America's 60 Families
New York: The Vanguard Press
Table of Contents
Chapter I--Golden Dynasties and Their Treasures
The inner circle of great wealth and the government of the United States. Unprecedented power of American multimillionaires exceeds that of Indian princes and European peers. Democracy and plutocracy. Control of industry and finance through dynastic interlockings. The family the fortress of great fortunes. Contemporary economic lords born of upper-class marriages. Some European-American marriages. Corporation executives related to ruling families. Nepotism. Women worth $25,000,000 and more. Women multimillionaires have given no contribution to society. Rigidity of class lines making caste system inevitable.
Chapter II--The Sixty Families
Huge fortunes most significant when viewed on family basis. Families have many branches. The biggest family fortunes in U. S. named. Basis for computing the sixty wealthiest families. Those not included, and why. Ford, Fisher, Dorrance, Chrysler, and Odlum fortunes relatively new. Others rooted in nineteenth-century grabbing. Functions of Owen D. Young, Alfred P. Sloan, Jr., Thomas W. Lamont, and others, as deputies of gold. Families mobilized in phalanxes behind massive banking institutions. The affiliated banking blocs of finance capital. Morgan, Rockefeller, Mellon, Du Pont, and National City Bank coalitions. The trust companies. Rich versus poor. Concentration of productive property in few hands. Why the largest fortunes multiply, and the social consequences of their continued growth.
Chapter III--The Politics of Pecuniary Aggrandizement, 1896-1912
Government historically the servant of private wealth. Wealth and the U. S. government since Colonial days. Hanna, Rockefeller agent. Hanna inaugurates outright control of government by industrialists and bankers. Graft the cornerstone of plutocracy in democratic framework. Whitney, Morgan, Belmont direct the Cleveland Administration. Standard Oil leads the wealthy in sponsoring McKinley. Biased legislation of McKinley Administration. The richest families and the Spanish-American war. An obscure section of American history. The richest families and the "trusts." Political counterpoint of trustification. McKinley's assassination frightens Morgan and Rockefeller. Theodore Roosevelt and his long Morgan affiliation. Theodore Roosevelt consults the magnates on contents of his state papers. The Northern Securities farce. Fake trust-busting. The Panama Canal swindle and the wealthy families. The 1904 political slush funds. The insurance scandals and the wealthiest families. Roosevelt versus Rockefeller; origins of the feud. LaFollette, the first insurgent. The Morgan-Rockefeller role in the synthetic panic of 1907. More light on an obscure situation. The raids on F. Augustus Heinze and the Trust Company of America. George W. Perkins and the role of The New York Times. The theft of Tennessee Coal and Iron by Morgan. Roosevelt's clandestine function as a Morgan agent. Harriman and Roosevelt. The Roosevelt-Harriman feud. The damning Harriman letters. Standard Oil and wholesale political corruption. Rockefellers, at odds with Roosevelt, revealed as supporters of Parker. Taft installed in White House by Morgan. Taft permits first bank affiliates to be formed. Approves highest tariff on record. Why Taft got a hostile press. The Ballinger scandal. Taft forced to sue U. S. Steel, angering Morgan and Roosevelt. Standard Oil ordered "dissolved." The Pujo Committee reveals absolute power of "The Money Trust." The warning of Brandeis.
IV--The Politics of Pecuniary Aggrandizement, 1912-1920
Taft wields patronage club and Roosevelt fails to obtain Republican nomination. Morgan agents back Roosevelt, Rockefeller-Mellon agents back Taft. J. P. Morgan out to destroy Taft. Progressive party conceived under Morgan auspices. George W. Perkins and Frank Munsey, Morgan deputies. Munsey as politician, newspaper publisher, and secret stock-market operator. Perkins produces Will Hayes. Cleveland H. Dodge, copper and munitions magnate, sponsors Wilson. Republican and Democratic slush-fund contributors. The synthetic Progressive Party. Wilson nominated amid complicated convention intrigue. The strange career of Woodrow Wilson in the shadow of Wall Street. George W. Harvey, Thomas Fortune Ryan, Cyrus McCormick, and Cleveland H. Dodge put Wilson over. The questionable origin of the Federal Reserve Act. Dodge's copper interests behind the Mexican imbroglio and shelling of Vera Cruz. Huerta ousted. Some overlooked Dodge-Wilson documents. Wall Street demands Elihu Root or "a blank sheet of paper" in 1916. Pierre S. du Pont heads Republican war-time slush-fund givers, Dodge and Doheny lead Democratic list. The collapse of the New p Haven Railroad and the near-collapse of J. P. Morgan and Company. Plutocrats take lead in mobilizing nation for war. Fresh documentation on Morgan motivation for American war participation. An old suspicion incontrovertibly proven. Ambassador Page in the pay of Dodge. Du Pont, Morgan, Mellon, Rockefeller war profits. Wall Street patriots seize strategic wartime posts. Acts as purchasing agents for the government. Costs padded. Political role of the Red Cross in Europe and Russia. J. P. Morgan and Company and the Versailles conference.
V--The Politics of Finance Capital, 1920-1932
Postwar Presidents surveyed. The triumph of finance capital in 1920. Wood, first choice of ruling families, disqualified by premature revelations. Need for "Oil Administration" indicated by rise of automobile industry. Ruling-class need for revision of wartime profits tax rates. All clans contribute to mammoth Republican slush fund. Its ramifications hidden for eight years. Harding nominated in "smoke-filled room" of George W. Harvey, Rockefeller satrap. Coolidge, Morgan puppet, gets Vice-Presidential nomination. His curious rise to eminence. Mellon installed in Treasury. Harding's "Black Cabinet." The "Poker Cabinet" and White House debauches. Hoover, as Secretary of Commerce, fosters illegal trade practices. The rape of the Treasury under Andrew W. Mellon. Tax rebates to the richest families investigated by Couzens Committee. The tax scandals. The mysterious Barco Concession. Death of Harding. Unsavory background of Charles G. Dawes. J. P. Morgan and Company again in full control of White House. Morrow, ex-Morgan partner, takes over strategic diplomatic post. Coolidge on Morgan "slush list." Hoover's zigzag climb to the White House. William Boyce Thompson, Morgan secret agent. Du Pont money backs Alfred E. Smith. Ascendency of the "moneybund" under Hoover. His cabinet. Senator Morrow functions like a Morgan partner. Telephone wire from White House to J. P. Morgan and Company. Comment by Franklin D. Roosevelt. Economic crisis engulfs Hoover. His policies, trimmed to suit J. P. Morgan and Company, incur Rockefeller ire. Debacle.
VI--Intrigue and Scandal
Need for ruling class to resort to methods illegal and extralegal to retain power in a democratic political context. The war-profits conspiracies. Guggenheim-agent Bernard M. Baruch held personally to blame for most wartime irregularities. The grave charges of the Graham Committee and the proofs. Airplane scandals. Hughes recommends court martial for Edward A. Deeds, of the National City Bank. Newton D. Baker quashes recommendation. Aviation industry today dominated by men who took huge government war subsidies and failed to deliver planes. Nitrate program found unnecessary. Du Pont Old Hickory plant also unnecessary. Du Ponts charged with defrauding government on war contracts. Charges secretly quashed. Corporations involved in scandalous failure to deliver huge quantities of ammunition and ordnance, for which payment had been made. Rockefellers implicated in fly-by-night profiteering companies. Attorney-General Harry M. Daugherty acts as "fixer" for wealthy Republicans and others under accusation. Daugherty quashes all war-profiteering cases and engages in miscellaneous deviltry. Fraud under Alien Property Custodian. The American Metal Company case. The Teapot Dome scandal and the Rockefeller participation. Nearly everyone in Wall Street involved. The Shipping Board scandals. Government subsidy of Dollar shipping interests. The gigantic airplane grab, recalling Standard Oil grabs of nineteenth century. Hoover's Postmaster General Walter Brown used by Mellon-Vanderbilt-Morgan companies to seize all airways. Airmail contracts withheld by Hoover Administration to ruin independents. Airmail contracts canceled by Franklin D. Roosevelt as fraudulent and collusively obtained. The Hoover-Morgan airplane conspiracy disclosed. Speculative boom fueled by richest families and their Wall Street agents. How the boom was secrecy launched under political auspices in 1923. J. P. Morgan and Company and Benjamin Strong. The rape of the Federal Reserve System. The richest families direct the speculative boom from their banks. Directors of big banks members of richest families. Fortunes behind boom all rooted in nineteenth century. Antisocial role of the National City Bank in stock pools, in foreign securities deals. Destructive role of Chase National Bank in stock market, in Cuba, in Fox Film Corporation. J. P. Morgan and Company and the Guaranty Trust Company inflate the Van Sweringen bubble. Political and financial figures get share of Alleghany Corporation, Standard Brands, Inc., and United Corporation stock gifts. The Morgan "slush list." Ivar Kreuger and Samuel Insull, agents of the rich families who failed to make good. Some agents who made good. Financial juggling of David Milton, Rockefeller son-in-law. Various miscellaneous swindles in astronomic sums. Recent history of the Van Sweringen pyramid.
VII--The Press of the Plutocracy
Press lords of America all found among the nation's richest families. Truth versus power in journalism. American and European press discussed. The three strata of American journalism. Politically subsidized county press. The dwindling "independent" stratum. Vast newspaper interests of the wealthiest families. The pro-banker press. The Rockefellers and their publications. Morgan, Laffan, Munsey, Shaffer, Bennett, Perkins, Stoddard, Lamont, the Crowell Publishing Company, Time, Inc., etc. Ford. Harriman, Harkness, Whitney, Mellon, Astor and their publications. Du Pont newspapers. Guggenheim and coordinated propaganda campaigns. McCormick and the Chicago Tribune, Curtis-Bok, Lehman, Hearst and Paul Block, Mills-Reid and the New York Herald Tribune, Taft, Hanna, Metcalf, Clark, Gerry. The Anaconda Copper Company. The Phelps Dodge Corporation. Various newspapers owned by the plutocratic dynasties today. Secret press interests of the wealthy. Their press deputies. Some hidden newspaper interests traced. The public utilities corrupt the press. The Procter (Ivory Soap) chain of newspapers. Some other little known chains. Miscellaneous wealthy publishers and their connections. Some magazines owned by the wealthy clans. The "independent" press briefly surveyed. Ambiguities in Scripps-Howard policies. The Baltimore Sun and its ostensible liberalism. The St. Louis Post-Dispatch under Joseph Pulitzer, Jr. The Nation and The New Republic models for the future. Press not primarily influenced by advertising control. Most of the press directly subsidized by big fortunes.
