The Dallas daily herald. [volume] (Dallas, Tex.) 1873-1887, 1883-09-09
OWNERSHIP OF LAND


for her educated abilities as for her rare |
domestic virtues and liberal social &C
complshments. The effort is in reply to
an editorial in the HERALD Of some two
weeks ago, and is more particularly caus-
tic criticism Of certain propositions of Mr..
HENkY GEORGE, Mr.. MILL and Mr..
SPENCER, on the subject-matter which cap
ito this.ari d
We have n Ye subscribed TO the doctrine
Of Mr.. GEORGE that private ownership in
land should cease by prompt and arbi-
trary wiplng OF 1t out Of existence' nor to
that of Mr. SPENCER, who urges that II
should be abolished, though by a graduate ed
process whereby the owners would become
disnossessed without the radical and heroic
remedy pressed by the author of Prog
ress aud Poverty; nor to that Of Mr.. MILL,
who contends that while the principle OF
property gives landowners no rights TO the
land. vet compensation would be due %
them for whatever portion of their interest
H. might be the policy OF the state Co
deprive them. We merely pre-
pounded the inquiries as to the
expediency of any of these methods,
aud insisted that on principle Of right as TO
fee simple in land we did not perceive that
It rested on any frmer basis than exclusive
ownership TO any OF the other powers of ma
ture through which man by his own forces
| (, able to educo values. Our critic makes
substantially three points, LIST, that the la
boring classes are limo letter condition than
ever before; 2nd, that our land owners pos
sess by right Of charter from relgning SOW
ereigns 3rd, that II ii be ano Tense to own
certain number OF acres Of land, II must
lloglcally.be an equal ollense to own sim
liar number OF cattle. These points are
quickly disposed OF. The real quCs-
ton at issue Is not whether the
laborlug classes are now better OIL than
ever before, but whether they would not
be much better Off and comfortably well
off, too, II private ownership In land did
not exist, /. O., whether humanity with
equal merits would not have II lairer show
with the rest of its knd2 Therefore, any
arguments or illustrations made upon her
proposition are irrelevant. The second
proposition is equally irrelevant to the
issue, for she passes by unsolved the under.
lying question, how did the reigning soyer-
eigns ever become possessed of land, and so
on back The third proposition, put
In the shape Of an inquiry,
is better. Indeed, II opens up
great fundamental questions OF value
wealth, utility, with their nice distinc.
tons and definitions, which In the last
analysis must solve this particular ques-
ton at issue. 1t would rather Seem that
and is q common inheritance, and to allow
any exclusive right to It while others have
no portion is privilege. On the other hand
az Mr.. MmLs has Observed no quantity ol
movable property which person can &C
quIre by his labor prevents others from ac'
curing the like by the same means. The
whole difficulty with the economists ap
pears to hinge upon the ideas involved in
the words "value, utility" and wealth"
FOR instance, Mr.. ADAM SMITH
says that In agriculture nature
labors alone with man, and heI
produce has its value as well as that of the
most expensive workman, Tho land
owner advocates deny that nature pro
duces value, but only utility. Mr.. BAsrrAr
insists that Gland Is an instrument, which
only so lar as II is prepared by the pro.
priotor by enclosure, drainage, furnishings,
etc, produces value, but value represent
ing actual human services, and Tor these
alone does the proprietor receive rent"
MB SAY, per contra, contends that "land is
not the only natural agent which produces
value. The waters OF the sea and rivers
give us fishes, float our ships, turn our
machinery, etc.; just so the wind and the
sun work for us, and no one can say
must bo paid for their services"
81, too, Mr.. McOuLLouGu says that trent Is
always monopoly, and that for the clear
reason that 1t is the sum paid for the use Of
the natural aud inherent powers of the
solln Tho celebrated NJ PRoupuoN puts
the case In about this way; "Who has the
right to charge us for the use of tho soil,
that soil which does not proceed from
mans acl2 The proprietor. Who made III
God. Then, man proprietor, bcgonc n
MR SENIoR aud Mn. Scgorg tell us that
"hnded property ia an artificial restriction
imposed upon the enjoyment OF tnuse gilt,
which the Creator has intended for the sat
islacton of the wants OF ALL" MNruus,
RtcoRpo, CoNHpEEANr, all take tue
same position,
In view OF these concodsdly great and
standard authorities, all taking the sam,
positive, pronounced positions, and IN,
clear, logical deductions they make from
thus far undemolished premises, It would
seem to the candid mind and inquirer attel
truth that there must be much more in al
argument regarded by some us chinerical
than our prejudices will permit us at frs
blush to allow. We can recall when 1t wal
considered irrational and absurd to deny
the entire morality and expediency o
slavery; and we read In English books OF tn,
folly Of "ihe attempts at the establishment
OF such Utopia as a free, democratic gov
ernment." The question is one which |,
agitating some OF the best minds and com
handing the pens Of some OF the bes
writer's Of the Age, aud the discussion by
journalists Ia not immaterial. THIS coun
try is not prepared for any radical change
as proposed by Mn. GsoRer. There is ne
occasion for Il now, but the problem may
loom up at any moment, and II is worthy
OF consideration at present. In all tina,
we have now or heretofore said, we hav,
referred to the principle Of right involved
not that Of expedienoy at all.
CORRECTING THE VISION.
A correspondent Of the Kansas City
| Tlp,au Uhn had haav ..awalgu,