6o JOURNAL AND PROCEEDINGS. 



But first, has man any natural rights ? Excellent men say yes 

 as excellent men say no. And this denial either originates in or is 

 fortified by the very popular doctrine of evolution. To accept evo- 

 lution is to deny natural rights. For if man, an evolution, appears 

 on earth endowed with natural rights, when were they conferred on 

 him ? In all his devious paths from the moneron up through millions 

 of transmutations and advances, we can conceive of no point when 

 he came into this alleged inheritance of natural rights. Down that 

 path which we are told has been trod by the predecessors of man in 

 his upward journey, we can see no recognition of natural rights. The 

 lamb might covet them indeed, but to possess them he must first 

 obtain consent of the wolf. The sharpest teeth, the alertest move- 

 ment, the longest leap, these constitute the natural rights of the 

 animal kingdom. And hence the consistent evolutionist, in dealing 

 with the status of man, denies him the possession of natural rights. 

 He conceives them as the creation of society. Professor Watson, 

 maintaining that society is organic, tells us " individuals can have no 

 rights apart from society." 



On the other hand, there are still left some who believe man, 

 physically and psychologically, is an independent creation of the 

 Almighty Granted by Him the privilege of life, the right to retain 

 that life and the right to the exercise of -his powers in maintaining 

 that life, and hence the right to the use of the means of maintaining 

 it are corollaries of man's independent creation. Those who hold 

 these views regard man as endowed with rights not bestowed on the 

 lower animals. Whereas, whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall 

 his blood be shed — every moving thing that liveth shall be meat for 

 man ; into his hands they are delivered. Man may kill an ox and be 

 guiltless, but the ox that gores a man must be stoned to death. 



But whether we believe that rights are conferred by society or 

 by the Deity, we may unite in one opinion — man's life is sacred. I 

 may not kill my neighbor, nor may I deprive him of his means of 

 livelihood. Divine law and social utility agree in this. 



We respect man's life ; we guard property rights ; have we really 

 taken the pains to ascertain what is property and what is not ? A 

 fatal misconception as to what constitutes property will be found on 

 examination to be prominent in our civilization. With this miscon- 

 ception I purpose now to deal, for it is the fateful cause to which I 



