,0- Jv - "bo' ^^ V .0^ \^ ^^ V- s^ '<^.. • ' ^ v^- ^ % » * ^ . \ V ^^. x^V -^ '-?> ^^^ * -t it ^ -^y. V* ^** ig■0^?^ ^^oo '^Aii^is^ .-TV- -^/^^^ -^^i ■ ^ .0 Of, ■ ^ i \ • V . • '/- '' '^' ^' y ^<^^ \0 C5 ■ ^£;^ ^\7 .05 -n^. ^4._ r!> '\^ -V ^ THE RIOHTS OF MAN BEING A PROPOSITION ^O MAXB IT HQJJAIm ILSULOlXa TH.B JLJUUI^TB OF THE PRESENT GENERATIONS AND TO PROVIDE fi'K IT> EQIAL TRANSMISSION TO EVERY II^SIVIDUAL OF LACH SUCCtEDING GENERATION, ON ARRIVING AT THE aGE OF MATURITY. ADDRESSED TO THE 'CITIZENS OF THE STATE OF NEW-lORK, PARTICULARLY, AND TO the people of other Stales and r»Iatidns, generallj^. , " Ihold these truths to be self-evident; Ihat^I men are created equal • tha» they are endowed, by their Creator, with certain unalienable rights; and that among these are life, liberty and property."'— Altered from Mr- Jefferson's Declaration of Araericaa Independence. BY THOMAS SKIDMORE, PRINTED FOR THE ACTHOR BY AlEXANDKR MINCb, ^« 106 Beekmao-street, 1829. 6 5 Santhern District of Neiv-York, ss. Be it remembered, that on the thirteenth day of Aug. A. 1). 18i29 in the fifty-fourth yoarof the Independerice of the United States of America, IhotMar Skidmore of the said Distri't, has deposited in this office, the title of a book, the right whereof he claiois as Author iff vhe words following, to wit: " The Rights of M n to Property, being a proposition to make it equal among the adults of the present Generation ; and to pro- vide for its equal transmission to evcy individual of each succeed- ing genevation. on arriving a« thr age of mau'.nty. Addressed to the Cit z>ns of the State of New-York, particularly, and to the people of other State^. and Ni«ti< ns geuersiiUy — " I hold these truths to be self evident; that all men are created equal; that they arc endowed, by their ( reator with certain v.nalienable rights , and that among these are life, liberty, and property." Altered from Mr. Jefferson's Declaration of American Independence. — By Thomas Skidmore," In conformity to the Act of Congress of the United States, en- titled, " An Act for the encouragement of Learning, by securing the copies of Maps, Charts, and Books, to thf^ Authors and pro- prietors of such copies, during 'he time therein mentioned.'' And also an Act, entitled " An Act, supplementary to an jVct, entitled an Act for the encouragement of Learning, by securing the copies of Maps, Chats, and Books, to the authors and proprietors of such copies, during the times therein nientioned, and extending the be- nefits thereof to the arts of designing, engraving, and etching historical and other prints. " FREir J. BETTS, Cltrk of the SoMihtrn District of New-York. PREFACE. There is no man of the least reflection, who has not observed, that the effect, in all ages and countries, of the possession of great and undue wealth, is, to allow those who possess it, to live on the labor of others. And yet there is no truth more readily, cheerfully, and universally ac- knowledged, than that the personal exertions of each individual of the human race, are exclusively gtnd unalienably his own. It would seem, then, to be no bad specimen of argument, to say, inasmuch as great wealth is an instrument which is uniformly used to extort from others, their property in their personal qualities and efforts — ^that it ought to be taken away from its possessor, on the same principle, that a sword or a pistol maybe wrested from a robb«r, who shall undertake to accomplish the same effect, in a different manner. One thing must be obvious to the plainest un- derstanding ; that as long as property is unequal; or rather, as long as it is so enormously unequal? as we see it at present, that those who possess it, will live on the labor of others, and themselves perforin none, or if any, a very disproportionate share, of that toil which attends them as a condi- tion of their existence, and without the perform- ance of which, they have no just right to preserve or retain that existence, even for a single hour. It is not possible to maintain a doctrine to the contrary of this position, without, at the same time, maintaining an absurdity no longer tolerated in enlightened countries ; that a part, and that a very great part, of the human race, are doomed, of right, to the slavery of toil, while others are born> only to enjoy. I, for one, disavow every such doctrine. Even if it be admitted that the present possessors of pro- perty, in any country, are the true and rightful owners of it, beyond any question, still I maintain that they have no just right to use it in such a man- ner, as to extract from others, the result of their la- bors, for the purposeof exempting themselves from the necessity of laboring as much as others must labor, for a like amount of enjoyment. The mo- ment that any possessor of property, makes such use of it, I care not how, nor under the sanction of what law, or system of laws, as to live in idleness, partial or total, thus supporting himself, more or less, on the labors of others ; that moment he contravenes and invades the rights of others ; an4 has placed himself in the coqdition which wonl^ justify the party injured, in dispossessing the ag- gressor, of the instrument of his aggression. . But the work which I thus present to the con- sideration of my fellow citizens and others, does not rest here the defence of its principles. It does not rest contented with merely showing, in this way, that men have no right to their property, (as they call it) when they use it, for the purpose of converting their fellow beings into slaves to labor for their use. It goes farther. It attempts to shew, that the whole system of the laws of proper- ty, in all countries, is such : that no man has any just and true title to his possessions at all : that they are in fact, possessions growing out of injus- tice, perpetrated by all governments, from time immemorial and continued down to the present hour. It depends then upon the success of this at- tempt, whether I have added strength to the posi- tion I have assumed, that all men should live on their own labor, and not on the labor of others. If, in the course\of the following pages, I have shewn that the present possessors of enormous property, (I mean vaove particularly these,) have no just title to their possessions ; and if it is apparent, as I trust it is, than when property is enormously une- qual, that the men of toil, of all countries, can never have the full enjoyment of their labor ; it will be conceded, no doubt, that I have shewn enough to justify my fellow citizens in pulling down the present edifice of society, and to induce them to build a new one in its stead, provided I have 1* also shewn how to organize this new government in such a manner as to compel all men, without exception, to labor as much as others must labor, for the same amount of enjoyment ; or, in default thereof, to be deprived of such enjoyment altoge- ther. Of this, however, it is for the reader, and for every reader, to judge. As to the manner in which this work is execut- ed, it becomes me to say but little. I am sensible, however, that it contains abundance of imperfec- tions. I am aware that there are hundreds and thousands, who, entertainmg the same sentiments that I do, could have supported them in a manner much more acceptable to the public than I have done. But I trust, if the frame of civil society which I have erected upon its pages, shall find friends and advocates, that there will not be want- ing men who shall do justice to its principles. With this observation, I commit myself to the judg- ment of an impartial community ; and await, with pleasure, the destiny to which they will consign these labors, which have had only for their object the promotion of the welfare of the public, and the equal interest which 1 myself have therein, as one of their number. ^*^ J THE RIGHTS OF MAN TO PROPERTY, CHAPTER I. I am undertaking a work, which, as Rousseau said of his " Confessions," has no example, and whose execution perhaps, will find no approval* But, be this as it may ; the consciousness I feel, that my motives are pure, and that the work which engages me, will tend to fix on an imper- ishable basis, the happiness of my fellow beings^ is all the encouragement and support I require to bring it to a consummation. When they shall have read it, they will judge for themselves, how far my means of assuring that happiness, will be likely to coincide with my intentions and expecta- tions. The same « author, on another occasion, has said, that inasmuch as he was not a Legislator, therefore^ he offered his sentiments to those who were. Had he been such, he observed, he would not have troubled the world with his opinions ; but would have proceeded, forthwith, to put them into execution. How very proper, then, may it 8 not be in an age and in a country, where every man is a Legislator, for any and every citizen to exercise his functions ^s such, whenever he shall believe he may be able to do so, with advantage to his fellow citizens. But if, in this country, we are all Legislators, we are not exclusively so. No one of us has power in this capacity, of making a law over his fellow citizens, in opposition to his consent. A majority of our aggregate number is, alone, ca- pable of fully consummating a Legislative act. As it regards each individual of our community of Legislators, he stands in relation to the whole, as a member of one of our State Assemblies does, to all the members of which it is composed. He has the same right, of making his motion, of sub- mitting his propositions, and of offering all the arguments and reasons he thinks proper, in their support. Such is the relation, in which I per- ceive myself to be placed, with my fellow citizens of the State of New- York ; and it is in the full exercise of the rights, in the possession of which, this relation leaves me, that I shall offer to their consideration, through the medium of this work, a proposition, to entirely re- model the political structure of our State, and make it essentially different from any thing of the kind heretofore known. As it is, however, a proposition, which, before it can be carried into execution, must be thorough- ly and deeply investigated, if not by every indivi- 9 dual, at least by a majority so great, as to leave &. minority of very little importance in point of numbers ; so it is of the greatest moment, to the reception or rejection of this proposition, which- ever it may meet with, at the hands of this com- munity, that the art of printing, has arrived at such perfection, that the price, at which a copy of this work will be afforded, will not be, beyond the means of any man who feels an interest in the subject which it discusses. That every man in the State, from the highest to the lowest, has such an interest, and that of the greatest magnitude^ will be evident enough, in the further progress of the work. It would, however, be of little use, — that books were afforded at a moderate price, if readers were few in number. Happily, with us, such is not the fact. While, in France, which has the best in- structed population on the continent of Europe, there are, as we are told, seventeen millions out thirty, who are unable to read ; in the State of New- York, as well as most of our sister-States, scarcely one-twentieth, I believe, are incapable of reading, with a full understanding of what they read. Whoever, therefore, comes before an American community, with a printed proposition, presented in clear and plain language, built on and supported by, principles, which to such com' munity shall appear to be adapted to give then^ their rights, when full investigatioa sjiall h^ye 10 been had of it, cannot fail to be well received ; — and his proposition carried into full effect ; though to do so, it should cause a greater change, in our civil code, than has ever yet happened, in any country even in this age of revolutions. As yet no condition of things has ever existed, in which abuses have not sprung up and flourish- ed. There have been those, who have profitted by them ; and they have always opposed the ex- tirpation of the evil upon which they fattened. One of their modes, of resisting any change which would go to deprive them of their dishonest nutri- ment, has ever been to represent that the evil was inevitable ; that it was impossible to eradicate it ; and that therefore it was best to submit to it, without complaint or repining. And too often has it been attended with success. The friends of pure and virtuous principles, in all ages, have, too often, been alarmed into an opinion, that they could not concentrate the co-operation of men of their own description sufficient to resist the tor- rent of corruption, and have yielded to despair : while those who flourished in the destruction of those principles, which alone can promote the public welfare, have triumphed over them. But this state of things is doomed, soon to ter- minate its existence. The printing- press ^ to- gether, with the population of a whole State or Empire, being instructed, and rendered capable of reading ; — together, also, with the possession, It hy every individual of such population, of ^^e righi of suffrage ; put it out of the power of a few, to defeat, frustrate, or delay, for any considerable time, the wishes of the many. Henceforward, let a writer advance views, that will benefit the great mass of the community; and there will be found no power adaquate to stay their adoption* Neith- er minority, nor majority, will be able to per- suade themselves, or others, that the interests of the greater party, should not be consulted by those who have the power (and who knoi^ too, that they have it,) to do so. The utmost, that interested opposers of reformation or revolution, can hope to accomplish, is, to retard inquiry ; so that those who have an interest in the suppres- sion of the abuses, or the false principles, of government, shall not so soon arrive at a full and general understanding of any change which may be proposed, and the reasons that go to support it, as they otherwise would. But in the present state of knowledge among the citizens of the American Confederacy, and particularly that por- tion of it, where we find the free white maUj forming as it were, the entire population, such delay will necessarily be extremely transient. "We hold these truths to be self-evident ; thai " all men ar«£ created equal ; that they are en- ** dowedby theii Creator with certain unalienable *' rights ; that among these are life, liberty, and '* the pursuit of happiness," Who would not J2 tiiink that principles, such as these, would not only be acknowledged, but be acted upon, by all mankind f That they would not require to be pre- sented to the consideration of our species, but would meet with a spontaneous recognition, in every human breast ? And yet how small a portion of mankind are prepared to acknowledge them f Where, unless it be in the two Americas, shall we find it even admitted, " that all men are created equal?" If amidst all that has happened, and all that has been written in favor of liberty, within the last seventy or eighty years, liberty is no where to be found, except on this continent, it would seem to argue but little in favor of the efficiency of the Press, or the omnipotence of our reasoning faculties, towards bringing about revolutions in the physical, moral, and civil condition of man. Thomas Paine, who supported the rights of the people of all nations, with an energy, and an ability, perhaps never excelled, and who judged, as to the future, with as much correctness as most men, predicted* (in 1792,) that before theyear 1800 should arrive, there would not exist a' single crowned head, in Europe ; and yet how lamenta- bly wide of the prediction, is the fact ! So much so^ that we all know there is not a single republican government in Europe, where, as he thought, in 7 or 8 years afterwards, there would have been no other ! ■Rights of Man, Second Fart, p. 4. 18 It may not be altogether useless, to discuss a little, the causes that have had an influence in falsi- fying a prediction, which, as events have proved, could have had no just foundation. That those principles which were supposed to be capable of sujiplanting the monarchical governments of Europe, are such as are congenial to the nature of man, consistent with his rights, and promotive of his happiness, I presume few men in this coun- try, will be disposed to deny. They are principles, such as are incorporated into that Declaration of Independence, which separated us from our alle- giance to a Foreign Sovereign ; and transferred to the people of these States, the right of govern- ing themselves. The causes however which pro- duced such separation, were no doubt of the most oppressive kind, and capable of stimulating no common degree of energy, in their resistance. Yet, it may well be doubted, whether most of the acts of tyranny, which the Declaration of Indepen- dence, charges to the account of George the Third, might not have been perpetrated with im- punity, by ^native monarch, over the American States, if the fact had been that such a monarch had reigned over them. And even admitting that resistance had followed, it is far from being cer- tain, that such resistance would have been sue- ceeded by the establishment of government on principles fundamentally different from those in previous existence. The monarch himself might 2 14 have been dethroned, but the throne itself, would in all probability, have remained, and been occu- pied by another. Besides we should recollect that the p^eople of the United States, the first to set the example of self .c^overnrnent, had no monarch- ical nei«^hbors, to interfere by arms, or otherwise, with their internal arraUj^ements. Had such been the fact, as svas the case with France, the first which attempted republican government in Eu- rope, th»'re is tittle doubt, that liberty would have been driven, perhaps for two centuries, from the American Continent, as it has been from the European. But the chief cause of the failure of the predic- tion, a prediction in accordance with the expec- tations of ujaoy of Hie most distinguished men of the time, as well those who dreaded, as those who wished its consummation, is to be found in the general, nay, almost universal want of readers. So much are mankind the creatures of habit, that wherever they happen to have their exist- ence, they seem to be disposed to rest content in continuing to suflei from those evils, with which they have been familiar, from their earliest in- fancy, rather than to take the necessary measures to eradicate them. Nay it is not uncommon,, that evil is not considered as such ; and it fre- quently happens, that they do not discover its true character, till some aggravated act of tyranny, per- petrated by some capricious, or remorseless des- 15 pot, makes it known to them through the medium xif greater sufferings, than those to which they had heretofore been accustomed. Perhaps, in all hu- man history, there is not more than a single in- stance or two, if there be even these, where revo- lutions have been produced, by any other cause than by rendering the condition of the people of those nations, in which they have happened, more oppressive and burdensome, than they were before. And eve^i this aggravation of the miseries of nations, is capable of being accomplished, without the intervention of revolutions, where ty- rants have sufficient discretion to make its intro- duction gradual, and as it werejalmost impercept- ible. It results from these observations, what is ap- parent to every reflecting man ; that the mass of mankind are afflicted with evils of which they have no just conception ; that they have rights, of which they have no clear and definite under- standing I and that, in the slavery, poverty, and ig- norance, with which they are surrounded, there is no possibility of exhibiting to them, the evils un- der which they labor, nor of acquainting them with their rights, the possession of which wo aid remove their sufferings ; till they can be, or have been, taught to read, and understand what they have read. These remarks apply to every country, but our own, and even to this, in every things though in a qualified degree, except it be that of public education. 16 It is possible, I have dwelt longer than is agreeable to the reader, on the subject of the very general instruction of the American peiople in the art of reading, and of understanding what they read. In the further progress of this work, I trust how- ever, that he will become convinced, that I do not over-rate the importance of the fact, that a por- tion so very great of our population, have acquir- ed this species of education. The innovations I am about to propose to my fellow-citizens, in our State-Government, and to the people of other States and Nations, if 'hey shall think proper to inquire how far they may be calculated to pro- mote their welfare, are of such a nature, that they require to be not only very closely, and deeply^ but if it were possible, universally investigated, btforethey can be adopted, so as to be as useful to the community generally, as their own intrinsic importance is calculated to make them. The rea- der will perceive that it would be of little conse- quence, how estimable and valuable, after fully understanding them, he should consider them to be, if, at the same time, he should suppose, per- haps contrary to the fact, that there were not a sufficient number of his fellow-citizens, capable of reading, and of course of understanding them, and the reasons that go to support them, to ch- force their adoption. In such a case, the most that could be said, would be, that the proposed innovation was a 17 valuable speculation, adapted to be useful at a future day, when education should have extended its benign influence over a greater portion of our population, But if, on the contrary, the reader should be satisfied that there are, noiv, a sufficient proportion of our citizens qualified with instruc- tion, to be made acquainted with the design and probable operation of the changes in question, he would then feel a strong inclination to give it a support of surpassing energy, corresponding with his estimate of its importance to his own welfare, and that of his fellow-citizens. Besides, it is to be considered, that all propositions meet with op- position from somebody. Now, if that which I have to offer, should be considered as injuring the rich — while it was of the utmost benefit to the poor, and middling classes of the community, who form ninety-nine parts in every hundred of the whole population of every country ; the knowledge of the fact, that the great mass of the people are capable of understanding it, because they have the ability to read, and the means of purchase, would convince the rich, that it would be perfectly idle to oppose what so very large a majority should determine to adopt and enforce. The population of this State, from calculations jnade from official data, at the beginning of the present year (1829,) cannot vary much from 1,825,000. Of these it is ascertainable from the same data, about, 750,000, are under the age of 2* 18 (ifte^n* The period in which instruction is mo&t; generally given, is between the ages of jive and fifteen, and therefore, if we deduct, from this num- !)er, one third for children under the age of five years, which will be sufficiently accurate for my purpose ; there will remain half a million of chil- dren requiring instruction, in reading, writing, &c. &c. Now, it appears from the Report, of the Superintendent of common schools, made to the Legislature of this State, the present year, that there were taught in those schools, in 1828> 449,113 children, between the ages mentioned : and over and above these, 19,092, whose ages are not mentioned. There are 445 school districts, from which no returns were received. If we al- low that there may be half as many children in- structed in each of these districts, as were taught in each of the other districts, it would add up- wards of 12,000 more to the number. To these are to be added, the number of children taught ia private schools, of which, of course, no returns are required, or allowed to be made to the Superin- tendent. Those, also, taught in private families, and, there arc many such, are not included; so that when a full and fair estimate is made, I think it will be found, that not more than one twentieth, or a twenty-fifth part of the rising ge- neration, in this State, are suffered to grow up, untaught. Most of the Norihern and Western States oi 10 ibis Confederacy, I believe, will be found to ex:^ liibit similar results as regards public instruc- tion ; and with respect to the Eastern States, it is well known, that they have long surpassed all the other States of the Union, in their institutions of education. It cannot, therefore^ be otherwise than propi-- tious, in every relation in which the matter can be viewed, that a proposition is about to be submitted, to the consideration of a people, calculated, as the author of it believes, eminently to promote their welfare, by shewing how to eradicate the evils which afflict them, even under the best system of government, which the art of man has yet been able to devise ; and that people so circumstanced^ that such proposition can and will come home to their closest investigation. It adds to the felicity of this condition of things, that after such investi- gation has been had, and a general conviction re- sults, if it should result, that it is worthy of their approbation and adoption, that they hold in their hands, through the silent, peaceful, and irresistible operation of the ballot-boxes, the power to esta- blish it, as the basis of their social compact. Heretofore, such has not been the fortunate condition of the human race. If, in different ages, and in different countries, there have been found