“The Rich Are Good-Natured”: William Graham Sumner Defends the Wealthy
In the late 19th century, William Graham Sumner, an Episcopal minister turned academic sociologist,
brought a distinctly conservative perspective to the new “science” of sociology. Some of his ideas about
the economic survival of the fittest and opposition to government intervention in the economy were
applications of Darwin’s scientific ideas of evolution to the social sphere. He also drew upon the doctrines
of laissez-faire British economists like Thomas Malthus and David Ricardo to argue that government
intervention would disturb the “natural” and self-regulating market. Sumner’s writings justified
government inaction in the face of vast social dislocations caused by rapid industrialization and the
periodic economic depressions that accompanied it. Not surprisingly, his work had a broad influence
beyond the academy. In this excerpt from his 1883 essay, “What the Social Classes Owe To Each Other,”
Sumner portrayed the wealthy elite as a put-upon class whose misunderstood ambitions and intentions
would benefit everyone.
THAT IT IS NOT WICKED TO BE RICH; NAY, EVEN, THAT IT IS NOT WICKED TO BE RICHER THAN
ONE’S NEIGHBOR.
I have before me a newspaper slip on which a writer expresses the opinion that no one should be allowed
to possess more than one million dollars' worth of property. Alongside of it is another slip, on which
another writer expresses the opinion that the limit should be five millions. I do not know what the
comparative wealth of the two writers is, but it is interesting to notice that there is a wide margin between
their ideas of how rich they would allow their fellow-citizens to become, and of the point at which they
(“the State,” of course) would step in to rob a man of his earnings. These two writers only represent a
great deal of crude thinking and declaiming which is in fashion. I never have known a man of ordinary
common-sense who did not urge upon his sons, from earliest childhood, doctrines of economy and the
practice of accumulation. A good father believes that he does wisely to encourage enterprise, productive
skill, prudent self-denial, and judicious expenditure on the part of his son. The object is to teach the boy
to accumulate capital. If, however, the boy should read many of the diatribes against “the rich” which are
afloat in our literature; if he should read or hear some of the current discussion about “capital;” and if,
with the ingenuousness of youth, he should take these productions at their literal sense, instead of
discounting them, as his father does, he would be forced to believe that he was on the path of infamy
when he was earning and saving capital. It is worth while to consider which we mean or what we mean. Is
it wicked to be rich? Is it mean to be a capitalist? If the question is one of degree only, and it is right to be
rich up to a certain point and wrong to be richer, how shall we find the point? Certainly, for practical
purposes, we ought to define the point nearer than between one and five millions of dollars.
There is an old ecclesiastical prejudice in favor of the poor and against the rich. In days when men acted
by ecclesiastical rules these prejudices produced waste of capital, and helped mightily to replunge Europe
into barbarism. The prejudices are not yet dead, but they survive in our society as ludicrous contradictions
and inconsistencies. One thing must be granted to the rich: they are goodnatured. Perhaps they do not
recognize themselves, for a rich man is even harder to define than a poor one. It is not uncommon to hear
a clergyman utter from the pulpit all the old prejudice in favor of the poor and against the rich, while
asking the rich to do something for the poor; and the rich comply, without apparently having their feelings
hurt at all by the invidious comparison. We all agree that he is a good member of society who works his
way up from poverty to wealth, but as soon as he has worked his way up we begin to regard him with
suspicion, as a dangerous member of society. A newspaper starts the silly fallacy that “the rich are rich
because the poor are industrious,” and it is copied from one end of the country to the other as if it were a
brilliant apothegm. “Capital” is denounced by writers and speakers who have never taken the trouble to
find out what capital is, and who use the word in two or three different senses in as many pages. Labor
organizations are formed, not to employ combined effort for a common object, but to indulge in
declamation and denunciation, and especially to furnish an easy living to some officers who do not want to
work. People who have rejected dogmatic religion, and retained only a residuum of religious
sentimentalism, find a special field in the discussion of the rights of the poor and the duties of the rich. We
have denunciations of banks, corporations, and monopolies, which denunciations encourage only helpless
rage and animosity, because they are not controlled by any definitions or limitations, or by any
distinctions between what is indispensably necessary and what is abuse, between what is established in
the order of nature and what is legislative error. Think, for instance, of a journal which makes it its special
business to denounce monopolies, yet favors a protective tariff, and has not a word to say against tradesunions or patents! Think of public teachers who say that the farmer is ruined by the cost of transportation,
when they mean that he cannot make any profits because his farm is too far from the market, and who
denounce the railroad because it does not correct for the farmer, at the expense of its stockholders, the
disadvantage which lies in the physical situation of the farm! Think of that construction of this situation
which attributes all the trouble to the greed of “moneyed corporations!” Think of the piles of rubbish that
one has read about corners, and watering stocks, and selling futures!
