Sacramento daily record-union. [volume] (Sacramento [Calif.]) 1875-1891, 1882-06-20

for the so-calied EatlOhaHHa'l0
land, which Henry George has succeeded
in converting Davitt to, lacks many Oh 'ne
most essential attributes q popular pro-
pramme. IN the first place It does not ap'
peal with special force to the sympsshies
Of any considerable class. A policy which
cots ont with the affirmation that private
ownership in land is . mistake and wrong,
cannot attract those who believe most re-
ligiousIy that all which is wanting to their
happiness is private ownership in land. A
plan which holds out to every tenant farmer
the hopes of some day owning the land he
cultivates, is Ineligible to all, and at once
eniists the active sympathy aud approval
of a very large class. Even the lower
class OF peasants, who sub-rent their half
acre OF poor land to raise potatoes on, can
see in such programme the possibilities of
better things for themselves. The cry Of
q" Ireland for the Irish is one which pos
sesses real meaning when it signifies the
transfer of the land to the occupiers. But
it can have little significance when, as un-
der Mr.. Georges doctrine, it is interpreted
as meaning that nobody owns the land
any more, and that everybody is to pay
rent to the Government for it.
Parnell also strikes a serious defect in
the Davitt plan when he refers to the ques-
ton of compensation. Henry George, in
his work on i" Progress and Poverty" has
undertaken to cut the Gordian Knot by
proposing that compensation should not be
allowed at all to the present land owners.
1t is easy enough to adjust theories to suit
ones own purposes, in book, but when it
is proposed to make an issue in practical
politics it becomes necessary to find
schemes which possess at least an appear
ance of feasibility. The Irish politicians
are sensible enough to perceive that it
would be mere suicide for them to bring
forward Mr.. Georges original plan, for
they know that it could not obtain even
hearing a scheme Of wholesale confisca-
ton would in fact fatally handicap what
ever reasonable demands they might make
subsequently,. So it is taken for granted
that there is to be compensation, and on
that basis Davitt has arranged his pro-
gramme. But it is unfortunate for Mr..
Georges land philosophy that whereas in
its original form it is simply out of the
question, in its amended form it ceases to
present any positive advantages. 1t is
thought that from $3.50, 600. 900 to 81. 000.-
600, 600 would be required to compensate
the landlords, and this enormous sum it is
proposed that the Government shall ad.
vance, or become responsible for. Here is
a difficult point, for it is evident that it
will be very uphill task to persuade the
country that SUCH a plan is either iusti.
fable or desirable.
Then comes the question of payment by
the occupiers. II is proposed that instead
OF paying rent to the landlords they shall
pay interest to the Government, but it
does not appear that any provision is to be
made for the gradual discharge OF the prin-
cipal. Under Davitt's plan, therefore, the
main change would consist in the substitu-
ton of the Government for the landlords
as the proprietor OF the land, while the tax
gatherer would take the place OF the agent.
The occupiers, hewever, would not own
tine land any more than they do now.
Even under ParnelPs scheme of peasant
proprietary it would take upwards of half
a century for them to pay off the incum-
brances, but at the end of that time they
would own the land. Under the Davitt
plan it appears that there would never
come period when the rent of the land
would be less than at first, and that no.
body could look forward to absolute pos
session of single acre of it. To call this
naturalization of the land is a misnomer.
| 1t really would involve the denationaliZa-
ton of the people. For it is after all the
love of the land as gratified and manifested
in possession of Sumo fraction of it, which
is the basis of patriotism, and consequently
if the possibility OF ownership of the land
is removed, one of the most powerful infiu-
ences belonging to the national sentiment
will be destroyed. Davitt has been led
away by the specious arguments of Henry
George to forget the extent of the infu-
ence which national character exercises
upon these questions, moreover. He has
failed to perceive that abstract propositions
scarcely ever appeal strongly to mems
sympathies, and that to tell nation that
the abolition of private land ownership is
best for the body polite will not console
its component members for the disappoint-
ment involved in such deprivation.
Parnell's plan is a sufficiently difficult
and doubtful one, and it is questionable
whether it can be carried through Parlia-
ment. But Dayitt's scheme is so
much behind this that it will probably
fail to receive any hearty Endorsement from
the Irish people. The idea OF abolishing
private property in land will, in fact, be
repulsive to a very large percentage of the
1lisH' 1uo BieaS tSuans-iaimSi Oiaos hao
been mainly kept within the Land League
by the hope of gaining permanent pos
session of the lands they occupy. But
when they are invited to join a movement
the cardinal proposition of which is that
nobody is to own any land at all, we pre-
dict that they will give this new plan the
cold shoulder, and will adhere to Parnell.
There is no magnetism, no popular at
Effectiveness, about the George Davitt
theory; and it will we believe fail to OBJ.
tain any vogue in Ireland. 1t is also
quite incompatible with the Land League
method, and therefore the two movements
cannot be made to proceed under the same
organization. We should not be surprised
if the Land Leaguers should come to sus-
pect that the Davitt scheme was meant to
defeat the other, which is alone at all
practicable. No doubt such suspicion
would be unwarranted by the facts, but
it is not 80 certain that the Davitt propo.
sition, if pressed too rashly, may not IL
volve the Land League in common de-
feat That it can secure the approval
of ireland under existing circumstances
is in the last degree improbable, and
even if it did it could not be carried
through Parliament
|