644 THE POPULAR SCIENCE MONTHLY. 



ORIGIN OF LAND-OWNERSHIP. 



Br DANIEL E. WING. 



IT has been asserted that nothing is so devoid of natural justice 

 and moral right as private ownership in land the sole domin- 

 ion over a portion of the earth's surface which one man claims 

 and exercises to the exclusion of the dominion of every other man 

 therein. The proposition would be true, and private ownership . 

 in land would work the greatest injustice that the mind can con- 

 ceive human slavery absolute if it were possible that one man 

 or a set of men with one common motive could appropriate all 

 land. But such a thing is absurd. And it is denied that private 

 ownership in land as now constituted is unjust, or detrimental to 

 the best interests of mankind associated in the social organization 

 of the world. 



Let us assume that primarily land was held in common, or a 

 yet stronger proposition, that it is a law of nature that all land 

 shall be so owned and enjoyed. By the same law of nature, and 

 by reason, he who first began to use a particular spot or field ac- 

 quired therein a kind of transient property that lasted so long as 

 he was using it. The right to use it lasted so long as possession 

 continued, and with death or removal, possession ceasing, the per- 

 sonal right of usage ceased also, and the land was open to the next 

 occupant. That is, whoever was in occupation acquired for the 

 time being a sort of ownership, a gwasi-ownership for the purpose 

 of subsistence, or rest if you please, and to drive him therefrom 

 by force would be a violation of the same law of nature. But 

 once he quitted it, another, having the same right of use and 

 an equal claim to occupancy, might seize it without injustice. 

 Applying this system to an imaginary or ideal state, to men hav- 

 ing a common interest and few wants, and those supplied from 

 nature by the simpler forms of industry, the result is a picture of 

 comfort and competence for every one of the community ; in fact, 

 an extensive household, with its respected father or chief, around 

 whom cluster the helpless and inexperienced. 



But will any one say that no more stable way of holding land 

 than this is required in a society teeming with population, where 

 each man eager for gain is pressing, pushing, and jostling his 

 neighbor where the industry of one man may have added to the 

 fertility and usefulness of his land what neglect and sloth have 

 denied to that of another ? Every man's hand would be raised 

 against his neighbor, and there would be no domestic quietude or 

 personal security ; and, consequently, no social bond, civil govern- 

 ment, or commercial life. This insecurity I apprehend to be the 

 prime cause of establishing a more permanent property in land. 



