The Dallas daily herald. [volume] (Dallas, Tex.) 1873-1887, 1883-09-23
THE LAID PROBLEM.
fits Solution in tho Fee Simple OF The
Scriptures
As an Argument Against the Theory OF
Henry George.
Another sprightly Letter from Menalca.

itorial of the 23fd ult, calls tor relOlhuer'
which we confess we feel little prepared 4
make, depending as we do upon our UNI
assistated memory for facts and.authorlteF.
We entered the lists in this controversy
with dinidence, having waited Tor some one
more skilled in the warfare OF logic thth
ourself TO become the champion oil the
landholder, yet, Notwithstanding we ieel
abashed at our own temerity, with true
ieminine pertinaccy. we are still disposed
IN rrv "scissorsn We feel however that
we ave I'm the editor of tho HERALD II
ohiyalrous foe, who has done us TOO
much honor In his notice OF our
review, But clad, as he Is, In the armor OF
logic, AMI hanked by such formidable
array OF authorities, as he has brought TO
confront us, this knight OF the gull can
well afford TO be generous; and II his pen
has not been "plucked from the wing oil An
angel" IL has certainly been stepped in the
fountain Of philanthropy, from which
source alone could emannte the Communls-
tic views with which his argument Is tipgod.
We thought that we had demolished the
stronghold OF Mr.. Henry George ana Mr..
Bailey, Of Atlanta, who assert that Che
poverty OF the masses depends upon the
non. possession Of land, when we showed
the varied avenues which wealth had open
cd 10 the labOrer, and that the Federal
government and the g ate OF Texas had. by
nctual donation, offered homestead 70
every man who might DO willing to incur
the hardships and Inconvenience incident
TO an actual residence.
We are told now that all this Is 'lrrcl-
evant," and that the real question II,
whether the laborlng classes would not be
better of, and comfortably well oil, too u
private ownership in land did not exist"
This Is sheer hypothesis. IL lisa sell-eVl'
dent fact that u poor man would be better
of Il he had fee simple in land but that he
would be better Off as tenant OF the com
monwealth Is not so obvious, The artisan
always receivesa larger remuneration than
the tiller of the soil A common ownership
OF the soil is impraoticabe, being neon
patble with the present state OF civilization.
All cannot be farmers; only part OF the
population Is necessary TO provide
subsistence for the whole; We cannot
dispense with the professional man
or the mechanic, The injustice OF abro'
eating the rights which the present owners
have obtained, is also apparent. Hobbies
says, "wheIe no covenant hath preceded.
there hath no night been transferred, aud
every man has u right to do everything,
and so nothing Is unjust. But where
covenant Is made, then TO break IT IS I'M
justn
Now, II would be manifest injustice TO
break the covenant which the common
wealth has made, or allowed TO be made,
between individuals, ergo, community OF
lands, however desirable IN Incompatible
with Justice; aud ns Mr.. Herbert Spencer,
in his data of EthiCe," oneerves, mot
general happiness becomes the ethical
standard By which legislative action is 10 bo
guided, but universal justice" There
would be no justice in taking from our olt.-
.t,l. tl,atN Iara Ia hsHTa
had endured hardships and peried fortune
and perhaps life, to secure, aud distributing
them among the population with which
Europe IL flooding our country. Suppose
she chooses TO empty her lazar. houses upon
our shores IA she Is said TO be doing, must
the descendants OF American pioneers have
their hOmesteads parCellcd out to make
room for the beggars 0l Europe2
That land was once the common inheri'
lance of mankind" admits of no denial
but that II should perioroe remain 20 "
sophlstry, which requires but the touch oi
the lthuriel sponr OF truth to unnnsk aud
expose its ialacy. To attempt TO bring
about common ownership would be TO
retrograde In civilization.
We are next told that our proof that the
grants OF land IN America we're obtained by
charter from rtignng soveigns papes for
nothing, because we have "paped By thoun'
derlying question how the reigning sovtr'
eigns became possessed Of land and SO on
back To give an account In detail Of the
origin OF property In land, aud tn Q const-
quent growth of government would I'LL n
volnminous work, but it VIII be sufficient
Tor our purpose TO cite q few instances from
the most ancient OF historical records-tho
book of Genesis. We are aware that in
educing our arguments from tho Bible, We
at once write ourselves down as common.
place and non-progresaiye, and that We are
likely TO initiate against the airy, meta
physical notions Of Mr., Henry George, Mr.
Herbert Spencer and many other iancitul
writer's. IL is In holy writ alone that we
md an account OF the creation OF man, and
that to man was given dominion lover all
the earth, and over tbs fishes OF
the sea, the fowls of the air,
aud every living thing
that moved upon the face OF the earth
This, says Blackstone "is the only true
and solid foundation for mans dominion
over external things" The earth thus be-.
came the general property OF mankind,
who were Tow IN number ana chiefly no.
made, acquiring possession " such lands
only as they used aud only while IN aOtu,l
use. As MIR. Mills justly says "a right 10
movable property was first recognized but
this did not prevent the latter recognition
OF property In lands as We shall see existed
under the theooracy Of the Jews, the EARL.
fohal. As population increased greater
permanencv was required Tor their habita-
ton, aud greater security Tor their posses
sions, hence, arose tho homestead; to
which we see even the b,ute.
creation lay Claim and defend
against intrusion, We think we shall
soon find that there Ia ia mature
such thing rs a"ieesimple In land MIR,
Henry George 10 the contrary, nOtwith.
standing We iind early Ia the patriar chat
age the servants Of Abraham aud Abime.
leoh contendtng for possession VI well,
ana that Isaac, moro than one hundred
years aner, obtained possession OF this
well because his father had digged IT,
This is perhaps the earliest record OF he.
rlditary right, and not IN land but water,
one OF the Tree elements. We next find
Abraham aud his nephew Lot agreeing to
occupy separate boundaries, Lot choosing
theiertile plans OF Jordan, while Abraham
remained IN Canaan. Separate aud defined
boundaries became necessary as movable
property increased, aud permanent rights
recognized In land as well as moy.
aoles, TO prevent aggression and
secure the value of It's products. DlanK.
stone sayl. Necessity besS property, and
In order to secure that property recourse
was had 10 civil society, which brought
along with an insepatable train OF CON
conlitants-9tates, governments, laws, nun.
lshments aud the public exercise OF re-
ligious duties" Thus In short arose alike
the restriction and protection OF personal
rights, Thus a fee simple in land" b, =
came necessity, the exstence ~ which
under divine sanction we will cite one
more illustration. Upon the return OF tho
jews to Canaan, to prevent the encroaeh
mehts OF tribes upon each other, their lin.
its were distinctly assigned by Joshua, and
individual grants made Herald.
tary. Every Bibe-yeader will re.
remember the romance connected
with the conquest OF Kirgath sepher
bv 0thniel, who received as his reoompense
his COT sin, Acsah, ts his bride, who "moyed
him TO ask of her father A field " which ~