The sum of the matter seems to be that the reduction and prevention of great fortunes cannot prudently be accomplished by the method of direct limitation; that these ends may wisely and justly be attained indirectly, through the imposition of progressive income and inheritance taxes; but that the extent to which these measures would be genuinely effective cannot be estimated until they have been given a thorough trial. FOOTNOTES: [197] "Final Report," p. 32. [198] "Progressive Taxation," pp. 210, 211; cf. Vermeersch, "Quaestiones de Justitia," pp. 94-126. [199] "The Gospel of Wealth," pp. 11, 12. [200] Cf. Dr. T. S. Adams in "Papers and Proceedings of the 27th Annual Meeting of the American Economic Association," pp. 234, sq. CHAPTER XXI THE DUTY OF DISTRIBUTING SUPERFLUOUS WEALTH The correctives of the present distribution that were proposed before the beginning of the last chapter related mainly to the apportionment of the product among the agents of production. They would affect that distribution which takes place as an integral element of the productive process, not any disposition which the productive agents might desire or be required to make of the shares that they had acquired from the productive process. Such were many of the proposals regarding land tenure, and all of those concerning co-operative enterprises and monopoly. In the last chapter we considered the possibility of neutralising to some extent the abuses of the primary distribution by the action of government through the taxation of large fortunes. These were proposals directly affecting the secondary distribution. And they involved the method of compulsion. In the present chapter we shall inquire whether desirable changes in the secondary distribution may not be effected by voluntary action. The specific questions confronting us here are, whether and how far proprietors are morally bound to distribute their superfluous wealth among their less fortunate fellows. _The Question of Distributing Some_