New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1846-11-25
Association Discussed....No. :.
From nc Courter 4, Erc,ltr,r. Nor. q

II
attention Of readers under The Of fssoesGi2H
and upon The fret page OF cur paper this morning Wal
be found l.. article which - simply predatory 10 IL
promised statement Of what that System IS We intend
make the System and The principles OF: OF when i
grove the theme Of somewhat close and critical OK
animation in order to determine Tor ourselves, and I
possible 70 furnish 70 others the Of determining
iOr Themselves whether Truth ana the Pubic Good
require ;hat should aid in securing the!r general
adoption whether injury Of the most serious chaTac
Is inflicted upon Society 5y the constant and s!u
appeals made 10 the public II tnciE behalf. We do
know that the larger portion Of the reading community
Will in the outset az least follow this discussion with
any special or definite interest But confident i
Will soon become apparent that i /. contro
Ycrsy concerning words useless debate Of harm
less distractions blu; discussion Of principles which
lie the very foundation OF all Society which enter
into ali the opinions Of upon Politics Morals and
Religion which color, however insensbly the sPecu!a
lions Of closet the teachings of the Pulpit .he Press
and inc Bar and the opinions OF those VINO guide ana
control the affairs Of civil and OF social life and which
nyolve 20 indefinite and unknown extent the secu
rity the harmony and the aggregate we-oeing OF the
whole fabric Of civilized Society We nope 10 De io'
lowed in an Inquiry, which we deem 20 important at
least with patience II not with interest. Ihe ITHTes
rs. article only prcfaccs it, promised statement OF
Association is bat sets forth the elementary Prn-
cples out Of which Association grows il lays the ionn-
dalton of the new Social System which me Tri5tne
insists should be made substitute for that which Is
in existence Il is necessary therefore at the out
set, 10 see what those principles and for this pur
pose we ask close p.russl OF Ihs !F,5e< arc!e IN
l. The entire suriace oi the Earth with al It's pro
ducts was created for the use OF the whole human
its ownership is therefore vested by law OF
Nature in the and every man who Is born upon
the Earth has perfect right 10 his share OF il.
3 While this would be the alleged rghtu{ disposition
t tue land the actual property Of its vested in por
ton of the race and the residue that those who
own no land have been wrongfully d!vcsted and de.
spoiled o. what is theirs This mas been done BY Civil
lied Society which has therefore been guilty OF foul
wrong in thus robbng the larger portion OF the human
far NJ he land q which. OF Nature they
entitled.
g. AS natural consequence of this it is held to be
the duty of Society TO restore TO these landess
that which is rightfuy theirs or if this cannot be
done Society is bound 10 compensate them for that OF
which they have been robbed. In other words, those
who Land are in duty and by nAtlra! law, bound
give to those who possess none payment Tor that
of which, by law OF Nature, they are the rightul
A. Association proposes to carry this into effect
that is TO confer upon the landless ii the land
thing cuuyaen in value the lana OF which they have
been despoiled. How this is to be accomplished, Tie
Tribune has yet 10 explain
These, believe, all the points made by The
Tribune or at least they embrace the substance of its
first article All its deductions rest upon its primary
positiontha by law OF Nature, every man born upon
the Earth has righ TO portion OF that Earth I'M:
.position is set forth very distinctly thus
" BY law OF Nature every person bon. in the State OF
NewYOrk had perfect right 10 his eqrql share of the
soil the woods the waters, and all Tie natural products
thereof"
This can only mean that the land OF NewYork is by
law OF Nature and rghtiuy owned 10 e9ua' snaics by
all the persons born within the state and That those VINO
actually OF it, wronGed and robbed OF what
Is JusuS tneHs' - .t t % ~ n. -. =; =,
aGnt 70 ~, e t nv ono man 70 hoid cartan niece
~ "a e. hsolf .1d ss his o,,,r and IN excInde from
it all other persons III the world This Is necessary ana
, 80, =, 49, 80 % all tho Iand rb;, ,bose Inn
;,s md II ono thousand more men are at,erward born
within the limits then, according 10 The TTlbanes
Theory Tho land within those limits will he then owned
in eona sh,rcs nv one thousand more men than held
before or then these equal shares must become
s,nnllsr thar, ,bey vcr IN o,her words each
,a n, Tho r,;1sl boIders M Tho land must mart with
rorion of that when Inc then accounted ms But the
ri,b, of nvoyes necessarily e right of reten
ZION nj sunteme and nermanrn, dominion and if this
night of retention be taken away the right OF property no
ioncer Now Tbc Jy5l1,s theory does actually
destroy This rsh, OF retention and il therefore rs we
alleged nj tho start degits TINT Land can be righuly
oacned bv any body
The same conclusion may be reached by reverse
process of reasoning Suppose that The Tribune CON
ccdes that man may be the actual and exclusive
or OF certain portion say acre OF the soil OF New
York Another may. OF course, acquire an equal
ly rightul title TO the Joining and this process
may richtuly 20 on until every acre OF the coil OF New
York may become the richtul property OF somebody
Now supposs other men to be born within the limits OF
the same state they could not richuly own anv por.
ton of the soil because others have already acquired
rightfu and exclusive ownership in .he whole OF it,.
But The Tribune declares explicitly that they would
guly deprived of it-ihat each OF them has
perfect right 10 his equal share" Tile Tribune,
therefore, deny the principle with which we start
ed tina; one man Gun riUy be the eIclasire OWNER OF
any part of the cafths surface. This is the undsmen
tai principle from which The Tribune starts IN It's advo
cacy of Association namely. that THERE CAN BE NO
RIGiIrru1 PROPERTY IN LAND.
Now II Il man may not rghtiully own Land, how can
he r!ghtfuly own ANYTHING which the land produces
Is there any ground for distinction between property
in land and property in the products OF Land Why
may a tree be owned when the land upon which It
grows cannot Why may the wheat which grows cut
OF the soil be owned by some man when the soil from
which il grows cannot; : What Inherent quality makes
the one oLucbie when the other nu,i The iri5Eac
may reply the Labor bestowed in producing it, makes
one the subject property. But Labor only changes
the form OF thing does not create IL And il the
original be not ownaoe, how can Its product become
SOL II no one own land TO the exclusion OF
all others how any own its producisf There
is no principle which Will sanction the distinction
land is not owneblc nothing is II the right of prop
ertv in Land be denied the right OF properly in every
thing else is denied also H. as The Tribune maintains
every person in NewYork has perfect right 10 his
equal share of the soil" of New York then, most
,anv he has an equally pcrtcc, right his equal share
of whaicvcr that soil directly or indirectly may pro
iuce.
The original proposition, therefore from which The
Yribe starts in Its advocacy of Association Is denial
OF the Right OF Property in Land and nclusively de-
tkf,, yi,lfs