The workingman's advocate. [volume] (Chicago [Ill.]) 1864-1877, 1871-02-18
FEUDAL PRINCIPLES IN OUR
LAWS

We are apt to believe that the feud-
al system came to an end three or four
centuries ago that it never was intro
duced upon this continent, and that
consequently our laws and usages are
free from its traditions and uninfuenc-
eel by its principles.
While the doctrine Of tenure by
which land was held, and which fixed
the reciprocal duties oflord and vasssl,
has been displaced by other principles
of property more in consOnance with
the spirit Of freedom and with present
civilization, we have inherited ideas and
practiced usages which show how COM
pIetely the tibres Of the feudal system
had Overspread and become interlaced
with the framework Of society and
that in some ways it is as vigorous now
as when retainer met, at the sound of
horn, TO do battle for chieftain. We
legislate yet on the idea that the title to
property is in the sovereign, and it's
bestOwal is not guarded by the condi-
tiOns even exacted in the middle ages.
Then, the acceptance of a grant of land
implied obligations Of fealty-implied
not only the willingness but duty on
the pa;t of the grantee, to render ser
vice of lite and limb, and earthly
HONOR" TO the suzerain. 1t is true
these grants proceeded from the cap
rice or favor u the king-often wholly
Independent Of personal merit, and
sometimes from considerations alike
dishOnorable to sovereign and lord.
II il also true, and part of the history
Of this system that these arbitrary
grants Of the public property built up
power in ungrateful chiefs which was
not untrequently turned against their
masters. The chiefs, whose miles of
territory enabled them to have an army
Of vassals, became Warwicks and king
makers-a terror not only to their own
neighborhoOd but to their government.
We accuse the sovereign power of this
country of copying the elements of
this system in its Legislative action,
and the results can not be different
have even shown themselves to be
identical
When Congress creates a system of
National Banking, or establishes any
other monopoly by which the public are
wronged, by which their money is tax
en- from them, wherein does their &C
ton differ from that of the king who
parcelled out the public domain among
his chiefs? It differs from it only in
greater tyranny and in less pretense of
right. The title to this public domain
was, in theory at least, vested in the
king. the impersonatiOn Of the sover-
eign power, and teudal grants were not
violations Of individual property.
We say to Congress that in establish
ing a banking law, revenue law, or
railroad company, and in giving them
power Of money making which unjust
ly absOrbs the p. oducts Of labor, they
60 beyond the tyranny Of feudal kings
n making public grants, because they
take individual property and give it to
those who are thus favored b. their
legislation. We deny the rights of
Congress to give any one man the ia
'ility and power of money making, be-
Tond whatever any other man in the
nation possesses. The exercise Of such
= power is teaIdGhSm. 1t is more, it is
aklng private property without any
When labor increases
Is store, or grows only three per cent.
year, the monopoly which enables an
dler TO increase his wealth twenty to
"AAUJ POA OOhC' as III the case OF banks, |
md from fifty to three hundred per
cent. as IN the case of manufacturing
companies under the operation Of ex-
sting revenue laws, is unsanctioned by
my principle which will not justify pub
&C robbery. the act of the despots who
conferred the broad acres which were
he origin Of the great estates Of the
English nobility, was a mild form of
Injustice in comparison with the legls-
alton Of an American Congress il,
uilding up mOnopolies, not 50 much
t the expense Of the public domain,
. at the cost Of individual labor. 1t
as feudalism and political institutions,
nd usages in harmony herewith,
hlch put the territory of England in
le hands of a few hundred families,
al 1t is quite time for us TO inquire by
hat agency sixty per cent. Of the ma
on's wealth has passed to the owner
up OF one-hfth Of the population. Of
le IhIng we may be certain this agen-
i not the industry, frugality, or any %