CORRESP ONDENCE. 



699 



CORRESPONDENCE. 



A FALLACY OF THE SOCIALISTS. 

 Editor Popular Science Monthly : 



DEAR SIR: Is not the laud question, 

 viewed from an American standpoint, 

 simply a disagreement about methods rather 

 than ethical principles ; and are not the dis- 

 tinctions sought to be established between 

 absolute and relative political ethics more 

 subtle than philosophical or accurate ? 



A great part of the land in the United 

 States was in the beginning, and much of it 

 is still, just in the condition demanded by 

 Mr. Laidler and his confrh-cs the absolute 

 property of the Government. Almost the 

 whole country was at first " held by the great 

 corporate body society," without any sus- 

 picion of " violence, fraud, the prerogative 

 of force, or the claims of superior cunning " 

 in any way affecting the sources to which 

 titles are traced. Government was free to 

 do as it would with its possessions : either to 

 sell, lease, or farm them in its own behalf. 

 Government that is, society chose to sell 

 or give away the public domain in fee-sim- 

 ple, reserving the right of eminent domain. 

 The moment land is reduced to private own- 

 ership, it becomes subject to taxation, and 

 must bear its share of the burdens of soci- 

 ety. It contributes toward the maintenance 

 of roads, schools, infirmaries, hospitals, and 

 all the complicated machinery necessary to 

 the well-being of the social fabric. If land, 

 subject to private ownership, fails to pay its 

 tax assessments, it is forthwith confiscated 

 and reverts to the state, which finally sells 

 it, without possibility of redemption, to some 

 other person who will pay the taxes that 

 is, contribute to maintain society. Who 

 decides what amount of burden land shall 

 bear ? Not the private proprietor certainly, 

 but society. No private owner can evade 

 this implied contract namely, to contribute 

 as much to the support of society as society 

 may deem necessary. Hence every citizen 

 may be said to have an interest to the ex- 

 tent of his political or social influence in all 

 the lands of the commonwealth. And the 

 tenure of every landholder depends on his 

 ability to meet the burdens laid upon his 

 land by non-owners, since these everywhere 

 constitute a majority. Strictly speaking, 

 therefore, there is no such thing as private 

 ownership of land in the sense in which the 

 expression is used in the discussion. The 

 owner may sell, lease, or bequeath his hold- 

 ing ; but the usufruct of society, which exists 

 prior to all other claims, can not be avoided. 

 Mr. Laidler's assertion, therefore, quoting 

 from Mr. Spencer, that if men may make 

 the soil private property, " then the Duke 

 of Sutherland may justifiably banish High- 

 landers to make room for sheep-walks," is 



\ fallacious. This false assumption invali- 

 dates equally all of the ten sections which 

 compose his argument. As land tenures ex- 

 ist in the United States, the landless men, 

 instead of becoming subject to " expulsion 

 from the earth altogether," would be far more 

 likely to bring about the confiscation of all 

 of the duke's vast possessions by the legiti- 

 mate exercise of their constitutional powers 

 of direct and indirect taxation. 



It may be urged that the existing tenure 

 of land in the United States does not repre- 

 sent the status of private ownership in older 

 and densely populated countries, and still 

 less so that possible condition of the earth 

 and mankind contemplated by the expound- 

 er of absolute political ethics. The obvious 

 reply is, that neither condition is essential to 

 the continuation of private ownership. Let 

 the Socialists direct their complaints against 

 hereditary privileges and the abuses of private 

 ownership, and not against that coincident 

 form of land tenure which, when properly ad- 

 justed, is best adapted to realize their views. 

 If all lands in Great Britain could be 

 suddenly transferred to the crown, is there 

 any way in which society could better man- 

 age or dispose of them than the United 

 States has adopted ? No better way, cer- 

 tainly, has yet been indicated. Government 

 here notably the State of Ohio in the man- 

 agement of her school lands tried for many 

 years all known methods of leasing these 

 lands, and all ended in conspicuous failure. 

 Her public men universally denounced the 

 system of leases, after experimenting with it 

 in all possible ways, until an act of Congress 

 authorized the school lands to be sold. If 

 society, after actual experience, has con- 

 demned and abandoned the methods advo- 

 cated by the Socialists, and adopted the ex- 

 isting form of private ownership as the best 

 which statesmanship has to offer, what rea- 

 son is there to suppose that the resumption 

 of public ownership, if it could be accom- 

 plished, would lead to better results in the 

 future ? Under the present form of private 

 holdings, land is made to yield the largest 

 possible returns, and to contribute of its 

 products the largest possible contingent for 

 the benefit of the landless. Can any theory 

 of government or system of philosophy be 

 true which is inconsistent with obvious facts ? 



James L. Taylor. 

 "Wheelebsbueg, Ohio, December 30, 1S89. 



A DEFENSE OF "ADVANCED" WOMEN. 

 Editor Popular Science Monthly : 



I have read the article by Grant Allen 

 in the October number of " The Popular Sci- 

 ence Monthly," and I wish to say that if I 

 knew even one woman of " advanced " ideas 



