New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1895-04-09
TUESDAY,,
APRIL 9, 1895.
SPENCER'S LAND THEORY.
HIS VIEWS IN SOCIAL States" AND HB
PRESENT VIEW.

FROM ADVANCE SHEETS OF THE PREFACE TO \
BOOKLET ENTITLED MIR. HERBERT SPENCER
ON THE LAND QUESTION" IN PRESS
OF D. APPLETON CO.
profound misconception respecting the differ
between my original view concerning land
ownership and my present view has been widely
dnused and II seems desirable that this miscon-
ception should be disspated by simple statement
Of what the original view and what the pres
ent view is.
l. I originally contended that the land could not
become individual property but was the prop
erty OF the community. and that this is, In fact,
the current legal doctrine. since the state assumes
the power to appropriate any land 1t pleases on
making compensation, like power subject to q
like condition being, l believe, asserted IN tho
American Constitution. as interpreted by the su-
preme Court. This doctrine l continue to hold'
and, in justice, have not only adhered to II, but
have emphasized 1t and strengthened 1t by numer-
Gus facts, showing what is the tenure OF land IN
early communities. and that such tenure Is OF the
kind aeged-ownershp by the community In
these passages 1t is shown that among the un-
civilized private ownership of land is unknown:
that originally among the civilized the relation OK
men to the soil was one of joint ownership ana
not one OF individual ownership; that the cause
OF the change from this original state must have
been the exercise OF direct indirect force-some-
times internal but chiefly external; that In Eng
land mo absolute ownership or lana ~ recoSiized
by our law books except in the Crown; and that
the changes which have replaced the supreme
power OF the monarch by the supreme power
OF the people have. by implication, replaced
the monarch's supreme ownership OF the land by
the peoples supreme ownership OF the land Here.
then there is not the least surrendering or the
original doctrine but rather an enforcement OF 1t.
@ Along with this assertion Of the claim OF the
community to the land Itself IN Social Statcs,"
made the further assertion that the private owner
has a claim to all that value given to the land by
clearing. draining, cultivation and all the appli-
ances standing uIien II for carrying on food pro-
ducton. Here are two passages from the chapter
on The Right 10 the Use of the Earth" clearly
showing this:
(a) Well, but surely you would not eject me
without making recompense for the great
additional value / have given to this tract by re-
ducing what was a wilderness Into fertile fields
You would adrift and deprive me OF all
the benefit OF those of toll II has cost me 70
bring this spot into its present state.
"Of course not. Just as In The case OF house.
you would have equitable title TO compensation
from the proprietor for repairs and new fittings. SO
the community cann"t justly take possession OK
this estate without paying for all that you have
done 10 Il. This extra worth which your labor has
impaired 70 IL is fairly yours: and although you
have. without leave busted yourself In lettering
what belongs 10 the community, yet no doubt the
community Will duly discharge your claim. But ad-
hitting this Is quite "A Inherent thlnS from recos-
nizing your right to the land Itself 1t may be true
that you entitled 10 compensation for the I'M
provements this Enclosure has received at your
hands and at the same time 1t may be equally
true that no act FORM proceeding ceremony can
make this Enclosure your private property
% but, unfortunately. most OF our present land
owners who have. either mediately or inn
mediately-either by their acts or by the acts
OF their ancestors-given for their estates equiva-
Tents OF honestly earned wealth, believing that they
were investing their savings in legitimate man
ner To Justly estimate and liquidate the claims OF
such Is one OF the most intricate problens society
win sysss fi.. Win This perrlsxity
and our extrication from It abstract morality has
no Men having got themselves into the
dilemma by disobedience TO the law, must get out
to the landed class az may be" e,...-.,
The view thus set forth IN Social Statics' is the
view still held by me- Here again there Is no
g. Wha, then IS the change? OF course when. in
Social States" resumption of the land by the
community was shown 10 be equitable and advo-
the transaction. after making Compensation would
leave a balance OF benefit 10 the community. IL Is
clear that if had Thought that the change. though
should have held that the community ought 70
that though. matter OF abstract equity. i
would be impolltc to do this Il the burden OF COM
pensat!on would outweigh the benefit OF possession:
has be,om, clear 10 me thai the burden OF COM
pensation would outweigh the benefit OF possession,
in amount. Hence | have come TO the conclusion
that the change 81 tenure from private 10 pvDnS
in Social States l have said Moreover did
OF compensation for all that value which the labor
Of ages has given 10 the land" ,,,,. -.
original view have pointed out (more especially
referring to Engiand) the untruth OF the prevailing
assumption mat the existing landowners are either
those who made the misrepresentation or the de-
scendants Of those who made IL. and have further
posed 70 be robbed exist In .arge measure nose
who are the descendants OF the robbers. and that
thus the anger every~h here fostered Is instructed
And ! have also pointed out Cagan In respect or
ration were TO be carried out, II would require
that England should be handed over 10 the Gets
have any claim Though disputable claim 10 be
regarded as original propretors Il Is 40 true
England since the reign OF Eliza beth. the landess
class has shared in the produce OF the iani un-
hack upon the past. this fact must be taken into
account But ali these further considerations are
change. AMI are not al az held 70 inyaIaate ne
two 0% oSn ihe and a. that it cannot be
resumed by the community without compensation for
original views: these are my views stu.
Il should be added In further explanation, th s
fed views now hold, are not. as Is commonly SUP,
posed at variance With the ysws held by the S rw
which they have themselves publicly enuncated
class The council o. the Liberty and Property De-
fence League. on which sit several peers and two
can OF course be resumed on payment OF fu: com;
pensation and managed by the people II they so will
IT," supreme ownership by the state Is fully recog-
nzed. and the only reason urged for maintaining the
existing system OF anIholding is the badness Of the
alternative system-admnistrat;on BY public officials
They do not, however, name the primary obstac.o
the proposed change-the enormous cost or eGuit-
ab.a compensation, bringing TO the community not
gain but loss
These are not matters OF opinion but are matters
OF fact which anybody ascertain by referring %
early editions OF Social States" and 10 Justice"
They are there In print, not to be gainsaid or
argued away. H. D.
ORIENTAL HOTEL TO BE AN APARTMENTHOUSB
When the Oriental Hotel is converted into
bousa another of the oll-time popular