The San Francisco call. [volume] (San Francisco [Calif.]) 1895-1913, 1898-10-03
MASSES AND CLASSES.

I UDGE MANURE continues the repetltion Oh
al his speech in which he arrays the masses
- against the classes. He does not specify the
classes further than that they are the owners OF
property, while the want to be, and he pro-
poses to meet that want by taking from those who
have and dividing with those who have not 1t is the
old cry of the French communist, Property is rob-
berry"
The Judge complains that people accumulate prop
erty in this country; but such accumulation the
purpose for which the republic founded Popu-
lation flows to the country where the laws give the
best and most equal protection to the rights OF
and property.
An analysis OF the population of California Val
show greater percentage of men who property
now but had when they began life here, than
in any other Western State Our immigrant popu-
ation has Jared better and gained property faster
than almost anywhere else in the Union. German,
1rish Scotch, English, Portuguese and Italian i'm
migrants in California have in the last thirty years
become property-holders, and are here probably the
most comfortably placed members of their respective
races The American-born who have to
from the Eastern and older States have, rule,
prospered and gained property If this be an evil,
Maguires policy will correct It If it be wrong for
men to work and and their homes, and get
in the world and have something to leave to their
families, it can be stopped by removing legal protec
ton to the rights of property.
Judge Mcguire regards the ownership of land
outrage upon society, special privilege that must
be abolished. The landowners are of the
Glasses" against which he has been infuriating
the masses for many years. In his speech in favor
of conhscating land to the Delaware Legislature,
made in March, 1897, he said: ut may be said that
the present purchased their lands upon the
faith of existing laws maintained by the people, and
that they encouraged to invest in lands by
he If he and
tanned by the people" Here is his own admission that
the laws which protect the right of property in land
have led to the ownership of such property. Men
have toed and earned and invested their earnings in
land of the forms of property that is sane
toned by law. Proceeding in the speech, Ma
guire said that landowners claim that having thus
purchased under sanction of the public law, it would
be hardship to them and wrong to them to change
the law to destroy their investments" But he
declared that while it will be "a hardship it will not
be unjust to any"
That is the view taken of punishment of man for
crime 1t is hardship to hang man, but it is not
unjust, since he deserved hanging. The landowner,
in Magure's view, is guilty man, whose punishment
by taking away his land is hardship to him. but is
not unjust.
But if it be wrong to own one kind of property,
and Maguires election lead to its destruction and the
spoliaton of its owners in spite OF the hardship
them, how long will it be before another Mcguire
arises who will say that ownership of personal prop
erty is also outrage upon society? The argument |
against personal property is just good against
real property.
The French communist at least logical when
he declared that al property is robbery" and Ma
gure is not logical when he declares that only landed
property is robbery.
The issue is before the people Of California. If
they feel that the interests of the State stand the
confscation of land, the total destruction of land
ownership and the hardship which Mcguire admits
will follow to the present owners they forward
this policy by electing him Governor. Bot if they do
this they must prepare to welcome the successor who
will surely follow him, seeking Office by teaching that
personal property is robbery of the people, and must
therefore be justly taken from those who it. not
it may be a hardship to them.