24 



well adapted to accomplish the desired end, are wholly inade- 

 quate to meet the wants of the present state of affairs, which 

 favor accumulations in families more than the laws of entail 

 and primogeniture as then in force. The State now regulates 

 the tenure and transmission of property, and by so doing 

 acknowledges both its right and duty to regulate it. The 

 State says to the owner of property, you may dispose of it in a 

 certain manner, you may continue to control it for so long a 

 timfe after your death by a will made with certain formalities, 

 and if you do not dispose of it yourself, under the provisions 

 of law it shall be distributed in a certain manner. And the 

 only question is, are these laws having reference to the pres- 

 ent condition of business and society, just, and best adapted to 

 promote the highest interest of the State ? I contend that 

 they are neither just, nor adapted to the present condition of 

 business, or society. Jefferson supposed that under a system 

 of laws such as he favored, with entail and primogeniture 

 abolished, that it would be impossible for large and oppressive 

 fortunes to accumulate, to endanger the rights and liberties of 

 the people. He could not have foreseen the present forces 

 that are more pernicious than those he attempted to remedy. 

 Does any one doubt that he, if alive at the present time, with 

 the views he entertained as to property and the rights of the 

 people, would favor a more radical change than he favored 

 then ? The evils he desired to remedy then now exist, and 

 will be continued and increased unless measures are at once 

 taken to prevent it. The ownership of lands by corporations 

 for speculative purposes ought to be prevented, for it is against 

 the spirit of our laws against perpetuities, and retards the dis- 

 tribution of property among the people. The right to dispose 

 of one's entire estate, by will, as he may choose is unjust- 



