Sacramento daily record-union. [volume] (Sacramento [Calif.]) 1875-1891, 1883-08-21
REAaoNING Ia a cIRCLE.

The Santa Barbara Press says; "The
RECON-. UNION Of the Sth inst. devotes
nearly its whole editorial space to well
considered argument in refutation of the.
DRY supposed to have been advanced py
Colonel w. W. Holliater." Il adds shat
Colonel HOLSTER is not an advocate Of
large land holdings, and that ne is the
very opposite of alsad monopolist, What
Colonel EoIlister did say. it continues, is
that there are two sides &c the large ranch
question. and that it is folly to cut up large
farms until there is a population ready
to purchase the subdivisions. "Send in
population, and the large ranches will soon
go to pieces. 1t requires capital and ma.
chinery to probably raise large crops of
grain" This is the gist Of the response Of
the Press. We lave no Ff;sh to do Colonel
Hollisser any injustice. b,1tt We fail to see
how the explanation changes the situation
IN the least. There is no need to repeat
the arguments we have advanced. All we
have maintained against large land hold
iugs has added force in the light of the
argument promoted for Colonel HoIlister
by the Press. To say that there IS no need
to agitste the land monopoly question until
population has come in sufficiently to tske
the lands in small tracts, is to reason in a
circle The holding OF laad in large tracts
viii net invite the desired population or
the contrary, it now repulsea IS. The logic
of Colonel HOLSTERS argument, therefore,
viii result in the continuance indefinitely
Of land monopoly. While he asserts that
if population is sent in, the large ranches
viii go to pieces, we hold that if the large
ranches are subdivided the population will
come IN, aud not in sufficient numbers IN.
til that is done. We must convince the
immigrant first that there are small tracts
for him before he will approach us. It
will not do to bring him in and then trust
to Che large tracts being offered him at
reasonable rates, as Colonel HOLSTER as.
serts viii be done The very opposite
would be the Casa large population de.
manding lands would enhance the value.Of
holdings and render it all the more desira.
bic TO retain them for the purposes OF
rental, and tenancy IS the very pith and
marrow of the evil of land monopoly, for
it means landed sristocracy. The Colo
mel claims that large tracts Of cultivated
land are Of greater benefit to the State
than few scattered email farms. If we
grant It, for the moment, it in no way mil
itates against the position we take; we
prefer TO reverse the proposition--many
small cultivated tracts are Of greater bene-
fit TO the State thar a few large landhold.
ings, And, after all, the one answer to all
that can be advanced in favor Of extensive
landed possessions, the final and conclusive
reply is that what the State wants is
men and as large farms 90 not produce
men, they do rot contribute to the essen.
tial elements that constitute a great and
strong State. Sir William Jones, hun.
dred years ago, drew the poetic ideal of a
State, which still fills the text fer the
present age
" What constitutes Staie7
Not high-raised bsttlemeut OF labOred mound
Thick wall or moated gate,
Not cities proud, with spires and trrets crowned
Not bays and broa5--rnei ports,
Where laughing At the storm rich navies ride
Not starred and splngled Courts,
Where loT-born baseness watts perfume to pride !
NO-men, high-uinded men
With powers as far above dull brutos endued,
Ia forest. brake or len,
SIS beasts excel cold rocks and hrambles rude
Men who their duties know.
But know their rights; ana, knowing, dare main
tain;
Prevent the long-aimed blow
nd crush the tyrant while they rend the cbai6
IT, ....all..,.a !, 80.