Fifty years in Wall Street

by Henry Clews

CHARLES M. SCHWAB.

Although it is impossible to demonstrate just how important an influence this practice of keeping wealth actively in use has played in helping to bring about and preserve the generally progressive and prosperous condition of affairs, there is evidence enough to refute much that has been said against the possession of great wealth, and also to show that the hostile or critical attitude of the press and the people toward it is unjust, and should be derided instead of being popular with the masses, as it is. The assistance which Americans of great wealth have given the nation, in the founding and preservation of institutions for the public benefit and in many other ways, has never been sufficiently appreciated or acknowledged.

Wealth in good hands serves good purposes. The richest men of the Thirteen Colonies in the American Revolution were among the most active and self-sacrificing of American patriots. They included George Washington, John Adams, John Hancock, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison and Robert Morris, whose names are imperishable on our national roll of fame.

In that glorious struggle for freedom, these wealthy patriots performed a leading and arduous part, and aided largely in effecting that grand result—the establishment of this great republic, the United States of America, under the best and freest Constitution in the world.

Passing onward from that memorable time, we come to that of the Rebellion, when Secession reared its aggressive head, and the very life of our institutions was in extreme jeopardy. In the early part of the great Civil War—when the Government, friendless abroad, knew not which way to turn for the financial aid that it so sorely needed to defend itself and prosecute the war—history will recall that the great wealth of private individuals proved not a menace, but a blessing and a godsend to the Nation. These served their country well by coming forward with their wealth and buying United States bonds in large amounts when the risk was hazardous. By so doing they rendered patriotic public service that should make even the Socialists hesitate before condemning great individual wealth as dangerous to the national welfare.

I might in illustration of what I say enumerate instances almost without number where, from the rock-ribbed coast of Maine to the Golden Gate of California, under the beneficent rays of great gifts of the wealthy the seeds of education have been sown broadcast and have grown into grand and telling factors in shaping the character of the rising generation of American manhood and the destiny of this great country.

In keeping with the hostility, or unrest, concerning great individual wealth, and large corporate capital, we are at times confronted by the bold assertion, made by extremists, that some limit should be set to the amount of property an individual may own. The impracticability and inadvisability of any such measure are at once apparent. You might as well try to limit the capacity or energy of an individual. When you prevent an individual from accumulating you at once discourage his productiveness. This is an axiom beyond dispute.

As regards great corporate capital, I must admit that there has been in many instances, in the past, good cause for much of the unrest and dissatisfaction manifested by the people.

Toward competitors large corporations have too often been unscrupulous, just as the railways were in giving rebates to control the heavy traffic. These illegal and reprehensible methods were pursued far too long, not only causing immense personal and commercial loss and injury, but shaking the confidence of the public in the large corporations called Trusts. These offences can, however, under our new laws, hardly be repeated in the future.

Under the provisions of the Sherman Anti-Trust law, the Elkins Anti-Rebate law and other and later restraining statutes, condign punishment will, doubtless, be dealt out to offenders, and a rigid enforcement of these laws, and their necessary amendments, will be sufficient to regulate corporate bodies and stand as an ægis of protection for the nation.