Morning journal and courier., 1886-11-27
About Land Theories.

From Archbishop Corrigan's Pastoral Letter.1 To prove that man has a right to any particular object in Gods universe, we need only prove that such object is neces- sary to him in relation to his last end, or even useful, provided the rights of others are respected. Hence, although it is hotly debated nowadays whether or not man can have the right of property or ownership in land, you must not be led by abuses how ever fragrant, or by theories however spec ious, to embrace falsehood for truth Aim first of all at having clear idea of what IS meant by the right of property. It is then the moral faculty of claiming an ob- ject as ones own and of disposing both of the object and it's utility according to one's own will without any rightful interference on the part of others. It is universally admitted that man has a right to the use of certain things, but that any man can acquire the right to possess thing as his own, to the exclusion of others, is some times vehemently denied. And among the plausible reasons brought forward in sup port of this denial is the allegation that all being equal no man has a right to ex- clude others who have rights as strong as his; not from the free air of heaven, not from the clear light of day, not they add) from the earth and it's farm lands.
 Undoubtedly God made the earth for the use of all mankind; but whether the posses sion thereof was to be in common or by in diyidual ownership was left for reason to de- termine. Such determination, judging from the facts of history, the sanction of law, from the teaching of the wisest and the &C., tion of the best and bravest of mankind. has been and is that man can, by lawful acts, be- come possessed of the right of ownership in 1lroT moi in, ifS Tha reason is because man is strictly entitled to that of which he is the producing cause, to the improvement he brings about in ir and the enjoyment of both. But it is clear that in farm, for instance, which one has by pa tient toll improved in value, in block of marble out of which one has chiselled perfect statue, he cannot fully enjoy the i'm provement he has caused unless he have also the right to own the object thus improved. He has strict right-and evil are the laws and systems which ignore it-either to own ership and enjoyment or to full eompensa- tion for the improvement which is his. To strive to base an argument against ownership in land by reasoning on the universal distri- button of air and light is only freak of the imagination.
 Human industry cannot scatter a cloud from before the face of the sun, nor lift Q fog that may be freighted with damaging va DOTS; we take the air and the light as God gives them, ana we owe nm thanks TOT ms bounty. It only the earth which fell under the primeval curse when man had sinned, and only the earth, not the air or light, which mans industrious toil can CORK back to something like it's original fruitful ness. When he has done so his just rewald is to enjoy the results without hindrance from others. Even such necessary, abun- dant and free commodity water, if @ man by artificial means -eengeals<-a portion of it into ice, is he not entitled to enjoy it's exclu- sive ownershipa Can he not demand for it with justice compensation equivalent to his industry? Once deny the right of own ership and you SOW the seed of stagnation in human enterprise. Who would burrow the earth to draw forth its buried treasures if the very mine he working were at the mercy of the passer-by whom its riches might at tracta Who would watch with eagerness the season when to SOW and to reap, and to gath CT the harvest which is the very fruit of his labors, if he is told that those who stand by the wayside idle are equally entitled to it's enjoymenta
 True, indeed, in many painful instances the rights of the toiler are trampled on and the fruits of his labor snatched from his grasp. True this is done too frequently with concurrence, at least the connivance of law. This is the evil that needs redress, but such redress can never be brought about by denying fundamental right or by perpetra- ting radical wrong.