This method still prevails to a greater extent in our society .han is usually recognized.' By public opinion and by preju dice, status is still maintained in respect to the choice of occu pations even where the law has formally abolished it, as is seen in modern race problems. In western countries to-day in heritance of property is the main legal form of status and it shades off into other forms of distribution. Private property must find its justification in social expediency' There is no feature of it that is more questioned than is the right of in heritance.
See Vol. 1, pp. 248-255, 297, 298, 406, 408, 415-418, 480, 481. 483, 484; also Vol. II, chs, 11, 20, and various passages in the chapters of •"+;a Part.
wealth probably never would have been created if men had not had this right. But there is a limit to the working of this motive, and other motives often are more effective. Many a man after gaining a competence continues to work for love of wealth and power in his own lifetime, as the miser continues to toil for love of gold. When men without families die wealthy, when men not having the slightest interest in their nearest relatives labor till their dying days to amass wealth, it is apparent that the right to bequeath property has little to do with their efforts. Love of accumulation and love of power in these cases supply the motive. A more limited liberty to dispose of property at death might still suffice, therefore, to call out the greater part of the efforts now made to accumulate property.
§ 4. Effects of the right to inherit property. That the effects upon the receiver of the property are good is somewhat more doubtful. It is true that children reared in families of large incomes would be great sufferers if plunged into pov erty at the death of their parents. There is much social justi fication for permitting families to maintain an accustomed standard of comfort. Few would deny that provision by par ents to provide education and opportunity for their children is commendable and desirable. But the evil effects of waiting for dead men's shoes are proverbial. Many a boy's greatest
curse has been his father's fortune. Many a man of native ability waits idly for fortune to come and lets opportunities for self-help slip by unheeded. The world often exclaims over the failure of the sons of noted men to achieve great things, for, despite confusing evidence, men still have faith in biologic heredity. A too easy fortune saps ambition and re laxes energy ; and thus rich men's sons, if not most carefully and wisely trained, are often made paupers in spirit, while the self-made fathers think their boys have better opportuni ties than they themselves enjoyed. The greater social loss is not the dissipated fortunes, but the ruined characters. An drew Carnegie said that it would be a good thing if every boy had to start in poverty and make his own way. Cecil Rhodes recorded in his will his contempt for the idle ex pectant heir.
§ 5. Broader social effects of inheritance. Inheritance '.as good effects for the community in so far as it helps to secure efficient management of wealth. If the son or relative has been in business with the deceased, there is a reason why he should inherit the property, and his succession to it makes the least disturbance to existing business conditions. This con sideration, however, has less weight as the corporate form of organization becomes well-nigh universal in "big business." Every profligate son, every incompetent heir, is an argument against the inheritance of property. It is to society's inter est that no able-bodied member should stand idle. Every child should have presented to him the motive to use his powers in useful ways. Moreover, many feel that the great fortunes now accumulating through successive generations in the hands of a few families are a danger to our free society, even if these fortunes should continue to be well administered. There is a widespread feeling that the heredity of great wealth is, like the heredity of political power, out of harmony with the democratic spirit. Democracy wishes to see men and in dividuals put to the test, not profiting forever by the deeds of their forebears. This feeling is shared by those who cannot be charged with radical prejudices. It was startling when a conservative body of lawyers, meeting in their state associa tion in Illinois, passed a resolution favoring moderate limits to inherited fortunes. Almost every year sees bills of this pur port introduced in the legislatures and in Congress. Prob ably no one of many current radical proposals is more widely favored than this among men of otherwise conservative social views. The sum most often mentioned as the proper limit is $1,000,000, but usually it is a sum larger than the for tune of the person speaking.' 4 ch. 32, 7, on limitations upon bequest and inheritance.