Изображения страниц
PDF
EPUB

of the earth were to unite, they could no more sell title to land against the next generation than they could sell that generation." He is more radical than Herbert Spencer, since he denies that in the wholesale confiscation of land any compensation is due to the land-owners. We need go no further in the examination of Mr. George's theory. Let us take it as it stands without gloss or comment.

On it we have two remarks to make. It is contrary to the constitution of all civilized nations, and would destroy the present order of society. Secondly, it is contrary to the law of God and the teaching of the Catholic Church.

1. We are not aware of any civilized society, under any form of government, which does not recognize private property in land. The Constitution of the United States declares that "no one shall be deprived of property without due process of law;" and that "no private property shall be taken for public use without just compensation." The Constitution of the State of New York repeats these words of the federal Constitution, and adds that "all lands within the State are declared to be allodial, so that, subject only to the liability to escheat (through failure of heirs), the entire and absolute property is vested in the owners according to the nature of their respective estates." To deny the right of property in land is, therefore, to revolutionize society; to call the landowners thieves is to accuse all civilized nations of wholesale robbery.

2. That this kind of socialism is contrary to the law of God, has been very plainly demonstrated in an article in the November number of this review. To the arguments of that article we think there can be no answer. But we need only quote the commandments of God: "Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's wife, nor his house, nor his field, nor anything that is his."*

As far as the Catholic Church has authority, she has spoken plainly enough in condemnation of communism and socialism, which she has proscribed. By such condemnation she has declared that private property in land is just, and she has sanctioned the holding of such property by ecclesiastics and religious bodies. If the church and her ministers may rightly own real

*Deut. v., 21.

estate, then surely, by act as well as word, she reprobates Mr. George's proposition. There can be no necessity of further argument. The fathers of the church and the popes have distinctly condemned any attack upon the just rights of property, wherever such attacks have been made. Among the propositions of John Wyckliffe condemned by Pope Martin V. are these: "Pope Sylvester and the Emperor Constantine erred in settling property on the church." "The pope as well as all ecclesiastics who possess property are heretics because they hold real estate." The Roman pontiffs have often condemned in the plainest terms the errors of socialism and communism, and have thus asserted the rightfulness and justice of private property in land. Pius IX., in an allocution, Sept. 5, 1851, bewails "the evils which have sprung from the utterly unjust confiscation of church goods and estates, and from the reckless spoliation which has, in a great measure, prepared the soil for the growth of those most pernicious and fatal errors, socialism and communism." Leo XIII. has more than once asserted the right of the church to all the ecclesiastical property, and has condemned those who, under any pretext, would take it from her. This he has done so recently as the consistory of Nov. 25, 1887. The encyclical of Dec. 28, 1878, has these words:

"Catholic wisdom, relying upon the precepts of the natural and the divine law, has provided for the security of the state and the family by its tenets concerning the right of domain and the division of property. The socialists denounce the right of property as a human invention, repugnant to the natural equality of men. But the church ordains that the right of property and dominion, which springs from nature itself, be kept sacred and inviolate to every one."

As far as regards the socialism of Mr. George, the language of the supreme pontiff is abundantly plain. In his letter to the Archbishop of New York, May 4, 1887, he has "accurately considered

[blocks in formation]

Leo

[ocr errors]

ག བ་

res that

n the

""in

cernople in

de.

of property in land, holds such property herself, and condemns those who attack this right, she certainly condemns those who assert that land-owners are robbers. It is the doctrine of Catholic theologians that property in land is held by natural right, which the state can only confirm by just laws, but which it does not give, and cannot, therefore, take away without injustice. This is really contained in the words of Leo XIII. above quoted, where he speaks of the right of property and dominion which springs from nature itself. To quote the words of Rev. Father Holaind:

"The right of appropriation, and consequently of ownership, belongs to nat ural law in its strictest sense. Occupancy is the fact by which the right is applied to this or that material object. Positive law gives occupancy a sanction which society is not at liberty to withhold."

