and after working as a weaver's assistant and a
telegraph messenger boy, became an operator, rose to be head
of his division, made money by organizing a sleeping-car
company and after the Civil War became an ironmaster,
retiring in 1901 as a multi-millionaire. Much of his fortune
he gave to build libraries, almost always on the condition
that the municipality should assure them a stated support.
He died in New York, Aug. 11, 1919.

The reception given to the first paper[1] upon this subject, to which
our lamented friend, the late editor and proprietor of this _Review_,
was pleased to give the first place in the June number, has been most
encouraging to its author, as it would surely have been to the editor
had he been spared, for he was most deeply interested in the subject.

[1] "Wealth" by Andrew Carnegie. In the North American Review, June,
1889.

* * * * *

Before entering upon the question which you have proposed, it may be
advantageous to restate the positions taken in the former paper, for the
benefit of those who may not have read it, or who cannot conveniently
refer to it. It was assumed that the present laws of competition,
accumulation, and distribution are the best obtainable conditions; that
through these the race receives its most valuable fruits; and,
therefore, that they should be accepted and upheld. Under these it was
held that great wealth must inevitably flow into the hands of the few
exceptional managers of men. The question then arose, What should these
do with their surplus wealth? and the "Gospel of Wealth" contended that
surplus wealth should be considered as a sacred trust, to be
administered during the lives of its owners, by them as trustees, for
the best good of the community in which and from which it had been
acquired.

It was pointed out that there were but three modes of disposing of
surplus wealth, and two of these were held to be improper. First, it was
held that to leave great fortunes to children did not prove true
affection for them or interest in their genuine good, regarded either as
individuals or as members of the state; that it was not the welfare of
the children, but the pride of the parents, which inspired enormous
legacies, and that, looking to the usual results of vast sums conferred
upon children, the thoughtful man must be forced to say, if the good of
the child only were considered: "I would as soon leave t