Undoubtedly there are, in connection with each of these things, cases of fraud, swindling, and other
financial crimes; that is to say, the greed and selfishness of men are perpetual. They put on new phases,
they adjust themselves to new forms of business, and constantly devise new methods of fraud and
robbery, just as burglars devise new artifices to circumvent every new precaution of the lock-makers. The
criminal law needs to be improved to meet new forms of crime, but to denounce financial devices which
are useful and legitimate because use is made of them for fraud, is ridiculous and unworthy of the age in
which we live. Fifty years ago good old English Tories used to denounce all joint-stock companies in the
same way, and for similar reasons.
All the denunciations and declamations which have been referred to are made in the interest of “the poor
man.” His name never ceases to echo in the halls of legislation, and he is the excuse and reason for all the
acts which are passed. He is never forgotten in poetry, sermon, or essay. His interest is invoked to defend
every doubtful procedure and every questionable institution. Yet where is he? Who is he? Who ever saw
him? When did he ever get the benefit of any of the numberless efforts in his behalf? When, rather, was
his name and interest ever invoked, when, upon examination, it did not plainly appear that somebody else
was to win—somebody who was far too “smart” ever to be poor, far too lazy ever to be rich by industry
and economy?
A great deal is said about the unearned increment from land, especially with a view to the large gains of
landlords in old countries. The unearned increment from land has indeed made the position of an English
land-owner, for the last two hundred years, the most fortunate that any class of mortals ever has
enjoyed; but the present moment, when the rent of agricultural land in England is declining under the
competition of American land, is not well chosen for attacking the old advantage. Furthermore, the
unearned increment from land appears in the United States as a gain to the first comers, who have here
laid the foundations of a new State. Since the land is a monopoly, the unearned increment lies in the laws
of Nature. Then the only question is, Who shall have it?—the man who has the ownership by prescription,
or some or all others? It is a beneficent incident of the ownership of land that a pioneer who reduces it to
use, and helps to lay the foundations of a new State, finds a profit in the increasing value of land as the
new State grows up. It would be unjust to take that profit away from him, or from any successor to whom
he has sold it. Moreover, there is an unearned increment on capital and on labor, due to the presence,
around the capitalist and the laborer, of a great, industrious, and prosperous society. A tax on land and a
succession or probate duty on capital might be perfectly justified by these facts. Unquestionably capital
accumulates with a rapidity which follows in some high series the security, good government, peaceful
order of the State in which it is employed; and if the State steps in, on the death of the holder, to claim a
share of the inheritance, such a claim may be fully justified. The laborer likewise gains by carrying on his
labor in a strong, highly civilized, and well-governed State far more than he could gain with equal industry
on the frontier or in the midst of anarchy. He gains greater remuneration for his services, and he also
shares in the enjoyment of all that accumulated capital of a wealthy community which is public or semipublic in its nature.
It is often said that the earth belongs to the race, as if raw land was a boon, or gift. Raw land is only
a chance to prosecute the struggle for existence, and the man who tries to earn a living by the
subjugation of raw land makes that attempt under the most unfavorable conditions, for land can be
brought into use only by great hardship and exertion. The boon, or gift, would be to get some land after
somebody else had made it fit for use. Any one in the world to-day can have raw land by going to it; but
there are millions who would regard it simply as “transportation for life,” if they were forced to go and live
on new land and get their living out of it. Private ownership of land is only division of labor. If it is true in
any sense that we all own the soil in common, the best use we can make of our undivided interests is to
vest them all gratuitously (Just as we now do) in any who will assume the function of directly treating the
soil, while the rest of us take other shares in the social organization. The reason is, because in this way we
all get more than we would if each one owned some land and used it directly. Supply and demand now
determine the distribution of population between the direct use of land and other pursuits; and if the total
profits and chances of land-culture were reduced by taking all the “unearned increment” in taxes, there
would simply be a redistribution of industry until the profits of land-culture, less taxes and without
chances from increasing value, were equal to the profits of other pursuits under exemption from taxation.
