Abbildungen der Seite
PDF
EPUB

But the trouble with his theory is, that it is based upon the assumption that the wealth produced by labor in any given case will be expended for other labor or exchanged for other wealth. This may or may not be the case. If not, then it is not capital, being wealth which is not used to procure more wealth. In that case, the pre-existing capital which had been paid out in wages, has been paid not only temporarily but permanently; and in all such cases George's theory, even in the sense in which he understands it, falls to the ground.

George's treatment of the Malthusian theory is not much better. The theory of Malthus, that the growth of population has a tendency to press upon the means of subsistence, and thus to decrease wages, George denies entirely, and claims to have overthrown. But all his arguments are directed to showing that up to this time, the evils of destitution and poverty have not been caused by a pressure of population upon means of subsistence, but may all be accounted for by other causes. But this does not disprove such a tendency. It shows only that it has been thus far counteracted by other causes;-by wars, famine, and pestilence, and especially by the discovery and opening up to cultivation and improvement, of new countries vast in extent and in productive capacity.

This on the supposition that his arguments are valid. But when applied to the older countries of Europe, and especially in the case of Ireland, so far from being valid, they are exceedingly fallacious.

The absenteeism of Ireland is set down as one of the principal causes of the destitution in that country, and no doubt it is a crying evil. But there has been an actual pressure of population upon the means of subsistence. And suppose better conditions had prevailed. Suppose all the land in Ireland had gone into the possession of the people in small holdings, or even in small parcels in fee simple, and at the same time all the population which has overflowed to this and other countries, had remained; how long would it have taken for the increase of population to press upon the means of subsistence?

The Malthusian doctrine is based upon three facts. First, that a large proportion of the population must ever be engaged

in the cultivation or improvement of land; second, that the quantity of land in every country and on the entire earth, is limited; and third, the natural increase of population is unlimited. George cannot eliminate any one of these facts; therefore he cannot overthrow the Malthusian theory. To what extent that theory is to be resorted to in explanation of existing evils, is another question. Some writers may place too much stress upon it, and George, too little; and this is probably the true state of the case.

There is a point that George might have made, but did not. He might have struck a powerful blow at our landed system, by attacking the principle of ownership, involving speculation, in vacant land. But here again he attempted too much, by attacking not only ownership of vacant land, but all ownership of land. Such an attack has no just foundation, and hence can never be successful.

There is in nature a just foundation of ownership of improved land, or which amounts to the same thing, the right of the possessor, his heirs or assigns, to retain the continued possession of it indefinitely, which is all that is meant by ownership when applied to this species of property.

George says land is not a subject of ownership because it is an element of nature. But it is no more an element of nature than the growing tree. When the tree has been felled, sawed up into boards, and from one of the boards a jack-plane is constructed, George admits that the maker of the plane has a right to it against the world, because it is the product of his labor. But it is not the exclusive product of his labor. It is the result of the labor of himself and others expended upon an element of nature, to wit, the tree. Now if a man, having possession of land, cultivates or improves it, so as to produce something from it which is as much wealth as the plane, then his labor has been expended upon and becomes incorpo rated with the land, as really as is the case with the tree. The tree has been severed and removed, it is true, while the land has not, but that does not alter the case. Each has become subject to the sort of possession to which it is susceptible and in both cases the possession is exclusive.

Again, if we go back to first principles, and take society in its rudest stages, he who first acquired exclusive possession of any element or product of nature, thus acquired a right to it against others. This is so laid down by all the writers on the law of nature, and the principle is illustrated by the familiar case of the savage who first obtains possession of the shade of a tree, on a hot, sultry day.

But when we come to treat of vacant land, the case is entirely different. *

The time has come when the principles upon which our landed system is based, should be carefully examined from the foundations, and if the foundations are wrong, reforms should be instituted and carried forward, so far as the same can be done without interfering with vested rights.

The time has come when an attempt should be made to remedy such defects in our social structure, as may rightfully be made cause of complaint.

An idea is pervading the masses that there is something wrong, and they are striking like a strong man in the dark.

*NOTE. Many years ago the writer of this wrote a series of articles on "Land Reform," which were published at the time in the Chicago Tribune, in which he took the ground that there was not in nature any real foundation for private ownership of vacant and unoccupied land, and maintaining that the wild lands of this country could rightfully only be held by the government in trust for actual occupants. He has never seen reason to change the views then expressed.

Such views have also been sanctioned by eminent writers on political economy.

John Stuart Mill, after stating clearly the foundation for private ownership of land, says:

"These are the reasons which form the justification, in an economical point of view. of property in land. It is seen that they are only valid in so far as the proprietor of land is its improver. Whenever, in any country, the proprietor, generally speaking, ceases to be the improver, political economy has nothing to say in defense of landed property as there established. In no sound theory of private property was it ever contemplated that the proprietor of land, should be merely a sinecurist quartered on it.” -(Principles of Political Economy, p. 243.)

And again:

"When land is not intended to be cultivated, no good reason can in general be given for its being private property at all.”—(Ibid. p. 298.)

Let us show them that we are willing to inaugurate such reforms as are based upon correct principles, and such as can be carried out without violent or radical changes.

Let all unoccupied lands now claimed by the government be held for occupants only, and no other entries be permitted. Let no more lands be granted to railroads, except the right of way, and none to other corporations on any pretense what

ever.

Let the amount which can be held by devise or descent be limited by legislative enactment.-This policy has already been advocated in the Times.-[See an article in the April number, 1887, by Hon. H. B. Hurd, Professor in the Union College of Law, consisting of the Report of the Special Committee of the Illinois State Bar Association, on the advisability of amending the statutes of descent and of wills so as to limit the amount any one person can inherit or take by will from the same decedent.]

These reforms should be instituted at once, and others so fast as their utility and feasibility become apparent.

It will not do to say there is no cause for dissatisfaction. That may be our side of the question. But we must look upon both sides. It is claimed that there is cause: and many believe that society is wrongfully constituted;-so much so as to require radical, if not revolutionary measures.

The present struggle cannot be continued indefinitely without endangering, not only our institutions but our form of civilization. There must be a readjustment or a reconciliation before it is too late.

Charles B. Waite.

LAW REFORM IN PLEADING AND PRAC

TICE IN CIVIL CASES.

Several of the judges of the Superior Court of Cook County haved passed rules of court to the following effect: "That in all cases heard in this Court, the parties shall prepare an abstract or abridgment of their respective pleadings, and of the evidence when the same shall have been taken by deposition or before a master in chancery, and such abstract of the pleadings and evidence shall be read on the hearing in lieu of the original pleadings and depositions."

This will be found a very useful practice, especially in chancery suits, where the pleadings are usually more special than in suits at law. It is however, only an adaptation of what has been the course adopted for some quarter of a century past in other states and provinces.

Nothing could be more pernicious and troublesome than the custom that has prevailed here of allowing practitioners to take original pleadings from the files of the court when they might have occasion to use them. It led to constant trouble and confusion and not unfrequently to the loss of the records of the court.

In those courts where a different system prevails, the files are never permitted to be taken from the custody of the clerk, and if the original records are required, an "office copy" stamped by the clerk is used and has the same force and effect as the original. A mode similar to that to be inaugurated by the above rule prevails as to briefs. A brief or "abstract or abridgment

« ZurückWeiter »