as is undoubtedly true, men of clear heads, and honest hearts, struggling to increase the happiness. Q.f the ^reat mass of nations, they have been resist* 36 ed, by extraordinary and almost invincible difficul- ties. If the States, in which they lived, were small, and surrounded by powerful and dangerous ene- mies, as was the case with Rome, in the early stages of her history ; then wars, sometimes un- avoidable, but often brought about by treacherous and aristocratic rulers at home for the very purpose, interfered to prevent the people from maturing- great public measures for their benefit. Such was particularly the case, with regard to what was called the Agrarian Law. This law forbid any man to own more than five hundred acres of land ; any excess over that quantity, was taken away and reserved to the public, or given to the poor. This law also gave to the soldiers, and to the common people, who had none, lands conquered from their enemies. Anterior to the introduction of this law, the Patricians, or in other words, the Aristocracy, turned all these lands to their own benefit. They w^ere, therefore, extremely unwilling to give them up ; and such was the structure of their political fabric, at the time, that they alone had the power of originating all laws, the Agrarian, as well as every other. They were therefore disposed, as often as they dared, to render it nugatory, or of little efifect. For four hundred years, it was the source of much civil commotion and bloodshed in Rome, and often came near being the cause of subjecting them to conquest by their enemies. At last, the Aris*- 21 tocracy obtained the entire ascendency over the people, and from that day began the decline^ of the Roman Empire. But formidable as this vicinity to Rome, of powerful and warlike neighbours, was, to the wel- fare of the great majority of the Roman people, it was not the only obstacle they had to contend with. Constituted as their government was, as already stated, they had not the power of original legislation. This was invested in the Aristocracy j all that the people had power to do, was through the tribunes, appointed by themselves, to forbid the enactment of any law, which they deemed in- jurious to their welfare. They could not origin- ate any new measures, however beneficial they might deem them to be to their condition. And the only method by which they could accomplish any thing of the kind, was by treaty with the go- verning power. Thus, when the State was at- tacked, or in danger of it, by enemies from abroad, they could refuse to enlist, or to defend it ; or, as the price of so doing, demand, as they often did, the enactment, or the strict fulfilment of the Agrarian Law. The Roman people seem not to have learnt ; indeed it is a lesson learnt only within the last half century by any nation ; that the legislative power of all nations, particularly, in the sense in which such power is ordinarily understood, resides in the Ufiajority of those over whom it is exercised, ft is S2 Tio subject of wonder, then, even in the absence of foreign and hostile nations, that the Roman people could not succeed in permanently establish- ing the Agrarian Law. To have done this, re- quired that they should have ascended to first principles : that they should have explored, phi- losophically, the primitive condition of man, and there have made themselves acquainted with the origin and fountain of all right, and of course, of all power. We, who live at the present day, know that such a search after first principles, has not been prosecuted, and attended with success, until three or four hundred years have expired since the invention of the Printing-Press. This important invention, of which the Romans knew nothing, was that, of which they, as well as all other nations, stood in need, as the means of ere a* ting, if 1 may be allowed the expression, an uni- form public opinion. Although, as history informs us, they seemed very generally to wish for the Agrarian Law, yet, as they had no means of crea- ting a common sentiment among its friends, as it regards the only effectual method of bringing it into permanent legislative existence ; this cir- cumstance may be reckoned as another of the ob- stacles that interposed themselves between the Roman people, and the possession of the object of their ipost anxious wishes. It is perhaps, not susceptible of rigid demonstration, that the people >>f no nation, could ever have arrived at the dis covery and general adoption of the principles oi self-government, without the assistance of the Printing-Press : but this, no doubt, will be con- ceded, that the period of such discovery and adop- tion, must have been greatly more protracted thah it otherwise has been. There ma}' be those, among my readers, who may think it extraordinary, that there could have been found among the Roman people, such a num- ber of partizans or advocates, in favor of the Agrarian Law, as, on its operation being denied or obstructed, to lead to the most violent political convulsions. But these should recollect the pecu- liar nature of their condition. Having no com- merce worth mentioning, nor arts or manufac- tures of any kind, save those carried on, in a do- mestic or family way, and that in the rudest man- ner known to all nations, as they emerge from barbarity into a state of civil government, if so it may be called, they had no means to sustain themselves, but by the labors of agriculture. To deny them land, then, was to deny them life; or to compel them, to purchase its support, of the rich, at a price, or on conditions which rendered it scarcely worth preserving* That we may fully understand the relation in which the Roman people stood to their govern- ment, we have only to imagine that, here, in the State of New- York, the same state of things exists; agriculture only supporting life; coni- Etiei'ce, arts, manufactures, affording no resources- Now, if we allow our land-holders, to own no more than five hundred acres of land, and suppose them to possess that quantity, each ; then, sixty thousand land-holders would possess the whole surface of the State, consisting of about thirty million of acres ; whereas, taking five for a family, there are now, nearly four hundred thousand fa- milies, three hundred and forty thousand of whom, would not have a spade full of earth, or a thimble full of water, that they could call their own ; nor any other resources for subsistence ! It will be said, indeed, that the fact is not so ; and that their resources would consist in their la- bor on the soil, whatever might be the number of those who should possess it. I answer, that if the owners of the soil are owners at all, they are ab- solute and unconditional owners; they have the right, as the term is now understood, and the pow- er, if they please, to say, they will employ no one. It would therefore, be an abuse of terms, it would be the veriest nonsense, to say, of a mass of people, that they have resources, which are wholly in the possession of others. If resources they deserve to be called, they are those, only, of the beggar, or the slave. They come in the shape, only, of cha- rity or bondage ; and either of these, are wholly incompatible with the high minded feelings of free- men. It may then, truly be said, as far as go- vernmmt, or social institution is concerned, that 25 lliree hundred and forty thousand families', in tke case we have supposed are without political exis- tence ; while sixty thousand other families possess the whole property of the State. If these latter shall choose, pven at the price of slavery, to give to the former, the means of physical existence, it is well ; and they may live. But, if not, for any thing which their government has done, they must perish I I allow, that some abatement is to be made, of this great number of the poor, from the fact that all the land-holders, cannot be expected to have as much as 500 acres, at the same time that they are restrained from having more ; and that, therefore, a greater portion of the population will be owners of the soil, than I have chosen to suppose. ThiSj however, is a matter of no consequence ; for where principle is concerned, injustice and im- poHcy are not to be estimated by numbers. Be° sides, if, under the mildest and happiest operation of the Agrarian Law, such an amount of miseryy as this abatement would leave, was sure to arise what ought not to be expected, when there is no restriction whatever to the accumulation of estates ? When instead of 500, a man might own 5000, or even 500,000 acres, according to his means, of obtaining, or acquiring them ? I do not stop now to inquire, why it is, that these sixty thousand families should be consider- ed as having, under any possible circumstances, a 3 26 just fee-simple title, to the soil of the State, to the entire exclusion of nearly six times their number of faniihes, as ^ood as themselves ; or even to any portion of such lands, beyond that of equality. This is not the place ; it shall be done, however, in due time, in the course of this work. But 1 have drawn this strong, yet I trust, true picture of the operation of the Agrarian Law, be- cause I have felt, ever since I read it, that the opinion of Mr. Raymond respecting it, deserves to be controverted, and because I feel that such a controversion, falls within the province of this work. In vol. 2nd, page 12. and second edition of his Political Economy, published in Baltimore, in 1823, after declaring that, " an equal division of property is not to be desired, in any country, because it is not a dictate oj natiire^^^ a very excel- lent reason, indeed, if it he true ; he proceeds to say that " an agrarian law, ************* is as un- natural, as it would be, to reduce all men to the same stature, by stretching them on the bed of Procrustes." I have myself objections to agrarian laws, es- pecially in any form, in which they have yet been presented to the world— but the reason I shall offer in support of those objections, will be very different from those of Mr. Raymond. As it re- gards man, wherever he is found on the habitable fflobe, there is so little difference in the stature of his various species, that there would be little use 27 for this same bed of Procrustes^ even if it were known to have an actual, instead of a fabulous existence. If property was as nearly equal, as we know stature to be, among mankind, there would Indeed be folly e»ou<]^h in complaining. But does Mr. Raymond, does any one, after reflecting for a moment, consider it to be as unnatural for every citizen of Rome to be restrained from possessing more than five hundred acres of land, as it would be, for example, to make five hundred thousand fa- milies, entirely destitute of every kind of possession and physically &- politically dependent on a fiftieth part of that number ? Are not greater evils, is not more misery, likely to be generated, by suffering the rich to go on, and engross the State, than there would be, by leaving them a moderate quantity, and giving the balance to their neigh- bors f For myself, I think it admits of no ques- tion ; and more particularly so, when there was no restriction on the amount of personal property, which one might acquire, (though indeed, as said before, there was little of this ;) and vi^here, for the great mass of the nation, there was no support but labor in the fields, and the produce they afforded. As to the objection urged against " an equal division of property, as not to be desired, in any country, because it is not a dictate of nature,''^ it strikes me, that it is not founded in truth. Un- doubtedly the domain of a State or Nation, pre- 28 i/ioiis to any subdivision of it among the individual who compose it, is property : — not private proper- ty it is true, unless it be spoken of with reference to other nations — but property, nevertheless, be- longing to the whole community. If now it were proposed to divide it equally among them, could it be said, with any regard to truth — that such '^ an equal division is not ******** « dictate of na- ture.