It is remarkable that jealousy of individual property in land often goes along with very exaggerated
doctrines of tribal or national property in land. We are told that John, James, and William ought not to
possess part of the earth’s surface because it belongs to all men; but it is held that Egyptians,
Nicaraguans, or Indians have such right to the territory which they occupy, that they may bar the avenues
of commerce and civilization if they choose, and that it is wrong to override their prejudices or expropriate
their land. The truth is, that the notion that the race owns the earth has practical meaning only for the
latter class of cases.
The great gains of a great capitalist in a modern state must be put under the head of wages of
superintendence. Any one who believes that any great enterprise of an industrial character can be started
without labor must have little experience of life. Let any one try to get a railroad built, or to start a factory
and win reputation for its products, or to start a school and win a reputation for it, or to found a
newspaper and make it a success, or to start any other enterprise, and he will find what obstacles must be
overcome, what risks must be taken, what perseverance and courage are required, what foresight and
sagacity are necessary. Especially in a new country, where many tasks are waiting, where resources are
strained to the utmost all the time, the judgment, courage, and perseverance required to organize new
enterprises and carry them to success are sometimes heroic. Persons who possess the necessary
qualifications obtain great rewards. They ought to do so. It is foolish to rail at them. Then, again, the
ability to organize and conduct industrial, commercial, or financial enterprises is rare; the great captains
of industry are as rare as great generals. The great weakness of all co-operative enterprises is in the
matter of supervision. Men of routine or men who can do what they are told are not hard to find; but men
who can think and plan and tell the routine men what to do are very rare. They are paid in proportion to
the supply and demand of them.
If Mr. A. T. Stewart made a great fortune by collecting and bringing dry-goods to the people of the United
States, he did so because he understood how to do that thing better than any other man of his
generation. He proved it, because he carried the business through commercial crises and war, and kept
increasing its dimensions. If, when he died, he left no competent successor, the business must break up,
and pass into new organization in the hands of other men. Some have said that Mr. Stewart made his
fortune out of those who worked for him or with him. But would those persons have been able to come
together, organize themselves, and earn what they did earn without him? Not at all. They would have
been comparatively helpless. He and they together formed a great system of factories, stores,
transportation, under his guidance and judgment. It was for the benefit of all; but he contributed to it
what no one else was able to contribute—the one guiding mind which made the whole thing possible. In
no sense whatever does a man who accumulates a fortune by legitimate industry exploit his employees, or
make his capital “out of” anybody else. The wealth which he wins would not be but for him.
The aggregation of large fortunes is not at all a thing to be regretted. On the contrary, it is a necessary
condition of many forms of social advance. If we should set a limit to the accumulation of wealth, we
should say to our most valuable producers, “We do not want you to do us the services which you best
understand how to perform, beyond a certain point.” It would be like killing off our generals in war. A
great deal is said, in the cant of a certain school, about “ethical views of wealth,” and we are told that
some day men will be found of such public spirit that, after they have accumulated a few millions, they
will be willing to go on and labor simply for the pleasure of paying the wages of their fellow-citizens.
Possibly this is true. It is a prophecy. It is as impossible to deny it as it is silly to affirm it. For if a time
ever comes when there are men of this kind, the men of that age will arrange their affairs accordingly.
There are no such men now, and those of us who live now cannot arrange our affairs by what men will be
a hundred generations hence.
There is every indication that we are to see new developments of the power of aggregated capital to serve
civilization, and that the new developments will be made right here in America. Joint-stock companies are
yet in their infancy, and incorporated capital, instead of being a thing which can be overturned, is a thing
which is becoming more and more indispensable. I shall have something to say in another chapter about
the necessary checks and guarantees, in a political point of view, which must be established. Economically
speaking, aggregated capital will be more and more essential to the performance of our social tasks.