VIII--The Journalism of Pecuniary Inhibition
Freedom of the press, when it appeared and what it consists of. Class control of U. S. press demonstrated in unified periodic campaigns. First utilized against Bryan and Free Silver. Why Hearst supported Bryan. Mobilizing words for war. Seen again in campaign to defeat Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1936. The role of the radio in current political jousts. Broadcasting stations largely under newspaper ownership. The Wall Street Journal indulges in some plain speaking on the newspaper publisher and his lack of obligation to the public. Press censorship invoked to protect wealthy individuals like Andrew W. Mellon, Marshall Field family, and William Randolph Hearst. Press censorship employed for political purposes. LaFollette. The 1924 income tax figures suppressed. Teapot Dome revelations. General press hostility to labor explained by press ownership. Exploitation by the press of workers, farmers, small investors, and retail buyers in the interest of huge mercantile and financial combinations. Why American newspapers are not news papers in a real sense. Exploitation of Lindbergh and his flight. Unreliability of newspapers accounts for mushroom growth of private news services and news-letters from Washington, Wall Street, European capitals, subscribed to by business men. Press venality widespread and authenticated on the record. Utilities, shipping interests, brewers, coal barons pay for propaganda campaigns. J. David Stern and his pro-New Deal backers, and the economic bias in favor of reform. The Saturday Evening Post betrays its class bias. Time-Fortune, proud apologists for the money lords that own them and for the upper class in general. Thomas W. Lamont, Morgan partner. His singular influence behind the scenes of American journalism. How Morgan theses blanket the country. What some of the theses are. Walter Lippmann and J. P. Morgan and Company. An amusing reversal of emphasis.
IX--Philanthropy, or Non-Commercial Investment
Public misconceptions regarding ostensible benefactions of the wealthy are carefully fostered. Percentage given away by the wealthy never more than two per cent of income. Cultural importance of moneys distributed through legacies and gifts negligible. Downward trend of giving traceable to growth of corporations and trusts. The poor are not niggardly, factual study shows. Twenty largest foundations. Foundation grants and their distribution. Comparison of social value of Sage, Rosenwald, Carnegie and other funds. Reports of Rockefeller gifts represent confusion compounded. Analysis shows them to be greatly exaggerated. Some trustees of the Rockefeller, Carnegie, Guggenheim, and Falk Foundations. Fields in which foundation money is spent and in what proportion. The penetrating Lindeman study. Self-interest apparent in most philanthropies. Some unphilanthropic aspects of New York's two big medical centers. Social welfare a vague field. Constructive suggestions for fund allocations. Foundations found to have support of existing institutions as basic aim. The power-serving aspect of philanthropies. A means of perpetuating industrial control through trustees. Rockefeller allocations synchronized with political attacks, incidence of war profits, and rises in tax rates. Increase in foundations parallels each fresh imposition of tax restrictions on wealth. Insidious effects of foundation money on recipients before and after it is granted. Guggenheim fellowships. More obvious pseudo-philanthropies. James B. Duke. Richard Mellon. The Mellon Institute. George F. Baker. Fictitious accounts of his benefactions. Hershey and Hayden foundations. The Andrew W. Mellon Educational and Charitable Trust unmasked. The inside story of art collections "given" to the public. The Metropolitan Museum's unesthetic side. Basic indifference of the rich to art and the artists. Some miscellaneous pseudo-benefactions analyzed briefly.
X--Education for Profit and Tax Exemption
Education of the rich, by the rich, and for the rich a manifestation of class consciousness. Government the largest supporter of education in America. Twenty universities and colleges having the largest endowments, and the wealthy families that control them. Function of these schools in society. Mellon, Colgate, Drexel and other millionaire donors to education. Most heavily endowed schools the adjuncts of the big corporations. Why this is so. Occupational status of college trustees. Predominance of bankers and commercially minded trustees significant. Contrast with democratic English system at Oxford and Cambridge. Philanthropic character of privately endowed schools questionable. Cornell shows how to "give" and save taxes. Millionaires and the universities they dominate. What the trustees do with college endowments. The universities as great financial institutions. Why the rich concern themselves with higher education. What was behind the founding of technical institutes in the 1800's. The social sciences and the universities. Social thinkers penalized. Professors in politics. Nicholas Murray Butler, indefatigable defender of the status quo. The role of the university president. Professor Jerome Davis. Other professors ousted and why. What the clans of great wealth obtain from the endowed schools. The specialist versus the non-intellectual among alumni. Self-interest of donors to educational institutions. Massachusetts Institute of Technology favorite of the Du Ponts. Is George F. Baker's gift of a School of Business to Harvard a philanthropy? Partiality of rich for Eastern schools and its effect on other poorer regions. The Harkness Plan at Yale and Harvard. What other millionaires have given to these universities. The egocentric social task of these two schools. New emphasis on pecuniary motive in fields of study. Preparatory schools that feed the Eastern colleges. Their class inhibitions. The Eastern women's colleges, their small endowments and their benefactors. A prediction.
XI--Danse Macabre: Extravagance Amid Poverty
Excesses of the Mauve Decade modest compared with present extravagances. Present-day millionaires do not flaunt their riches. Upper-class periodicals reveal much. The rich a psychopathic class. What incomes accrue to the top and bottom of the social ladder in a boom year. Widener testimonial dinner. Miss Doherty's $250,000 debut. Barbara Hutton's $100,000 party. Evalyn Walsh McLean gives a New Year's Eve party. Mrs. Joseph E. Davies brings coals to Newcastle in Moscow. Average cost of social affairs. What the "patrons" of symphony orchestras and opera get in return. The excessive generosity of John B. Ryan. Christmas parties at the George F. Baker mansion. Jewels of fabulous worth and who owns them. The Romanov-Donahue gems. Emerald collectors. The bathrooms of the mighty and how they are glorified. The swimming pool, an irreplaceable adjunct to the millionaire's estate. Hetty Green's son collects stamps at $18,000. Country demesnes: Hearst's San Simeon, St. Donat's, Wyntoon; Du Ponts' Winterthur, Longwood, Nemours, Henry Clay, Chevannes, Owl's Nest, Louviers, Guyencourt, Granogue, Centerville; Vanderbilts' Biltmore, The Breakers, Marble House; the Rockefellers' Kijkuit (Pocantico), Golf House, The Casements, Villa Turicum, Geralda Farm; the Morgans' Wall Hall Castle. Estates incorporated to evade taxes. Vincent Astor's estates. Gardens worth a king's ransom and their millionaire owners. Islands the private property of many wealthy families. Yachts. Du Ponts world's largest collective owner of yachts. Other yacht owners, their yachts and their costs. Pipe organs and for whom built. Private railway cars and railroads on many estates. Horses, polo, horse shows, and their wealthy adherents. The Jockey Club. Automobiles. Fleets of them owned by each family. Airplanes, a new thrill for millionaires. Gloria Morgan Vanderbilt and other costly children Clothes, men's and women's. A composite Park Avenue family budget. What rich babies cost. E. F. Hutton's remedy for the depression. Self-justification.
XII--The "New Deal"--and After
The "New Deal's" reception by political factions of Right and Left. "New Deal" born of crisis. Why its defenders found it to their liking. The "New Deal" subject to criticism despite some progressive ingredients. Not radical nor revolutionary. Are "New Deal" motives philanthropic? Lowest 1936 wage averages paid in industries supporting Roosevelt campaigns. "New Deal" represents one camp of great wealth pitted against another: light goods and merchandising versus heavy industry and banking. Why "New Deal" policies attract labor leaders and farmers. Republicans a&id to disclose true "New Deal" aims. Forced to invent false radical issue. Nothing in Roosevelt career to presage Presidential passion for "forgotten man." Nominated by political deal. Du Ponts in recent elections. Roosevelt always backed by wealth. Revealed bias toward status quo in bank crisis. His task as he saw it. Spectacular early "New Deal" measures: suspension of the gold standard, the AAA, the NIRA and Section 7A. Public works program stimulates buying power. Measures designed to hamper banks and heavy industry. Banking Act, sought by Rockefellers, hurts Morgans. Securities Exchange Act hinders stock promoters. Wheeler-Rayburn Act. The "death sentence." Source of opposition the same in all measures. "New Deal" tax rates analyzed. Facts behind Roosevelt's tax proposals. Loopholes in gift and philanthropic provisions. Novel measures used by the rich to cut tax liability. "New Deal" unconventional only in "experiments." Value of TVA, Resettlement Administration, Social Security Act, WPA cultural projects. Progressive policies in tariff revisions, neutrality. Policies in Latin America, Russia. Repeal of Prohibition most popular accomplishment. President fails to support measures he champions: Tugwell Bill, Child Labor Amendment. Why cry of "Dictator" is raised. Rockefeller and Astor hostility. Administration assails A. W. Mellon Charitable and Educational Trust and establishes a precedent. "New Deal" labor policy foisted on it. John L. Lewis, Roosevelt, and the CIO. Administration favoritism to wealthy partisans in labor disputes. Campaign contributors in 1936 show split between heavy and light industrialists and their allies. "Economic royalists" in Democratic ranks. Democratic Convention book sales. Other money-raising devices. Avalanche of hostile Republican money offset by unprecedented labor funds thrown to Roosevelt, Defections from Roosevelt camp. Roosevelt cool toward CIO, endorses legislation favoring his backers. President's court proposal not inherently progressive. Possible course of "New Deal" program. The task before the country today briefly discussed.
