The workingman's advocate. [volume] (Chicago [Ill.]) 1864-1877, 1871-04-15

mans labor, but the work OF the Urea
tor, all men have a common and equal
right to the use and enjoyment of its
natural products and resources that,
while an apportionment of these pro-
ducts and resources, and Of the soil
whence they spring or in which they
are contained, among individuals, may
be necessary to the practical exercise of
this common and equal right, yet an ap.f
port;onment which Systematically ex
cludes any portion of the human race
from all equal share in the free gifts of
Nature is wholly unwarrante1 and IN
just, and may rightfully be resisted and
overthrown by those so excluded; and,
finally, that it is the duty of society, in
its collective capacity-through its
agent, the government-to interfere
whenever a portion of its members are
thus excluded from their rights, and es-
tabllsh a more equitable adjustment.
Looking at the matter from this
standpoint, do We find IN the proposition
we are considering any piratical design
against the rights of land owners? Do
we not rather find most consiierate
regard for those rights? On the one
hand is the vast landless class, counted
by tens of millions, a great majority of
them victims Of the most hopeless pow
crty, in spite Of incessant toll and an
enforced frugality of the most rigid
character. And we know that their
unhappy condition Is in a very great
measure due to the fact that they have
been despoiled of their Just share Of the
bounties of Nature, and are compelled
to pay tribute therefor to their fellow
men. There is not an article which they
consume that is not enhanced in p'ice
on account Of the "royalty" on natural
resources always included in rent.
They have been born to their cor
dition, perhaps-lhey and their ances
tors for generations extending back to
the time of feudal serfdom may have
known no other lot; yet no amount Of
usage can make it otherwise than
wretched one. Their sufferings consti
tute a most real and practical griev-
ance, which cries increasingly for re-
dress, and forbids the ready plea that
custom has made the existing order Of
lhings best for society. The existence
Of a theoretical injustice, at least, being
directly dedpceable from our most fun
damental conception Of right and
wrong, and the practical injuries
worked by that injustice being demon
strated by constant observation, the
Just statesman is forced to regard the
cry of the landless poor as possessing
an immediate and imperative claim up
on his attention. 4l iin
On the other hand stand the land
owners. Some of them obtained what
they possess by very questionable
means; others are direct inheritbrs
from persons who obtained their land
in similar way-perhsps solely BY the
right of the stronger-but q very large
number have bought it in good faith,
under the guaranty of system which
has had the sanction Of ages; and,
moreover, they have invested therein
the honest earnings accumulated
through years of toll and saving.
These, at least, deserve consideration.
We may suppose that il is for their
case, chiefly. that the plan of the
English Land Tenure Reformers is in
tended to provide. No coniscation of
existing values is proposed. Every in
weston i'll land would be secured to the
extent of his investment. A maximum
might even be fixed, below which an
increase Of value should be permitted
to inure to the profit of the owner; for
large proportion of owners have less
land than they would have under a just
apportionment.
10 brief, the plan proposed, while
pre- suppoSing the injustice Of the origin
of existing titles and the full right N
the State TO redress the wrong which
this injustice has entailed upon vast
majority of the people. only contem
plates the exercise Of this right to the
limited extent already Indicated. That
Is, TO take the special case Of Great
BrItain) it is proposed to appropriate
for the benefit of the general public.
not the entire body of the land, the
bulk OF which is now held by few
hur dreG families, but only the future
increase in its value. It is Dot proposed
TO take from the land owner any part
Of the wealth he now possesses, but
merely to prevent his further enrich
ment at the expense Of the rest of the
comnuniry-a proposition. the court
ship of which will, perhaps, be made
clearer when we come to discuss the
nature of the value Of land. ...
How large volume Of wealth would
be thus diverted to public use, and
what would be some of the conseqnen-
ces of general application of this
principle are questions which must be
reserved for future consideration.