Phillipsburg herald. [volume] (Phillipsburg, Kan.) 1882-1905, 1889-02-15
Private Ownership in r.and.


/ pers as being accredited to the Atchi-
son Champion;
The so-called Lord Scully owns S.
/ coo acres of choice Kansas land. The
! legislature VIII, we hope, invite him
with the toe Of a legal boot In the
/ distance sell outyand get out.
I have it from newspaper authority
that this same SculIy owns 10000
acres of land IN Nuckolls county, Ne
braska, and as much or more than
that amount in Illinois. He is the
same Englishman who owns vast
tracts Of land in ireland and is the
notorious crack renter who has
caused such awful distress Of the poor
renters Of that unfortunate country
Mr.. Editor can you state any good
reason why such hard-hearted
wretches as. this Lord Scully should
be allowed to own IN fee simple such
vast tracts of this planet? Did not
God make the air, the ground, the
s.so-shlne, the clouds and other nat
U things for the common use of his
children? If he did, wherein consists
the justice Of governments selling to
| a private party vast tracts of land and
giving that man absolute control Of it?
If it is right to do that with land, IS
it not equally as WISE to sell certain
quantities of air or sunlight? Has
not wrong been inflicted on mankind
nv reason Of this system of allowing
Individual ownership in land? IF so,
then is it not fair to presume that the
system of absolute ownership is de-
f6 tive? Would it not be a wiser and
more just system for governments to
endow upon individuals a life lease
on all the land they can use and no
more, and take away the right to in
herit unused land from parent to
child Who gave all the land Of Ire
land to a few ariBtocratic lords IN
England who never performed an
honest days labor Did God, who
no respecter of persons? No, sure
/ ~ not, Ter the forefathers Of the pres
ent owners got control by brute force,
and by killing former owners No
child Of a renter born in Ireland can
own foot of land now. He is
trespasser. as soon as he is born. The
Lord Scullys own the land and the
new born babe has no business to
trespass on IreIand's soil, for hand
full Of men have the ownership and
monopoly on it; have they not! is
there not something radically wrong
in private ownership in land? That
question is being asked by some of
the best thinkers Of the day. What
say you Mr.. HERALD?
ENQUIRER.
EDITOR's REMARKS We have
thought some on the questions men
toned by Enquirer" Our blood
has fairly boiled after reading ac-
counts of the wrongs of Ireland. We
have for several years believed that
the owning of large tracts Of land by
individuals was not good for the state
and we have frequently advocated the
theory that the number of acres owned
by one person or corporation should
be limited. Our correspondent has
propounded several important inter
rogatories. These questions lead out
into deep water, and the best thinkers
of the age, as he remarks are begin
ming to wrestle with the problems.
Some writers claim that all unused or
unoccupied land should be free land
or '1and belonging to all" and that
one man has as much natural right to
go on to it and occupy and use it as
another man. This theory is based
on the proposition that God created
certain things to be the common
property Of all his children, land be
ing one Of them, and that one man
has no natural right to more than he
can use, and the government has no
right to give him absolute title to vast
tracts Of this earth to the detriment
Of his fellOW-men.
Even though the present system is
wrong and the free land theory right,
it is a question Of the gravest import
ance to know how we viii change the
/ present order Of things and get on to
the right track without too great a
shock to the government and the ex-
/ isting state Of things Reforms US
usllv come SLOWLY. but thev come In