Furthermore, it seems to me certain that all aggregated capital will fall more and more under personal
control. Each great company will be known as controlled by one master mind. The reason for this lies in
the great superiority of personal management over management by boards and committees. This
tendency is in the public interest, for it is in the direction of more satisfactory responsibility. The great
hinderance to the development of this continent has lain in the lack of capital. The capital which we have
had has been wasted by division and dissipation, and by injudicious applications. The waste of capital, in
proportion to the total capital, in this country between 1800 and 1850, in the attempts which were made
to establish means of communication and transportation, was enormous. The waste was chiefly due to
ignorance and bad management, especially to State control of public works. We are to see the
development of the country pushed forward at an unprecedented rate by an aggregation of capital, and a
systematic application of it under the direction of competent men. This development will be for the benefit
of all, and it will enable each one of us, in his measure and way, to increase his wealth. We may each of
us go ahead to do so, and we have every reason to rejoice in each other’s prosperity. There ought to be
no laws to guarantee property against the folly of its possessors. In the absence of such laws, capital
inherited by a spendthrift will be squandered and re-accumulated in the hands of men who are fit and
competent to hold it. So it should be, and under such a state of things there is no reason to desire to limit
the property which any man may acquire.
Source: William Graham Sumner, What Social Classes Owe to Each Other (New York: Harper & Brothers,
1883), 43–57.
Modern History Sourcebook:
Andrew Carnegie:
The Gospel of Wealth, 1889
Andrew Carnegie (18351919) was a massively successful business man - his wealth was based on the
provision of iron and steel to the railways, but also a man who recalled his radical roots in Scotland before
his immigration to the United States. To resolve what might seem to be contradictions between the
creation of wealth, which he saw as proceeding from immutable social laws, and social provision he came
up with the notion of the "gospel of wealth". He lived up to his word, and gave away his fortune to socially
beneficial projects, most famously by funding libraries. His approval of death taxes might surprise modern
billionaires!
The problem of our age is the administration of wealth, so that the ties of brotherhood may still bind
together the rich and poor in harmonious relationship. The conditions of human life have not only been
changed, but revolutionized, within the past few hundred years. In former days there was little difference
between the dwelling, dress, food, and environment of the chief and those of his retainers. . . . The
contrast between the palace of the millionaire and the cottage of the laborer with us today measures the
change which has come with civilization.
This change, however, is not to be deplored, but welcomed as highly beneficial. It is well, nay, essential
for the progress of the race, that the houses of some should be homes for all that is highest and best in
literature and the arts, and for all the refinements of civilization, rather than that none should be so. Much
better this great irregularity than universal squalor. Without wealth there can be no Maecenas [Note: a
rich Roman patron of the arts]. The "good old times" were not good old times . Neither master nor servant
was as well situated then as to day. A relapse to old conditions would be disastrous to both-not the least
so to him who serves-and would sweep away civilization with it....
...
We start, 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.
There are 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....
The growing 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....
There remains, 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.
...
This, then, 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.
Andrew Camegie, "Wealth," North American Review, 148, no. 391 (June 1889): 653, 65762.
Excerpt from Henry George Progress and Poverty 1879
Introduction
George started the book from which this excerpt is taken in San Francisco during 1877 and finished it in
March 1879 after eighteen months of arduous work. He submitted it to D. Appleton and Co., who rejected
it with a pleasant note on the great clearness and force with which it was written, but who also found it
very aggressive and too commercially unpromising for them to publish. George turned to a printer friend
William Hinton, who let George use his shop. On May 17, 1879 George wrote in his diary: Commenced to
set type on book. Set first two sticks myself. His son and some printer friends helped complete the plates
for a small author`s edition of 500 copies, which at $3 a copy sold well enough to pay for the plates. Witii
a set of plates in hand, George was able to persuade Appleton to reconsider, and in the following year,
1880, they brought out a commercial edition. At first the book sold slowly, but before long it began to
evoke that interest which was to make Henry George a nationwide and a world-wide influence. Within
fourteen months five large editions were published, and in 1882 Lovell`s Library brought out an edition at
twenty cents. Soon it had been translated into ten languages. Neither its influence nor its sales can be
completely measured; but Frank Luther Mott, in his study of best-sellers, finds credible a worldwide
estimate of two million copies sold and thinks that an estimate of the American sales to 1947 of 700,000
or 800,000 is conservative.
