ⚫manual training school were superior in any particular to those taught under other circumstances. All that is said in favor of manual training is merely presumption.

Looking outside and beyond the glamour which 'personally interested theorists have surrounded this

subject, the conviction is forced that as manual training becomes engrafted as part of the public school system of the United States and Canada, so in like proportion will the number of incompetent workers in given trades increase, the rights and opportunities of competent workmen be jeopardized, and the trade union movement as a whole threatened and weakened, while those so "trained," instead of receiving lasting benefit thereby, will ultimately find themselves permanently injured and their life prospects blighted because of their incompetence. But, of course, such results are hardly worth noticing, so long as the "learned professions" are protected or relieved to any extent whatever.

Is there no change required-nothing in particular to be done or attempted-to keep pace with the changed conditions in trades? Most certainly there is much to be considered in this connection, and in more than one direction. Only one plan will be referred to here and now that of technical education. A determined, active and continuous effort should be made all along the whole line of organized labor to encourage and secure the establishment of free day and evening primary, intermediate and high technical schools as part of our general school system, in and through which those already engaged as mechanics may be prepared to meet modern conditions more effectually, and in which apprentices and those contemplating the following of specific trades may receive that direct and special education so essential to the production of experts No one will deny the assertion that in beginning the battle for lite in the world's competition, the very best equipment is "a sound, solid, practical education," and this is best secured in a technical school. To-day, as a rule, apprentices and those not rated as journeymen, are left by employers to look out for themselves, to pick up only odd bits of knowledge, dropped accidentally, never intentionally, for the apprentice's benefit. A graduate of a technical school would be altogether independent of chance.

Col. Carroll D. Wright, United States commissioner of labor, in the introduction to his annual report for 1892 on industrial education, defines a "technical school" as "a high-grade trade school, or a school in which, while a craft is taught, the scientific principles upon which it is grounded are fully explained and demonstrated in their applications to art and industry." This definition is capable of modification, however, inasmuch as there are technical schools in existence, doing good work, but in which no specific craft, or craft whatever, is taught. Such is the free evening technical school in the city of Toronto. This very valuable school owes its existence to the efforts of organized labor and is altogether sustained by the generosity of the city council in devoting an annual sum (this year, $9,000) for the purpose. It has been in operation since January, 1892, and the registered number of pupils in attendance last session was six hundred and forty-one, ranging in age from eleven to fifty-two years, and over ninety per cent of whom were engaged in industrial pursuits.