The author owes a debt of gratitude for careful readings of the menu" script to Mr. Henry Hart, Mr. Joseph B. Hyman, Mr. Randolph G. Phillips, and Mr. Franklin M. Watts, and to Professor E. C. Lindeman of the New York School of Social Work for a reading and discussion of the chapter on philanthropic foundations. Material assistance was given by Mr. Hubert Park Beck, of Teachers College, Columbia University who kindly allowed the author to use a portion of material he has assembled for a forthcoming study about the identities and economic status of the trustees of the great American universities. Professor Lindeman graciously permitted the author to delve into his capacious files of primary source material about the foundations. Conversations with Mr. Max Lerner, Mr. Harvey O'Connor, Miss Anna Rochester, M. R. Caine, Dr. William J. Shultz, of the College of the City of New York, and a number of other authorities in various fields helped materially in clarifying specific problems or in bringing relevant sources to the author's attention. The completion of the work owes a good deal to the friendly encouragement of Mr. James T. Farrell and Mr. James Henle.
None of these individuals, however, is responsible for interpretation, emphasis, or the inclusion or exclusion of material, and in various details as well as in the whole of the argument they may differ with the conclusions of the author. Such textual errors as may differ with the conclusions of the author. Such textual errors as may exist must be attributed to the author alone.
The staff of the New York Public Library, and especially the staff of the economics division, was unfailingly helpful in the location of source material, and without this assistance the labor of assembling these data would have been greatly increased. Aid in research and in editing given by the author's wife makes the work in certain respects the product of a collaboration.
Although most of the books consulted for first-hand facts are set forth in the appended bibliography, special acknowledgment must be made to certain publishers that have given permission to extract quotations from their publications. The author is indebted to Covici-Friede, Inc., for permission to cite from Society Circus, by Helen Worden; to Doubleday, Doran and Company for permission to quote from The Great Game of Politics, by Frank R. Kent; to Farrar and Rinehart, Inc., for permission to quote from Capitalism and Its Culture, by Jerome Davis, and from Forty Years--Forty Millions, by George Britt; to Harcourt, Brace and Company for permission to quote from Theodore Roosevelt, by Henry Pringle, from Wealth and Culture, by E. C. Lindeman, from God's Gold, by John T. Flynn, and from Dwight Morrow, by Harold Nicolson; to Harper and Brothers for permission to quote from As I Knew Them, by Henry L. Stoddard, from They Told Barron and More They Told Barron, the notes of Clarence Walker Barron, from The Measurement of American Wealth, by Robert R. Doane, and from Rich Man, Poor Man, by Ryllis A. and Omar P. Goslin; to Henry Holt and Company for permission to quote from Roosevelt to Roosevelt, by Dwight Lowell Dumond; to International Publishers Company for permission to quote from Rulers of America, by Anna Rochester; to the Macmillan Company for permission to quote from The Rise of American Civilization, by Charles A. and Mary Beard; to William Morrow and Company, Inc., for permission to quote from Political Behavior, by Frank R. Kent; to Science Press for permission to quote from University Control, by J. McKeen Cattell; and to Charles Scribner's Sons for permission to quote from Crowded Hours, by Alice Longworth, and from The Saga of American Society, by Dixon Wecter. The bibliography contains further acknowledgment of these and other sources.
The bibliography does not name the many government documents and transcripts of government investigations which are cited in the text. Chief of these sources, however, are U. S. House Committee on Banking and Currency (The Pujo Committee) Appointed . . . to Investigate the Concentration of Control of Money and Credit (1912-13); U. S. Senate Committee on Banking and Currency, Hearings on Stock Exchange Practices (1933); New York Legislative Committee to Investigate Life Insurance Companies (1905); U. S. Senate Committee on Privileges and Elections, Hearings on Campaign Contributions (1912-13); U.S. Industrial Relations Commission (1916); U. S. Senate, Hearings on Brewing and Liquor Interests and German and Bolshevik Propaganda (1918-19); U. S. House Committee on Judiciary, Charges of Hon. Oscar E. Keller Against the Attorney General of the United States (1922); U. S. Senate, Select Committee on the Investigation of Hon. Harry M. Daugherty, Formerly Attorney General of the United States (1924); U. S. Senate, Select Committee on Investigation of the Bureau of Internal Revenue (1926); U. S. Senate, Committee on Public Lands and Surveys, Leases Upon Naval Oil Reserves (1924); Ibid., Leases Upon Naval Oil Reserves, Activities of the Continental Trading Company of Canada (1928); U. S. Senate, Committee on Judiciary, Lobbying and Lobbyists, (1921); U.S. Senate, Special Lobby Investigating Committee (1935); U. S. House, Committee on Merchant Marine, Radio and Fisheries, Merchant Marine Investigation (1932); U. S. Senate, Committee on Finance, Sale of Foreign Bonds or Securities in the U. S. (1932); U.S. House, Select Committee to inquire into operations of the U. S. Shipping Board and the U. S. Emergency Fleet Corporation (1924); U.S. Senate and House, Joint Committee on Ship Subsidies (1922); U. S. House, Special Committee to Investigate War Profiteering (The Graham Committee), (1919-21); U. S. Senate, Special Committee to Investigate Propaganda or Money Alleged to Have Been Used by Foreign Governments to Influence U. S. Senators (1928); U. S. Senate, Special Committee to Investigate the Munitions Industry (1935-37; U.S. Senate, Committee on Interstate Commerce, Investigation of Railroads, Holding Companies, etc. (1937), and reports and hearings of the Interstate Commerce Commission and the Federal Trade Commission on railroads and electric power and light and telephone companies. Specific inquiries of these bodies are named in the text.
Periodicals and newspapers most frequently consulted were The New York Times, The Literary Digest, Time, Fortune, The Nation, and The New Republic. Other periodical sources are mentioned in the text.
In general approach this work owes most, perhaps, to the works of Marx and Veblen, which alone provide the basic key to an understanding of the dynamic character of capitalist society. A more refined and specific approach to certain aspects of the pecuniary phase of contemporary society is provided by Berle and Means, The Modern Corporation and Private Property and E. C. Lindeman, Wealth and Culture. The best approach to a statistical synthesis is found in Robert R. Doane, The Measurement of American Wealth. The memoirs, biographies, and histories mentioned in the bibliography, however, provide, in conjunction with the government reports, the necessary counterpoint of empirical fact for the checking and verification of the theoretical approach.
--New York, September 20, 1937
In this work we are not concerned with the methods, legal or illegal, by which the great American fortunes of today were created. These fortunes exist. Their potentialities for good or evil are not altered whether we accept Gustavus Meyers' account of their formation or whether we give credence to the late John D. Rockefeller's simple statement: "God gave me my money."
What this book purports to do is to furnish replies, naming names and quoting book, chapter, and verse, to two blunt questions: Who owns and controls these large fortunes today, and how are these fortunes used? To answer this second question it is necessary, of course, to examine the role of great wealth in politics, industry, education, science, literature and the arts, journalism, social life and philanthropy.
The reader is warned that this work is not predicated on the premise of James W. Gerard, who in August, 1930, named fifty-nine men and women that, he said, "ran" America. In Mr. Gerard's list were many persons deemed by the author of slight importance, many of them merely secondary deputies of great wealth and some of them persons whom Mr. Gerard undoubtedly flattered by including in his select list. The factor determining the inclusion of persons in this narrative has at all times been pecuniary power, directly or indirectly manifested.
This work will consider incidentally the various arguments brought forward by the apologists of great fortunes. These arguments are to the effect that huge fortunes are necessary so that industry may be financed; that the benefactions of great wealth permit advances in science, encourage writers and artists, etc.; that the lavish expenditures of wealthy persons "give employment" to many people; and that in any case these big fortunes are dissipated within a few generations.
More and more it is becoming plain that the major political and social problem of today and of the next decade centers about the taxation of great wealth. It is hoped that this book, the first objective study of the general social role of great fortunes, will shed at least a modicum of light upon this paramount issue.
Chapter I--Golden Dynasties and Their Treasures
The United States is owned and dominated today by a hierarchy of sixty of the richest families, buttressed by no more than ninety families of lesser wealth. Outside this plutocratic circle there are perhaps three hundred and fifty other families, less defined in development and in wealth, but accounting for most of the incomes of $100,000 or more that do not accrue to members of the inner circle.
These families are the living center of the modern industrial oligarchy which dominates the United States, functioning discreetly under a de jure democratic form of government behind which a de facto government, absolutist and plutocratic in its lineaments, has gradually taken form since the Civil War. This de facto government is actually the government of the United States--informal, invisible, shadowy. It is the government of money in a dollar democracy.
Our concern is mainly with the sixty families, although from time to time members of the surrounding ninety odd will enter the narrative. Under their acquisitive fingers, and in their possession, the sixty families hold the richest nation ever fashioned in the workshop of history. The whole long procession of states, nations, and empires that strained and sweated up to the threshold of the Industrial Revolution amassed much less material wealth than the United States alone possesses. The vaunted Roman Empire, for example, could be placed in the land area west of the Mississippi, with room to spare; all Europe is, indeed, only slightly larger than is the United States. Bigness alone, however, means little; China, too, is very big. But in the economically decisive requisites of accumulated capital and equipment, technical knowledge and facilities, natural resources and man power, the United States is unique. Yet most of its people are, paradoxically, very poor; most of them own nothing beyond a few sticks of furniture and the clothes on their backs.
