Sacramento daily record-union. [volume] (Sacramento [Calif.]) 1875-1891, 1881-12-24
THE LAND QUESTION.

EDS. RECORD u MON: In an editorial il
your paper of December 81 there were some
very interesting observations made on the
vexed question CT the " ownership of land"
especially noticeable from the fact of the
plain discrimination made between the legiti-
mate and spurious advocates of the theory.
It is amazing the large number of people, in
Guiding the otherwise weli-informed, who are
ignorant of the fact that the theory of the
State ownership OF land is other than some
wild vagary of the communistic element.
"The new theory you term it; but it is
not new, whatever its merits. 1t is to be re.
GREETED, however, that you did not extend
your quotations to other advocates of the
theory, no less iltustrious than Mr.. Mill
notably that of Herbert Spencer. But
have not been moved to comment on your
article so much from spirit of criticism,
sut, if you please, to add new thought on
the subject; or, az least, new sc far as
know.
But first. however, let US consider if the
theory of State ownership OF land is justified
from jurisprudential point of view. Most
advocates of the theory have discussed it
either from an ethical or economical point of
view. On this point l shall be content with
brief statement of the views of one of En-
glands ablest jurists. Sheldon Amos, Pro-
fessor Of Jurisprudence in University Col
lege, London, in his "Science of Law" IN
der the discussion of laws of ownership,
says: Land, as subject OF ownership,
might indeed be treated as belonging to the
class of things set apart for the service of The
State, though in the earlier stages of the de-
velopment of the community the quantity Of
land and the limited number Of uses to which
it is capable of being turned, combined to
keep this aspect of it out of sight. Yet, in
fact, the relation of a State to its territory,
which in modern times enters into the essen
tial conception of the State, implies that the
land cannot be looked upon, even provision
ally, as true subject OF permanent individ-
ual appropriation. This view obviously COM
mends itself from the mere facts that the land
is the only indistructible commodity in the
country, having existence coextensiye in
character with that of the State itself, and
that the culture and produc. of the national
soil must always be matter of urgent State
concern, quite independently of all considers
tons of the classes of persons to whom from
time to time the task of laboring On the soil
is, as it were, delegated"
You were quite right in the statement that
the defenders of no rent, and the support
ers of wholesale confiscation Of private prop,
erty in land may be said to occupy common
we III tHc lhstSt
category belongs Henry George; for his
theory of exclusive taxation of land is none
other than an indirect confscation of it.
This may be called the political method of
the States resuming the ownership of the
land, whether right or wrong. But Is there
not some way to test the expediency of State
ownership OF land other than political? Per
haps there may be, and this is the point |
wish to add thought upon, the suggestion
of which, the discriminating statements OF
your article encourages me to think, may be
well received. Why not, for instance, test
the expediency of common ownership of land
by actual experiment? And if it should
prove true in the course of time that such q
system was for the best interests of society,
as MIR. George and others contend, the facts
would be demonstrated without resort to con-
fiscatiop, directly or indirectly. "But how?"
you will say. Amy method, whether PR
vate or political, justly necessitates the com.
pensation of the present owners of the land"
You say in the article above referred to
"The difficulty of making change of this
kind is very greatly increased by the neces-
sity of compensatipg the landowners" This
observation, however well it may apply to
England or other thickly populated coun-
tries, would have comparatively no force If
applied in the very beginnings of a society.
Ard this is the actual condition Of the
largest portion of our Territories to-day.
Societies there are just beginning to form !;
in fact over the largest portion OF them
lands are so cheap-mostly Government
lands-that surely it would require no very
great sum to buy all the land necessary and
organize an enterprise to test by actual ex-
pertinent the expediency OF common owner
ship Of land.
It is quite mistake to suppose that all
the most eligible locations for settlements
have already been occupied. Right here. on
Puget Sound, than which there is no better
harbor in the world, with something like
eighteen hundred miles of coast line, with
cheap land plenty of timber, coal, iron. and
other natural resources, it seems to me 1t
would not be very difficult to organizs an en-
terprise of that kind with reasonable hopes
of success provided, however, that none
other than those who fully understand the
subject and agree to adopt the system,
should become citizens of the community.
This would naturally exclude the followers
of ParneIl, Wendell Phillips, and others of
like ilk. For it is curious fact that the
ablest advocates of the theory of State own
ership of land" are the furthest removed from
tt at habit of thought known as communistic-
To further illustrate the theory, suppose
We assume community organized at the
beginning on the above plan, and to have
attained the size Of a town like Sacramento !;
il would be easy to calculate the sum total
thai would be available for common uss, in
lieu Of the present system Of taxation, by
simply estimating what the entire ground
rents of the town would amount to- Should
any of your readers feel disposed to figure on
this, l would suggest that some data on the
subject could be acquired by an examination
of the long-lease-of-iand system as applied
over large portion of tie city of Philadel
phia. OF course in this case the ownership is
il. private hands, but statement of the facts
would be an answer to one of the principle
objections to the leasing of land, ''that it
would be dsmper put upon private enter
prise in the substantial Improvement of said
lands" Perhaps mest persons would be sur
plised should such q statement prove that the
sum total of all leases on land in a town no
larger than Sacramento should exceed that of
the sum of all taxes collected under the pres-
ent system; in short, that the whole COM
munity would benefit in the accretion OF land
values, as well as being the means, through
their industry, Of causing lands to havo any
value at all 1 am fully alive, however, to
the fact that an isolated community estab-
lished upon the above plan could not wholly
escape taxation. 1t is quite evident that be
who folds the tax ,atherer's recsipt i. seldom
the one ultimately to pay the consumer must
in the end pay the bill Hence the failure
of all measures, however popular, so persist-
emily adhered to, 60 tex the rich. Hence we
see that any community, however organized,
must ultimately pay the tax on ell taxable
commodities taken in exchange for the re-
suits of their own industry. But after al
loving for all that, would there not be resi-