New-York tribune., 1907-04-07
THE ~HArEs" AND THE "HArE xo1s.

Lord Rosebery's recent comments on the Irish
Home Rule proposals of the British government
have called forth from one OF his Radical and
semi socialist critics in The Nation" OF Lon.
don the remark that he. In common with Mr.
baHour' stands for the rights Of property in
the abstract, but declares against any extension
OF property 10 the classes not now possessing
It, The indictment is somewhat epigrammatic
and has plausible sound That It accurately
applies TO Lord Rosebery's recent utterance we
certainly should not be inclined 10 concede
unless there were more between the lines than
appears in the text We may, however. ra
gard it as an up-tO-date version OF a nv no
means new complaint of socialists against
those whom they variOusly and vaguely call
the bourgeoisie, the Capitalistic classes the
prOpertied classes etc.-an expression, In brief
of the stock grievance OF the have nots'
against the "haves'
As such, 1t is not convincing. in either the
United Kingdom or the United States and we
cannot cOncede that ii correctly expresses the
attitude OF those whose possessions are 90 CON
siderable as to bring upon them the oppro-
brium Of being property holders" There IA
certainly in this age of the world no legal pro.
hibitiOn against the acquisition OF proDertv.
either real or personal. by those who do NOT
now possess it. CWe assume, by the wav that
''The Nations" reference Is chiefly IL NOT en-
tirely to real estate) In this country it Is nc
easy for a man of moderate means to b,,v
house a farm within his means as for
millionaire TO buy a large and costly estate and
he Is just as secure in his possession Of ii after
he has bought It. In the United Kingdom the
acquisition OF real estate in small parcels has
In late years been much facilitated and IN Ire
land the government, under Mr.. Balfour's late
administration, went TO great pains and costs
70 enable even the poorest peasants TO become
landed pr0prietOrs" And, as a matter of fact
property is being acquired every day by those
who had 1t not the day before. Nor do we per-
ceive any extra-legal obstacles or any repug-
rance on the part OF present property owners
TO such acquisition. On the contrary. it would
be easy to point out many landed proprie-
tors who are anxious to dispose of their hold
ings, in whole or in part, and who for that rea-
son are ready TO facilitate I'm every way pur.
chases by those who do not now own land So
much in practice In theory It IS obvious that
those who have property could not without
danger OF self-stultifcation deny the right of
those who have it not TO acquire It. since the
right TO hold 1t substantially implies the right
TO acquire it,
The real cru1 OF the matter-and we fancy
this is the crux also of the controversy between
ssThe Nation" and the two former Prime Min
listers OF Great Britain-lies in the WAYS and
means by which property is TO be acquired If
Lord RosebeEy or Mr.. Balfour opposes extern
sion Of property TO those not now possessing
IL through confiscation, open or veiled, of that
which Is now possessed by Others he is quite
right in doing SO, and he is fighting the battle
of the smallest as well as of the largest prop
erty owner. The rights Of acquisition and OF
possession are inseparably coniolned. DENY
one and the other is denied. Vindicate one and
the other is vindicated. or course we assume
that both are honestly exercised. The social
ist who cries out that property is robbery"
intends to suggest that every one who now
holds property is a thief, but of course he
equally implies that every one who seeks 70
acquire property Is potentially a thief The
man-eonseryatve, capitalist, bourgeois or
whatever he may be called-who insists upon
the right OF men to hold and to enjoy the prop
eTty which they now own by Implication In
ssts with equal strength upon the right OF
those VINO have no property. 10 acquire Il and