The outstanding American proprietors of today tower historically over the proud aristocracy that surrounded Louis XIV, Czar Nicholas, Kaiser Wilhelm, and the Emperor Franz Joseph, and wield vastly greater power. The might of Cardinal Richelieu, Metternich, Bismarck, or Disraeli was no greater than that of private citizens, undistinguished by titles, like J. P. Morgan, Andrew W. Mellon, John D. Rockefeller, Henry Ford, and the Du Ponts. It was essentially the decision of these latter and their political deputies (so far as a single decision carried weight after the initial lines were drawn) that dictated the outcome of the World War, the greatest armed conflict in all history. Napoleon could have done no more.
The war, which raised wealthy Americans to the pinnacle of world power, obliterated huge sections of Europe's master class, and set other sections adrift. In Germany and Austria-Hungary the dominant elite of wealth--landowners, bankers, and industrialists--were virtually pauperized overnight. In France and England, seriously weakened, increasingly timorous, they staggered under tax burdens, and even yet are bedeviled by grave problems upon whose tranquil solution depends their future well-being. In Russia they were simply annihilated.
Of the world's wealthy ruling classes, those of America and England alone retain the full substance, as well as the insignia and panoply, of wealth and power. Alone do they still speak confidently and act decisively for themselves, not driven to utilize bizarre intermediaries like a Hitler, a Mussolini, or a Mikado to hypnotize the multitude; they are not challenged, as in France, by powerful domestic political coalitions of the economically disfranchised. This fortunate situation is, perhaps, purely temporary; it may be undermined by the next general war.
Instead of decreasing in wealth and power during the crisis of 1929-1933 America's sixty richest families were actually strengthened in relation to the hordes of citizens reduced to beggary. And even though many people have since been lifted from extreme low economic levels by some restoration of employment, the grotesque, basic inequalities, issuing from no fundamental differences in skill or merit, remain as great as ever. Paralleling re-employment, which has reduced the aggregate of joblessness from about twenty million in 1932 to about ten million in 1937, fantastic dividend and interest payments have been automatically returned to the top income group, which at its maximum comprises no more than six thousand adults.
The United States, it is apparent even to the blind, is a nightmare of contradictions. It has not only nurtured the wealthiest class history has ever known, but it has also spawned an immense, possibly permanent, army of paupers--the unemployed. One naturally expects to find millions of impoverished in backward economies such as India, China, Japan, or czarist Russia. In the advanced economic and cultural environment of North America, with all its natural resources, the phenomenon is little short of incredible. In the light of the nation's professed ideals it is tragically absurd.
The situation, for which the people themselves are in great measure to blame, is skillfully glossed over and colored by cunning apologists in press and pulpit, school and legislative hall. These briefly triumphant marionettes are able to show, to their own and to their patrons' satisfaction, that great wealth was garnered while society was being served in oblique and mysterious fashions; that it has been so administered, by ostensibly high-minded heirs of the early economic freebooters, as to constitute a great stimulus to social progress. The outstanding example of such a social servitor is presented in John D. Rockefeller, Jr.
Although editorial writers nourish such illusions with carefree abandon, the more realistic of the magnates have seldom seen themselves in other than a predatory role, even though they have admitted this only privately. The elder J. P. Morgan delighted, it is said, jestingly to trace his ancestry back to Henry Morgan, the seventeenth-century Caribbean pirate; in token of this he named his yacht the Corsair and painted it an anarchistic black. This gave rise to the whispered legend in Wall Street that on the high seas J. P. Morgan flew the skull and crossbones and placed the American flag in a secondary position. The present J. P. Morgan has retained the name of the Corsair for his black-painted private transatlantic steam yacht, but the Wall Street myth spinners aver, with a nice feeling for distinctions, that he flies the Union Jack followed, respectively, by the Jolly Roger and the Stars and Stripes.
The name of Rockefeller has come to be associated in the public mind, thanks to the magic of sedulously controlled publicity, with the giving of money. What merit there is in this reputation we shall explore later, but at the moment we may recall that the present John D. Rockefeller, by accident of birth, is the richest man in the world. His family, too, is the richest, closely approached in wealth only by the Mitsui family of Japan and the Ford family of America.
Rockefeller's Federal tax for the normal * [See note 7, chapter II.] year of 1924 was $6,279, 669, indicating a taxable income of $15,000,000. This last represented five per cent on capital of $300,000,000, or less than one-third of the fortune conceded by Wall Street authorities to be under his control. The Rockefellers, however, have vast sums concentrated in tax-exempt securities, notably in New York State and City bonds, and systematically obtain tax reductions by a policy of non-commercial investment, i.e., "philanthropy." On the basis of capital of about $1,000,000,000 under his ownership (exclusive of "philanthropic" funds under his control, which retain for him a large measure of influence in corporate, philanthropic, and educational affairs), the personal income of Mr. Rockefeller in 1974 may have been $30,000,000 to $50,000,000.
The annual revenue of the late Czar of Russia varied from only $10,000,000 to $12,000,000, little of which he could utilize at his discretion owing to the convention that he support his many relatives and maintain in traditional splendor his collection of palaces.(1) And, like Mr. Rockefeller, he was a conspicuous and publicly heralded "philanthropist."
The estate of Queen Victoria of England, much of it London slum real estate, was valued at 9,000,000 (about $45,000,000), and some or most of this now belongs to the King, producing an income of about $2,225,000 provided the original capital has not been increased by compounding of earnings.(2) From the Duchy of Lancaster the King annually receives 85,000 ($425,000) and from the Civil List, authorized by Parliament from the public revenues, about 370,000 ($1,850,000).(3) At most the income of the King is $4,500,000, and a portion of what he receives from the Civil List is earmarked in advance for royal charities. The public treasury, in brief, supplies him with the means with which to bestow alms. But his is no more peculiar than the position of Mr. Rockefeller, who is able to pose as an altruist and benefactor of mankind because the law permits him to exploit for personal profit the nation's petroleum resources and forces of production.
Europe's wealthiest aristocrat until the World War was the Archduke Frederick of Austria, whose estate before 1914 was valued as high as $750,000,000. But no Europeans or Asiatics have ever been so wealthy as the Rockefeller, Ford, Harkness, Vanderbilt, Mellon, and Du Pont families of America.
Whenever a figure like the elder Rockefeller dies newspaper writers compare his wealth with that of certain Indian princes, said to be fabulously rich. In contrast with the American millionaires the Indian princes, however, are mere paupers. Their wealth is frozen in jewels and land, and cannot be readily liquidated or transferred into other vehicles; moreover, their society does not utilize on a large scale the wealth-producing technology of the West. But the securities of the American millionaires can be exchanged in a flash for any currency in the world, for land, for other stocks and bonds. The wealth of the Indian princes is immobile, static; the wealth of their American counterparts is mobile, dynamic In the money markets of the world the feudal wealth of the Indian princes is of no consequence.
The uprush of the American fortunes, led by the monolithic Rockefeller accumulation, emphasizes that although the United States was once a great political democracy it has not remained one. Citizens may still be equals at the polls, where little is decided; but they are not equals at the bank tellers' wickets, where much is decided. The United States has produced, in the Standard Oil Company, the Aluminum Company of America, E. I. du Pont de Nemours and Company, the Ford Motor Company, and other industrial enterprises, what are essentially feudal, dictatorially ruled, dynastic fiefs that make the old crown properties of Romanovs, Hohenzollerns, Hapsburgs, and Hanovers seem, by comparison, like will-o'-the-wisps, insecure and insubstantial.
Concentration of industrial and financial control in the capacious hands of the wealthy--by means of majority ownership, legal device, and diffusion of fractional and disfranchised ownership among thousands of impotent stockholders, bondholders, insurance policyholders, and bank depositors--has been given close, authoritative study from various approaches.(4) But concentration of control has also come about by more simple and obvious processes that have been largely ignored, perhaps because of the absence of technical intricacies to challenge the research specialist, perhaps because the very lack of historical novelty in the processes has allowed them to pass by virtually unnoticed.
Without minimizing the significance of control by the dominant clique through corporate devices, it is nevertheless true that corporations are merely the instruments or tools of control behind which the living masters hide in discreet anonymity. The corporations do not represent the locus of control, nor do they, even when viewed synoptically as in the valuable Rochester and Laidler studies, reveal the full extent of control and concentration by a small group working through partnerships.
The control points of private wealth in industrial capitalistic society, as in feudal society, remain the partnership, the family, and the family alliance. It is the family that, in almost all cases, guides the banks and the banking partnerships which, as Anna Rochester shows, control the corporations.
The family today, in no slighter degree than two or three centuries ago or in imperial Rome, is supreme in the governance of wealth--amassing it, standing watch over it, and keeping it intact from generation to generation. Because it is (unlike that relatively new device, the corporation) a private entity which in the strictest legality may resist public scrutiny, the family lends itself admirably to alliances of a formal character and serves as an instrument for confidential financial transactions. By definition the family is a sacrosanct institution, and no agency of government may pry into it without offending inculcated prejudice. The partnership, it is true, offers some refuge, and is certainly more of a private affair than is the corporation; but it, too, is now quite open to political inquiry. The family alone provides a safe retreat from democratic processes, not outside the law, but, for practical financial purposes, above the law.
For many decades American families of great wealth have been immeasurably and steadily reinforced by scores of marriages among their members. The joint fortunes have been passed on to children who themselves paired off with the progeny of other wealthy unions. There has also been much marriage between European and American ruling class families, but this has been less meaningful socially, politically, and economically than the unions of American millionaires with each other, for the Europeans, mostly impoverished noblemen, have only in a few cases brought an increase in fortune to their American partners. The chief assets of the Europeans have been hereditary titles, leisure-class manners, perhaps a shabby estate or two, and passports into the world of snobbery. American dollars have served very concretely, however, to re-establish, via marriage, hundreds of decadent European estates, an ironic contribution of American democracy to the peoples of Europe; Gustavus Myers estimated in 1907 that five hundred such marriages had taken place. By now the aggregate is easily six or eight times as great.