^^ Would not the very contrary be true ? It would be a very singular phenomenon, indeed, if we should see them contending for an unequal distribution, in preference to that which was e- qual. If then, it is a dictate of nature, that men in the origin-al allotment of the soil, the only kind of property then known, should desire an equal division of the same ; how does it happen, that their posterity, may not as naturally desire an equal division for their benefit, in some shape or other? Has the institution of government changed the course of nature ? Undoubtedly we must come to this conclusion, or reject the reason as unsound which Mr. Raymond gives, for opposing the equal division of property in question. The object of the Agrarian Law, was no doubt, to prevent the enormous accumulation of property in a few hands, on the one side, and the most op- pressive and demoralizing destitution, amongst much the greatest portion of the community, on the other. Let writers say what they will, of the ffood effects of stimulating industry, by holding 29 forth to those who may acquire property, the idea of uerpetual and exclusive possession, and with- out limitation as to ammrtt; still, there is no truth so generally received among mankind as this, that great wealth in few hands, is always injurious to the well-being of a State : and there is scarcely a nation on record which has not felt the injury, and at some period or other, of its existenccj made legislative provision to abate or remedy it. Often without doubt the remedy had its evils ; and as I believe always. Yet I can hardly credit the opinion, that the remedy was ever as much to be dreaded as the disease. I apprehend, that it is quite possible to show, that when ever nations have ceased to exist, or have lingered on a wretch- ed existence — ^it has been because there has pre- vailed in them no system, or theory of govern- ment, whereby property should be as nearly equal among the people, comparatively speaking, as their stature ; and yet so constructed, as that each individual should labor, as it were, exclusively for liimseif, except so far as regards contributions to the public service. It remains to be seen whether such a system can be devised, and can be made in an easy and natural manner, to transfer its operation from generation to generation ; — but, if it can be done, T think I run no risk of mistake in predicting that the happiness of nations, willlse complete, and their existence perpetual. 3* 30 CHAP. II. Of the Rights of Projptrty, Perhaps, among all the subjects that have re- ceived human investigation, there is none that has occupied so much of the time, and exercised so severely, the intellectual faculties of man, as his inquiries into the origin and nature of the rights of property. And perhaps it is equally true, that no enquiry vi^hatever, has been attended with so little success. It may seem to be the height of egotism, of vanity, of arrogance, of ignorance perhaps, and I know not what else, to make such a charge against the wisdom of past ages. But I confidently point to all that has been, and all that is, and ask if there be, or have been, any two o-overnments of the world, that now have, or that ever have had their laws alike each other, on the subject of the rights of property? Not any two, even of the States of our Union, can say as much ; though among them, one would think, was the place to look for such a similarity, if it were any where to be found. No wonder then, that Vol- taire, on some occasion should have said, that rights change character, as often as a traveller changes post-horses. It was, in truth, no exag- o-eratiou ; for the fact is still worse than his repre- sentation makes it. In the same nation, even, those rights, at two different periods of time are 31 Dot the same. And, as if this were not a suffici- ent satire upon our understanding of the subject, I believe, that there may be cases of the litigation of the rights of property in any country now known, where, if one hundred tribunals were si- multaneously to try them, each of the greatest eminence for talents in judicial investigation, and each having before them precisely the same means of arriring at the facts, but having, how- ever, no knowledge of each others' deliberations, they would, nevertheless, give a hundred dilFerent decisions. This " uncertainty of the law," glorious as il has been proverbially called, by way of ridicule, I take it, is evidence, that the subject is not under- stood. If it were so, these varying decisions could never happen. Rights are like truths, capable of being understood alike by all men ; — as much so, as the demonstrations of Euclid. If, what are called so, are not so understood, it is proof that they are not rights ; for it is scarcely to be pre- sumed that they could not be rendered apparent to our perception — ^and that they are rather the arbitrary commands of power, than anything else. But it is better to supply the deficiency of under- standing on this subject, which seems to prevail, than to make it a matter of reproach. Let us see if it is possible to do it. It will be an achieve- ment, of no small importance to mankind, inas: much, as it will, in my apprehension, go far to ex 32 leimiiiate all the moral and political evils, with which they are now afflicted. There seem to be three things which have au intimate and inseparable connection with each other. These are property, persons and rights. Out of these materials are built, or ought to be built, all the governments in the world. These are all the necessary and proper elements of their constitution ; and these being applied as they have been, have caused, in my estimation, more evil to mankind, than any one can pretend that governments have done good ; and, being appliec as they may be, will fulfil the destiny of man, b^ reversing the results of the past. What, then, is property ? I answer ; the whole material world : just as it came from the hands ot the Creator. What are persons ? The human beings, whom the same Creator placed, or formed upon it, as inhabitants. What are Rights? The title which each of the inhabitants of this Globe, has to partake of and enjoy equally with his fellows, its fruits and its productions. Let no one pretend, that there is yet other pro- perty. Let him ascend with me to the earliest ages ; to periods of time, anterior to the formation of all governments ; when our race existed, but when political institutions did not. For it is to these periods, we must ascend, if we mean to arrive at a true understanding of the theory of all just governments : And it is to these all my re- marks, will apply, until I come to offer my senti-. ments as to the principles of property which ought to enter into their formation. Let no one, then tell me that the labor, which the savage of the foresty has employed, in the manufacture of his bow, is property. That, only is property , which belongs to some one. Now it cannot belong to tjie race, collectively, for they did not produce it. It can- not belong to the individual, who prepared the bow — because, it cannot be separated from it ; and because, if it could, it could have no physical ex- istence whatever ; and having no such existence, be would possess nothing more, than if he had never made it. Besides, the material, of which the bow is made, is the property of mankind. It is a property, too, which, previous to the exist- ence of government, has never been alienated to any one. If it has not been alienated, it cannot belong to another. Another cannot have any right to make use of it. Before he does so, he must obtain the consent of all. What right, then had that other, to bestow his labor upon it ? What right had he to convert it into a bow, or into any thing else ? Instead of acquiring a right, thereby, to the bow, he has rather committed a trespass upon the great community of which he is a member. He is rather, of right, subject to punishment, than invested with title, to that which 34 he has taken without consent, and appropriated to his own use. At least, then, it is evident, that Ms labor, bestowed upon the material of the bow, does not give him a title to the latter ? Does the mere act of taking possession of it, givt? it ? Most certainly not. For here, as well as elsewhere, consent is necessary. Otherwise, it would be quite as correct, for example, (all the members having put in an equal share of the capital) for a member of a banking company to appropriate to his own use, the contents or any part thereof, of the iron chest containing the gv»ld and silver belonging to the whole. Nor is it an objection to the force of this argument, to say, that the iron-chest is al- ready in possession of the company, by its agents or otherwise, while the domain of nature is not. It is here that I deny the truth of the declaration. The domain is in possession. The owners — and they are equal owners too, are already present, and upon it. They have not, it is true, divided it, a- mong themselves and given to each what he may call his own, anymore than the Banking Company mentioned, has done the same thing: but they are nevertheless in possession. The analogy there- fore is full and complete. Will it be said, then, some one may ask, thai if an Indian kill a deer, it is not, therefore, his r Most certainly it is not. What, in my turn I would ask, is to become of other Indians, if there be actually fewer deer> than are needed ? Must the mere accidental, or even sought for, circuro- stance, of any Indian's meeting with, and killing a ointed to make the distribution. Before the distribution is made, would any one of the heirs be allowed to help himself, to what he might wish, of the estate ? Would not every one see the impropriety of this f Would not every one understand, that the proper course, to be pursued, was to call upon the executor and obtain his con- sent ? The executor, having the power of acting for the benefit of all, is the only one competent to grant, if to him it shall appear proper, what may be desired. So, m the case in which this example is offered as an illustration, the whole community stand in the place of the executor, and have the power, and they alone have it, to alienate to any one, or more of their own number, temporarily or otherwise, any portion of the property in posses- sion. Nor is it essential to the reality of this aliena- tion, that it should be done in a formal manner. 41 In the history of the human race, we know that it has, necessarily been, of a character very infor- mal. It has not been possible, at all, to assemble the entire species, and thus to obtain their con- sent, in a direct and formal manner. Nor perhaps, on many occasions, has it even been thought of. The most that can be said, is, that when one indi- vidual, has seen another making a bow, killing a deer, kindling a fire, or planting a field, — that he has reflected — that there was abundant oppor- tunity, mid the scanty population which all coun- tries possess in their first settlement, and for ages afterwards, for him to do the same ; and that he has accordingly acquiesced^ in what his fellow- being had done ; and has gone and acted in a similar manner. It is thus that we may trace the consent^ which, in strict matter of right, I hold it is the duty of . each to obtain of the whole com- munity. But allowing, even, that it was not possible to show, that any such cons(^nt as is supposed above, was evei^ given ; still this fact alters nothing. Principles are unchangeable and eternal ; they have ever existed and will never cease to exist ; and whether men happen to see them or know them, or acknowledge them, or not; still they exist ; still they form the rule by which to ascer- tain his rights and guide his efforts to obtain them. Still do they remain to himj ready for his 4* 42 use, whenever he shall feel that they can he of service to his welfare and happiness. In speaking of the consent which I require each individual to obtain of the whole community, let me not be understood, as considering such consent as being the origin of each person's right to his equal share of the whole property of the globe. By no means. This right he has in virtue of his existence, and in virtue of the existence of the property in question. They are inseparable, while one has vital life, or the other physical ex- istence. But the consent I speak of, is neces- sary, not for the purpose of granting rights, for these are born with the being to whom they be- long, but, to define and locate his share ; to say hoiv muck, what, and where it shall be ; and to secure and defend its enjoyment exclusively to himself. Without such designation, he could not be assured of possession, to the exclusion of another ; since that other has as good a natural right, to that which is artificially assigned to him, as he him- self can pretend to have. As well might it be contended that the pleasure of the executor, is the source of the right which the heir has, to the share he ultimately obtains, of the estate of the tes- tator, as that the community in question, confers any right on its citizens. The executor is only a trustee, for the benefit of the legatees ; the tes- tator, he who created the executor, furnishes the legacies. So, in the case of the great community 43 of mankind. They in their general, or collective capacity, are trustees, for the benefit of each indi- vidual of the species — and the Creator of the Uni- verse is the being, who has furnished the property, which is the subject-matter of the trust, and ordered it to be distributed to all equally. No act therefore, which either the heir to the estate, in. the one case , or an individual of the great mass of mankind, in the other, is capable of committing, is competent to create rights for such individual ; and for the plain and unanswerable reason, ^Aa^, they are already created; in the first