The great significance of the appropriation of the land clearly appears, when we consider a phenomenon frequently occurring among savages: debt-slavery. Among some savage tribes there are rich and poor as well as in Polynesia; the poor, however, do not apply to the rich for employment, but are enslaved by them. Thus among the Tagals and Visayas, in the time of the conquista, most slaves had become such by being unable to pay debts they had contracted. If, in a time of famine, a poor man [[345]]had been fed for some days by his rich neighbour, he became his slave. Sometimes the rich even placed a quantity of rice in some conspicuous place and lay on the look-out; if then a poor man came and ate of the rice, he was seized and enslaved[128]. Such a thing would never have happened in Polynesia, and the reason why is evident. Among the Tagals and Visayas the poor were able, in ordinary times, to provide for themselves they did not offer their services to the rich; the latter had to avail themselves of such an opportunity as a famine, to lay hands on them and compel them to work for them, not only during the famine, but afterwards when, if free, they would have been able to subsist independently of the rich. But in Polynesia the means of subsistence are permanently in the hands of the rich to the exclusion of the poor; therefore the rich need not compel the poor to work for them, for they are always at their mercy. Among the Tagals and Visayas the poor, though destitute of wealth, were not without resources: they had the free land always at their disposal; and it was only in extraordinary circumstances (e.g. when the harvest had failed) that they were temporarily dependent on the rich. In Polynesia the poor are destitute of land, and therefore permanently dependent on the landlords.
Their state would even be worse than it actually is, were it not that they are useful in another, non-economic way: they strengthen their employers’ force in warfare.
In Tahiti “in times of war, all capable of bearing arms were called upon to join the forces of the chieftain to whom they belonged, and the farmers, who held their lands partly by feudal tenure, were obliged to render military service whenever their landlord required it. There were, besides these, a number of men celebrated for their valour, strength, or address in war, who were called aito, fighting-men or warriors. This title, the result of achievements in battle, was highly respected, and proportionably sought by the daring and ambitious. It was not, like the chieftainship and other prevailing distinctions, confined to any class, but open to all; and many from the lower ranks have risen, as warriors, to a high station in the community”[129].
In Hawaii, “when war was declared, the king and warrior [[346]]chiefs, together with the priests, fixed the time and place for commencing, and the manner of carrying it on. In the meantime, the Runapai (messengers of war) were sent to the districts and villages under their authority, to require the services of their tenants, in numbers proportionate to the magnitude of the expedition”[130].
In Samoa, as we have seen, those residing on land belonging to the chief were obliged to stand by him in war and peace[131].
In Tonga, according to Mariner, “the retinue of the upper chiefs consists of mataboles or inferior chiefs (2nd class), and each of these has under his command a number of mooas (3rd class), who constitute the army of the upper chiefs. Some tooas (4th class) are also admitted into this army, if they have given proofs of bravery”[132].
In the Marquesas Islands the rank of a noble could be acquired through acts of bravery[133].
On the Kingsmill Islands the tenants must provide their lord with men when at war[134].
In Fiji, according to Williams, all men capable of bearing arms, of all classes, took part in military operations; and Fison, as we have seen above, states that the people of the lowest rank in war time had to fight for their lords to the death[135].
Concluding, we may remark that the facts observed in Oceania fully justify our theory, that slavery is inconsistent with a state of society in which all land is held as property.