other ways. But society considered itself justified in forbidding the owner to employ his wealth in a way that experience had shown to be injurious, nay, dangerous, to the community.
"Was not this found seriously to check the desire to accumulate?"
"It would have been desirable had it done so to a greater extent than was the case," replied Utis. "Few, with all their efforts, can in a lifetime accumulate so much as to be hampered, in any way, by such a law. As for the accumulation of colossal fortunes, that was a result to be feared rather than favored. Men, after all, amass great wealth, rather from favoring circumstances than as the result of far-reaching plans having any reference to posterity. The result of the above-mentioned laws, adopted by the community solely as a means of self-defence, was not the cessation of saving, but the more equal diffusion of wealth. Some, after providing for their immediate family and more distant relatives, as far as the law permitted, would leave the residue for some public object. Others, desirous of perpetuating some great business in their name, would distribute shares. among the most faithful of their employees, leaving the control in the hands of their own family. In this way, what would once have been restricted to the support of a single family in superfluous luxury, became the comfortable maintenance of a number."
"If so much time is devoted to industrial training," was my next objection, "there cannot be much left for the culture to be obtained from books."
"Your remark is based upon a misconception," was the
