Fort Worth daily gazette. (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1882-1891, 1883-12-27

ID BY the jewish law propei'
al in immovables was only ten
ne porary possession; on the Sabbaticf
10 wear IL returned to the common stock
A. be redistributed. Thus we see tina
~ the idea of exclusive property Il
rs land is not one of fundamental right
lie but of growth. Communists. social
o lists, Fourlerists and agrarans, though
q their systems are impractcable ant
l. preposterous have good foundation
e for the schemes which they advocate
: Indeed, as Herbert Spencer says, "nt
: system is so false but it contains
, foundation of truth Especially il
e any system that weakens individual
independence and strengthens tn,
: powers of government incompatible
with our plan of government in thi'
country, and unacceptable to the people
: The relinquishing of private and ex'
elusive right of property, which must
Immediately he assumed by the state,
which is the people in their collective
capacity, is a dangerous move. The
first step toward such thing is dan
gerous. The advocacy of free
range" is n step, and Il long one,
in the direction of communism.
The apparent aggressions of wealth
and the asserted tendency of capital to
aggrandizc itself by constant accre-
tions, in which the poorer classes suf-
fer by the Entertainments of the wealth.
Ter, is the theme of much discussion
| through the press of Texas at this time,
and will be more fully treated in the
discussion which will follow the in
PRODUCTION of the subject in the legis-
lature soon to be convened 1t has
been said that the public domain of
Texas is being taken no by the few in
vast tracts; that this aggregation of
landed wealth is hurtful to the state
and to the poorer classes; that it is an
abuse of the rights of the many; that
it works to to the creation of land
ed aristocracy,n and to deprive the
poorer classes of the benefits of dis
tribution of the state lands; that with
such tendency ii is hostile to the
spirit of popular government; and that
remedy must be found by which the
corporate or individual aggregation of
land may be checked and limited
This view, with varying shades of in
dividual opinion is shared by strong
party in Texas, whose influence will
he impressed on legislation. Some 90
further, and say that not only may
land not be taken up in great |
bodies by few owners, but
that it ought not to be taken |
up and converted to individual
property ut all, but should, with def
mite limitations, remain the property |
of the state, but always remain COM
mon property. This is an outcropping
of the communistic principle, not in
its rankest form, but dangerous and
threatening. 1t will have advocates
in the law-making body. The people
are not likely to embrace communism
as principle, but their strong hostility
to what savors of monopoly in land
may carry them to the length of
vague notion that successful resistance
of monopolistic aggressions can only
be made by the power of the state;
and when such views obtain popular
footing ii will be but step to invest
ing the state with power to hold land
for the common use, to be farmed out,
but.upon terms which shall prevent
the acquisition of absolute property in
such land.
The demand for " free range" is but
an assertion of the principle of COM
1t withholds land from in
dividual proprietorship and makes of
the stretching prairies of Texas one
immense common. This is the force
of the fence-cutters' movement. So
far as that movement has life, and in
such measure as it is upheld and con-
doned, in like proportion are the prin-
cipies of communism planted and
nourlshed. 1t vitaliZes and uuickens
the voice that we heard not long ago
proclaiming that "earth, air and
water" are the free gifts of nature,
ana should not be appropriated to pri-
vate use. To consume space in COM
batting so completely exploded {
would be to give it a dig
nifty that it does not possess. One
might as seriously argue against the
that the moon is made of
green cheese. Yet, while they repro
bate the thought of communism, there
are thousands in Texas who are active !
promoters of the living and leading !
principle OF communism. They want
Tree range. They would like to see i,
every fence that marks the boundary ,
Of individual ownership destroyed, F.,
ana lines of property demarka. >
lion blotted out. This de- /,
'nand Will make itself heard in
v aEI