The Dallas weekly herald. [volume] (Dallas, Tex.) 1873-1885, 1883-08-23
,gait ovsrn.nip ., t,so otAss :

slayement of the masses flow inevitably |
from the institution OF private property IN
land, is so rapidly growing that only the
union Of these who hold this conviction is
needed to bring into the arena OF prac'
teal questions this greatest OF all
issues" This doctrine is identical
with that which Mr.. HENRY GEORGE
has proclaimed in his work entitled
Progress and Poverty, an extract or TWO
from which will perhaps serve all the more
clearly to illustrate the DRIFT OF many think
ers of to-day. Mr.. GEORGE says: The own
ership of the land on which and from which
man must live, is virtually the ownership
ofthe man himself, and in acknowledging
the right of some individuals to the
exclusive use and enjoyment OF the earth,
we condemn other individuals to slavery as
completely as though We had formally
made them chattels." Elsewhere he says:
The extent TO which monopolizers OF
land can, through rent, levy tribute upon
the earnings OF labor is correlative with the
lowering OF the wages OF that labor"
Again, he says: "Since poverty increases
and deepens as wealth extends to monop-
olizstion OF lard, We must remove the evil
wa can remove 1t in but one way, and that
ia TO substitute for the individual owner
shin OF land, common ownership. This,
and this alone, is the remedy TOR the unjust
and UNEQUAL distribution of wealth In mod
I ern civilization, and for all the evils which
flow from it," Elsewhere he says: There
| is in nature no such thing as fee simple
in land; there is on earth no power which
can rightfully make grant OF exclusive
ownership in land. Has the first conner at
a banquet the right to take all the food
Does the first passenger who enters a rail-
road car obtain the tight to scatter his bag
gage and himself all over the seats to the
exclusion OF others?'
} And Mr.. GEORGE is not alone in these
views. Mr.. HERBERT SPENCE, one OF the
clearest thinkers and boldest writers OF the
age, in his Social States, says Equity
does not permit property in land. Exist
ing titles to such property are illegal. VIC
| lence and fraud, force and cunning-these
are the sources 10 which those titles are
traced. The original deeds were written
with the sword rather than with the pen;not
LAWYERS, but soldiers, were the convey
apcers: blows was the current coin given IN
pay ment; and for seals blood was used in
| preference to wax. Now, what was origi-
nally wrong can never grow into a right
Neither sale nor bequest can generate
right where it did not previously exist.
And this denial of landlordism may be car
ried ont without involving communism
| of goods. The change required would SIM
ply be change of landlords. Separate
ownerships would merge into the joint
stock ownership-society to which we would
nav rent instead OF to an isolated indlvld-
ual. All men would thus become equal
tenants with equal rights. This co-heir-
ship of all men is consistent with the
highest civilization, and equity COM
mands that it be brought about"
Along with this position we also find no
less prominent parsonage, as practical
reasoner and author, than JOHN STUART
MILL. He has powerfully advocated in
his Political Economy that "in view OF the
essential injustice of private property IN
land, a fair estimate should be made OF the
market value of all the land in the king
dom, and such price paid for it, and the
whole property be taken possession OF by
the state" The difference between him
and Mr.. GEORGE, therefore, beng, that
while MILL would make compensation, the
latter would apply the more heroic and eau
terizing remedy and sweep ownership ont
of existence, even as the United States
did in the cause OF slavery.
And with these comes DOW new writer,
and one of the best We have read on the
subject, Mr.. ]. II. BAILEY, OF Atlanta,
Georgia, who says: "As vice and misery,
in n great measure, are dependent upon
poverty, so too, poverty, in its last analysis,
1, dependent on non-possesson ofland by
the many, and this result will ever be the
consequence where private property in land
is recognized as the basis Of any country e
civilization
Nor il this doctrine ola commopality or
a community Of property wholly new, Tor
we find that the earliest body o! disciples
those who constituted what is termed the
church of Jerusalem. did so interpret the
teachings of their Master, and had all
things in common. and sold their posses
sions and goods, and divided them with all,
az every man had need" Tho same state
ment is repeated still more fully and dis
tinctly In the fourth chapter Of the Acts;
There was no one among them that
lacked. LANDS and houses were sold, and
the produce laid at the Apostles feet for
general disiribuilon;" neither said any
man that aught OF what he possessed was
his own. but they had ell things common"
Surely language could not be palmer.
This may seem like q dangerous doc
tripe. but az Mr. MILL has somewhere OBJ
served. mo one can be a true thinker who
does not recognize that a. thinker IL is his
arst duty 10 follow his intellect 10 whatever
conclusions It may lead" %, II we find
that present ownership OF land traces lite
title back 10 those who seized and possessed
Il only By force Of arms, rsptne and supe-
rior physical power or cunning, We are
ympeIIed 10 the. conclusion that the title 10
indeed defective. So, too, n We admit that
exclusive private ownership may be legally
permftted for one acre. the area under the
principle becomes limitless. and any dozen
or any one man may possess the
whole earth. and keep out into
space any individual Of the entire .4Oo.-
900 600 individuals. the worlds population,
Who may be found trespassing upon IL. II
the uaters-sre tree. and the air is free, why
should not the lard be equally so7 Who
SHAH ssy that the one thing is different from
the other in the matter Of exclusive owner
shin WHO can logically show cause Why
tbs sane sunlight that illumines the gildsd
- a.. fr,-ff- rrfrfrrrsf shall MT A.