successive generations in the hands of a few families are a danger to our free society, even if these fortunes should continue to be well administered.  There is a widespread feeling that the heredity of great wealth is, like the heredity of political power, out of harmony with the democratic spirit.  Democracy wishes to see men and individuals put to the test, not profiting forever by the deeds of their forebears.  This feeling is shared by those who cannot be charged with radical prejudices.  It was startling when a conservative body of lawyers meeting in their state association in Illinois, passed a resolution favoring moderate limits to inherited fortunes.  Almost every year sees bills of this purport introduced in the legislatures and in Congress.  Probably no one of many current radical proposals is more widely favored than this, among men of otherwise conservative social views.  Tho sum most often mentioned as the proper limit is $1,000,000, but in every case it is a sum larger than the fortune of the person speaking.[4]

Sec. 6. #Limitations upon intestate inheritance#.  A proposal less crude and with strong reasons of social expediency in its favor is to limit the right of intestate inheritance to persons that have been in essential economic and social relations with the deceased.  The foregoing considerations show that the case for the right of gift in the lifetime of the giver is strongest; that for the right of bequest comes next.  The man who has acquired wealth may usually be trusted to decide who bear to him close social or personal relations, and to say whose lives have in a measure furnished the motives of his activity.  But the right of intestate inheritance by distant relatives is one that stands on weak social foundations.  It is a survival from more patriarchal conditions when, in the large family, or clan, the bond of unity was very strong.  A truer test to-day of the proper limits for intestate inheritance is whether the wish to provide for these heirs has furnished the motive for the producing and preserving of the wealth.  The claims of those nearest in blood and closest in personal relations are strongest.  Family affection and friendship form the strongest of social ties, and it is socially expedient to cultivate them.  Motives for abstinence and industry must be strengthened.  But the same test shows that the zealous regard of the American law for the rights of distant kinsmen in foreign lands, or in distant quarters of this country, is irrational, and is unjust to the community where the fortune was made.  Public opinion tends strongly toward this idea.

Property rights as they exist are clearly seen not to be a product of pure reason.  They are the result of social evolution, of historical accidents, of class legislation, and in many cases, of selfish interests.  Changing social conditions and ideas are bringing many changes in law, and further changes must be expected to come, which will reduce the influence of inheritance of property in fostering status in distribution.  Especially important are the increasing application of the progressive principle to incomes and inheritance,[5] and the development of insurance to put family savings into the form of terminable annuities instead of capital sums.[6]