The Dallas daily herald. [volume] (Dallas, Tex.) 1873-1887, 1883-09-09
LAND OWNERSHIP.
Are the Evils Of Poverty .PrOdused
by IT.
A Powerful Argument by Fem al.
Intellect.
Henry George Scathiugly Interview ed

DENTON Sept. editor HERALD. Re
ierring to your editorial of last Sunday. lei
us say this is.a question frauSht with such
momentous issues that IL seems little lest
than presumption for woman to attem o
to answer IL. To expose the sophistry of t'
advocates would require a treatise, to de.
pict the anarchy which would follow tn {
adoption Of such wild theory would ex'
coed the limits of a newspaper article.
We will first examine the assertion of NJ r,
Henry George, that the evils of poverty de-
pend upon the individual ownership OF
land, He says: Since poverty increas es
and deepens as wealth extends to monopo q
lizltion of land, We must remove the evil;
we can remove ii in but one way, and
that is to substitute for the individual own.
ership, common ownership" Let us see
| If the evil does really exist. At no previous
! age has wealth been so generally employed
! IN pu die enterprise as now. A network nj
! railway stretches over our continent, mag.
( ni1cent bridges span our rivers, the GLOBE
itself is belted with the telegraph, and yet
en- erprlse does not sleep. The Florida
ship canal will require an expenditure of
| 500 100000 and will employ an army
OF workers In addition 90 the
thousands already engaged In the con-
structlon, equipment and management of
the enterprises alre ,dy named, The cree
ton OF costly edilices, both public and pri.
vate, employ thousands of skilled workmen
daily The department of agriculture calls
loudly for labor which is scarce while the
harvest abounds la all these branches of
industry the laborer is generously paid.
Never has there been period where laoor
was so well rewarded or skill so Just
ly honored. The home of the
artisan abounds in luxuries q, 1icn
the merchant prince coul 1nci oonl mand a
century EGO. TIE very men who have in.
fauadrated these magnificent enterprises are
men who by skilliul industry aud wise
economy have risen from the ranks OF the
lahorer. Why then this cry of conflict be.
tween labor and capitalP II certainly does
not exist, save in the Imagination OF would.
b5 scientists and political demagogues, like
the leaders of the lree-soil party. SO much
Tor this imaginary evil ofpoverty, for which
Mr.. Henry George proposes to abolish all
proprietary titles and substitute common
ownership. He next asserts there is
IN nature no such thing as a iee-simple in
land. There is on earth no power which
N'' 'At.h"hAA1 hhhN u klhhl VI StIluSlNt
ownership In land II the state had not
the right to grant land she has not certainly
the right to resume title. II we deny her
authority in the Ole, We cannot aCknow- !
edge II In the other; II she did have the |
power 10 invest her citizens with proprie
tary rights, she cannot revoke these rights
arbitrarily, since all authority is derived
from the consent OF the governed.
Mr.. Herbert Spencer said Equity |
does not permit property in land, existing !
titles to sucn property are illegal; violence !
aud fraud, farce and cunning are the
sources to which these titles are traced.n !
Let us trace the history of some of the
grants Of land in America and see if Mr., |
SpenCers assertion is sustained. In 1914 !
the London company obtained from James |
LIST grant OF all the land lying between the |
9th and 3Sth degrees OF latitude. In 1920
the plymouth company OBJ aimed grant OF !
all the land lying between the
ilst and 10th degrees. Each new colony |
was sent out by proprietors who |
had obtained large grants from the reign !
ing soyerigns. New Jersey was a grant to |
Sir George Carteret Maryland to Lord Bal. |
limore and Pennsylvania to William Penn. |
Is there any evidence of violence or fraud, |
force or cunning practiced in obtaining |
these grants2 Or did these grants remain |
IN the possession OF OF individual proprie. |
tors2 History, no less than the present |
status OF the country, attests the contrary. |
We can see nothing to alarm in the fact !
that few millions of public domain |
has passed into private hands; il is in the |
main productive, or at least incapable |
of being utilized by small buy. |
ers and scattered residents. There is still |
100 much room Ia America and land too !
CHI cap for the cry OF landlordism TO become !
an In
where the population does not exceed !
twenty % the section, there is no reason |
why economy and industry should not pro. !
cure freehold for every man. but the |
generosity OF both the Federal aud Texas /
government have placed the possession of !
homestead within the reach of every man
by actual donations, This should stop the |
cry that auperlsm results from individual |
ownership.
Should the state assume to herself the
right OF resuming ownership of land, she at !
once destroys the handspring of industry
there Is no hope so dear to the heart of the |
American laOorer ny that he shall some day
sit under his own vine and fig-tree and !
that his children shall enjoy them after
him. Virgil touches this chord when he |
exclaims to the Roman husbaudman,
Plant thy pear-trees, Daphnis, posterity |
shall gather thy pearsl'
1t the state has right to dispossess her
citizens Of lands, why not OF their houses
their horses and their cattle2 This |
is where the argument leads, and, accord. !
ing to the argument Of Mr.. John Stuart
Mil, no thinker should shrink from f1l. |
lowing his argument to the end II il he |
an ohense to the tenant that his ,ndlord |
owns . 900 or 10000 acres Of land, why NAV |
It not be an equal otrsuse il ne owns 10 0c0 |
hplu of cattle Must the etata thpn b;,.,li. |
undertake IN play alma mater still further
by undertaking to provide each tenant win
COW from the too numerous herd of his
neighbour Verify, we should soon experi.
ence reign OF terror which the political
demagogues who now seek TO raise
would IN vain seek TO allav
They should remember that the Sth of San,
tember was followed by the OH of Thermi-
dor. The HERALD editorial which we have
taken the liberty to criticise, refers Ia ibe
example Of the early church, which had ali
things in common and sold their profes,
sions aud laid the price at the aposties'
feet We would modestlv suggest thai
there is a wide difference between landed
proprietors of the present day and the
trembling converts to christany who |
thereby forfeited their claim to the proteo. !
ton OF the Roman government. Inv |
whom their estates were cay Wy
ii3cated rs soon as their rennncia.
ton OF the heather gods became know"
Then indeed was fulfilled the pronhecy /
that they who brought were as those WIZ |
possessed mott Compelled 10 bias ~,
caves and catacOmbs, their chief concas,
was to supply their present needs m /
church. aud not the state, was the CON,
guardian. IL would be thought presns,su.
Gus to suggest the church as the guardian |