, 1873-11-12

lsh IN consequence OF the adoption OF the
proposal, the other advocates unrestricted
freedom, because it is the interest of the
proprietor to cut down, and because the
destruction of the forests will create a
large amount of capital, which is now tied
up. The one admits, that it may be bene-
fetal to the individual to preserve the for
ests as they are, but it is full his %convic-
ton, that such is net in conformity with
the general veal the other tells you, that
if it is to the advantage of the indivi-
dual to clear, it must also be to the advan-
tage Of the whole Society, as this includes
all the individuals.
Let US take a view of this argument Of
the political economists, when they say,
that, if the interest of the individual de-
mands, that the forests be destroyed, the
destruction must also benefit the whole
Society for it is as evident as, that 2 and
2 make 4, that what is a gain to the indi-
vidual, is also a gain to the whole, as this
consists of nothing but individuals, and
when parties know, understand land
follow their own interest, then the interest
Of the whole will be served"
For any one, who is not political econo-
mist tx professo, it is not easy to compre-
bend this doctrine, as it is but seldom,
that several individuals have the same
interest; most certainly the individual
producers lin casu the owners If the for
ests) and the many consumers (the public
in gener8O have interests Numerically OPP
posed to each other, and yet it is pretended,
that both sorts of ''indiyidual" interests are
Identical with that Of society. 1t is to
be supposed, that those who destroyed the
woods, which all along the Western coast
of Jutland protected the country against
the invasion of the sand, found their doings
quite favourable to their interests; but
who would dare to assert, that they bene-
fitted the Country 2 Take another example.
Suppose, the owner of q forest standing on
q soil that can produce nothing else and
from which be derives q yearly revenue of
5000 Rds, sells the forest for a sum of
money, sufficient to give him q yearly in
terest Of $500 Rds., you will not deny,
that he has benefited himself; but with
respect to the Country the case is prOba-
bly, far different for besides the proprietor
there were sundry rangers and workmen,
whose united yearly earnings may have
been several thousands Rds. The seller
has thus gained 500, and the whole Com
munlly IOSI more Iudu IOOO nus dhnudIye
1t is a mistake to call restrictions on the
free disposal of trees an unjust fetter on
the right of property /; for its object is not
to interfere with the use of the property ;
its object is merely to prevent such abuse
of it, as will cause injury to Society for
although the right Of property includes
both the right to use and to abuse, as long
as only the owner and the property are the
sufferers, for which reason therefore-strict-
lg speaking the State has no right to
NEEDLE with cruelty to animals, with quacks
etc., but who will deny its right to inter-
fere with private property, when there is q
question of preventing the spread of pesti.
lence, inundations, or only stencil or noise,
when they become a nuisance to the
neighbours Now, as nobody calls pro-
hibitions for such purposes unjust inter
ference, how can any one cali a prohi-
bition contrary to justice, which prevents
an abuse of the forests, that would deprive
the country of its natural defence against
the winds, alter its state of humidity,
diminish its fertility and disfgure its
beauty.
ITO ho continual