Sacramento daily record-union. [volume] (Sacramento [Calif.]) 1875-1891, 1881-11-29
TIE new DOCTRINE.

sslyn and Jersey City to-day expressed its
unqualified approval of the manifesto,
80 No Rent for Land, because it was the
g gift Of the Creator to His creatures" We
are obliged TO point out that the reasoning
of the central organization of these Unions
is not sound. In the first place, how do
they know that the land was &c the gift of
"the Creator to His creatures - 1t will
not do to take such matter for granted in
so momentous a question. We must be
quite sure that the circumstances are ex-
actly as represented. OF course if the Gre
ator bestowed the land as gift upon all
His creatures, they ought to have it. But
it seems somewhat necessary before going
any further to settle the question whether
God, in the opinion of these Unions, is the
ultimate Governor of the earth. II He Is
admitted to be, then it is in order to IN
quire how it came to pass that He should
have failed to make His purposes known to
His creatures and when that question is
disposed of, the next one will be how 1t
happens that what are now assumed to
have been His intentions should never yet
have been carried into effect? And it will
be difficult to make out any case for the
gift theory which is stronger for mankind
than it is for the animal creation. The
real basis of the theory of course is the
argument that since man was produced or
the earth, therefore the earth was intended
for his support. But this is proposition
wholly incapable of proof either way. We
know nothing of intention in connec
tion with the phenomena of existence
We only know of actualities. That we are
here we know, but not why we are here
and therefore the whole "gift" doctrine
rests upon a petitio lorincipii, or as it i;
put in English, a begging of the ques
tion."
The argument, moreover, even if its
force were admitted for the sake of discus
sion, proves altogether too much for those
who use it. For if the earth was given by
the Creator to his creatures, why not the
things which owe their existence to the
earth directly or indirectly? Why not the
cattle which range on thousand hills, and
the focks which whiten thousand val.
legs? They are nourished and owe their
being to the products of the earth. In a
large measure their subsistence Ia indie.
pendent of human labor. They are neces
sary to the support of mankind, or so man
kind with few exceptions believe. Why
then should anybody pay his butchers
bill? Clearly the Creator must have in.
tended also that the cereals and fruits
and all manner of food products which the
free gift to His creatures. All these thirgs
are necessary to their support, and unless
they obtain them they will perish of starva-
ton. How Ubiquitous then is the conduct
of the farmer who monopolizes the pro-
duce of the earth, of the miller who grinds
his grain, of the selfish baker who pre-.
pares it for the table What are all these
people but sort Of robbers who ought to
be stripped of their ill-gotten gains, and
what are they but serfs and abiect slaves
who pay their bakers and grocer's bills
And then there are the metals. Gold
and silver and iron and copper and lead and
all of them were manifestly placed in
the bowels of the earth as free gifts to the
children of men, and yet we see how few
have monopolized them Why should The
poor man work before he can obtain GOLD
and silver? Why should he be made t.
pay for all the implements and tools Of
metal which he needs? Why should the
planks, which are made Of trees, 8
natural growth, and bricks, which are
after all only that soil which ought to be.
long to all, cost money? Is not the pre-
tense that it is because human labor has
been put upon all these things, mere
sophism invented to make the rich richer
and the poor poorer? Take the question
of clothing again. The wool grows on the
backs of sheep, who live upon grasses.
The cotton comes more directly from the
soil. The silk is the product of a worm.
Are not all these things mere cousins of
the earth one or two degrees removed ?
Were they not therefore evidently included
in the original gift? Why then should
any one. pay his tailor or his dry goods mer-
chant? In the words of Ancient Pistol,
" Base is the slave that pays!"
And yet it is very discouraging to see
how wicked men have slighted and ignored
the purposes of their Creator, and how
helpless He has been to carry out His own
plans. For if He really meant all these
things to belong to everybody, He has
singularly failed in getting his ideas full
filed, and Man, with his grasping acquisi-
tiveness, has frustrated all the bountiful
intentions of God, and instituted private
property in every imaginable thing. And
we fear that it is too late to change the
arrangements now, whatever might have
been done some hundreds or thousands of
years ago. Possession will, it is to be ap.
pretended, continue to constitute strong
argument for continuity Of tenure in regard
to most things The difficulty of proving
the original title to land which our friends
the Trade Unions have SO unhesitatingly
accepted as valid, will moreover be a
serious one. And since acquisitiveness is
very clearly a master passion in Humanity,
and since we must assume that it was
implanted by the same agency which made
the alleged gift OF the land to mankind, the
incompatibility of this universal attribute
with the supposititious community of prop.
erty referred to, must give rise to still
further perplexities. No doubt it might
be very pleasant if all the world could get
along without working and without paying,
bat it has never been found possible yet,
and inasmuch as all the conditions of life
are those which grow out of the environ.
ment, it will have to be admitted that the
existing arrangements are in all probability
the only ones which could have been made,
Human Nature, and the materials it works
H.. being such as they are. If Human
Nature and the surroundings should IN.