This association of poverty with progress is the great enigma of our times. It is the central fact from which
spring industrial, social, and political difficulties that perplex the world, and with which statesmanship and
philanthropy and education grapple in vain. From it come the clouds that overhang the future of the most
progressive and self-reliant nations. It is the riddle which the Sphinx of Fate puts to our civilization, and
which not to answer is to be destroyed. So long as all the increased wealth which modern progress brings
goes but to build up great fortunes, to increase luxury and make sharper the contrast between the House
of Have and the House of Want, progress is not real and cannot be permanent. The reaction must come.
The tower leans from its foundations, and every new story but hastens the final catastrophe. To educate
men who must be condemned to poverty, is but to make them restive; to base on a state of most glaring
social inequality political institutions under which men are theoretically equal, is to stand a pyramid on its
apex.
All-important as this question is, pressing itself from every quarter painfully upon attention, it has not yet
received a solution which accounts for all the facts and points to any clear and simple remedy. This is
shown by the widely varying attempts to account for the prevailing depression. They exhibit not merely a
divergence between vulgar notions and scientific theories, but also show that the concurrence which
should exist between those who avow the same general theories breaks up upon practical questions into
an anarchy of opinion. Upon high economic authority we have been told that the prevailing depression is
due to over-consumption; upon equally high authority, that it is due to over-production; while the wastes
of war, the extension of railroads, the attempts of workmen to keep up wages, the demonetization of
silver, the issues of paper money, the increase of labor-saving machinery, the opening of shorter avenues
to trade, etc., are separately pointed out as the cause, by writers of reputation.
And while professors thus disagree, the ideas that there is a necessary conflict between capital and labor,
that machinery is an evil, that competition must be restrained and interest abolished, that wealth may be
created by the issue of money, that it is the duty of government to furnish capital or to furnish work, are
rapidly making way among the great body of the people, who keenly feel a hurt and are sharply conscious
of a wrong. Such ideas, which bring great masses of men, the repositories of ultimate political power,
under the leadership of charlatans and demagogues, are fraught with danger; but they cannot be
successfully combated until political economy shall give some answer to the great question which shall be
consistent with all her teachings, and which shall commend itself to the perceptions of the great masses of
men. .
I propose in the following pages to attempt to solve by the methods of political economy the great
problem I have outlined. I propose to seek the law which associates poverty with progress, and increases
want with advancing wealth; and I believe that in the explanation of this paradox we shall find the
explanation of those recurring seasons of industrial and commercial paralysis which, viewed independently
of their relations to more general phenomena, seem so inexplicable. .
What constitutes the rightful basis of property? What is it that enables a man justly to say of a thing, "It is
mine"? From what springs the sentiment which acknowledges his exclusive right as against all the world?
Is it not, primarily, the right of a man to himself, to the use of his own powers, to the enjoyment of the
fruits of his own exertions? Is it not this individual right, which springs from and is testified to by the
natural facts of individual organization-the fact that each articular pair of hands obey a particular brain
and are related to a particular stomach; the fact that each man is a definite, coherent, independent whole,
which alone justifies individual owner ship? As a man belongs to himself, so his labor when put in concrete
form belongs to him. . .
Now, this is not only the original source from which all ideas of exclusive ownership aris~as is evident
from the natural tendency of the mind to revert to it when the idea of exclusive ownership is questioned,
and the manner in which social relations developbut it is necessarily the only source. There can be to the
ownership of anything no rightful title which is not derived from the title of the producer and does not rest
upon the natural right of the man to himself. There can be no other rightful title, because (1st) there is no
other natural right from which any other title can be derived, and (2d) because the recognition of any
other title is inconsistent with and destructive of this.
For (1st) what other right exists from which the right to the exclusive possession of anything can be
derived, save the right of a man to himself? With what other power is man by nature clothed, save the
power of exerting his own faculties? How can he in any other way act upon or affect material things or
other men? Paralyze the motor nerves, and your man has no more external influence or power than a log
or stone. From what else, then, can the right of possessing and controlling things be derived? If it spring
not from man himself, from what can it spring? Nature acknowledges no ownership or control in man save
as the result of exertion. In no other way can her treasures be drawn forth, her powers directed, or her
forces utilized or controlled. She makes no discriminations among men, but is to all absolutely impartial.
