The Hillsdale standard. [volume] (Hillsdale, Mich.) 1851-1909, 1878-06-11
TuE LAND G.ABBERs.

The Secretary OF the Ionia National
Greeubdck" Executive Committee has
ssued an address TO the various green
back clubs of that county. in which We
fiud the following significant declaTa-
tion:
Oar people must demand and insist
that some certain number o. acres OF
land must be the maximum number any
one individual may hold absolutely.
Don't say the owners shall give it, but
say what is right, that All above GER
tain number of acres may be taken at a
valuation determined by any rule that
shall wrong neither party on the prin-
ciple known rs eminent domain"
Now, If you wish, gentlemen, TO in
struct your delegates IN this way, or
any other way you choose, do so.
This doctrine is borrowed directly
from the commune. The equal divi-
sion Of land has long been one OF the
ideas of the European communists.
But that doctrine has meyer made any
Roadway in the country. II is confined
To the cities, where IL is held by the
mob who don't own land; while il is
sternly repudiated in the country by
the farmers who are land holders.
The principle Of the Ionia address
which is endorsed editorially by the
Grand Rapids National Enquirer-is to
pass a law declaring that no farmer or
other person shall own more than q
certain number of acres of land, to be
fixed by law. OF course, in thus un-
dertaking to divide land by law, the
whole amount of land in the State
would have TO be divided by the whole
number OF adults, or by some such
process. In some thickly settled
States this would give not over forty
acres OF land to any one owner. But
suppose it should be made a law in
Michigan that each man might own
one hundred and sixty acres, or even o
whole section. No such settlement
would stay settled. BY and by, with
the increase of population, there
would have to be a new division OF
land until finally, as in Holland, the
average size of farm would five acres.
Then such provision would not equal
ize land ownership, after all. For the
owner Of ten acres Of land in the city
OF Detroit might be worth a million Of
dollars; while n farm OF whole Sec
| ton elsewhere might not be worth over
three thousand dollars. Moreover, un-
| der such an arrangement, what would
become OF railroad, mining and lum-
bering companies?
II is clear on its face that this Ma
| tional Greenback notion IL aimed di-
rectly, or indirectly, at the farmers.
/ It's object is to enact 10y law that there
/ shall be no large farms. Ii IS city
/ idea. intended to take among the nom
property owners Of the cities aud vii
| iares. III IL should ever be enacted in-
to law, probably the very first enact
ment will that no farmer shall ever own
over quarter sectiOn-perhaps not
over eighty acres. Having struck at
/ the "blooded bondholders, and the
"bloated capitalists" aud the "bloat-
/ ed bankers and railroad men, the next
/ object Of attack will naturally be the
/ "bloated" farmers They will not be
permitted to "monopolize" so much
/ land than will barely afford the plain
est subsistence to each land owner.
Let an assault upon the tenure o. prop
erty be once allowed in any country,
/ and il runs as naturally to an assault
upon the land monopoly" OF the farm
/ ers as water runs TO the sea.
As we have said, the National En-
quiror, of Grand Rapids, commends
/ the Ionia address, which invites the
impecunious crowds of the cities to
Join the National Greenback party, un-
der the alluring temptation that, as
soon as the party succeeds, il will COM
pel the farmers Of the State to divide
their farms with the overilowing
swarms from the cities and villages
who wish TO grab somebody else's land.
The matter Is significant as illustrating
the ideas that are iuaing refuge be-
hind the more common platform decla-
ralions Of the aglfators. II Detroit Post