The Great Land Question.
AGITATED BY HENRY GEORGE, MICHAEL DAVITT, PROF. WALLACE, DR. EADON AND REFORMATORY SOCIETIES IN GREAT BRITAIN AND GERMANY.
They who in the fearless pursuit of truth attain ideas for which the age is not prepared are recognized as Utopians. The dullards who have not the desire, and therefore have not the capacity to seek new truth, languidly regard as dreamers the men who talk of things so foreign to their own habits. The more dogmatic class, inspired by the dogmatism of the colleges, array themselves in scorn to repel new thought. But, fortunately, as men die they fail to transmit all of their bigotry to posterity, and new men come in with new ideas.
In that new world of thought to which anthropology belongs, the basis of social order is understood, and I felt it my duty in 1847 to present the law of justice in relation to “The Land and the People,” with very little hope that the doctrine presented would ever become in my own lifetime a basis of political action, since other ideas equally true and equally demonstrable have to bide their time. But the toilers who suffer from the lack of employment have furnished an eager audience to the land reformers, and the great land question is destined to agitate the nations for a century to come. The Boston Globe recently called attention to the original presentation of this subject at Cincinnati, in the following editorial:—
“There seems to be a notion prevalent that the ideas advocated by Mr. George are novel. But they are not. They once more illustrate the familiar fact that there is nothing new under the sun. Much the same doctrines were urged here in America at least forty years ago, and were the subject of comment in the papers of the day.
“Dr. J. R. Buchanan, now of Boston, presented the case at Cincinnati in 1847 much as it is now put by Mr. George and Mr. Davitt. The Memphis Appeal of September 23 of that year, gave an elaborate review of Dr. Buchanan’s essay, in which it said:
“‘The Land and the People’ is the title of a well-written pamphlet from the pen of Dr. J. R. Buchanan of Cincinnati, formerly known to our citizens as an able and accomplished lecturer on the science of neurology. It is quite plain from the production in question that the doctor has not confined himself to the study of the physiological system, of which we believe he is the author, but has evidently thought deeply upon other subjects vitally concerning the well being and progress of society. Whatever may be thought of the positions of this pamphlet, we cannot deny to it the merit of great beauty of style and force of logic. The whole argument is based upon the proposition that the earth is the original gift of God to man, and as such belongs of right to the human race in general, and not to the individuals of the race separately. The author insists that the land is not the product of man’s labor any more than air, sunshine, or water, and that originally this gift of God ought to have been left as free as those lighter, but indispensable elements must ever be, from their very nature. The artificial and unnatural laws which have sprung up and become fastened upon society have thrown immense obstacles in the way of the bare perception of this great truth, as the doctor deems it, besides at the same time interposing barriers almost insurmountable to its reception and adoption into the framework of government. It is insisted, however, that these obstacles may be overcome, and the rights of the people restored to them, without any injustice to the present proprietors of land, and without any convulsions in the great elements of society.
“Dr. Buchanan explained in his essay, as Mr. George does in his works now, that he did not mean to annul the existing titles to land. ‘Far from it,’ Dr. Buchanan said. ‘Such a scheme would be a miserable climax of folly and injustice, fit only to render the great principle equally odious and ridiculous.’ The doctor insisted that he proposed to ‘maintain in legislation the broad principle that the nation owns the soil, and that this ownership is paramount to all individual claims,’ and from this fundamental proposition as a corner-stone the superstructure was to be built up. The present proprietors of the soil were not to be disturbed in their possession, and the government was not to interfere in the details of agriculture, renting and leasing estates, determining possession, etc. But the owners were to be considered as the tenants of the nation, paying rent to it for the benefit of the people at large. This rent was to be extremely small at first, estimated upon the value of the soil alone, without the improvements, that being the original gift of nature, free to all. It was to be increased, however, in the course of two generations, until a rent of about 5 per cent should have been exacted from all the tenants of the nation—that is, from all who occupied any portion of the soil. The rent thus raised—a vast revenue—was to be applied to the establishment of free colleges, free schools, free libraries, and other institutions calculated to improve and benefit the citizen.
“This is the doctrine, substantially, as put forth at the present time by Mr. George, and by so many persons supposed to be entirely new. Again we remark that ‘there is nothing new under the sun.’”