case, by the testator ; and in the last, by the Being who made us and all we behold. Nor, on the other hand, has the executor, or the great community referred to, any power to create rights, and for the same reason, that they are already created; and that there is no discretion given, to either of the agents or trustees in question, to alter or. modify them in the smallest degree. If, as is often th^ case with legacies, the Divinity had specifically given, designated portions, of the fruits of his Works, to specified persons ; then indeed, there would be no occasion for the great community in question to interfere. The work, which it is now their duty to perform, they would then find alrea- dy achieved to their hands ; and they would have nothing to do but to acquiesce. Besides, another reason, why neither the executor, or the commu- nity referred to, is abJe to confer righti, is, that 44 they were not the creators, nor of course the owners, in their own original right, of the property in question. It necessarily existed previous to, and independent of their existence, and of course, came into their possession, subject to the condi- tions and the commands of a power who created both. It is apparent, then, that no act of the indivi^ dual can vest in him rights, which are already in- vested : nor add to, nor diminish them, in the slightest degree. It is equally apparent, that no power exists in the authority of the community to modify or alter in the slightest degree, these rights. There can exist no poiver whatever' to des- troy equality of rights, but the power of violence and injustice. Having been originally equal, they remain so, and nothing but force or igno-* ranee, can keep them out of the rightful owner's possession. If however we were to allow that the mere acts of converting a bough of the forest, into a bow, of killing a deer, of kindling a fire, or cultivating a field, could confer %pon the person performing these acts, the right of exclusive pos- session, no matter for how short a period, it would goto controvert and oveichrow all this rea- soning. It would go to establish the position^ that conquest and force give rig»ht ; since all these acts partake more or less of this character. I trust, therefore, in an age, and to a people, which has long since exploded and rejected what is called the 45 right of conquest, as barbarous and unjust, it is necessary to say little more in opposition to the principle-— that possession, occupancy, or value added to property thus in possession, does not give a right to the possessor, to continue his possession^ It must be evident, that if the possessor have a just right to retain it, such right has its origin, in another source ; and where, on the other hand, if it be not found, he ought to he prejpared to give it up ; and place it into the hands of those who have a better title. 1 know there are those who will maintain, that all these acts enumerated, and others of a simi- lar character, are acts of peace and industry 5 that they are unconnected with, and unknown to violence, and that, therefore, they bear no analo^ gy to conquest. It is true indeed by the supposition, that in the mere act of taking possession, and fit- ting for, and applying to use, no other person is supposed to be present. If there were any such present, and particularly, such a number as to amount to a majority, and these did not object ; it would aniount to nothing less than consent. The right, then, of the possessor to make exclusive use of these objects of property, would rest on that consent, and not on the act of his taking possession* So, in an other instance, if no one were presentj but, by any means, the same majority became apprized, of the intention or wish of the proposed occupant or possessor, and there was still no objeQ-^. 46 tion manifested^ then the same consent is to be inferred, and such consent, would be the charter of his authority to maintain possession ; instead of the act itself of taking the property into his own keeping. But let us suppose, that consent is in no way given, and that still possession is taken without it. It is asked, in what way does such possession, bear any analogy to conquest ^ Vo this, I answer That it is to be maintained by force, (although not acquired by it,) if the p ^ssession be disputed. If it be not disputed, then are we to infer that there is no objection ; and that consent is given. If it be said, that the possessor, will not use force, to maintain his possession, in case of its being dis- puted ; then, I say, that he abandons his claim to ,its exclusive possession — and there is an end of it. Nor is there so much of dissimilarity to a case of f onquest, as, at first view, there may seem to be. If an army were to invade a portion of territory, where there were no forces to oppose them, they would of course take possession without opposi- tion. If afterwards, the possession was disputed, they must fight to maintain it, or they must abandon it without contest. If they adopt the latter alternative, they are in the situation of our Indian, who should give up his bow, to another Indian who should demand it. If on the contrary, the people of the invaded country, should, by any possibility, be supposed to have no objection to thr 4? possession of a portion of their country , by an ar-^ my of strangers, it would amount to nothing less than consent. If, from a principle of fear, they abstained from contending for the expulsion of the invaders, it would be a case of conquest, by the presence of an army, rather than by the result of a battle, or a campaign. As well might the squatters, as thfey are called, who settle on our public lands, without the consent of the nation, contend that possession gives them a just and valid title, as that an individual, or a combination of individuals, call them tribe or nation, or what- ever else you please, should obtain a just and valid title, by the same act of possession, or occu- pancy of any portion of the great domain of nature. One point more, it may not be without its use to discuss. It will be said that the Indian, for example, who has appropriated to himself, with- out the public consent, the material for a bow, may justly have done so, upon the supposition that he has left, for each and every of his fellow- beings, materials for bows, for their use, in every respect as good as his own. If he has done so, as the case supposes, then are those which he has left in the forest, equal to his own ; and he can have no objection to give up his own, and take one of them in lieu thereof, on receiving from any one, the amount of labor, which he has bestowed upon it. If still he is pertinacious and prefers, 43 arhitrarily, retaining his own, to that of receiving another ; then, I say, inasmuch as all men are equal ; that one's right to be pertinacious is no better than another's ; that if one is arbitrary and unaccommodating in his choice, so may another be ; and that if any one insists upon having a par* ticular article out of tvro or more, vtrhich,it may be, all acknov^^ledge to be equal, in preference to an| other, so also may another insist upon having the same. For, as already said, one's right to be pertinacious, arbitrary, and unaccommodating, is as good as another's ; and if death result from their conflicting claims, the party first exhibiting the pertinacity in question, is justly chargeable with the whole of the blame that may attach to the transaction. For equality is as much to be maintained in pertinacity of choicCf as elsewhere, since it is to be destroyed no where. If there be truth in what I have advanced, with respect to rights supposed to be acquired, by possession, occupancy, or the addition of the la- bors of industry, to the subjects of possession, it follows, that no nation, whatever, holds any just title to the soil on which they are located, on any supposed validity in what may be called the right of possession. It is competent to the Chinese, to say to the people of Hindostan — "we have as good a right to what you call your soil, as you have yourselves," and they in return, may say, '' the soil of China, belongs as much to ^us as to 49 5^011.°' The French may say to the English, '• that Enghsh territory is the property of France as much as it is of England/' and the people of Eng- land may claim a similar right in France. Eu- rope may say to America " the dominions you oc- cupy are no more the property of yourselves, than they are ours," and America in her turn, could reciprocate a similar declaration. If, however, by any just process whatever, it can be made to appear, that nations, are, as tiiej are, by the consent of a majority of nations, or at any rate by a majority of the people of all nations, then the case is made out, which places the title of all nations to the particular soil they occupy, in the consent of every other ; or at least, of a majo- rity of them. Nations, it should be understood? are the people of whom they are composed, and not the soil, dominion or property which they oc- cupy. They have, it is true, a right, a natural right, to an equal and proportionate share of the €arth ; but, where it shall be, and how much it is equivalent to, it is for the majority of all the inha- bitants of the globe to determine. If, to-day, a ge- neral convention of the whole of them, could be had, it would be competent for such convention to order such disposition of things, as to them should seem proper. At least, I think, this point will be conceded by every one, if, for a moment we admit, that hitherto, there has been no government at all ; no appropriation to individuals, or classes of in- 5 50 (lividuals, of specific portions of soil or territory* They might apportion the whole as it now is : and in such an event, all nations would hold their ter- ritories, by aciual and direct common consent. This common consent is, however, to be inferred with almost as much certainty as if it had been formally given by a General Convention. In one way, by recognizing it, in an official and formal manner, well known among nations ; in another, but more informal manner ; by suffering new na- tions to rise into existence, greatness and power, without interfering to prevent it. The present allotment of the surface of the globe, among its inhabitants, is probably suchy that it is capable, if circumstances admitted, of re- ceiving much improvement. There is no doubt that many countries are overpeopled, particularly for the habits, knowledge and other circumstances that now prevail among them ; and they who should leave them and go to others, which need population, would not only make their own condi- tion happier, but confer additional happiness on the inhabitants of those countries to which they should emigrate. It is not within the scope of this work, howevrr, to engage in any speculations on this subject. It is sufficient for me, that all na- tions, recognise the right of all other nations to make such disposition of their acknowledged terri- tories, as they shall think proper, and to admit or exclude, as members of its political institution, or 51 residents, within its boundaries, those born in other countries, if to them, it shall seem good. This light however, is very rarely exercised ; policy seeming to forbid the exclusion of a good and use- ful citizen. If we are not to question the natural right of every human being to a portion of the pro- perty of this globe, equal to that of any other be- ing : further ; if we are not to question his artifi- cial right, or right in society, as I shall call it, equivalent thereto ; it would seem that we ought not to question his right, since it seems to belong to personal liberty, of which no one, ought to be deprived, of choosing freely the country, in which he will receive it. But as this cannot be done, on the system which I am to propose in the course of this work, until all nations shall have adopted it, the members of that state or nation, who shall first adopt it, if any such there shall be, will be com- pelled to be abridged of this portion of their natural rights, until such an event takes place ; but they will have this reflection to console them : that it is not the act of their own gov»^rnment which abridges it, but that of foreign states or nations, who, it will be seen, are not yet prepared to ac- knowledge, what I trust, are the indisputable rights of man in society. This observation, I am sensible, may not be fully understood, by the rea- der, in the present stage of this work ; but if he will have the goodness to keep me company with Ills patience, and attention, until I can have the 52 opportunity to make myself understood, I think, he will feel the full force of my remark, and be dis- posed to agree with me in opinion. It will occur to the discerning reader, tliat there IS apparently, some incompatibility in conceding, in the first place, to the great community of the human family, the power to assign to an individual for example a certain specific portion of the pro- perty of the globe on which he dwells ; and in the next place, to claim for him, the right of having assigned to him his equal portion on any part of its surface, which he shall choose to name. But, if it be borne in mind, that I am discussing the subject^ as it has reference to a period of time, anterior to the formation of all governments, and, of coursCj to a period when money is unknown, I apprehend l;he incompatibility, will vanish. It will be seen that a division in kind, must, of necessity, be made, in the first instance, equally or as near it as the great community have it in their power to do so, among all the individuals which compose it. If, imme- diately subsequent to such division, for purposes which shall appear good, a classification of these individuals into what we now call nations, should take place, and such classification should happen to be what now exists, we should have the world before us, as it now is ; with the exceptions, that it would be equally divided among all its inhabitants, and that there is no money. Now. in such a state of things, the only way, in which I, for example. 