The Colfax chronicle., 1891-10-17

to take possession OF and continuously
use piece of land - sls<msseen to be q
natural right independent OF govern
mental enactments or social customs.
Governments or societies may aclnowl-
edge this right or they may deny It;
they can not create nor destroy il.
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 and 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 are 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 a 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 to prevent others
from forcibly dispossessing him. The
anly natural and Just title to land is oc-
cupancy and use, aud 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
peaceably possess and enjoy a part of
the earths 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.
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 aff1ict modern
civilization? What is it that permits
and invites men to get ga 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.. Lecdom means when he
declares 'that private landholding is
monstrous iniquity." Mr. Leedorn
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 sland 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
phrase the injustice of
private owership of land" 1t isn't
PriSoUc ownership Oh lanQ tnat
we are fighting against at ALL
We don't propose to change in any way
our system of land tenure" We are
lighting against the private ownership
of '1and values, that is, we are opposed
10 allowing the wages of society" TO
swell the fortunes of the Owners OF |
and"
Thus the whole question comes to
his: rs there natural source of pub |
ic revenue? Does society really earn |
wages enough to meet public needs? Is
here natural and therefore Just
system of "taxation?'
To him who has confidence in the
Justice and orderliness of nature can |
.ome but one answer, "Yea"
So we see that in the last analysis Il |
s mere" fiscal question. a 'smere"
lucstion'of taxation; but think some
# us will be obliged to broaden our
conception of the importance of fiscal
questions" and give a much wider
cope to the word ''mere"-C ].
3uelll, St Anthony's Falls. MINI.