She knows no distinction between master and slave, king and subject, saint and sinner. All men to her
stand upon an equal footing and have equal rights. She recognizes no claim but that of labor, and
recognizes that without respect to the claimant. If a pirate spread his sails, the wind will fill them as well
as it will fill those of a peaceful merchantman or missionary bark; if a king and a common man be thrown
overboard, neither can keep his head above water except by swimming; birds will not come to be shot by
the proprietor of the soil any quicker than they will come to be shot by the poacher; fish will bite or will
not bite at a hook in utter disregard as to whether it is offered them by a good little boy who goes to
Sunday-school, or a bad little boy who plays truant; grain will grow only as the ground is prepared and the
seed is sown; it is only at the call of labor that ore can be raised from the mine; the sun shines and the
rain falls, alike upon just and unjust. The laws of nature are the decrees of the Creator. There is written in
them no recognition of any right save that of labor; and in them is written broadly and clearly the equal
right of all men to the use and enjoyment of nature; to apply to her by their exertions, and to receive and
possess her reward. Hence, as nature gives only to labor, the exertion of labor in production is the only
title to exclusive possession.
2d. This right of ownership that springs from labor excludes the possibility of any other right of ownership.
If a man be rightfully entitled to the produce of his labor, then no one can be rightfully entitled to the
ownership of anything which is not the produce of his labor, or the labor of some one else from whom the
right has passed to him. If production give to the producer the right to exclusive possession and
enjoyment, there can rightfully be no exclusive possession and enjoyment of anything not the production
of labor, and the recognition of private property in land is a wrong. For the right to the produce of labor
cannot be enjoyed without the right to the free use of the opportunities offered by nature, and to admit
the right of property in these is to deny the right of property in the produce of labor. When non-producers
can claim as rent a portion of the wealth created by producers, the right of the producers to the fruits of
their labor is to that extent denied.
There is no escape from this position. To affirm that a man can rightfully claim exclusive ownership in his
own labor when embodied in material things, is to deny that any one can rightfully claim exclusive
ownership in land. To affirm the rightfulness of property in land, is to affirm a claim which has no warrant
in nature, as against a claim founded in the organization of man and the laws of the material universe.
What most prevents the realization of the injustice of private property in land is the habit of including all
the things that are made the subject of ownership in one category, as property, or, if any distinction is
made, drawing the line, according to the unphilosophical distinction of the lawyers, between personal
property and real estate, or things movable and things immovable. The real and natural distinction is
between things which are the produce of labor and things which are the gratuitous offerings of nature; or,
to adopt the terms of political economy, between wealth and land.
These two classes of things are in essence and relations widely different, and to class them together as
property is to confuse all thought when we come to consider the justice or the injustice, the right or the
wrong of property.
A house and the lot on which it stands are alike property, as being the subject of ownership, and are alike
classed by the lawyers as real estate. Yet in nature and relations they differ widely. The one is produced
by human labor, and belongs to the class in political economy styled wealth. The other is a part of nature,
and belongs to the class in political economy styled land.
The essential character of the one class of things is that they embody labor, are brought into being by
human exertion, their existence or non-existence, their increase or diminution, depending on man. The
essential character of the other class of things is that they do not embody labor, and exist irrespective of
human exertion and irrespective of man; they are the field or environment in which man finds himself; the
storehouse from which his needs must be supplied, the raw material upon which and the forces with which
alone his labor can act.
The moment this distinction is realized, that moment is it seen that the sanction which natural justice
gives to one species of property is denied to the other; that the rightfulness which attaches to individual
property in the produce of labor implies the wrongfulness of individual property in land; that, whereas the
recognition of the one places all men upon equal terms, securing to each the due reward of his labor, the
recognition of the other is the denial of the equal rights of men, permitting those who do not labor to take
the natural reward of those who do.
Whatever may be said for the institution of private property in land, it is therefore plain that it cannot be
defended on the score of justice.
