Calaveras chronicle., 1853-03-19
The Mineral Lands Once More,

course with reference to the Mineral Lands
in this country, would produce certain re-
suits, and that the present course will pro-
duce certain other results. There are
those in the community who think with me.
and those who as honestly oppose my plan,
and there are those also, who have never
considered whether the policy be true or
not, con6ning themselves only to the ques-
ton ''Is the plan likely to be populari"
With your permission, Mr.. Editor, I pro-
pose to dedicate this letter especially to the
latter class of readers; and as many Of
them now are, or hope to be, doubtless, the
chosen mouthpieces and representatives of
the people Of this State, know they will
not chide me for furnishing texts upon
which they may build, if they like, many a
logical stump speech.
Firstly, then, all such plans as the pre-
sent plan of holding the mineral lands, have
invariably failed, whenever tried, and il is
fair to suppose that similar plans will fail
in the future. Hence they will, by and by,
become unpopular Grgal (Shakspeare,)
you should abandon them in time not to be
identified with them when the day of un-
popularity comes.
Many II. you, gentlemen, in your youth
studied, al now practice for bread, that
science&nose Office is to do justice between
man and man, aud between the citizen and
the countR. You were taught to Cal efully
read ,potder upon and consider. the wri-
tings tof certain men, said to have been
learned in the science, and to quote those
writings as "authority,' without much
Fear OF their being contradicted. Among
those authorities" you have doubtless
read that
j "'There have been modern theoli lists, who
ihave considered separate and exclusive pro-
perty, and inequalities Of property, as the
cause Of injustice, and the unhappy result
of government and artificial institutions.
But human society would be in most un-
natural and miserable condition, if it were
possible to be institut or reorganized upon
the basis Of such speculations. The sense
OF property is graciousIy bestowed upon
mankind for he purpose OF raising them
from sloth, and stimulating them to action;
and so long as the right of acquisition is
exercised III conformity to the social rela-
tioLs, and the moral obligations which
spring from them, it ought to be sacredly
protected. The natural and active sense Of
property pervades the foundations of So
cial Improvement. 1t leads to the cultiva-
tion OF the earth, the institution of govern
n.ent, the establishment Of justice, the ac-
QUESTION OF the comforts OF life, the growth
OF the etul arts, the spirit Of commerce,
the productions of taste, the enactions of
charity, and the display Of the benevolent
Affections"
And again you have read and been taught
to consider as 'authority," that
''With the admission Of this exception
(the right to set bounds to the acquisition
Of property by corporate bodies,) the Legis-
lature has no right to limit the extent of
the acquisition OF property, as was sugges-
ted by some Of the regulations in ancient
Crete, Lacedemon and Athens, and has also
been recommended in some modern Utopian
speculations. A state Of equality as to
property is impossible to be maintained,
TOR 1t is against the law of our nature; and
it it could be reduced to practice, it would
place the human race in state Of tasteless
enjoyment, and stupid inactivity which
would degrade the mind and destroy the
happiness of social life when the laws
allow free circulation to property by the
abolition of perpetuities, entailments, the
claims ot primogeniuure, and all inequali-
ties OF descent, the operation of the steady
laws OF nature will, of themselves, preserve
a proper equilibrium, a.d dissipate the
mounds of property as fast as they accu-
mulate"
If the Legislature has no right to limit
the amount Of ones earnings, one would
rather reasonably suppose that it possessed
no right to dictate the sort of property he
should invest his earnings in, or say what
sort Of property he should not invest in
But general rules don't apply to California,
fOrsooth And so thought King James, of
all America, when in 1906 he compiled
code of laws for Virginia, which provided
for community of property and labor, f1r
five years from the settlement of the colony
Bancroft, and other historians, tell us of
this policy, that lit proved to be an intol-
cradle restriction, leading to idleness and
immortality, and destructive of all the ordi-
nary motives of human Industry So
of New England, that "the experiment of a
community of lands, goods, and labor, at
New Plymouth, made in the first year Of
the colony, was found to be injurious, even
with that small, simple, and pAus band OF
emigra IS; and the institution bf separate
PROPERTY had sudden and very beneficial
1effect in exciting a spirit of industry" The
! learned Chancellor Kent says of the mat.
ter. that "the state OF equality (of course
meaning with reference to property does
not suit the present condition of man, and
wherever it has been attempted it has
checked civilization, and lead to immorali-
ty, and destroyed freedom Of action and
enjoyment"
All the community plans above referred
to, were failures, became unpopular and
were abandoned as pernicious Is it not
probable that the same policy or a very
similar one, will become unpopular ag lin !?
l need only to refer to the history of
Fourierism in France. and the attempt to
establish the system in the United States