Marriages between wealthy Americans have, by all odds, been the more significant. Any tendency toward dispersal of great wealth that might be expected from its supposed distribution among numerous offspring of unions between rich and poor has been more than offset by the actual marriage of wealth with wealth. The wealthiest Americans, with few exceptions, are already joined by a multiplicity of family ties, just as they are joined by interlocking directorates and mutual participations in economic and social undertakings. The "community of interest" of the rich to which the elder J. P. Morgan made profound public obeisance has become, to a startling degree, a joint family interest.
The continuation of intermarriage among millionaire families will, other factors remaining unchanged, in a generation or two give rise to a situation wherein all the big American proprietors will be blood relatives--first, second, or third cousins. Already there are many persons with the blood of the Rockefellers, Stillmans, and Vanderbilts, and of the Harknesses, Whitneys, Paynes, and Stillmans. There are others with the blue blood of Europe blended in their veins with the blood of John D. Rockefeller, Sr., of John Jacob Astor I, of Cornelius Vanderbilt I, of Marshall Field, of E. H. Manville, and of many more of their class.
The Rockefellers have contracted numerous marriages of financial import. Mrs. John D. Rockefeller, Jr., is the daughter of the late Senator Nelson W. Aldrich, wealthy Rhode Island merchant and public utilities lord. Winthrop W. Aldrich, her brother, is thus the brother-in-law of Rockefeller. That such an alliance has economic and financial signification is attested by the strategic presence of Aldrich as chairman of the Rockefeller-controlled Chase National Bank, largest banking institution in the country. The grandfathers of the junior Rockefeller's children are the deceased senior Rockefeller and the late Senator Aldrich, who in his day was successively the legislative "whip" of first the Morgan, and then the Rockefeller, factions in the United States Senate. Isabel G. Stillman, daughter of James Stillman, became Mrs. Percy A. Rockefeller and S. Elsie Stillman became Mrs. William G. Rockefeller. Thus was biologically cemented the financial alliance that existed between William Rockefeller, brother of John D., and the ruler of the National City Bank of New York. Geraldine Stillman Rockefeller became Mrs. Marcellus Hartley Dodge, linking the Rockefellers and Stillmans by marriage to the $50,000,000 fortune garnered by the Remington Arms Company in the Civil War and by the Phelps Dodge Corporation in later years. J. Stillman Rockefeller, son of William G. Rockefeller and grandnephew of John D. Rockefeller, married Nancy C. S. Carnegie, grandniece of Andrew Carnegie; in 1930 a son born of this union was named Andrew Carnegie Rockefeller.
Edith Rockefeller, sister of Rockefeller, Jr., married Harold F. McCormick, heir to an International Harvester Company fortune. Their son, Fowler, a grandson of Rockefeller, Sr., and Cyrus H. McCormick, inventor of the reaper, more recently married Fifi Stillman, divorced wife of James A. Stillman and mother of Mrs. Henry P. Davison, Jr., the wife of a current Morgan partner. Nelson A. Rockefeller, son of Rockefeller, Jr., married a daughter of G. B. Roberts, former president of the Pennsylvania Railroad. Emma, daughter of William G. Rockefeller and Elsie Stillman Rockefeller, married David Hunter McAlpin. Their son, William Rockefeller McAlpin, more recently married Marion Angell, daughter of the president emeritus of Yale University.
These are only a few examples of the interlocking of the Rockefellers with families of wealth; some Rockefeller marriages, to be sure, have taken place outside of the pecuniary circle. The rich families with which the Rockefellers have interlocked in turn have been interlocked by marriages with other wealthy families, so that one can trace an almost unbroken line of biological relationships from the Rockefellers through one-half of the wealthiest sixty families of the nation. Mary E. Stillman, for example, became Mrs. Edward S. Harkness (Standard Oil). Anne Stillman is, as we have observed, Mrs. Henry P. Davison, Jr. The Stillmans also married into the Pratt (Standard Oil) family.
The powerful Whitneys, partners with the Rockefellers, the Harknesses, and the Pratts in the original Standard Oil Trust, likewise fused their wealth with wealth by marriage. William C. Whitney, lieutenant of the elder Rockefeller, married Flora Payne, heiress to the fortune of another Rockefeller partner. The Harknesses and Flaglers (Standard Oil) were likewise joined by marriage, and the reigning head of this Standard Oil line is Harry Harkness Flagler.
An examination of Vanderbilt marriages discloses the same drift. A Vanderbilt married Virginia Fair, daughter of Senator James Fair of California, thus bringing the Fair accumulation, based upon the fabulous Ophir silver mine, into the Vanderbilt orbit. James Watson Webb, descendant of Commodore Cornelius Vanderbilt, married Electra Havemeyer (American Sugar Refining Company), who is now Electra H. Webb and reputed one of the wealthiest women in America. A daughter of Cornelius Vanderbilt II became Mrs. Harry Payne Whitney, wife of a Standard Oil princeling, and a daughter of William Henry Vanderbilt married Hamilton McKay Twombly; upon her husband's death she too, became one of America's wealthiest women.
These dynastic alliances are so numerous, and intertwine at so many points with one another, that to survey them all would turn this into a genealogical study. Among various of the many dynastic marriages that have consolidated the winnings of the original robber barons of America we may briefly note, however, those that brought Mary L. Duke, heiress to the tobacco fortune, into the Biddle family, as Mrs. Anthony Drexel Biddle, while her brother married Biddle's sister; Lillie Harriman into the Havemeyer family and Cornelia Harriman into the Gerry family; Marjorie G. Gould into the Drexel family; a granddaughter of George F. Baker into the Schiff family; a Deering (International Harvester Company) into the McCormick family (International Harvester); Ruth Hanna (coal, iron, and steel) into the McCormick family; Doris Duke into the Stotesbury circle by marriage to James H. R. Cromwell, former husband of Delphine Dodge (automobiles) and son of Mrs. E. T. Stotesbury, wife of the senior Morgan partner in Philadelphia; Margaret Mellon into the Laughlin (steel) family; Marjorie Post (Possum) and Edna Woolworth (s-and-lo cent stores) into the Hutton family, and so on.
The marriage of wealth with wealth has gone a good deal farther even than these citations indicate. Selecting at random from the past fifteen years we find that Gilbert W. Kahn, son of Otto H. Kahn, married a daughter of George Whelan, head of the United Cigar Stores; Mrs. Edith Stuyvesant Vanderbilt, widow of George W. Vanderbilt, married the wealthy Peter Goelet Gerry, of Rhode Island, himself the offspring of two big fortunes; Mrs. Rachel Littleton Vanderbilt, half sister of Martin W. Littleton, corporation attorney, and divorced wife of Cornelius Vanderbilt, Jr., married Jasper Morgan, nephew of J. P. Morgan; Margaret D. Kahn, daughter of Otto Kahn, married John Barry Ryan, Jr., grandson of Thomas Fortune Ryan; Margaret Carnegie Perkins, grandniece of Andrew Carnegie, married John Speer Laughlin, of the Jones and Laughlin steel dynasty; Esther du Pont, daughter of Lammot du Pont, married Campbell Weir (steel); W. A. Harriman, son of E. H. Harriman, married Marie Norton Whitney, divorced wife of Cornelius Vanderbilt Whitney, who is the son of Harry Payne Whitney.
In only a few cases do great fortunes appear to have been reared initially upon a dynastic basis. One such general accumulation is centered about the banking house of Kuhn, Loeb and Company, founded in the middle of the nineteenth century as a mercantile organization by Abraham Kuhn and Solomon Loeb. Jacob H. Schiff came from Germany, married Teresa, Loeb's daughter, and induced the partners to set up in Wall Street as a private bank. Paul M. Warburg, of a Hamburg German-Jewish banking house, also came to this country, became a partner, and married Nina J. Loeb. Felix M. Warburg, his brother, married Frieda Schiff, and the dissimilar strains of the original partners were mingled through the Warburgs, whose spokesman today is the politically aggressive James P. Warburg, son of Paul M. Warburg and Nina J. Loeb, and cousin of the surviving Schiffs. Otto H. Kahn, a partner, married Addie Wolff, daughter of another early partner.
In later years the Warburg-Kuhn-Loeb-Schiff-Kahn dynasty has been linked in marriage, as we have noted, to the huge George F. Baker and Thomas Fortune Ryan accumulations, which are in turn linked by marriage to other notable fortunes.
Except for the early Standard Oil intermarriages, there has thus far been little intermarriage among the principal heirs of the largest fortunes, and in only a few cases do marriages of convenience appear to have taken place. A sound psychological reason for the marriage of wealth with wealth is simply that the rich are suspicious when it comes to contracting marriage, of the motives of those who are not rich. They are afraid of fortune-hunters, and properly so, for there have been many cases in which outsiders have obtained legal claims to the family funds through marriage and have grossly abused their rights.
Propinquity has also led to the marriage of wealthy couples, for few persons of wealth maintain social relationships with the nonwealthy. But, whatever the reason, the great fortunes are inter-linked by marriage, no less than by common property holdings, so that it is quite arbitrary in many cases to speak of a person as representing a single fortune.
President Franklin D. Roosevelt, stung by the diatribes of newspapers owned or controlled by men of wealth, irately referred in 1936 to these men, in a figurative sense, as "economic royalists." But it is in a strictly literal sense that hundreds of the offspring of the wealthy families are members of nobility or royalty. Few are the very wealthy families of America that have not at least one representative in the Almanach de Gotha or Burke's Peerage. Thus Anita Stewart, sister of William Rhinelander Stewart, is the Princess de Braganza, consort of the late pretender to the throne of Portugal. The daughter of Bessie Rockefeller married the Marques George de Cuevas; the Cuevas children, great-grandchildren of the elder Rockefeller, are Spanish grandees in their own right.
