The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1894-09-09

vnlurns rsrardiea ~ fanetaeea 80 feln&leneefs
strictly lsrlcsl aeauotions non n. La =
elancS for Instance ~ The chsptsr on NE own
ership and control OF property. Mr.. Honms
submits that the chief cause Of the current I'M
rest and dissatisfaction is the prevailing belief
that our present laws concerning the ownership
and use Of property are based on force and not
on Justice. He can see no way, with political
power so generally distributed among thepeople
as 1t Is to-day. OF lessening this discomfort ex-
cept by showing that the belief IL ill-founded. or
by 90 altering the laws ss to take away its ground
and validity. For his own part the author holds
that the right to property Il one OF the most sa-
cred rights Of man. He cannot imagine a people
80 degraded rs to be entirely devoid Of the idea OF
property. and he asserts with confidence that no
community has ever enjoyed prosperity or at
tanned a high degree of culture where the idea
was held in slight esteem. lie would measure,
indeed. the progress of a nation In civilization
and true worth by the clearncss with
which IL apprehends this idea and the
completeness with which 1t applies II
to the ownership and use OF every
commodity that ministers to human need. But
what is the primary ground Of the right to prop
erty7 Not first possession; no man gains a Just
title to a thing simply because he came upon II
before some one else. OF course, occupation is
one OF the signs Of ownership. but IL does not
constitute its primary ground. The New World
was not the property OF Columbus because he
discovered II. nor did It belong exclusively
to the scattered bands OF savagcs that occa-
slonally roamed over Its surface. Possession
and use OF a thing can never be the fundamental
ground Of ownership: something else must come
In to determine whether or not that possession
be just. Neither Is the right to property founded
on a decree of the Government. Were IL 80
founded. IL is obvious that what the statute
could make IL could unmake. All would be set
tied by an arbitrary fiat. The hard.earned saw
ings. OF a lifetime might he legislated away ina
ward for their industry than the most indolent.
cree that all property should belong to them
selves alone. Nor. lastly. L. the real ground OF
munity has ever been able to thrive without in
dividual property. But that only shows the
feS gIai 9 - pTYfT tsm ytlb aU Nie sNs s5Gnn Of utility ni yn Is thai, fbSa
the excellent effects OF property. corroDorate the
q the principle Of individual own
Property. in fact. may be defined as the fruit Of
parts an interchangeable value to things. and
this is the beginning II his progress. Man
can produce wealth. Other animals are
better, equipped in some, respects for the
produce property. and. therefore. Cannot ad.
vance beyond a certain fixed limit. BY his Ia
for HE own use. she thus rishtlg Becomes his
property. On this point the author quotes with
a proposition laid down by Theirs:
Man has a first property in his person and in
faculties; he has "A second less intimately
connected with his being. but not less sacred, in
The products Of his faculties. which include all
that are called worldly possessions. and which
aociety Is IN the highest degree interested in
guaranteeing to him: for. without this guaran-
tee, there would be no labor: without labor. no
utilization, not even necessaries; but instead
restitution. brigandaRe. and barbarism." In n
word the maxim. To the doer belongs his
is as true of property as Of morals.
q man produces by his own powers Is
,thically his, and his claim to ownership should
% respected against all comcrs. His natural
light to the thing comes from the labor he has
expended upon 1t and Is determined by the ex-
ent of that labor. Whatsoever laws the civil
may make concerning the possession and
Use of property. 1t can never justly ignore this
light and treat IL a. though Il did not exist any
more than it can ignore any other natural right.