THE OTHER SIDE.

New Zealand Tablet, Volume XXII, Issue 21, 20 September 1895, Page 17

THE OTHER SIDE.

OW, when so much is said and written — when even, apparently, so much is legislatively enacted, for the reduction, if not the total destruction, of the fortunes of the rich, it may not be out of place for us to take a passing glance at the other side and see what rray be advanced in favour of that alleged evil against which war is p^oc'aimed. With means for such a glance we are lumisbed, for example, by some papers recently contributed by the well-known writer on economic and social subjects, M. Paul Leroy-Beaulieu, to the Revue des Deux Mondes. Fortune, or individual w.altn, the writer, in effect, tells us, has a social function, arising from its very nature, which it alone can well fulfil. It forms the power of commanding productions and work, and. consequently, of giving a direction to both. The rich man, as well as the politician is a leader of men. Fortune then, says the writer, in the hands of an individual, constitutes an administrative power. The first duty of fortune, we are told, like that of capital generally, is self-preservation. In the social interest, as well as in others, everyone should respect and maintain his fortune. Income only may be legitimately spent. The objects of expenditure, explains M. Beaulietj, may even embrace luxury — luxury, however, having something of a lasting character. It is lawful for generations to leave durable and < raceful traces of their passing by — but always provided that there be no waste of fortune, even that it continue, within certain bounds, to be increased. An increase of fortune, says the writer, is one at least of the economic duties imposed on the rich man. He should continue, within bounds, to spare and to create capital in order to furnish society at largn with the means of applying inventions and new discoveries — in order to augment the productive tunds that allay the labours and increase the products of humanity. A rich man also, it is added, should be very careful in his investments. It is a

calling and a duty, one of the mest important and most complicated duties of society, to be a capitalist. Of tho^e trying tasks that fortune imposes, says M. Beaulieu, democratic imbecility and jealousy take no reckoning. A case of particular interest to us to which the writer applies his doctrine is that of large land-holders. This is a class of men of whom, for the most part, we are now accustomed to hear little that is good, and in favour of whose bursting up a great deal has been urged. M. LeroyBeaulieu is of a different opinion. It is believed, he says, that it would be advantageous more and more to develope small ownerships at the expense of those tbat are great — to do away with the latter altogether. But this, he asserts, would be to destroy the principal element of agricultural progress. Great proprietorship in good hands, he continues, has, from several points of view, a considerable superiority over small. Great proprietorship has proportionally more capital. Besides, up to a certain point, capital acquires by concentration a force which excels that which it has in a divided state. The soil can thus be better worsed, and will return more fruits. The greatest advantage, however, possessed by the great ownership the writer attributes to its scientific and industrial superiority. This scientific and intellectual superiority of great modern proprietors, he says, is the pivot of all agricultural progress. The writer quotes examples of what the great proprietors have done. To them has been due, for instance, improvement in manuring ; the adoption of new crops ; the successful treatment of vines infected by oi'dium and phylloxera. At the present time they are concerning themselves about the cure of other pests. The mind of the small owner, we are told, is not active enough to take a lead in such matters. The State is too stiff and conventional to take the place of private initiative. Another advantage which the writer attributes to the great ownership is that of agricultural responsibility, without which, he says, there can be no methodic organisation, to decrease to a minimum the chances of checks and losses, and to increase to a maximum those of discovery and progress. A great deal more the writer has to say and to adduce in support of his argument, as, for further example, the advantage to the small owner of the neighbourhood of the great owner, and the benefit, accruing from the system of tenancy, of giving a personal interest in the land to men of the liberal professions and others — men of the highest intelligence in the natioD. We have, however, quoted enough to show our readers that something may also be said — and well said — on the other side. We leave them to draw their conclusions for themselves. Thr social function of fortune, M. Leroy-Beaulieu §ays finally, consists in supplying for the initiative, always arbitrary, often wasteful, generally but little enlightened or little impartial, and insufficient, of the State ; and to guide and instruct, whether by direct contact or by practical examples, the classes in less easy circumstances. The social function of fortune is to be initiative and auxiliary.