The equal right of all men to the use of land is as clear as their right to breathe the air-it is a right
preclaimed by the fact of their existence. For we cannot suppose that some men have a right to be in this
world and others no right. .
The wide-spreading social evils which everywhere oppress men amid an advancing civilization spring from
a great primary wrong-the appropriation, as the exclusive property of some men, of the land on which and
from which all must live. From t his fundamental injustice flow all the injustices which distort and
endanger modern development, which condemn the producer of wealth to poverty and pamper the nonproducer in luxury, which rear the tenement house with the palace, plant the brothel behind the church,
and compel us to build prisons as we open new schools.
There is nothing strange or inexplicable in to phenomena that are now perplexing the world. It is not that
material progress is not in itself a good; it is not that nature has called into being children for whom she
has failed to provide; it is not that the Creator has left us natural laws a taint of injustice at which even
the human mind revolts, that material progress brings such bitter fruits. That amid our highest civilization
men faint and die with want is not due to the niggardliness of nature, but to the injustice of man. Vice and
misery, poverty and pauperism, are not the legitimate results of increase of population and industrial
development; they only follow increase of population and industrial development because land is treated
as private property-they are the dire-and necessary results of the violation of the supreme law of justice,
involved in giving to some men the exclusive possession of that which nature provides for all men.
Whether in the present drifts of opinion and tasks there are as yet any indications of retrogression, it is
not necessary to inquire; but there are many things about which there can be no dispute, which go to
show that our civilization has reached a critical period, and that unless a new start is made in the direction
of social equality, the nineteenth century may to the future march its climax. These industrial depressions,
which cause much waste and suffering as famines or wars, are leading the twinges and shocks which
precede paralysis. Every where is it evident that the tendency to inequality, which is the necessary result
of material progress where land is monopolized, cannot go much further without carrying our civilization
into that downward path which is so easy to enter and so hard to abandon. Everywhere the increasing
intensity of the struggle to live, the increasing necessity for straining every nerve to prevent being thrown
down and trodden under foot in the scramble for wealth, is draining the forces which gain and maintain
improvements. In every civilized country pauperism, crime, insanity, and suicides are increasing. In every
civilized country the diseases are increasing which come from overstrained nerves, from insufficient
nourishment, from squalid lodgings, from unwholesome and monotonous occupations, from premature
labor of children, from the tasks and crimes which poverty imposes upon women. In every highly civilized
country the expectation of life, which gradually rose for several centuries, and which seems to have
culminated about the first quarter of this century, appears to be now diminishing.
It is not an advancing civilization that such figures show. It is a civilization which in its undercurrents has
already begun to recede. When the tide turns in bay or river from flood to ebb, it is not all at once; but
here it still runs on, though there it has begun to recede. When the sun passes the meridian, it can be told
only by the way the short shadows fall; for the heat of the day yet increases. But as sure as the turning
tide must soon run full ebb; as sure as the declining sun must bring darkness, so sure is it, that though
knowledge yet increases and invention marches on, and new states are being settled, and cities still
expand, yet civilization has begun to wane when, in proportion to population, we must build more and
more prisons, more and more almshouses, more and more insane asylums. It is not from top to bottom
that societies die; it is from bottom to top.
But there are evidences far more palpable than any that can be given by statistics, of tendencies to the
ebb of civilization. There is a vague but general feeling of disappointment; an increased bitterness among
the working classes; a widespread feeling of unrest and brooding revolution. If this were accompanied by
a definite idea of how relief is to be obtained, it would be a hopeful sign; but it is not. Though the
schoolmaster has been abroad some time, the general power of tracing effect to cause does not seem a
whit improved. The reaction toward protectionism, as the reaction toward other exploded fallacies of
government, shows this. And even the philosophic freethinker cannot look upon that vast change in
religious ideas that is now sweeping over the civilized world without feeling that this tremendous fact may
have most momentous relations, which only the future can develop. For what is going on is not a change
in the form of religion, but the negation and destruction of the ideas from which religion springs.
Christianity is not simply clearing itself of superstitions, but in the popular mind it is dying at the root, as
the old paganisms were dying when Christianity entered the world. And nothing arises to take its place.
