New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1886-12-12
TYe EARTH AND MN.


mixture of acute reasoning and false premises,
His fundamental assumptions arc often com
pletcly in tho air, yet he proceeds to build
upon them as confidently as though they were
rock-rooted. lie fits from poetry TO fact
with an agility and nimblcncSs which cXcltes
no less admiration for his versatility than sur
prise at the obliquiy Of his deductions. IN
his letter to Archbishop Corrigan he proceeds
after his usual methods, beginning with gratu-
lions assumptions; treating them as incontro-
vertible facts: and erecting quite an impos-
ing supcrstructure upon this airy foundation,
while seeking to give it an appearance OF
greater stability by convenient misreprcsenta-
tions of his oric truth. The author OF prog
ress and Poverty" has from the first been
handicapped by the falsity OF his initial position,
namely. that under the existing civilization
'fhe poor are growing poorer and The rich
richer" This assertion is not true; the truth
being almost opposed to Mr. Georges claim.
The poor are becoming richer steadily and GER
tainly. They are better off to-day. taking the
mass of them, than they ever were bcforc since
the dawn Of story.
But Mr.. Georges whole argument depends
unon his obstinate adherence to this founda-
the present civil cation produces bad results,
there can be no justification Tor his land scheme
Adherence TO undemonsIablc assumptions IS,
however. the essence Of this philosophers
whole position. Take away from his system
the things he cannot prove and little re-
mains. The almost instructive way In which
he resorts to Misrepresentation to support HIM
self is shown in his really absurd reference to
The dark ages as a period Theoretically offer
ing more advantages to the poor man than the
nineteenth century does. 1t Is not probaolo
that Mr.. George would venture seriously TO
defend this assertion, but he could not resist
the temptation to employ ii in writing TO the
Archbishop, even though he knew that the
preate must instantly perceive the extent OF
the misstatcment Another illustration OF the
looscncss of his writing occurs in connection
with his remarks about land. Of this he says
that it "can neither be produced by man nor
consumed by man.; and this he seems to think
self-evident Yet il is so far from being
sclf-evdcnt that it is untrue in fact. Land
can be- and has been, both produced and con-
sumed by man.
For an instance of the production Of land,
take the case Of the Netherlands. For an in
stance of the consumption of land, take the
work Of the hydraulic miners In California
In both those cases the face Of the earth has
leen absolutely changed by man. In the first
case, productive area has virtually been
created out Of an ocean waste; in the second
case. the fertility of the land has been de-
stroycd in two ways by stripping tho soil
away from the mountain sides, and 10y cover
ing valley lands with sterile beds of sand
and "slickensr As an instance in which the
productivity of land depends almost wholly
upon the action of MAJ may be cited the Valley
of the Nile, which, without the irrigation works
which have fortified it for ages could not sup
port one fifth of its present population. All
lands dependent upon irrigation for fertility
belong in the same category. How does MIR.
Georges doctrine apply to themf Whatever
is of any value in such lands is the product OF
human exertion. Is there, therefore, any reason
why they should not be held as private prop
erty Z The fact is that Mr.. George has evil
IDENTIFY not studied the interesting subject of the
modification of the earth by human action. If
| he had we are sure he would not dogmatize as
| he does about the immutability of land; nor
would he venture to rest his argument chiefly
upon this Elusive assumption. 1t is, however,
characteristic of his writings that he should
take half-t truths and misleading surface indica-
tions for universal laws. and this weakness
will eventually wreck his work.