El Imparcial. (San Juan, P.R.) 1918-197?, 1919-05-24


We don't know how he who introduced the bill and those
who voted for it to think that this experiment
would led to any practical results In fact we are very
much afraid that experiments OF TINS KIND should not De
made at ALL lest the idea is not totally discredited 10
buy land from anybody in order to sell 1t to some
body else will not help at ALL matter what length OF
time is allowed to the buyer to pay for his farm We
repeathat charity will not solve our economic probem
only plain justice will do it.
If an experiment honestly wanted, it should be
made with at least thousand acres Divide them up
parcels up to say twenty-five acres IN order that the
services of agricultural experts can be pald
by the community to settle thereon and the experiment
will not be failure but for Gods sake for the sake OF
Porto Rico DON'T SELL the and let the State be the
owner collecting the rent and the road will be clear to
the positive solution of our agraran problem Once more
hear in mind that the settlers will be the legitimate posse
ssors Of the SOIL for all practical purposes and that they
and their heirs will have all preference to it as primo
occupant they being also the rghu owners OF all the
improvements made.
In 1889 the General States met at Versailles and when
this MEimportant agrarian question came up it was
thought that solution would be found in breaking up the
large estates owned by the nobility and distributing it
among the farmers The famous able Seyes who seems
to have been the only Of those delegates that
cleary into the question: explained that by transferring
the ownership of the soil rof mthe nobility to the ters
occupants the problem would remain unsoved he re-
commended that the State retained ownership OF the SOIL
renting it out just propose. With marvellous
perception Seyes explained that by letting the ownership
Of exchange hands one privileged GaSs IS would 6e
time has fully confirmed his fears for the present day
landed bourgose represents exactly the DID, exploiting
nobtythe only difference between the two being the
The majority of the delegates to that famous
convention were preudiced against Sieyes because he
apriest Oh if they would only had listened to him.
and acted in accordance with his ideas!
There is great difference between wealth" and
'and". The former, wealth, things produced by the
human effort such as improvements Of all kinds made
the land goods of every description, etc. must be
owned in particular by whoever has legal title to them
but according to strict justice the natural source Of all
wealth land, should not belong to any particular ndiy-
dual Or personal entity but to all in common to the
State The day this principle clearly understood by SO,
ciety, it will be the day of real economical liberation and
all our political troubles will be automatically adjusted
When we speak of liberty, in the political sense it is
usually understood, always forget the land factor
and when mention the word liberty in connection
with America, don't remember the condition that
essential to it's existence: LAND. There was plenty of
in America for the European settlers and this happy
circumstance contributed in great to the exis
tence of the free communities would have been entirely
different had the immigrants matter how educated
they might have been-arrved in thcky settled land
or in parsey settled territory that had been already
appropriated and whose would not have let the i'm
migrants have it, except at very high figure No, IL
BERTY without LAND has no meaning at all.