Knowledge that Transforms

Even superficial studies of the business career of John Jacob Astor emphasize its supposedly dualistic nature, and distinguish between the apparently sharply defined aspects of fortune-getting for which it stands. In fact, Astor's trading operations are frequently discussed as if they had not the slightest theoretical connection with his activities as an investor in land. It is the latter method of fortune-getting which is generally considered to afford exclusive opportunity for the appearance of an "unearned increment" (that is, gain of some sort, which cannot be attributed to the personal effort or personal ability of the beneficiary). Under the influence of this misconception, an attempt is made to distinguish between the profits arising from trade and the gains growing out of land investments on the ground that, in the one case, the size of the returns is conditioned by the degree of personal activity, whereas, in the other case, no appreciable amount of individual effort or ability is involved. Daniel Webster, for instance, in an address to the jury, when arguing against Astor's claim to lands in Putnam County, implied some such distinction between commercial exertions and land investments, in connection with the moral judgment that he passed upon Astor. True, his argument was impassioned and polemical in tone. Moreover, he was referring to a particular case of land investment characterized by certaini peculiar features. But the antithesis that he suggests is nevertheless significant-the more so, that it was designed to appeal to popular prejudices. His plea was that Astor had obtained possession of the land in dispute, not as he did that vast wealth than which no one envies him less than I do -not by fair and honest exertions in commercial enterprise, but by speculation, by purchasing up the forlorn hope of the heirs of a family driven from this country by a bill of attainder.'