The Goodland republic. [volume] (Goodland, Kan.) 1891-1907, 1893-06-02
sEwARe or THE LAnDLEss.

pu6AlSh the 1OllOWlng extract;
In asserting its sense of equali-
~. the present age illustrates its
thoroughly practical turn.
The right to vote equally with
the richest and proudest in the
land is an equality that shows it
self only on election day. Equal
ity before the law is not the cure
all it was once expected to prove.
Equality on condition is the gen
uine craving of this practical and
thoroughly selfish age. The dis
PARTIES in houses, lands, and
moneys are its great grievance;
not that there is a meun and
tunm, but that yours should be so
much greater than mine. The
socialisms and collectivisms, in so
far as they have any firm hold up
on the people, are pleas not for
community of goods but for a
new division of what there is.
The impecunious, the worsted in
the money getting race, the un-
der dogs in the fight, are a great
and growing opposition party,
bent upon making the ms outs,
and getting the outs in.
The dogmas of property, like
the dogmas of theology, must in
order to be held sacred, have
something or unchangeableness
about them. Here, however, are
Maine and De Laveleye finding
out through independent inves-
tigation that property was origin
ally owned by village communi-
ties in common. The feudal lord
was usurper. Yet the world
soon forgot how he acquired the
title. His invalid claim appears
to have become valid at a certain
rate per annum and time actually
had power to change an original
wrong into a sacred right
In democratic communities the
state is now the lord paramount
of the soil subrogated to all the
right and prerogatives of the
feudal king by a chain of political
events that makes its title indis-
putable. All the courts and all
the constitutions uphold the right
of eminent domain but all the
courts and all the constitutions
cannot limit or set bonds to the
operation of that right in the
hands of a determined landless
m ajority. The people are the
st ate, and it is rather a harmless
ction which suppose society to
be anything separate or distinct
fir ON the masses of human beings
W no compose it. The right of the
people to take private property
for a railway track, or a canal, or
a public building is susceptible of
being made potent lever for in
du astral revolution.
Heretofore individual owner
ship of property has been secure
in America because the interest
of the over whelming majority
lay in sustaining it. Every man
p ossessed his own home, and the
prospect for further acquisition
was open to all. Neither the
co amendments nor the rights of
m an, have kept us SO respectful
to ward the claims of private prop
erty. Self interest alone is the
foundation upon which the whole
superstructure rests. AS long as
the great majority have an inter
est in the land, SO long will they
fight for the principle upon which
their right to property rests. So
long will this right remain invio-
late.
But suppose we arrive at the
condition which seems to be
reached eventually in all nations;
suppose the majority lose their
ll1lCl CS( III Tic 1d11O d1lQ 11O1O
their houses by permission of the
minority and for tribute. Will
this status be meekly acquiesced
in here as it has been in the
countries of Europe? Our census
tables tell us that we are APP
preaching this condition steadily
from decade to decade. A MILL
on tenant farmers in 1880 will,
perhaps be increased to a million
and half when the national cen
sus man is next abroad. Now
and then the cry of the alarmist
is heard, but the settled drift Of
affairs toward the inevitable dis.
possession of the many is not dis
turbed. The memorable law o.
fate has decreed it, and it is use
less to suggest remedies, because
society will always refuse to ac-
cept drastic measures until there
are desperate ills.
The 0ueSfiOn we have mt Will