53 being a citizen of America, could transfer my share into England, for instance, would be, to offer an exchange, with some subject of England, of my property for his. But if we suppose, that all na- tions have absolute and exclusive jurisdiction over their own territories, they could forbid this, by pro- hibiting me from coming among them. The good jDolicy, however, as well as the justice, of such a power, may well be questioned. So, also, may the power to prohibit any human being from recei- ving his natural share of the property of the world, in any country which he may choose to name; whenever, by the invention of money, and judicious modifications of political institutions, the thing can be rendered practicable. The injustice of thus preventing an individual from receiving his proportion of the property of the world, in any nation, that to him shall seem good, may be made manifest, in an obvious and natural manner, by supposing, that the share, one with another, which the people of China, for ex- ample, receive at the hands of their government, is so much superior to the shares, received, one with another, by the people of Hindostan from theirs, that the former are not wiHing to exchange on equal terms with the latter. Wherever such an unwilhngness should be found to exist, it would be evident, that the party refuping had in their possession, as a nation, and of course as indivi- duals, more than their equal share of the property 5* 5€ of the globe ; and that the right, as it is callfed, of exclusive jurisdiction, affords the means of se- curing to them, this undue share. In a work, therefore, the object of which is to contend for the aqual rights, of all men, as well to property, as to liberty and life (for what are life and liberty good for, without property ?) it is not possible to overlook this important point, without manifest inattention and injustice to the subject. It would be an interesting subject of research, to ascertain among all nations, the causes which have determined them, each to its own particular system of the rights of property. It would proba- bly be found in all cases, that each system at anv given period, is indebted for its principal features, to a thousand circumstances, each, almost wholly separate from any and every consideration of the original and equal rights of man. Whenever conquests have been made, or revolutions have happened, and new governments have succeeded, they have been of a character, such as circum- stances, seemed to compel their framers to adopt. In the case of the American Revolution ; the go- vernments succeeding it, more or less partook, of the political evils of the system, which preceded them. This will be rendered more apparent, by observing, that if it had been possible, that the Revolution could have occurred, before slavery had been introduced on the American soil, or in- noduced only to a trifling extent ; all our govern- 55 iiients, both State and National, would have di- rected their efforts to destroy it immediately, and to prevent its further introduction among us. So again it may be remarked, that vast estates among us now, belonging to single individuals, derive their titles from grants made by our proprietary governors, to whom, if the governments of Eu- rope, had not given territories, of which, in most instances, the donors themselves did not know the bounds, neither such individuals, nor any others, would have possessed them ; inasmuch as the peo- ple of this country in forming a government for themselves, would never have sanctioned it. Indeed, the right of property, as the term is usually understood, is vastly more vague and flucr tuating, than most of us are inclined to imagine. One would think, that if there beany any quality by which property can be known, it is this ; that il cannot be taken away without the owner's consent*^ For, if it can, it is not easy to understand how it can be property. Now, there has been a period of time, in the history of this State, when none but those who possessed a certain amount, as well as kind of property, could vote for our State Senate. This body, among other things, had the power to give a negative to all laws from the other House. If a law came from thence, for the purpose of tax- ation, and the Senators disliked it, they could say •' no" to it, and thus hold fast their purse-strings« Afterwards our political structure, was so far al« 56 leretl, as to allow every one to vote for SenatoiSj whether they had property or not. The conse- quence of this alteration, was, to take the nega- tive which the rich formerly possessed, out of their hands, and of course their property, without their consent, along with it. And yet, under all these varying circumstances, the community, generally, make no complaint of the violation of the rights of property, although on the face of it, it is as plain as the sun at noon day, that, to-day, there is one rule for determining these rights, and to- morrow there is another. In referring to this change, in our Senatorial System, it is not my intention to complain of it. On the contrary, there is no doubt it was perfect- ly correct, to have made such change ; inasmuch as it is was necessary to preserve the personal rights of the million, who had no property ; even though it should infringe upon the rights of pro- perty in the hands of the few, and the rich. Yet it cannot fail to strike every observer, of the least icflection, that, if those who possessed property, liad an unquestionable right to it, no man or num- ber of men, ought to have power to take it away. There is, then, something palpably wrong in a government, which is thus obliged to destroy rights of one kind which it recognizes, in order to preserve others. If we make the supposition, that all the citizens are equal in point of proper- ty, or nearly so, then the conflict which is now so 57 conspicuous, between different kinds of rights^ ceases, and is seen no more. But to make this property equal, presupposes that the present hol- ders have not a sound and valid title to it ; and government, therefore, if it acted upon the sup^ position that such title was not valid, would con« tradict its present opinion. It would seem, then that in every government; the laws of property, have no reference, or very little, to original principles. If they had, they would be much more similar to each other, than they are now ; and much more nearly uniform, in the same country at all times. But I have not mentioned all the causes that conspire, when, revolutions happen, and whea there is an opportunity, nay, a necessity to resort to first principles, to prevent nations from doing so. Not only, when revolutions are over, and there is a necessity to fill up the chasms in government, which they have occasioneti, are the evils of a previous generation, pressing upon the new, but those who frame their laws, and who^ over all others, are to be presumed to know best how to reorganize the political fabric ; in fine, the leaders of nations^ are themselves, uninformed, of the rights of the people. We live near to a great epoch, in the history of our own country^'— the Re^ volution that separated us from England=^— we are acquainted with the distinguished men, who per- formed a prominent part, as well in the separa> 58 tion of the two countries, as in erecting the new governments that succeeded. We are able to know their minds, and to judge for ourselves, how- far they were adequate to institute government, on principles of original right ; for it was on such principles as they understood them, that they sup- ported the Revolution and erected the political edifices that in consequence became necessary. Of all these, no man, more than Mr. Jefferson., deserves to be considered, as possessing in his own mind, not only " the standard of the man," but the standard of the age. If there was any one capable of ascending to first principles, it was he ; and if it was not to be expected of him, how was it to be expected of any on^ else ? Yet Mr. Jef- ferson speaks of the rights of man, in terms, which when they come to be investigated closely, appear to be very defective and equivocal. I do not mean, that he thought or meant them so ; for it is evident that the contrary was the fact. Let us quote him, however ; let us weigh his expressions ; Jet us arrive at his intentions in the most legiti- mate manner : and then sec, if I am borne out, in my declaration. If I am, I shall be sustained. If I am not, I shall fail, and deserve to do so. He says : — , *' We hold these truths to be self-evident ; that ^' all men are created equal; that they are en^ ^'dowed by their Creator with certain unalienable '■' fights ; that among these arc life, liberty, and 59 ' the pursuit ofhapjjiness.^^ These are his woi'd^ ill the declaration of American Independence. Whoever looks over the face of the world, and surveys the population of all countries; our own, as well as any and every other ; will see it divided in- to rich and poor ; into the hundred who have every thins-, and the million who have nothinxj-„ If, then, Mr. Jefferson, had made use of the word property, instead of" the pursuit of happiness,'''' I should have agreed with him. Then his language would have heen clear and intelligible, and strict- ly conformable to natural right. For I hold, that man's natural right to life or liberty, is not more sacred or unalienable, than his right to propertv- But if property is to descend only to particular in- dividuals from the previous generation, and if the many are born, having neither parents nor any one else, to give them property, equal in amount to that which the sons of the rich, receive, from their fa- thers and other testators, how is it established that they are created equal? In the pursuit of happi- ness, is property of no consequence ? Can any one be as happy without property of any kind, as with it ? Is even liberty and life to be preserved with- out it? Do we not every day, see multitudes, in order to acquire property, in the very pursuit of that happiness vi^hich Mr. Jefferson classes among the unalienable rights of man, obliged to sacrifice both liberty and health and often ultimately life, in- to the bargain ? If then property be so essential 60 and indispensable in the pursuit of happiness, as it appears to be, how can it be said, that I am crea- ted with an equal right to this happiness — with another, when 1 must purchase property of him, with labor and suffering — and when he is under no necessity to purchase the like of me at the same costly price ? If we are created equal — how has he the right to monopolize all, or even an undue share of the property of the preceding generation r If, then, even the rights of liberty and life, are so insecure and precarious, without property — how very essential to their preservation is it, that *' the pursuit of happiness" — should be so construed, as to afford title to that, without which, the rights of life and liberty are but an empty name? Let no one attempt to evade the question, by saying, that if the poor have not parents with pro- perty which they can give to their children, it is not the fault of this or of any government. It is possible, under some circumstances, that this might be true, and yet be altogether foreign to the ques- tion. But who, I ask; is it, but government that authorizes and enforces the execution of wills ? Who is it, that allows a man just as he is about to return into dust, to say what disposition shall be made of that which he now calls his ; who shall have it, after he ceases to be; and who shall not r Whois^it, that authorizes a man to consider himself the owner of property longer than he lives, even to the remotest generation ; and clothes him with 61 |)Ower, (if he chooses,) to order that even his own children, and childrens' children