The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1895-04-15
SPENCER's LAND THEORY.
His views in ..sociaI statics'' and His
s, Present View.

From Advance Sheets of the Preface to a
Booklet Entitled Mr.. Herbert Spencer
on the Land Question" in Press of ID.
Appleton & co.
A profound misconception respecting the
difference between my original view con-
corning land ownership and my present
view has been widely diffused, and it seems
desirable that this misconception should be
disspated by a simple statement of what
the original view was and what the pres
ent view is.
1. / originally contended that the land
could not become individual property, but
was the property of the community, and
that this is. in fact, the current legal doc
trine, since the State assumes the power to
appropriate any land it pleases on making
compensation, like power subject to a
like condition being, believe asserted in
the American Constitution, as interpreted
by the Supreme Court. This doctrine con-
tinue to hold, and, in justice. have not
only adhered to it, but have emphasized it
and strengthened it by numerous facts
showing what is the tenure of land in early
communities, and that such tenure is Of
the kind aileged-ownership by the commu-
nifty. In these passages it is shown that
among the uncivilized private ownership
of land is unknown" that originally among
tie ClVlIlLeu the relation OF men to the
soil was. one of joint ownership and not
one of individual ownership" that the cause
OF the. change from this original state
must have been the exercise of direct or
indirect force.--sometmes internal, but
chiefly EXTERNAL that in England mo abb
solute ownership of land is recognized by
our law books except in the CROWN and
that the changes which have replaced the
supreme power of the monarch by the SUI
cation, replaced the nonarch's supreme
ownership OF the land by the peoples SUI
preme ownership Of the land Here, then.
there Is not the least surrendering of the
original doctrine, but rather an enforcement
2. Along with this assertion of the claim
Social States" | made the further asser-
ton that the private owner has claim
70 all that value given to the land by clear
ing, draining, cultivation and all the app1i-
ances standing upon it for carrying on food
PRODUCTION. Here are two passages from
the chapter on The Right to the Use of
the Earth clearly showing this:
la) Wei, but surely you would not eject
great additional value I have given to this
, tract BY reducing what was wilderness
adrift and deprive me of all the benefit Of
those years of toll it has cost me to bring
this spot into its present state.
house. you would have equitable title to
compensation from the proprietor for repairs
justly take possession of this estate wa6
out paying for ali that you have done to
II. This extra worth which your labor has
you have without leave. busted yourself In
lettering what belongs to the community,
yet, no doubt, the community will sduly dis
charge your claim But admitting this is
quite different thing from recognizing
your right to the land itse1f. 1t may be
true that YOU are entitled 20 compensation
for the improvements this Enclosure has re-
celved at your hands, and at the same time
proceeding or ceremony cdn make this in
closure your private property.
CO. But, unfortunately, most of our pres
ent lana owners are men who have, either
mediately or immediately--either by their
acts or by the acts of their ancestors
given for their estates equivalents of hon
estly earned wealth, believing that they
were investing their savings in a legitimate
manner. To Justly estimate and lfquidate
cate problems society will one day have to
solve. But with this perplexity ana our ex-
concern Men having got themselves into to
the dilemma by disobedience to the law
must get out of 1t as we'll as they can, and
with as little injury to the landed classes
as may be-
The view thus set forth in Social States,
Is the. view still held by me. Here again
2. What then Is the change? OF course
equitable and advocated as desirable, it
was on the assumption that the transaction.
after making compensation, would leave a
balance of benefit to the community 1t is
clear that If had thought that the change
though equitable, would entail a loss on
that the, community ought to bring this
loss upon itself, but should have held that
though, as matter Of abstract equity. it
might properly retake possession of the
land it would be impoiitic to do this if
the burden of compensation would out
late years., on thinking over the matter.
1t has become clear to me that the burden
of compensation would outweigh the
pensation were anything like equitable
in amount. Hence have come to the
prSste To pubic Wona be 81 ff R
speaing my ocigi lad. ..ievra in Social
the giving of compensation for all that
value which the labor of ages has given
to the land.
of my original view | have pointed out
more especially referring to England) the
the existing landowners are either those
who made the misrepresentation or the de-
scendants of those VINO made it, and have
further pointed out that among the people
who are supposed to be robbed exist, in
large measure, those who are the de-
the anger everywhere fostered is mis-
directed. And | have also pointed out
again in respect of England) that if any
thing like the proposed restoration were
to be carried out, it would require that
England should be handed over to the
Cells of Wales and Scotland, as the only
people who have any claim Though a
disputable claim TO be regarded original
proprietors. 1t is also true that / have
pointed out how large an extent in Eng
land since the reign of Elizabeth the
landless class has shared in the produce
of the land under the poor law and that
therefore, If we go back upon the past
this fact must be taken into account. But
all these further considerations are put in
the form of difficulties in the way of
change and are not at all held to invalidate
the two original propositions--O that the
land itself belongs to the community. and a2)
that it cannot be resumed by the commun-
ity without compensation for the artificial
value given it, These were my original
views these are my views still.
5. 1t should be added, in further explain
alton, that the views originally held by
me- as well as the modified views | now
hold, as is commonly supposed, at vari-
anee with the views held by the landed
classes in England, but contrariwise, are
views which they have themselves publicly
enunciated through certain representative
members of their class. The council of the
Liberty and Property Defense League, ON
said, in their report for 1885, that tine
land can of course be resumed on pay
rnent of full compensation. and managed
by the people If they will it, Supreme
ownership by the State is fully recognized.
and the only reason urged for maintaining
the existing system of landholding is the
badness of the alternative system-admin-
istration by public officials. They do not.
however, name the primary obstacle to the
proposed change-the enormous cost OF
equitable compensation, bringing to the
community not gain but loss.
These are not matters of opinion. but are
- Fa &frts