Sacramento daily record-union. [volume] (Sacramento [Calif.]) 1875-1891, 1881-11-30


Mills theory as it is with the existing land
system all over the world. The idea, for
example, put forward by our contemporary
in defense of the enc Rent" theory, that
those who till the soil must own it, has
no justification whatever from the modern
economic standpoint. That idea, indeed,
is but reproduction of the old doctrine OF
the ownership of land. If private owner.
ship, in any form, is admitted to be right,
no ground can be found for logical at
tack upon the present state of land tenure.
Thus il all the land of Ireland should pass
to-day into the hands of its present Guilt
vators, all that would have happened
would be change of landlords, and no
security would have been obtained against
the reproduction of the very conditions
which are being exclaimed against now.
If radical land reform is sought it must
not be sought in that way. The abolition
of private ownership in land is indispens-
able to the carrying out of the new land
theory, and this measure was long ago
defended by Mill. Thus he says: "If
"the State is at liberty to treat the pos.
SCISSORS of land as public functionaries, it
sis only going one step further to say,
"that it is at liberty to discard them.
The claim of the landowners to the land
sg;. .J4ooo+Lor .,borJ;,a+a 70 @ba canerol
''policy of the State. The principle of
property gives them no right to the land,
"but only a right to compensation for
whatever part of their interest in the
land it may be the policy of the State to
"deprive them Of To that, their claim is
indefeasible." Here we see funda.
mental distinction between the No-Rent
programme and the rational and moral
programme. The No.Renters, while argu.
ing that the landlords have no right to the
land, 60 on to argue that they themselves
have such a right which of course is pre-
posterous, for if the landlords have no
right, no right can inhere in any indi.
vidual, and the tenants are excluded by the
same principle which gusts the landlords.
But before proceeding further we must
emphasize the fact that in all rational land
theories the principle Of compensation plays
a leading part Thus Mr.. Mill says +: sit
sis due to landowners, and to owners of
ANY property whatever, recognized as
"such by the State, that they should not
.be dispossessed of it without receiving
its pecuniary value, or an annual income
"equal to what they derived from it. This
sis due on the general principles on which
property rests. If the land was bought
"with the produce of the labor and alb.
" stinence of themselves or their ancestors,
compensation is due to them on that
"ground even if otherwise, it is still due
"on the ground of prescription. Nor can
cit ever be necessary for accomplishment
"object by which the community al
together will gain, that particular por-
IS ton of the community should be i'm.
"molated."
This is the reasonable and just view, and
we may be certain that if this doctrine of
land tenure is ever applied practically, the
deprivation of private ownership in land
will be duly compensated. Of course the
difficulty of making change of this kind
is very greatly increased by the necessity
of compromising the landowners, and
therefore some very lame attempts have
been made to dispense with this necessity.
Mr.. George has made one such attempt,
and it is the most serious blemish in his
very able book. But it is impossible to
make it appear that the dispossession OF the
present landowners without compensation
would be anything else than wholesale rob-
berry, and it is perfectly clear that any
government that would attempt such an
outrage would throw society into hopeless
anarchy by SO doing. Indeed it is evident
that those who advocate such immoral
measures are themselves the worst enemies
of land reform, for their propositions inev-
itably tend to incense all right-thinking
people, and prejudice them against what.
ever theories are supposed to lead ia the
direction of such doctrine The defend.
ers of No Rent and the supporters of
wholesale con6scation of private property
in land may be said to occupy common
ground, and their wild propositions are
calculated to produce the most mischiey-
GUS effect upon public opinion.
There is but one defensible theory of land
reform, and that is for the State to re-
sumo possession OF the land, and rent it to
the people. This plan presupposes the
making OF proper compensation to the
present landowners, and while no doubt
the practical application of such measure
would necessitate considerable burden
upon the State for time, there is good
ground for believing that this burden
would be removed in few years, and that
the general result would be such as to
warrant all the immediate inconvenience.
Such scheme has already been proposed
as a solution to the Irish land difficulty in
an Euglish review, and therefore it may be
said that it is is launched fairly among the
many suggestions now before the British
people. That it would be extended to
England if ever it were applied to Ireland
must be regarded as foregone conclusion,
but though this consideration will certainly
intensity the opposition to it, events move
with such rapidity in these times that it il
by no means impossible some of us may
live to witness this very change, radica
and far away as it seems at present. VIVA
no man will live to see, however, is th,
general approval and application of eithel
the no rent or the no compensation
doctrines, both Of which are hopelesslJ
immoral and irrational.
NIHILIsTs AND TRAITORS.
That was a highly sensational story
about the Russian Nihilist who turned
traitor, and from the safe shelter of New
York is believed to have been exposing al
the secrets of his low-conspirators. Per
haps it would be as well to take it Will