William Waldorf Astor voluntarily expatriated himself (although retaining his American property holdings) and was transmuted by the sorcery of money into an English Lord. He was succeeded by the present William Waldorf, Viscount Astor of Hever Castle, who has four sons and one daughter who, although born British nobles, are descendants of the miserly John Jacob Astor I, flute importer, real estate speculator, and fur dealer. The Astors have climbed high socially in England; they have even entered the fringes of the royal family, for Rachel Spender-Clay, granddaughter of the first Lord Astor, in 1929 married the Hon. David Bowes-Lyon, brother of Elizabeth, the present Queen of England.
The sister of Vincent Astor became the Princess Serge Obolensky. Anna Gould married successively Count Boni de Castellane and the Duke de Talleyrand. Millicent Rogers (Standard Oil) was first the Countess von Salm and then became the wife of a wealthy Argentinian. The daughter of Levi Z. Leiter, Chicago partner of Marshall Field I, married Lord Curzon, later Viceroy of India. Clara Huntington, adopted daughter of Collis P. Huntington, railroad baron, became the Princess Hatzfeldt-Wildenburg. Barbara Hutton (Woolworth), after divorcing Prince Serge Mdivani, became the Countess Haugwitz-Reventlow. Ethel Field, daughter of Marshall Field I, became Lady Beatty, consort of Admiral of the Fleet Earl Beatty and mother of the present peer.
Vivien Gould married Lord Decies. Gladys Vanderbilt married Count Laszlo Szechenyi. The Szechenyi union brought forth five children, of Vanderbilt and noble Magyar lineage. Consuelo Vanderbilt became the Duchess of Marlborough; although this union was dissolved, it produced two children, the present Duke of Marlborough and Lord Ivor Spencer Churchill. Estelle Manville, daughter of Hiram E. Manville (asbestos), married Count Folke Bernadotte, nephew of the King of Sweden; their child is the Count of Visborg. The Honorable Dorothy Paget, whose mother was a daughter of William C. Whitney (Standard Oil), is a first cousin of "Jock" and "Sonny" Whitney. Her father, Almeric Hugh Paget, is Lord Queens" borough.
European nobles of American lineage probably enjoy more opulent incomes than their peers who lack American forebears and dowries. It is one of the many ironies of the situation that the United States should be pumping forth dividends and rents to support persons in stations so alien to the American concept of social status. It is no less ironical that the children of these transatlantic unions, permanently in residence abroad, draw from American enterprises immense revenues the like of which the average American of this and succeeding generations--no matter how intelligent, crafty, dishonest, or creative--may never reasonably expect to attain. Not only does American labor produce revenue for the support of the ornate estates of America, but it also supports many remote castles in Europe.
The Fords, the Mellons, and the Du Ponts have been less conspicuous than these others in their marriages although Andrew Mellon, like many another American magnate, married and had his children by a wealthy English woman. Perhaps the most meaningful of transatlantic marriages, after all, have been these between wealthy British commoners and Americans, which join the purely moneyed classes of the two nations by sentimental ties as the House of Morgan and international trade join them by financial and economic ties. The McCormicks, Astors, Fields, and others have contracted such unions with British commoners; they are too numerous to detail here.
The Du Ponts have married among themselves when they have not entered wedlock with obscure persons; the Ford family has not yet been sufficiently long established in the possession of wealth to contract marriages of economic coloring. Marriages of first cousins among the Du Ponts became so frequent, indeed, according to a recent biographer, that the head of this essentially feudal dynasty forbade further inbreeding. The marriage in 1937 of Ethel du Pont, daughter of Eugene du Pont, to Franklin D. Roosevelt, Jr., son of the President, himself heir to an old colonial land fortune now of modest size, constituted the first Du Pont union with one of the foremost old-line aristocratic families of America.
The designation Du Ponts refers to a single family of several hundred contemporaries, about a dozen of whom receive extraordinarily large revenues from the General Motors Corporation, the United States Rubber Company, and from E. I. du Pont de Nemours and Company. As a family the Du Ponts rank seventh in size of taxable income in the United States, according to the 1924 norm, although few individual Du Ponts of the main line of descent appear to draw much more than $1,000,000 taxable income annually. What they may draw from tax-exempt sources is, of course, unknown. The Du Ponts have been infinitely resourceful in keeping down their tax bills by legalistic legerdemain.
The Social Register (1934), for example, lists 73 adult Du Ponts, in contrast with only 53 Goulds, 31 Mellons, 29 Hannas, 28 Harrimans, 27 Rockefellers, 22 Winthrops, 21 Vanderbilts, 18 Drexels, 16 Harknesses, 7 Archbolds, and so on.
In the Du Pont clan are Mr. and Mrs. Eugene du Pont II, Mr. and Mrs. Eugene du Pont III, Mr. and Mrs. Lammot du Pont, Mr. and Mrs. Irenee du Pont, Mr. and Mrs. A. Felix du Pont, Mr. and Mrs. Richard du Pont, Mr. and Mrs. Victor du Pont, Mr. and Mrs. Victor du Pont, Jr.; there are also Mr. and Mrs. Henry Belin du Pont, Mr. and Mrs. E. Paul du Pont, Mr. and Mrs. Archibald du Pont, Mrs. William Laird, sister of Pierre, and her two daughters, Mrs. Ellason Downs and Mrs. Robert N. Downs, Mr. and Mrs. Philip Francis du Pont, Mrs. Porter Schutt (the former Phyllis du Pont), Mr. and Mrs. Lammot Copeland, Mr. and Mrs. Eugene E. du Pont, Mr. and Mrs. William du Pont, Irenee du Pont, Jr., Mrs. Ellen du Pont Meeds, Mrs. Henderson Weir, etc.; and there are the Misses Lydia, Ruth Ellen, Pauline Louise, Octavia, Alexandrine, Lucile Evelina, Murton, and Nancy du Pont. This is only a very partial list.
All these dynasties, to be sure, include many members that do not bear the family name. Selecting one at random, neither the largest nor the smallest, we find that it comprises 140 members in all its branches. This is the Pratt (Standard Oil) family of Brooklyn. Among the many Pratts are Mr. and Mrs. Frederic Bayley Pratt, Mrs. Charles M. Pratt, Mr. and Mrs. Harold Irving Pratt, Jr., former Congresswoman Ruth Baker Pratt, Mr. and Mrs. John T. Pratt, Mr. and Mrs. Samuel Croft Register II, Mr. and Mrs. Richardson Pratt, Mr. and Mrs. Theodore Pratt, Mrs. George Dupont Pratt, Mr. and Mrs. George D. Pratt, Jr., Mr. and Mrs. James Ramsey Hunt, Mr. and Mrs. Richard Stockton Emmett, Mrs. Pratt McLane, Mr. and Mrs. David R. Wilmerding, Mr. and Mrs. Herbert L. Pratt, Jr., Mr. and Mrs. Charles Pratt, Sherman Pratt, Mr. and Mrs. Elliott Pratt, Mr. and Mrs. James Jackson, Jr., Mr. and Mrs. Robert H. Thayer, Mr. and Mrs. Edwin H. B. Pratt, and about thirty children.
In the J. P. Morgan family are Mrs. Paul Pennoyer, nee Frances Morgan; Miss Virginia Morgan Pennoyer; Mrs. George Nichols, nee Jane Morgan; Miss Jane N. Nichols, and eleven young grandchildren. The father of the present J. P. Morgan, who died in 1913, has sixteen living grandchildren.
Marriage has in some cases, naturally, shielded family wealth behind commonplace names. Thus we find in addition to Electra H. Webb, a woman who, under the undistinguished name of H. S. Wilks, paid a 1924 tax on income of more than $500,000. She is Mrs. Matthew Astor Wilks, daughter of the fabulous Hetty Green, and married into a subsidiary branch of the Astor family. Ella Wendel, who died in 1931 possessed of $75,000,000 worth of New York real estate, was also related to the Astors, for the stepmother of the original John Jacob Astor bore six children by his father, and one child, Elizabeth Astor, in 1799 married John Wendel, founder of a line that made its fortune quietly sitting on real estate and allowing the tenants and community growth to enhance its value in accord with the traditional Astor policy.
Ailsa Mellon married David K. E. Bruce, son of former Senator William Cabell Bruce of Maryland. The former Caroline S. Astor became Mrs. M. Orme Wilson. Jessie Woolworth became Mrs. James P. Donahue, and Helena Woolworth acquired the name McCann through marriage to a nephew of Richard Croker, Tammany boss. Certain Woolworth heirs of the youngest generation are, therefore, named Donahue and McCann; others bear the names of Betts and Guest. Josephine Hartford, granddaughter of the founder of the Great Atlantic and Pacific Tea Company, was first Mrs. Oliver O'Donnell and then Mrs. Vadim Markaroff. Some women of the Rockefeller, Morgan, Vanderbilt, Harkness, and other clans have also assumed unpublicized names by marriage.
To be sure, not all members of the wealthy families contract marriages within the pecuniary circle, but when any member steps outside the bounds to select a mate the uproar the newspapers create suffices to indicate the unusualness of the event. James A. ("Bud") Stillman, Jr., married a daughter of his mother's cook; Leonard Kip Rhinelander married the daughter of a Negro taxicab driver; Ellin Mackay married Irving Berlin, the Broadway song writer; Mathilde McCormick married a Swiss riding master. In every such case so extraordinary did newspaper editors consider it that a sentimental attachment could transcend monetary considerations, that they behaved like maniacs in exploiting the "stories."
Very many men of diverse names who hold leading positions in American industry are, unknown to the multitude, connected by marriage with the large fortunes. Thus James A. Farrell, for many years president of the United States Steel Corporation, was married to a daughter of the late Anthony N. Brady, public utilities magnate. Another Brady daughter married Francis P. Garvan, a Tammany Assistant District Attorney who soon after his marriage became President Wilson's Assistant Attorney General and Alien Property Custodian. In the latter position he supervised the transfer of German chemical patents from confiscated companies to the Chemical Foundation for less than $300,000; Garvan is still head of the Chemical Foundation as well as dean of the law school at Fordham University. Walter C. Teagle, president of the Standard Oil Company of New Jersey, is a grandson of John D. Rockefeller's first business partner, Morris B. Clark.