forever, shall have none from him ; nor from any one else, unless by servitude it be purchased, from others, who may happen to possess it ? Who isrit, but government, that has placed the rights of childien to property in the keeping of their fathers-^and so fixed it, that ifthese fathers shall refuse to give to their children j what ought to belong to them, as it did to their progenitors, they should have no means of obtain- ing it f Who was it, that ordered that the father should be every thing and the children nothing — • if it was not government ? It is government, io principle, and often in practice, which has done all this. It is government, and government alonCj which has determined, that where the former (de- ceased) owner of property has given no intimation of his wishes — that then it "shall go ; in somecoun« tries, all to-his eldest son ; in others, to the sons alone, and none to the daughters- — and in others, again, to all the children equally. It is govern- ment, therefore, which has the power of destroy- ing wills altogether, and of making such disposition as it shall judge best, of the effects of deceased persons. If, indeed, it were true, that govern- ment had the power, or rather ability, Oidy to make life and liberty equal, and could noT; make property equal ; it would go the full length of pro- ving that government, was an unauthorized insti- tution, alienating the '* unalienable rights," with which the Creator has endowed all men^ a very 6 62 great majority of wlioniy have no property of anr description ; never have had any ; and while the present order of things, exists, never m/Z have any. The Author of the Declaration of Independence^ and those who supported it, " with their Hves, their fortunes and their sacred honor," never seemed to have perceived, that, if their system of rights, in its practical effect, went to give to one human being living undier it, the privilege of taking so much of the property of the preceding generation (whether it came from a parent is nothing to the question,) as would enable him to live in idleness, on the productions of the labor of others ; so should it give the same privilege to all. Otherwise there is no equality in the business ; and the de- claration, thai the Creator had created such an equality, but the legislation of man had destroyed it, becomes at once the theory of our government on the one hand, and \\s jpractice on the other. Besides, if the Author of the Declaration in question and its supporters, had intended to say that mankind had an equ 1 and unalienable right to life, liberty, and property ; they would have said it, at once, without using the vague expres- sion, *' the pursuit of happiness." How they ex- pected this *' pursuit," without property of any de- scription, to be of any avail, or at any rate, of a- vail equal to that which a fortunate possessor of an estate couid enjoy, it is not easy to conceive. There may be those, who will contend that 63 * sufficient for the day, is the evil thereof;" and that what Mr. Jefferson and his coadjutors have achieved for their country and mankind, in being mainly instrumental in estabHshing the first ex- ample oT representative government in the world, is honor and glory enough. This is true; but it is also true, that had the sao^es of the Revolution seen that an equal right to property^ as well as to life and liberty, was also among the unalienable rights of man, and declared accordin ly, it would not have made their glory tke less ; and, if they had not succeeded in reducing these theoretical truths to practice, sagacious men enough among the ar- dent friends of fre^^dom, which this as wf^ll as every other country affords, could not have failed to sup- ply the deficiency. But other associates, in limited views of the ac- tual rights of man, had Mr. Jefferson, besides the members of the Congress of 1776, which adopted his immortal Declaration. Among these, was Thomas Paine. Perhaps few men that have ex- isted, understood themselves, and the subjects they discussed, better than he did. Yet original as were his thoughts, he nevertheless, wandered into some misconceptions, and left his subject partially unexplored by his investigations. That he has done so, considering how much rubbish he has removed, is perhaps not a matter of wonder. To have done more ; to have examined the subject of government, in sueh a manner, as to have left no- thing to be desired, would have been too muchj u perhaps, to ask at the hands of humanity. Bat, in justice to the reader, in justice to myself, let Mr. Paine speak for himself. *' When a people agree to form themselves into " a RhPUBLic, (for the word Republic means the J' public good, or the good of the whole, in con- '' tradistinction to the despotic form, which makes *' the good of the Sovereign, or of one man, the "only object of the government,) when I say, they *' agree to do this, it is to be understood, that they "mutually resolve and pledge themselves to each " other, rich and poor alike, to support and main- "fain this rule of equal justice among them. " They, therefore, renounce not only the despotic " form, but the despotic principle ; as well of gov- " erning as of being governed, by mere Will arid "fewer, and substitute, in its place, a govern- " ment of justice. "By this mutual compact, the citizens of a re- " public, put it out of their power, that is, they re- " nounce, as detestable, the pawer of exercising, at " any future time, any species of despotism over " each other, or doing a thing, not right in itself, *' because a majority of them may have strength ** of numbers, sufficient to accomplish it. " In this pledge and compact, lies the founda- " tion of the republic : and the security to the rich, "and the consolation to the 'poor, is, that, whai " each man has is his own ; that no despotic sove- " reign can take it from him, and that the common ^' cementing principle, which holds all the parts Qf 65 a republic together, secures him likewise from the despotism of numbers : For despotism may be more effectually acted by many over a tew, tban by one man over all." — Dissertations on Govern^- mentf written in 1786. See Paine' s Works in ttvo vols: Philadelphia, 1797. Vol, 1- pp. 327 and ^8, The reader will observe, in the foregoing- ex- tract, that Mr. Pairie contemplates, the first for- mation, at any rate the first jw^rformation of gov- ernment ; he goes back, as he imagines, to the be- ginning ; and as he Uiere finds the situation of things, so he takes care, in the system of govern- ment which he marks out, to preserve them. He discovers that there are rich and poor ; 1 havf italicised the words that the reader may re mad them more particularly ; and he provides tha " what each man has, is his own," It is obviouE therefore, when he wrote the foregoing, that he had forgotten what he had wrstteo, on the same subject, so early as the 14th February, 1776. At that period he published liss " Common Sense," th( first page of which has the following pa.^sage : — " in order to gain a clear and just idea of the de ' sign 'and end of government, let us suppose '' small number of persons, settled in some seques- " tered part of the earth, unconnecled ivith the rest; " they will represent the first peopling of any coun- "' try, or of the world." Yet ten years afterwards, Mr. Paine talks of the existence of rich and poor, at a period, when they are about, /or the first time^ as he supposes, to or- 6* 66 ganize for themselves, a common and equal go vernment. Now, let me make use of Mr. Paine^s supposition ; let me take his " small number of persons ;" let me conduct them to *' some seques- tered part of the earth, unconnected with the rest ;" suppose it be an island in the Pacific Ocean ; Jet me place them upon it ; and desire them to in- stitute for themselves, a just and equal govern- ment; where would be his rich and poor 9 Would they create them ? Would they do as Mr. Locke, the celebrateii author of a treatise on the Human Understanding, did when he drew the plan of a go- vernment for the State of South Carolina, in the first settlement of that State, give to one class among them, twelve thousand acres of land ; to another class, twenty-four thousand ; and to another, forty-eight thousand ; — while the great mass of the pop dation should receive nothing ? Would they nnt consider the island in question, a.s property , and imt on\y as property, hut common property, to which each and every of them, had an equal right ? In the compact, of which Mr. Paine speaks, as entering into the formation of every legitimate government, and which the islanders are now, by supposition, about to create with each other, would property have no consideration? Would it form no part of their discussions? Would it not in fact form the chief material of it?~ Would it not be a source of more deliberation, as involving deeper interests, than any and all other subjects, which could come before this little com- - munity? Would it not be ridiculous in them to declare the rights of man, as regards life and li- berty, to be unalienable, and as to property, say not a word about it? Would they not know, if thcj knew any thing, that never yet, for any con- siderable time, was life and liberty held and en- joyed by the rightful owners, when they had no property with which to protect and defend them ? Would they not, in the first instance, at least, if division were made of their common property, make it equal, or as nearly so, as might be in their power ? If division were not made, but it was agreed to be held in common, would not care be taken, as much as in them lay, to alFord to each his equal share, of the results of the com- mon occupation ? Answers to all these questions, present them- selves spontaneously. Throughout the wide ex- tent of the Globe not a single individual can be found, who would not give them in the affirmative* How is it then, that a writer so sagacious as Paine, and so disinterested in all that he €ver wrote, should have committed such a blunder, as that of attempting to erect an equal government, upon a foundation where inequality had already found an existence ; and that without attempting' to extir- pate it; on the contrary, taking measures to per^ petuate it, by confirming the altogether untenable position, that what a man has is his own ^ Surely the absurdity is as great, in a man., who contends to preserve inequality already existing, as he who proposes to create it for the first time. And in. 68 this respect, Paine and Locke, equally deserve to be held up to mankind, as singular instances of errors, which the greatest of men may be led to adopt. Those who know any thing of Mr. Paine, know that he did not want intrepidity and boldness of character, sufficient to have taken higher and more tenable ground than he did had he discovered it to be practicable. He was no man for half-way opinions in theory, or half-way measures in prac- tice ; because he had good sense enough to per- ceive that an object is more easily and economi- cally accomplished, when all its features are clearly seen and understood, thna when they are partially visible, and perhaps confounded with, something which is altogetl^er foreign to the question. , It may not be altogethei inprofitable, to exam ine, where the source of his error lay. On look- ing over his political writii)»s, it will not be found difficult to discover it. * n the first part of his " Rights of Man," written in 1791, pp. G4and 65 of the 2nd volume of the Works before referred to, he has the following pHssa^e ; to wit : — " It has been thought a considerable advance " towards establishing the principles of freedom- •* to say, that governmt^nt is a compact, between " those who govern, and those who are govern- " ed : But, this cannot be true, because it is put- '' ting the effiict before 'the cause ; for, as ma? "■ must have existed before government existed . 69 ' there was necessarily a time, when govern- " ment did not exist, and consequently, there ^' could originally exist no governors to form *' such a compact with. The fact therefore, must <' ho, that thp. individuals themselves, each in his •' own personal and sovereign right, entered into a *' compact ivith each other to produce a gavern- " ment. And this is the only mode in which go- "' vernments have a right to arise, and the only '^ principle on which they have a right to exist." For myself, I find no difficulty, in both agree ing and disagreeing with Mr. Paine, in the posi- tions, or some of them, at least, here laid down. It must certainly be true, that " man must have ^' existed before government existed ;" and it is equally true, that where government ex- ists, governors must exist also. And yet I am ready to say, what he declares cannot be true, that government is, or rather may be, a compact between those who govern and those who are go- verned. Thus, when *' each in his own personal and sovereign right," to use Mr. Paine's own words, *' enters into a compact with each other ^^^ for purposes common to the whole, a government is formed, consisting of the compact, and nothing hut the compact. As to the manner of lis exercise^ that is quite another affair. Thus, in one case, each and every individual party to the compact, may from time to time, meet in full assembly, to deliberate over their aflfairs, and to make suqh disposition thereof^ as they shall think proper. 