The fundamental ideas of an intelligent Creator and of a future life are in the general mind rapidly
weakening. Now, whether this may or may not be in itself an advance, the importance of the part which
religion has played in the world's history shows the importance of the change that is now going on. Unless
human nature has suddenly altered in what the universal history of the race shows to be its deepest
characteristics, the mightiest actions and reactions are thus preparing. Such stages of thought have
heretofore always marked periods of transition. On a smaller scale and to a less depth (for I think any one
who will notice the drift of our literature, and talk upon such subjects with the men he mccts, will see that
it is sub-soil and not surface plowing that materialistic ideas are now doing), such a state of thought
preceded the French Revolution. But the closest parallel to the wreck of religious ideas now going on is to
be found in that period in which ancient civilization began to pass from splendor to decline. What change
may come, no mortal man can tell, but that some great change must come, thoughtful men begin to feel.
The civilized world is trembling on the verge of a great movement. Either it must be a leap upward, which
will open the way to advances yet undreamed of, or it must be a plunge downward which will carry us
back toward barbarism.
The Sherman Antitrust Act 1890
Section 1. Trusts, etc., in restraint of trade illegal; penalty
Every contract, combination in the form of trust or otherwise, or conspiracy, in restraint of trade or
commerce among the several States, or with foreign nations, is declared to be illegal. Every person who
shall make any contract or engage in any combination or conspiracy hereby declared to be illegal shall be
deemed guilty of a felony, and, on conviction thereof, shall be punished by fine not exceeding
$10,000,000 if a corporation, or, if any other person, $350,000, or by imprisonment not exceeding three
years, or by both said punishments, in the discretion of the court.
Section 2. Monopolizing trade a felony; penalty
Every person who shall monopolize, or attempt to monopolize, or combine or conspire with any other
person or persons, to monopolize any part of the trade or commerce among the several States, or with
foreign nations, shall be deemed guilty of a felony, and, on conviction thereof, shall be punished by fine
not exceeding $10,000,000 if a corporation, or, if any other person, $350,000, or by imprisonment not
exceeding three years, or by both said punishments, in the discretion of the court.
Section 3. Trusts in Territories or District of Columbia illegal; combination a felony
Every contract, combination in form of trust or otherwise, or conspiracy, in restraint of trade or commerce
in any Territory of the United States or of the District of Columbia, or in restraint of trade or commerce
between any such Territory and another, or between any such Territory or Territories and any State or
States or the District of Columbia, or with foreign nations, or between the District of Columbia and any
State or States or foreign nations, is declared illegal. Every person who shall make any such contract or
engage in any such combination or conspiracy, shall be deemed guilty of a felony, and, on conviction
thereof, shall be punished by fine not exceeding $10,000,000 if a corporation, or, if any other person,
$350,000, or by imprisonment not exceeding three years, or both said punishments, in the discretion of
the court.
Section 4. Jurisdiction of courts; duty of United States attorneys; procedure
The several district courts of the United States are invested with jurisdiction to prevent and restrain
violations of sections 1 to 7 of this title; and it shall be the duty of the several United States attorneys, in
their respective districts, under the direction of the Attorney General, to institute proceedings in equity to
prevent and restrain such violations. Such proceedings may be by way of petition setting forth the case
and praying that such violation shall be enjoined or otherwise prohibited. When the parties complained of
shall have been duly notified of such petition the court shall proceed, as soon as may be, to the hearing
and determination of the case; and pending such petition and before final decree, the court may at any
time make such temporary restraining order or prohibition as shall be deemed just in the premises.
Section 5. Bringing in additional parties
Whenever it shall appear to the court before which any proceeding under section 4 of this title may be
pending, that the ends of justice require that other parties should be brought before the court, the court
may cause them to be summoned, whether they reside in the district in which the court is held or not; and
subpoenas to that end may be served in any district by the marshal thereof.
Section 6. Forfeiture of property in transit
Any property owned under any contract or by any combination, or pursuant to any conspiracy (and being
the subject thereof) mentioned in section 1 of this title, and being in the course of transportation from one
State to another, or to a foreign country, shall be forfeited to the United States, and may be seized and
condemned by like proceedings as those provided by law for the forfeiture, seizure, and condemnation of
property imported into the United States contrary to law.