The Louisiana Democrat. [volume] (Alexandria, La.) 1845-1918, 1891-08-19

to take possession Of and continuously
use piece of land is thus seen to be
natural right independent of govern
mental enactments or social customs.
Governments or societies may acknowl.
edge this right or they may deny 1t;
they can not create nor destroy it.
l agree fully with Mr.. Ogden that
the private ownership OF land, in any
sense in which land can ever be owned
at all, is perfectly natural aud perfect
ly just; and will go further and de-
clare that no government nor society
can have any right to claim ownership
in any land they arc not actually using
for public purposes. Governments can
have no more right than private land
lord to hold land idle and 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
as he pleases, any piece of land that no
one else is using, and the only right or
duty of government is toprevent others
from forcibly dispossessing him. The
s,ly 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 the
labor expended by him in taking pos
session and making improvements upon
it. This ownership in the right to
pcaceably possess and enjoy 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, tho cattle you
have bred, or the hands and brains
with which you labor.
But if should stop here, my argu.
ment would have no more value than
the dictum of the anarchist on the one
hand and the verdict of the supreme
court on the other. This is one side of
the sign board Let us see 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 affiict 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
the ground rents" = the social
wealth"-those values that are pro-
duced by the communicate go into the
pockets of the landowners instead OF
causing them to flow into the public
treasury to meet public needs? Isn't
this what Mr.. Leedom means when he
declares "that private landholding is .
monstrous iniquity." Mr. Leedom
doesn't mean to say that private land.
holding is wrong in any sense, but he
does mean that the private ownership
of ground rents is wrong, and with him
think we shall all agree. From this
it follows that when society gets wise
enough to demand its own wages for
public needs, when society ceases to
permit private LAND owners" to con-
fiscate social wealth for their own pri-
vate purposes, and thus secure for itself
such fund that it will not be obliged
to confiscate private earnings for their
social purposes, then and not till then
shall we cease to be bothered with that
meaningless phrase "the injustice Of
private owcrship of land" 1t isn't
''private" ownership Of land that
we are fighting against at all.
We don't propose to change in any way
our system of land tenure" We are
fighting against the private ownership
of "land values" that is, we are OPPOSED
to allowing the "wages Of society" to
swell the fortunes of tho Owners Of
land"
Thus the whole question comes to
this: us there natural source OF pub
lie revenue? Does society really earn
wages enough to meet public needs? Is
there natural and therefore just
system of "taxation?"
To him who has confidence In ths
justice and orderliness Of nature can
come but one answer, Eyes"
So we see that in the last analysis II
is a mere" fiscal question, q mere"
question Of taxation; but think some
of US will be obliged to broaden our
conception of the Importance Of fiscal
questions" and give much wider
scope to the word ''mere. &C. ].
Buell., st. Anthony's Falls, MINI.