Most of the desirable jobs throughout the biggest corporations and banks, indeed, are filled to an astonishing extent by men who are either collateral descendants of the wealthy families, married to direct or collateral descendants, or connected by blood relationship with persons directly or indirectly related. This situation, very often resembling flagrant nepotism, notoriously in the insurance companies, appears likely to assume increasing social significance as it becomes more and more impossible for aggressive persons without family connections to achieve promotion and enlarge their functional capacities. The Rockefeller sons, nephews, and cousins, for example, are strewn throughout the Rockefeller enterprises in positions which they could never have hoped to attain so easily, whatever their abilities, without family sponsorship.
The families themselves see nothing extraordinary, in this trend. Henry Ford, in talking to newspaper reporters upon the elevation of his only son, Edsel, to the presidency of the Ford Motor Company, naively exclaimed that he thought the "real story " lay in the fact that a youngster just out of his teens should show such ability that he was placed in charge of a billion-dollar enterprise! Morgan partnerships, once open to any man of the requisite abilities, are now often reserved for the sons of partners. Two sons of J. P. Morgan are partners; one son of Thomas W. Lamont is a partner; a son of Henry P. Davison, a former partner, has been made a partner, and F. Trubee Davison, another son, has been placed in charge of the American Museum of Natural History after having been Assistant Secretary of War under President Hoover.
Rarely are the families rebuffed as was Mrs. Moses Taylor, a large hereditary, stockholder of the National City Bank, by Charles E. Mitchell, president of the bank, in 1929. Riding high on the crest of the boom, Mitchell grandly refused to place a Taylor nephew in the bank and thundered that the bank was carrying its full quota of Taylors and Pynes. Mrs. Taylor left in a rage and dumped her bank stock on the market just before the crash. The incident is reported to have saved her millions of dollars and to have embarrassed the bank in the market manipulation of its own stock preliminary to the proposed acquisition of the Corn Exchange Bank.
Scratch any big corporation executive and the chances are even that one will find an in-law of the wealthiest families. There is, of course, an immediate, practical reason for placing members of the family, and distant relatives, too, upon the pay rolls of enterprises in which other people have invested. The reason is that the jobs keep these individuals from making claims upon their wealthier relatives and from engaging in activities that bring contumely or embarrassment upon the vested repute of the family.
Although a few of the present owners of big fortunes are the architects of these fortunes, in most cases the present generation in possession of immense resources has simply inherited. This fact is emphasized and underscored, so that the most unperceptive may see it, by the number of women regnant over stupendous incomes, although they have never engaged in finance, industry, or commerce, have never invented anything, have never played any role whatever in production. They are social pensioners who by no stretch of imagination could be said to have given society any commensurate return for the preposterous incomes which they find it impossible to expend rationally.
In 1936 the following nineteen American women, some of tender years, were all in absolute possession of fortunes of $25,000,000 or more that gave a return of more than $1,000,000 annually: Mary Katherine Reynolds (tobacco), Doris Duke Cromwell (tobacco), Mary Duke Biddle (tobacco and banking), Mrs. Joseph E. Davies (Possum), Helena Woolworth McCann and Jessie Woolworth Donahue (5-and-10 cent stores), Countess Barbara Hutton Mdivani Haugwitz-Reventlow (5-and-10 cent stores), Mrs. H. S. Wilks (stocks and realty), Mrs. Payne Whitney (petroleum), Mrs. Charles Shipman Payson, nee Joan Whitney (petroleum), Gertrude Vanderbilt Whitney (petroleum and railroads), Mrs. Moses Taylor (National City Bank), Mrs. Andrew Carnegie (steel), Mrs. Margaret C. Miller, nee Louise Carnegie (steel), Mrs. Alexander Hamilton Rice,* [Died, 1937.] nee Eleanor Elkins and later married to a Widener (tobacco, utilities), Mrs. Horace E. Dodge (automobiles), Mrs. Matilda Wilson (automobiles), Isabel Dodge Sloan (automobiles), and Mrs. John T. Dorrance (Campbell Soup).(5) The gigantic fortune of Mrs. H. S. Wilks, consisting originally of half the holdings of Hetty Green and all those of the late Matthew Astor Wilks, was increased by $28,000,000 to nearly $75,000,000 in 1936, when she was named the sole beneficiary in the will of her brother, E. H. R. Green, who left his wife a relatively small income. The income-tax returns for 1924* [*See note 7, chapter II.] portray scores of other women, and even infants, in receipt of Gargantuan revenues, although in some cases possession of fortunes was not absolute; family income was distributed in many instances so as to reduce the whole tax liability. But the cases where possession was absolute, numbering in all several hundred, prove beyond question (what was always known to the sophisticated) that accumulated wealth is not a reward for any tangible contribution to society made by the possessor. Many of these women inherited from husbands and fathers who also had never, even by casuistic interpretation, made any more than a dubiously ornamental contribution to society.
A valuable study showing that American fortunes have arrived at a period of stability and that their owners are largely born to the purple like so many lords, dukes, and earls was completed in 1925 by Professor Pitrim Sorokin of Harvard University.(6) Most American millionaires now living were sired by merchants, manufacturers, bankers, financiers, businessmen, or inactive capitalists, Sorokin found. These latecomers did not, in other words, buffet their way out of a fairly matched individualistic rough-and-tumble bearing their newly gained riches.
Sorokin discovered that "the percentage of living millionaires whose fathers followed 'money-making' occupations is much higher than that of the deceased group. This fact, taken together with some further data, gives a basis to state that the wealthy class of the United States is becoming less and less open, more and more closed, and is tending to be transformed into a castelike group."
Among millionaires of the last generation Sorokin discovered that 38.8 per cent had started poor whereas among living millionaires only 19.6 per cent started life in humble circumstances. Of the older generation 29.7 per cent began life as millionaires whereas of the present generation no less than 52.7 per cent were independently wealthy upon attaining their majorities and 31.5 per cent sprouted from comfortably prosperous surroundings.
The present marked tendency toward intrafamily transmission of occupation and status among the rich means, according to this conservative authority, that class differentiation is becoming more and more hereditary in the United States. "American society is being transformed--at least in its upper stratum--into a society with rigid classes and well-outlined class divisions," he says.
If this is true of the upper class it can be no less true of the lower classes, who may not hope to attain, through individual effort, what others now possess and retain with a deathlike grip. Modern capitalism has become, like feudalism before it, a family affair.
Chapter II--The Sixty Families
As families have grown and intertwined, as incomes have been apportioned among many dynastic heirs, the tremendous revenues accruing to the family entities have eluded proper notice. It has been assumed that the relative profusion of large individual incomes betokens a rather wide dispersal of great wealth, at least throughout the upper class. This is not the case, however, as is disclosed both when fortunes are analyzed from a family standpoint and when a count is made of the numerous nonwealthy, relics of a more prosperous day, that clutter the Social Register.
Although the Rockefeller and Ford fortunes exceed $1,000,000,000 each, there are several families whose accumulations closely approach these in magnitude. And the Rockefeller fortune is only one large segment of the vast Standard Oil Trust, representing no more than one quarter of the original joint participation. Other great Standard Oil fortunes, to mention only the inner conclave, are those of the Harknesses, Whitneys, Paynes, Flaglers, Rogers, Bedfords, and Pratts. In the outer conclave are the Pierces, Archbolds, Folgers, Chesebroughs, and Cutlers. The Jennings, the Benjamins, and some other families are also part of the Standard Oil alliance.
One may deduce the taxable net incomes from the 1924 tax returns, and the entire accumulation represented by such incomes at five per cent, but in so doing it must be remembered that the large fortunes have unknown reserve funds in tax-exempt securities and utilize legal loopholes, such as family corporations, to escape their full tax assessments. Estimates and appraisals from authoritative corollary sources, which will be cites, show that one can achieve a general approximation by multiplying by three the size of the fortunes and income indicated by the tax returns, providing for legal deductions up to fifteen per cent of income for noncommercial investments, for paper losses, for tax-exempt income, and for some of the deductions based upon miscellaneous technicalities.
The table (pages 26 -27), assembled on the above basis (working back to income from the rate of tax indicated by each individual payment) and checked against official appraisals and declarations, some of which are cited later, sets forth the number of members of each of the sixty richest families that in 1924 paid Federal income taxes, under the family name, on the aggregate amount of taxable income shown (persons not using the family name are arbitrarily omitted or classified with the family whose name they use; there are a few omissions which will be mentioned). The reader should take special note of the names in the accompanying tabulation and should observe their recurrence throughout the narrative. These are the principal subjects of our inquiry. These, with few exceptions, constitute the living core of American capitalism.
The tax figures in the following were taken from The New York Times, September 1 to 15, 1925. Each individual income was first ascertained from each individual tax before it was added into the family group. As all these families have diversified holdings, the indicated source of income refers only to the primary source. Where evidence could not be found that large 1924 incomes recurred annually the families were excluded. Nonrecurring income is most frequently obtained from realized capital gains, i. e., profits from properties sold.
Certain omissions are due to the fact that some fortunes are entirely concentrated in tax-exempt securities and portions of others are so invested. The late Senator James G. Couzens of Michigan, one of the original Ford investors, who died in 1936 leaving an estate officially appraised at more than $30,000,000, is not included in the tabulation because his holdings were almost entirely of government securities and he regularly paid only a very small income tax. Henry L. Doherty, the public utilities operator, paid no tax for 1924, nor did J. Ogden Armour, Louis F. Swift, John R. Thompson, Jr., and some others.
