The Austin weekly statesman. (Austin, Tex.) 1883-1898, 1885-03-19


tail three-cent cars. We go in, and L |
began looking for change. I saw,
however, that his hand was in his
pocket, and 1 waited to see what he
would do. In a moment he said:
'Ochiltree, you've teen very attentive
to me. We've been to the best restau-
rants and had the best drives, and you
haVn't allowed me to pay cent.
Now, you really must let me pay our
fares down on this car With that he
hauled out six cents and carefully de-
posted them in the box. l didn't
make the slightest objection, for L
thought he was an old hog" The
other thing is a remark made by
Ochiltree in the last days Of his con-
gressional glory. "Did you ever hear
of such luck as Cleveland has? Why
if had half as much would break
every faro bank in New York City,"
| PROFESSOR ELACKIE, of Edinburg,
Scotland, has been applying phylo-
sophie reasons to the English land
question. He says:
Historically and naturally there is
no land that is not the property OF the
whole people. An earl or lord OF
the land in the old time only existed
as a father of the population. He
was not put in possession of the land
as an individual, but as member OF
the social body, for whom he held 1t
In Tho rooiyl nhinnt nf the r.
rangement was to insure population
as large as could be maintained for
state service comfortably and wisely
Still the Professor would not confess
to sympathy, even in the slightest
degree, with the scheme of Henry
George In the first place, he is
strongly convinced that it is not good
) for the state that it should be the
universal landlord. 81 think the
country benefits considerably by the
private enterprise manifested by
the landowners as body. The
: state would not spend upon the
land anything approaching the sums
, spent by the present land owners
8 Take the Duke of Sutherland. Would
l the state spend half the money he has
5 expended over his estate? The land
, of this country, as Frederick Harrison
, remarked when he was here, has real
ly been manufactured by the land
lords, who, it should be remembered
invest their money in the soil for less
: than they would get out of the funds
: 1t is all very well for the State in new
r countries to assume controlling
: ownership IN the land, for by that
means undesirable monopolieS may be
prevented, but the stimulus of private
{ interest applied to the land will al
t ways be productive Of greater results
to the country than a universal
o ownership on the part of the State,
which, in such relationship, woule
become a machine, and such an
:. ownership has never yet been tried
i anywhere throughout the world
, But were the facts and proba
bilities of the case quite other
5 wise, Professor Black would still
: staunchly opposed to the George pro
position. I'm my book" he said, 81
have approved of the compulsory sale
: of estates where the land-holder re-
}, fuses or fails to do his duty by the
] soil or the people associated with It,
5 But in the absence of such failure OF
of the state to take land in which
compensation, would be simple rob-
$ berry, and 1 regard the proposition as
: noDsensical and pernicious in the ex-
treme, l think Mr.. George has had
far too much attention paid to him;
such wild talk should be allowed tc
5 blow over"