Frostburg mining journal. [volume] (Frostburg, Md.) 1871-1913, 1895-01-05
CORRESPONDENTS.
Progress and Poverty" Defended

of Sykesville, Md, discusses Henry
George from IL Christian Standpoint"
and condemns him for the alleged
reason that private property in land is
just.
Mr. Georges theory is based on the
opposite assumption. namely-that
private ownership of land is wrong.
and of course if the premise of your
correspondent Is correct his conclusion
follows naturally.
But is he correct from Il christian
standpoint in asserting the justice of
private property in land?
Possibly: but this writer hardly
thinks that the two utterances of
Christ which your correspondent
quotes are sufficient to establish the
fact, if it is a fact, 1.-The meek shall
inherit the earth" Will youl cores
pendent kindly point out the method
of reasoning whereby he finds in this
utterance of the Man of Galiee author
| ity or sanction for individual owner
ship of land?' Even if your cores
pondent shall take the sentence liter
ally as he quotes it, he must admit
that the Savior includes all of the
meek" in his statement. He does
not say that the earth shall be the
heritage of select portion of the
meek" but that ''tle meek''-the
whole of '.the meek shall inherit
the earth"
Now, let us suppose for Il moment
that the time has arrived when the
prophecy of our Lord is to be fulfilled.
How would your correspondent APP
portion the earth among the meek p
We may be very sure there will be
none on earth who are not "meek"
when the time of appOrtionment shall
dent has only to determine the method
by which each present inhabitant may
be secured in that share of the earth
which is his birthright to see tina;
until private ownership of land is
abolished 1.-The meek will" never sin
herit the EARTH For if the earth were
divided among them tomorrow and
| the share of each were made absolutely
his individual property to do with as
he sees fit, where do the rights of the
"meek" individual who reaches his
majority on the next day after the APP
portionment come in? Manlfestly to
conserve these rights would require
new apportionment and the same is
true OF each newcomer. SO that to
reconcile private ownership of land
with the text quoted by your correspon-
dent would require a daily apportion-
ment of the earth among its legatees,
which is an impossibilty.
Again-"There Is no man that hath
left house. or brethren. or sister. or
| atbar M bpp ~ 70 az, oh IL i
or lands for my sake and the gospels
bnt he shall receive an hundred fold
now in this time" 1t is also difficult
to find herein that sanction and
auth GRITTY for individual ownership of
land which your correspondent pro-
fesses to see, unless he shall assume
that a man has a right to sell his
father. or his mother. or his children
equally with his houses and lands; or,
to reduce the proposition to an under
standable basis-if man shall leave
a father, mother, wife, three children
and five brothers and sisters, and ten
acres Of land for Christ's sake. he will
be rewarded with an hundred fathers.
an hundred mothers, an hundred
wives, three hundred children. five
hundred brothers and sisters, and
thousand acres of land-all of which
he may sell at the highest market price
and appropriate the proceeds. Or he
may leave these to again walk with
Christ, when he will be rewarded with
10000 each fathers, mothers and wives
(and mothers-in-l aw,) and 10000 child
ren, $4,000 brothers and sisters, and
100000 acres of land Aud what is TO
hinder him repeating this process until
he shall own the whole earth? And
would your correspondent consider it
just that he should?
But christianity doesn't sanction in
divldual ownership of land. Far from
1t. On the contrary, individual own
ershlp of land is utterly inconsistent
with the teachings of Christ. All men
must get their living from the earth !;
to reduce the earth, therefore, to pri-
waite ownership is to give the owners
dominion over the lives of those who
are landless. How does this comport
with the teaching that "all men are
equal in the sight of God ?" If man
is entitled to enjoy the fruits of his
LABOR, then private ownership of land
is wrong, for it enables the owner to
exact from the laborer SO much of his
product as the owner shall choose.
Nay, mOre-it enables the owner to
deny the landless man the right to
labor altogether, which is equivalent
to sentence of death
Is this the christian (?)-God save the
mark-standpoin from which your cor
respondent discusses Henry George
If so, he will find very few to agree
with him. The earth is the heritage
of the people. Every inhabitant of
the planet has an equal right with
every other inhabitant to every por
ton of it,
How to secure every individual his
exact share in the earth is the problem
that Mr.. George has solved in his
Progress and Poverty" and the
method which has come to be known
as the single-taX is described in that
work as follows:
do not propose to either purchase or to
confiscate private property in land. The first
would be unjust, the second needless Let
the individuals who now hold it still retain,
II they want to, possession of what they are
pleased to call their own. Let them continue
to call it their land. Let them buy and sell
and bequeath and devise it. We NAV safely
leave them the shell, if we take the kernel
IL as not necessary to cOnfsedte ldqd =; it is only
necessary 10 con.fScate rent
what therefore propose as the simple vet
sovereign remedy which will raise wages, in
crease the earnings of capital, extirpate
pauperism' abolish poverty, give renumera-
tive employment to whoever wishes it.
afford free scope to human powers, lessen
crime, elevate morals, taste and intelligence,
| purify government and carry civilization to