This historic book may have numerous typos and missing text. Purchasers can download a free scanned copy of the original book (without typos) from the publisher. Not indexed. Not illustrated. 1886 Excerpt: ... CHAPTER XV. Answers To Objections To Abolition Of Hereditary Property, &c. Objection 1.--That parents might and would endow their children from hand to hand. First, there is infinitely morechance of the talent which gained the money passing with it when it passes only to the children, than when there is a long series of generations, and from hand to hand it would be given in much smaller amounts than by heredity, especially as there would be much fewer great fortunes, when all had to be worked for; and when all real property belonged to the State, and no deeds of transfer to children were allowed, there would be comparatively little which would be passed from hand to hand. Again, transfer during life and without the guarantee of tying up by settlement, would argue a generous nature in the parent and a capacity to be trusted with money in the child, so that it would not be undesirable that families having such qualities should have someartificial help to keep uppermost. Let it be remembered also, that all transfers during life tend to subdivide property, which is a desirable thing, whenever it can be obtained without injustice. Again, gifts to children during youth would tend to early marriages, and consequently tcmorality. All these things together, reduce to a very small amount the evil as compared to that of a legalized general system of hereditary property. And-were it not so, we do not legalize murder, for example, because we cannot prevent it in a number of instances. Objection 2.--What is to prevent parents hiding cash and notes, and bonds, and communicating their place at death? Again let me mention, that the number of secretable values would be insignificant after the nationalization of all real property, stocks in railways, gas, water, &c., and-th...