The daily intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Territory [i.e. Wash.]) 1876-1881, 1878-09-12

Thursday, Sept. IL, 1878.
THE LAND QUESTION.

A proposition similar TO that laid be-
fore our Constitutional Convention last
summer, on the question OF land iimi-
tstion, has been put forward by the
workingmcn's party Of California, with
= fair prospect, it is believed. OF being
engrafted into the proposed New State
Constitution. It provides that no one
shall have the right to acquire more
than $40 scres. or devise land in .
larger body. 1t Is intended to regulate
the purchase of land Tor the future and
also to insure the distribution Of the
vast estates which have been acquired
10 that State, and already prove a seri-
Gus drawback to the best interests OF
the common wealth.
There Is no State in the Union where
such great inequalities exist in the con-
dition Of citizens, in regard to land, as
in California. In measure this abb
sorption Of vast estates by few 1T the
expense Of the masses is attributable to
the opportunity which has been afford.
cd for making rapid fortunes in mining
speculations /; but is more directly re-
suit of the land system which that
State inherited from Mexico. The
causes which have operated to bring
about this unfortunate condition Of
things. therefore, appears no longer to
exist, and the principal object now
would seem to be to bring about dis
tribution Of these great estates. They
must inevitably drop to pieces in time
~ taxation already falls heavily upon
them, and there is no law of primo
geniture to retain them In their present
condition down through coming gener-
ations. However, this process may be
fastened somewhat by judicious legis-
lation. though indirectly perhaps.
This question of land limitation is
not new one. It has been raised in
nearly all tho older States of the Union.
Il has moreover been mooted in all
ages. The Romans passed laws to
limit tho amount of land which any
citizen might acquire; but practically
they proved dead letter, as such laws
have in msny instances since. Already
tbs question has been raised with us.
but the cry against land monopolists here
has been sounded quite as Intellectually
- was Kearney's favorite cry, the
Chiness must CO." raised in Massachu-
sets; for the reason that the whole
question is entirely foreign TO Us, as we
have TO land monopolists. unless the
extensive railroad grants. which are
certain soon to be abrogated. are con-
sidcred such. Neither arc the condi-
tons with US favorable to breeding
land monopolists. Our population and
capital has been SO generally absorbed
IN the development Of other interests
our coal fields, lum boring interest etc.
that l.nd has always gone begging.
There il really no limit to land with
MS, and onr land il. moreover, IN such .
condition, for the most part SO heavily
timbered, that onc man or party Of
men cannot probably handle more than
y given smount. Assin We have in-
iefited 20 miscliievious land system
but have one of our own creation, and
well calculated to prevent the acquire.
ment Of large estates BY any class oil
individuals in any part Of our broad do.
main. For this reason it Is more than
probable that we shall never end &C
casion TO seek after means to limit the
amount Of land which any citizen shall
be permitted to acquire.