The question is raised in many minds, If private property is not an absolute right, what shall be its limits? What changes should be made in it? The essential thought in the various attacks on the institution of private property is that, because it occasions inequality in incomes, it is not socially expedient. The conviction is growing that, in some general way, incomes should correspond to, and reflect, social service. It is well to consider more closely what the terms social expediency and social service imply. CHAPTER 39 INCOME AND SOCIAL SERVICE § I. INCOME FROM PROPERTY [Sidenote: The justice of property questioned] 1. _Property rights must meet the test of social expediency._ If private property is defended on the ground of social expediency, it must show good social results. It is not a sacred thing; it is open to examination, and must be judged by its fruits. Of all the forms of income, that from property has been most strongly attacked. The thought is that enjoyment of wealth should not be found apart from labor, and that it should bear some proportion to services performed. The enjoyment of an ample income by one who does no more than to draw checks or to sign coupons seems to many minds to be unjust; and it is often questioned whether there is any social service performed by the receivers of the rent from land. Property seems in many cases to be distributed without rule or reason. It does not correspond with beauty, strength, wit, wisdom, temperance, gentleness, or charity. Since the beginning of the Christian era, reformers have assailed and preached against the prevailing inequality of wealth. The idea that incomes, if not equal, should correspond to social service has always been present in some vague way in the minds of men. [Sidenote: Social effect of the right to give]