Phillipsburg herald. [volume] (Phillipsburg, Kan.) 1882-1905, 1889-04-12
''Private Ownership of Land. !"

Private Ownership of Land"
81 see no reason or natural right
why a deed upon parchment should
convey the domain of land Black
stone.
ED. HERALD: In your issue Of
Mar. 22d, r. refers to an article Of
mine in your paper of Mar. 8th, and
asks me quite a number OF questions
which, if answered as they should be,
would make a volume Of many pages.
Such questions should be answered
in a manner that they would not be
misunderstood or are not liable to be
misconstrued. One Of the most mo-
mentous questions of the present day
is a question that is destined in the
near future to shake civilization from
center to circumference, namely the
Land Question. The term Gland re-
FORM as 1t is now currently used,
defines a great and rapidly growing
demand
First, no more land shall be occu-
pied by a person or his family than
he or they can properly cultivate.
Second, that all control of land
shall be vested in the state as trustee
for its citizens, thus declaring all and.
any from proprietorship of land and
confning their ownership to the pro-
ducts thereof and the improvements
thereon, resulting from their own in
dividual efforts and enterprise.
That such conditions were recog-
nized in the Theocracy of the Jews
under the Mosaic dispensation is
clearly demonstrated by the Flats Of
Jehovah that ''the land should not be
sold forever and supplementary leg
islation recognized the divinity Of the
Fiat and the natural right of the IN
dividual to the soil, all historians Of
any Bminence acknowledge the an
tiquity of the teaching. No legalist
who cares to risk his reputation
Blackstone included) dare deny the
logic of the proposition.
In answer to the first two questions
of ''R's'' permit me to quote the fol-
lowing views and arguments Of that
large and rapidly increasing class
who are battling for said reform, and
the emancipation OF the soil from the
bondage of ownership in man.
''The soil is a free gift of God to
all his creatures in common; each in
dividual has, as valid, a right and
title to all the soil that is necessary
to the subsistence of himself and fam
lily as he has to the air, the water and
the light of day" "R." will please
bare the above sentence in mind
Mans right to the soil is divine.
''They deny the right of govern
ments to barter away to monopOlists
the patrimony of unborn generations.
If the three or four million people
who inhabited this country when the
Republic was established, held suf-
ficient land for their own use, who
gaze them the right to conrey or the
| government to receive as merchan-
disc the soil which Is now demanded
by the millions who inhabit it."
'sThey had the same right to barter
away the liberties of posterity as to
compel unborn millions to serve land.
lords ten or fifteen of the best years
Of their lives to redeem their patri
mony." WAS the unoccupied sol
as free as God designed it, oil the la
Dor of the individual would be hi,
own" Glow is it now? Suppose I
young man is compelled to purchase
farm of $50 acres and pay som,
landlord SO per acre for it. This
would amount to 81, 500, and that sun
he must earn by the sweat Of hi
brow. It will take him ten year
with close economy to save up tn,
amount" ''Now this young man ha
been the landlords slave ten years
He has been deprived Of ten years 0
his liberty and the pursuit of happi
ness to purchase the freedom to en-
JOY his own rightful heritage. Til
landlord might just as well held hir
in slavery ten years by contract OF Oh
government, before he is born, an
e set him free to go and claim his Ow
as to make him serve ten years to re
deem his own. It maybe said that
f deprive the landlords OF their SUI
d plus acres would be interfering wit
vested rights. So the slave owner