We are met here by a subtle distinction between property and ownership; one meaning the exclusive right of possession, and the other only the right to the temporary use of a thing. There is, in reality, no such distinction. No lexicon recognizes any such distinction, neither is it to be found in common law or common sense. Webster defines ownership as "the state of being an owner, the exclusive right of possession," and property or proprietorship he defines as "the exclusive right of possessing, enjoying, and disposing of a thing." The terms are synonymous, and either of them signifies the absolute right to a thing, to the exclusion of all other persons. The right to use anything is contained in ownership or proprietorship, but the right to use anything does not necessarily include property. A proprietor may give the use of his land or goods to another, while he alone retains the exclusive possession. To say that there is in any kind of property an unearned increment, is not only to state what is false, but to deny the right of property altogether. The owner has the full title to all the legitimate increase of his property, or he does not own it; he only uses it. Every increment is earned, and belongs justly to the owner. If there were no increase in values, there would be no inducement to hold property of any kind. This truth applies to everything that man can appropriate, and skill, forethought, and anxiety earn this increase. There is no such thing as an unearned increment, and

the term, if it have any meaning, denies the right of true property in anything to which it applies. Mr. George is too honest to seek escape from the boldness of his proposition that "property in land is unjust," by such a subterfuge. Nowhere does he retract the leading principle of his theory; and his argument in regard to an unearned increment is based upon the assertion that the so-called owner of land has no right to anything but its use.

His theory is intended to revolutionize society. It is not a proposition of political economy, leaving untouched the fabric of the social system. He does not propose to put his theory into act by any violence. He does not excite the poor to plunder the rich, nor advise the people to take possession of the lands of private owners. But he asks the state to do so by way of legislation, and seeks to instill into the minds of our citizens that all land-owners are actual thieves, holding that to which they have no just right. He hopes to convert the masses to this opinion when the majority of voters shall decide by law to deprive all proprietors of their land. Here comes the plain truth again, that robbery by the many is as unjust as robbery by the few. Might does not make right, nor does violence extinguish justice.

We give Mr. George the credit of honesty, although some of his followers either deceive themselves or try to deceive others. He proposes a tax upon land which is virtually the confiscation of such property. It matters little to me whether my property be taken away altogether, or whether a tax be laid upon it in such a way that I cannot hold it. If "the land be taxed up to its full value," as he proposes, no owner can hold it. As he says, you need not use the word "confiscation;" but "the land becomes the people's, leaving to the landlords the possession of their deeds of title and conveyance." "But," say some, “has not the state the right to regulate taxation according to its needs?" We answer, "Yes, with due regard to vested rights and contracts." The community has the right to do anything just and necessary. It has no right to spoil its citizens of their property, nor to impose a tax which would extinguish their rights. This is rapine, and not political economy. And this is especially evident when the tax is imposed with the admitted purpose of depriving pro

prietors of their possessions. There is, perhaps, little prospect in a country like ours of the adoption of such violent measures; but the dissemination of principles like these, which virtually make every land-owner a thief, is always dangerous, since many men do not reason, but are led by passion or prejudice. Let Mr. George propose a tax based on economic principles alone, and theologians will leave him to himself; but when he advocates confiscation of all land, on the principle that no private individual can justly hold it, he attacks the law of God and the essential truths of morality. We repeat, let his followers retract the proposition that "property in land is unjust," and we will relegate the discussion to political economists. They may study the question of taxation, and are not likely to persuade any civilized community to take any kind of property from its owners by a confiscating tax.

"But," say some of the advocates of the new socialism, "does not the right of eminent domain exist fully recognized by all countries? Does not this right of the commune imply that all property, especially that of land, belongs to the state?" We reply, that the right of eminent domain does exist, and not only implies, but asserts, the justice of private property in land. It directly contradicts the theory that the state is the source of property to individuals. It really declares that private proprietors hold their possessions by a natural right which no positive law can extinguish. Let us see what is meant by eminent domain. We quote the words of Chancellor Kent:

"The right of eminent domain, or inherent sovereign power, gives to the legislature the control of private property for public uses only." "A provision for compensation is a necessary attendant on the due and constitutional exercise of the power of the law-giver to deprive an individual of his property without his consent, and this principle in Americau constitutional jurisprudence is founded on natural equity, and is laid down by jurists as an acknowledged principle of universal law."

To quote a theologian, Suarez writes that

"The commonwealth or the king has a certain high dominion over the possessions of all the citizens, and the private property of all, which does not exclude their private dominion; but, notwithstanding that, it gives power to use these goods for the common utility of the state when the moment of need calls for it."

[ocr errors]
« ПредыдущаяПродолжить »