The composition of the investment portfolios of the families would, of course, determine the precise amount of the fortune traceable through the tax returns. Two persons with identical incomes, one derived from a fortune concentrated fifty per cent in tax-exempt securities and another from a fortune invested to the extent of twenty-five per cent in tax-exempt securities, would pay different Federal taxes. It is manifestly impossible to delve into the composition of investments, but where prominent families appear toward the end of the list, families like the Goulds, Hills, and Drexels, whose claims to great wealth are well known--it is probable that large proportions of their invisible holdings are in tax-exempt securities. They may also be held in family corporations, of which there are many reporting under neutral names.
Another difficulty that interposes in attempting to spread a statistical panorama of the great fortunes is that rates of profit from investments vary. Investments bring in from three per cent to several hundred per cent, although high percentages of the latter variety are only occasional. Du Pont profits during the war were several hundred per cent; some of R. Stanley Dollar's shipping investments after the war, based upon fat politically-invoked government subsidies, yielded a return of several thousand per cent. It should be remembered, of course, that in dealing with the fortunes we are concerned with entities that are in flux, that are subject to constantly changing valuations.
The inability to produce precise figures on fortunes, rather than approximations, results, then, from no fault in plan or method, but rather from the extreme secrecy with which statistics on fortunes are guarded and from the very nature of fortunes. In individual instances the multiplication by three of the net fortune upon whose income a tax was paid may result in some distortion, but this appears to be the only way in which to obtain a general approximation; and as the method gives generally accurate results, the picture as a whole is not overdrawn. Rather is it very conservative. The absence of detailed figures about these accumulations, in an age which literally flaunts a chaos of statistics about subjects of little general interest, is clearly the fault of a government that at most times has been peculiarly sensitive to the wishes of millionaires.
Apart from the omissions of revenues from tax-exempt securities, there are other omissions from the tabulation--some purposeful, because, although the individual incomes were large, they did not compare at all with the vast family concentrations or with the biggest individual payments. In certain cases, on the other hand, it was impossible to allocate income to any single family. For example, income of the Hutton-Post-Woolworth-McCann-Donahue group, emanating from three distinct fortunes, could not be attributed to any single family, and the individual segments of each of these fortunes were not large enough to be included with our biggest families. The Hutton-Post-Woolworth-McCann-Donahue combination belongs, however, among our sixty leading families. Seven persons in this group (and this does not by any means include all) paid taxes on a gross indicated fortune of $165,600,000.
Family and No. of Approximate Net Gross Adj.
Returns and Aggregate Net Aggre- Aggregate Fortune after Maximum
Primary Source of 1924 gate Income Fortune Multiplied Estimated
Wealth Tax Taxed Taxed by 3 Fortune
1. 21 Rockefellers
Standard Oil $7.309 m. $17.955 m. $359.1 m. $1,077.3 m. $2,500 m.
2. 34 Morgan Inner Group
J. P. Morgan & Co. 4.796 m. $12.620 m. 276.0 m. 728.0 m. ------
(Including Morgan partners and families and eight leading Morgan corporation executives)
3. 2 Fords
Ford Motor Co. 4.766 m. 11.000 m. 220.0 m. 660.0 m. 1,000 m.
4. 5 Harknesses
Standard Oil 2.766 m. 7.550 m. 150.2 m. 450.6 m. 800 m.
5. 3 Mellons
Aluminum Company 3.327 m. 7.500 m. 150.0 m. 450.0 m. 1,000 m.
6. 22 Vanderbilts
N.Y. Central R.R. 2.148 m. 6.005 m. 120.0 m. 360.3 m. 800 m.
7. 4 Whitneys
Standard Oil 2.143 m. 5.375 m. 107.5 m. 322.0 m. 750 m.
8. 28 Standard Oil Group
Standard Oil 1.737 m. 5.435 m. 118.7 m. 356.0 m. ------
(Including Archbolds, Rogerses, Bedfords, Cutlers, Flaglers,
Pratts and Benjamins, but excepting others.)
9. 20 Du Ponts
E. I. du Pont
de Nemours 1.294 m. 3.925 m. 79.5 m. 238.5 m. 1,000 m.
10. 8 McCormicks
and Chi. Tribune 1.332 m. 3.520 m. 70.4 m. 211.2 m. ------
11. 2 Bakers
1st National Bank 1.575 m. 3.500 m. 70.0 m. 210.0 m. 500 m.
General Motors 1.424 m. 3.225 m. 64.5 m. 193.5 m. 500 m.
13. 6 Guggenheims
Amer. Smelt. & Rfg. Co. 817 m. 2.185 m. 63.7 m. 190.1 m. ------
14. 6 Fields
Marshall Field & Co. 1.197 m. 3.000 m. 60.0 m. 180.0 m. ------
15. 5 Curtis-Boks
Curtis Pub. Co. 1.303 m. 2.900 m. 58.0 m. 174.0 m. ------
16. 3 Dukes
Am. Tobacco Co. 1.045 m. 2.600 m. 52.0 m. 156.0 m. ------
17. 3 Berwinds
Berwind-White Coal Co. 0.906 m. 2.500 m. 50.0 m. 150.0 m. ------
18. 17 Lehmans
Lehman Brothers 0.672 m. 2.150 m. 43.0 m. 129.0 m.** ------
19. 3 Wideners
Am. Tob. & Pub. Util. 0.772 m. 1.975 m. 39.5 m. 118.5 m. ------
20. 7 Reynolds
R.J. Reynolds Tob. Co. 0.652 m. 1.950 m. 39.0 m. 117.0 m. ------
21. 3 Astors
Real Estate 0.783 m. 1.900 m. 38.0 m. 114.0 m. 300 m.
22. 6 Winthrops
Miscellaneous 0.651 m. 1.735 m. 34.7 m. 104.1 m. ------
23. 3 Stillmans
National City Bank 0.623 m. 1.700 m. 34.0 m. 102.0 m. 500 m.
24. 3 Timkens
Timken Roll. Bear. Co. 0.781 m. 1.850 m. 37.0 m. 111.0 m. ------
25. 4 Pitcairns
Pittsburgh Plate Gl. Co. 0.752 m. 1.660 m. 33.2 m. 99.6 m. ------
26. 8 Warburgs
Kuhn, Loeb & Co. 0.598 m. 1.620 m. 32.4 m. 97.2 m.** ------
27. 4 Metcalfs
Rh. Island Text. Mills 0.623 m. 1.510 m. 30.2 m. 90.6 m. ------
28. 3 Clarks
Singer Sew. Mach. Co. 0.583 m. 1.475 m. 30.0 m. 90.0 m. ------
29. 16 Phipps
Carnegie Steel Co. 0.431 m. 1.485 m. 29.7 m. 89.1 m. 600 m.
30. 4 Kahns
Kuhn, Loeb & Co. 0.565 m. 1.440 m. 28.8 m. 86.4 m.** ------
31. 2 Greens
Stocks & real estate 0.443 m. 1.200 m. 24.0 m. 72.0 m. ------
32. 2 Pattersons
Chicago Tribune, Inc. 0.365 m. 1.015 m. 20.3 m. 60.9 m. ------
33. 3 Tafts
Real Estate 0.329 m. .900 m. 18.0 m. 54.0 m. ------
34. 3 Deerings
Interna. Harvester 0.315 m. .815 m. 16.5 m. 49.5 m. ------
35. 6 De Forests
Corp. law practice 0.202 m. .685 m. 13.7 m. 41.1 m.** ------
36. 5 Goulds
Railroads 0.154 m. .565 m. 11.3 m. 33.9 m. 400 m.
37. 3 Hills
Railroads 0.226 m. .360 m. 7.2 m. 21.6 m. 150 m.
38. 2 Drexels
J. P. Morgan & Co. 0.131 m. .350 m. 7.0 m. 21.0 m. 100 m.
FAMILY TAXES PAID BY INDIVIDUALS
39. Thomas Fortune Ryan*+
Stock market 0.791 m. 1.800 m. 36.0 m. 108.0 m. ------
40. H. Foster (Cleveland)
Auto Parts 0.569 m. 1.700 m. 34.0 m. 106.0 m. ------
41. Eldridge Johnson
Victor Phonograph 0.542 m. 1.250 m. 25.0 m. 75.0 m. ------
42. Arthur Curtiss James
Copper and R.R.s 0.521 m. 1.200 m. 24.0 m. 72.0 m. ------
43. C. W. Nash
Automobiles 0.459 m. 1.100 m. 22.0 m. 66.0 m. ------
44. Mortimer Schiff
Kuhn, Loeb & Co. 0.459 m. 1.100 m. 22.0 m. 66.0 m. ------
45. James A. Patten
Wheat market 0.425 m. 1.000 m. 20.0 m. 60.0 m.** ------
46. Charles Hayden*
Stock market 0.427 m. 1.000 m. 20.0 m. 60.0 m. ------
47. Orlando F. Weber
Allied Chem. & Dye 0.406 m. .900 m. 18.0 m. 54.0 m. ------
48. George Blumenthal
Lazard Freres 0.415 m. .900 m. 18.0 m. 54.0 m.** ------
49. Ogden L. Mills
Mining 0.372 m. .800 m. 16.0 m. 48.0 m. ------
50. Michael Friedsam*+
Merchandising 0.292 m. .700 m. 14.0 m. 42.0 m. ------
51. Edward B. McLean
Mining 0.281 m. .700 m. 14.0 m. 42.0 m. ------
52. Eugene Higgins
New York real est. 0.279 m. .700 m. 14.0 m. 42.0 m. ------
53. Alexander S. Cochran*+
Textiles 0.271 m. .700 m. 14.0 m. 42.0 m. ------
54. Mrs. L. N. Kirkwood 0.268 m. .625 m. 12.5 m. 37.5 m. ------
55. Helen Tyson 0.258 m. .600 m. 12.0 m. 36.0 m. ------
56. Archer D. Huntington*+
Railroads 0.226 m. .575 m. 11.5 m. 34.5 m. ------