Spirit of the times. [volume] (Ironton, Ohio) 1853-1858, 1853-01-18


The proposition to modify the land
system of the United States, so as to pre-.
vent speculation in the public domain,
and secure it in limited quantities to ac'
lual sc't tiers only, without price, has be-
come almost universally popular. Very
few besides the spectators themselves,
are now found to oppose it.
But it is doubtful whether very many
have duly considered the true reasons on
which this demand is based. Our States.
men have viewed it merely as matter
of charity and generosity to the poor,
becoming n benevolent mind and Ii.
bcral regard for the public welfare. The
measure is not advocated by studious
Land rc(ormcrs from any charitable con.
sidorations whatever. 1t is claimed as
measure of absolute natural and moral
right. They spurn that humiliation which
charity imposes, and demand that the
Government recognize the right of every
individual to share in the earth, the
bounties of common providence to all,
to one as we'll as another, and to each
one as he can use by his own industry
unaided by the scrvile toll of others.
Beyond this they declare it to be mo.
nopoly and moral wrong.
They say that no one would desire
more, if there were no poor dependents
out Of whose labor money could be
made, and no one has a moral right to
presume upon the toll of slaves, or of
common laborers, for the accumulation
Of a fortune. Each has right to be his
own master, living in his own house and
cultivating his own land, and the land
system of the nation and State ought TO
guaranty the privilege of Independence
to each one, without first being subject
to the will of a master for money to pur.
chase wild and unsettled land which
God never designed should be sold.
Why is the right to share in the boun.
ties of Providence, a natural right? 1t
is an axiom, self evident proposition.
1t strikes one at first sight, as true. Who
can give reason why that which is no;
the product of human industry or skill
should not belong as we'll to one as to
another ? Is it not evident that no one
can live without the productions of the
soil? That no one can have q home
without land; that no one can pursue
happiness without the use of the means
which God has made absolutely inlis.
pcnsable for these purposes? If, then,
life cannot be sustained, liberty enjoy.
ed, nor happiness pursued without the
use of the earth, what is there more clear
to a just apprehension than the natural
right of which we speak
This truth has not escaped the notice
of the best political onomists.-John
Locke, author Of "Locke on the Under.
standing" says in his work on Govern.
ment. that the earth was given to the
use of the industrious and labor was to
be his title to it, J. Stuart Mills, the
latest distinguished author il this sci.
encc, and who is good authority wherev.
er the English language is spoken, says:
that labor is necessary to clear, drain
and cultivate the earth; and upon this
labor rests the sole foundation of title
to land" Carlyle says that "the land
belongs to these two-to God Almighty
and to those Of his children who have
worked we'll, or who will work we'll up.
on it."
These authors thus cover the whole
ground. If, then, it be a natural right
it follows tina: the right ought to be guar.
antied to each. This cannot be done
without limiting the guaranty which any
one shall be permitted to acquire. 1t
will not answer to say that there is
plenty Of land at the West, for no one
ought to be compelled to make bar.
barian Of himself-he has q right 10 live