Feliciana sentinel. [volume] (St. Francisville, La.) 1877-1892, 1891-08-22
lora to hold land idle and compel peo-

lord 70 hold land Idle ana compel peo.
pie to pay price for the privilege OF
using it. Any man has natural right
to take possession Of and use, as long |
IS he pleases, any piece OF land that no
one else is using, and the only right or
duty of government is to prevent others
from forcibly dispossessing him. The
only natural and just title to land is oc-
cupancy and use, and the individual
| user derives that title not from govern
| ment nor from society, but from tho
labor expended by him in taking pos
session and making improvements upon
it. This ownership in tho right to
peacenbly possess and enjoy a part OF
the earth's surface is just as absolute
and just as equitable as is the owner
ship of the house you have built, the
crop you have raised, the cattle you
have bred, or the hands and brains
with which you labor.
But if i should stop here, my argu.
mcnt would have no more value than
the dictum of the anarchist on the ono
hand and the verdict of the supreme
court on the other This is one side OF
the sign board Let us sec what is on
the other side. What is it that Mr. Lee
dom calls crime? What is it that is the
foundation Of landlordism and the all
sufficient cause of most of the poverty
and vice and crime that af1lict modern
civilization? What is it that permits
and invites men to get "a legal title to
vast tracts Of land and then hold them
out Of use?
Isn't it the simple fact that we permit
9 the ground rents the socia
wealth'-those values that are pro
n duced by the community-to go into the
Z noclxets of the landowners instead o'
causing them to flow into the public
' treasury to meet public needs? ISM
l. this what Mr. Lecdom means when he
y declares that private landholdlng Is
, monstrous iniGuity." Mr.. Leedon
~ doesn't mean to say that private land
&c holding" is wrong in any sense, but ht
(, does mean that the private ownership
" of ground rents is wrong. and with hun
,. think we shall all agree. From thi
- it follows that when society gets WIS
=, enough to demand its own wages 10
IL public needs, when society ceases t
permit private land owners to col,
o. tiscate social wealth for their own PR
n vate PURPOSES aud thus secure for itscl
81 such n fund that it will not be obllge
n to onfiscate private earnings for thei
III socinl PURPOSES then and not till the
y shall we cease to be bothered with tina
II meaningless phrase the injustice c
Is private owership of land. 1t ism
OK ..private" ownership of land tina
~ we are fighting against at al
y We don't propose to change in any wa
=, our system of land tenure. We al
a" lighting against the private owrcrsh'
s of land values" that is. we are oppose
ua to allowing the wages OF society
III swell the fortunes of the owners I
- land
Thus the whole question comes
l a' this: rs there a natural source of pu
s.e lie revenue? Does society really cal
gu wages enough to meet public needs?
-, there a natural and therefore Jn
system Of xation?"
To him who has confidence IN Z
~, Justice and or,crlincss OF nature c;
an come but one answer. Yes"
, SO we see that in the last analysis
-, is a mere fiscal question, ''ner
Nv. question of taxation; but think sol
of us will be obliged to broaden c
IN. conception of the importance of ''h1'
- questions and give much WI,
e.. scope to the word ''nere. C
o ~ Buell. st, Arthony's Fails, Mimi