disagreeable, so far as the right of the individual goes, in the
enforcing of this proposed law than there is in the collection of taxes
on incomes. Cutting a fortune down to the $100,000 limit may be
considered a very disagreeable thing indeed, but when we are reminded
that it is all done for the common good, we become reconciled at once,
for we feel in our heart of hearts that the altar at which we can
cheerfully make whatever sacrifices we are called upon to make, is the
altar of our brother's welfare.

The millionaire merchant will doubtless take advantage of his right to
divide his business among his relatives and friends. Naturally they
would give him the management, but the instinct to be master is strong
within us all, and this would soon break up and scatter that dangerous
accumulation. Then there would be more Market streets and Broadways.
Every dollar of business that would be taken from the one or two
principal thoroughfares, which is all that is now found in any of the
cities, would mean an increase of value in the property of the street
where this transfer business is carried on. And this increase in the
value of city property would continue on out to the city's limits; and
the limits themselves would be extended further out to find room for
habitable homes for the human beings that are supposed to live in the
tenements. There can be no question but what merchandising would spread
itself more over the cities if this limited ownership of capital was in
force; and this spreading out will give employment to all in bringing
about the change; and prosperity, such as goes with plenty of work, will
take the place of the wretched misery and want that now fill all the
soup-house infected cities of the country. There will be no impairment
in the value or need of the big "dailies" that are published in these
centres of population. They will simply be owned by more people and read
by more, and the improvement in the times being of a stable and