70 fn such a case, a government would not only ex ist, but be in full operation. If I am asked, who are the Governors : I answer, the whole Commu- nity, in their aggregate or collective capacity. If I am asked, who are the Governed, I answer ; the individuals who compose this community, in their separate or single capacity. The ques- tion, of the; exisience, or the non-existence of a go- vernment, 1 apprehend, is not to be determined, by deciding, whether the public concerns of-a nation, are managed, by all the individuals who constitute it, in their own proper persons, without agency of any sort, or otherwise. And, herein, seems to have been Mr. Paine's great mistake. He seems to have considered all people as being destitute of any government whatever, who had not agents or proxies to act for them. He seems fo have overlooked the only object of compact, which is to create a public will, and a pub,u will being created, and being -brought into practical existence, no matter how, whether by authorized agency, or otherwise, government has com- menced, and operates on the governed, and, of right also ; on all subjects, which, in their nature, are of common possession. Mr. Paine observes that " man must have exist- ed before governments existed." May we ask how long? Perhaps for half an hour. Thus, in this first period of human existence, twe men may have arrived at a spring of cool water, thirsting, and desiring to quench their thirst. They enter into 71 a treaty as to which of the two shall drink first. So !»oonas it is consummated, a government is formed^ even though it be to expire the next moment. If there happen to be three instead of two, and two of these determine who of the three shall first par- take: nere also a treaty, a government is formed^ deciding, by majuruy, as perfect in itself, as far as its object extends, as any government that can be conceived. And it is evment enough that it should be so; for, as tne water itseif is of common right, Ztid incapable oi being exclusively appropriated to eitiier, so also is the chance or opportunity of first participation ; convention or compact must settle this latter question; and when it does, it performs precisely the same function, as if agency, for a hun- dred^housand beings having the same rights as those which belong to the two or three individuals, I have mentioned, had selected the same per»on, and given him the privilege of priority. It may seem that I am more elaborate in my efforts to explode what 1 conceive to be error, on this point, than is necessary. But as Mr. Paine charged Mr. Burke with not going back far enough into antiquity, in search of principles, it became him, as he did, to exert himself to substantiate the charge. If I now make a simijar charge against Mr. Paine, it becomes me to do so too. Besides, with us, as with them, the errors I com- bat are the errors of the age, and of course are sup- ported by tlie best talents which the age affords. It is no ordinary refutation which these errors de- tnand; since, if principles of government are de- rived from periods 'of time and conditions of things ^ not so remote as we have, or may have, access to, we are in danger of incorporating false principles into the political edifice, and of endangering its utility and duration. Mr. Paine was not alone in the error of these vi^ws. Mr. Jefferson, to whom I return with respect and affection, for the services he has rendered to mankind, besides the omission, or perhaps equir. vocal admission, of some of the rights of man, in his Declaration of Independence, has shown, in a much later work, his deficiency of accurate know- ledge of the true principles of government.' In 1812 he prepared, for the use of counsel, in a suit, in the Circuit Court of the United States, for the District of Virginia, in which Edward Li- vingston, of the (then) territory of Orleans, was plaintiff, and himself defendant, a work published by Ezra Sergeant, of New York, entitled "The Proceedings of the United States, in maintaining the Public Right to the Beach of the Mississippi, adjacent to New Orleans, against the Intrusion of Edward Livingston." In page 30, of this work, I find the following passage: — *' That the lands within the limits assumed by a nation, belong to the nation, as a body, has proba- bly been the law of every people on earth, at some period of their history. A right of property, in moveable things, is admitted before the establish- ment of government. A separate property, in 73 ■ ^ lands, not till after that establishment. The right to moveables is acknowledged by all the hordes of Indians surrounding us. Yet, by no one of them has a separate property, in lands, been yielded to individuals. He who plants a field, keeps posses- sion till he has gathered the produce; after which one has as good a right as another to occupy it. ^jrovernment must be established, and laws pro- vided, before lands can be separately appropri- ated, and the owner protected in his possession. TiH then the property is in the body of the nationj and they, or their chief, as trustee, must grant them tu individuals, and determine the conditions of the grant." Mr. JeiFerson's criterion, it appears from the above, for ascertaining when governments begin. is ihe time when the nation makes private property of lands. Mr. Paine's, when the functions of go- vernment are exercised by agents, or governors appointed by the people to act for them. Neither of these criteria give me any satisfaction. In re~ lation to Mr. Jefferson's opinion, I do not under- stand why a government should be considered to exist, when lands are permitted to be made pri- vate property of; and not to exist, when every thing that is moveable is in the same situation. Besides, inasmuch as I am told, in so many words too, "A right of property, in moveable things, is admitted before the establishment of government ;" may I not ask, who it is that admits? Is it not the go- verament? Is it not the common consent or pabliij - 7 u authority? Who else has thq power? Not a frag- ment of the nation less than a majority. And if it be a majority, then is it the nation to all intents and purposes. It will hardly be contended, I pre- sume, that there is any other body in existence Avhich has any concern in this affair. But Mr. Jefferson tells us, that "government must be established, and laws provided, before lands can be separately appropriated, and the own- er protected in his possession." Wh)* so? He has told us, personal property is secure without the as- sistance of what he Calls government. Why may not lands be so too? And the use even of 'these, for a single season, according to his own showing, is entirely secure. I shall be told, perhaps, that the possession of personal property would be vin- dicated by the/valor of the holder. Would not the same thing happen as to land? No, some one will be prepared to answer, if it be given in perpetuity; numbers would expel the proprietor, by superior force, and government must therefore exist to in- terfere and protect the proprietor. Why is not this same government necessary, to protect the personal prope^^ty of the holder? His tenure of it also is perpetual; and numbers can be brought (o bear on him as well as on the holder of land. So also may superior numbers drive off him who cultivates a field even for a single season. But in both these latter cases, we find that force, to obtain which Mr. Jefferson conceives that there should exist what he calls government, is altoge- 75 ther unnecessary among our Indians, and other nations in a similar situation. Why is thisf How is it to be explained? Simply thus. — The personal property is so equal, and the benefits they derive from the. use of the soil so equal too, that there exists no motive to combination of numbers for the purpose of dispos- session. Force, therefore, can never' be needed. And when government shall be so constructed ^s to make property real and personal, in the fullest acceptation of the word, as nearly equal, as we see it among the Indians; and still be able to make lands private property much in the same way that moveable things are now; then shall we see govern- Bients exerting their functions, simply by indica- ting their pleasure, and not by exerting force. They will have only to say what they wish, and it will be done. If hitherto we have never seen go- vernments acting in this way; if all institutions of the kind have been obliged to resort, more or less, to arbitrary force, it is because they have been made on principles which did not conform to the ** unahenable rights of man, to life, liberty, and property." if, to what I have said, it were necessary to add any thing more in favour of my own views, as to the time when governments are to be considered as being in existence, I might appeal to the very first paragraph above quoted from Mr. Jeflferson? where he says, " That the lands within the limits fi^sumed hy a nation, belong to the nation as a bodv^ 76 has probably been the law of every people ob earth, at some period ojf their history." The very act of a number of individuals, sufficient to consti- tute what may be called a nation, after voluntarily consenting to associate themselves in one body, I say, the very act of accepting the lands within such limits, (or what is the same thing, assuming them, with the consent, express or implied, of other na- tions) is, (not sovereignty) but an act of sovereign- ty, which originates from their collective charac- ter, and which acceptance it is perfectly competent for them to signify, either, as said before, in their own proper persons, or by an agent or agents se- lected by them for such purpose. In all that I have urged on this subject, I have not had it in view to play the critic, as to the pro- priety of the use of this or that term, in preference to another. All that I have desired, is, to come at the truth ; and, if I can establish it, to be al- lowed to say, that governments have existed as long as man has existed, in some form or other ; and to some extent or other ; sometimes scarcely discernible, and at others occupying such a por- tion of our mental vision, as almost to put it out of our power to recognize the two extremes of their existence. I trust that I have succeeded ; that it is apparent that nations are governments, and governments, nations ; that they are in fact con- vertible terms. If it has happened that ^vriters of great celebrity, have supposed, that there are na- tions, which have no governments ; no legislation it is because there was so wide a difference between them, and those which had been most the subject of their contemplation, in their forms, extent , pur- poses and poiverSf that they were ready to conclude, that the one was every thing and the other no- thing. But we should remember, that legislation, the function of government, is capable of being ex- ercised in more ways than one ; and that it is as much entitled to be considered as indicating the existence of government when it deliberates on the disposition of a grain of sand, as when it exerts its labors over the destiny of a hundred millions of people. CHAPTER III. On ihe duration of the Rights of Property » In the discussion of the rights of property, in the preceding chapter, there has been necessarily much of argument, of a negative and correlative character. It seemed essential, to a right under- standing oT the subject, that the discussion should tend to show what was pi^operty, by shewing what it was not. It may be asked ; may not a man ex- pand his lungs and inhale the air ; may he not open his eyes, and enjoy the light ; may not his bo- dy occupy the space which it actually does ; with- out any necessity to suppose the existence of le- gislation ? Most certainly. These are function si 7# 78 hecessarily attendant on individual existence-—and are enjoyed alike by all ; and herein too consists their equality* They are in the nature of the rights of jtersons, and do not, of necessity, hold any relation to the rights of property. They are as much en- titled, so to be considered, as, what I may call, my negative right, of not being injured by another. About all these there is no dispute. Mankind are all agreed on these points. No controversy exists, and there is no occasion to argue the matter fur- ther. But, as to the possession of the soil and the ma- terials of the world, or rather as to the right of pos- session, there is much dispute. It is this question which is to be decided. And, in order that it may be decided, correctly, it is proper for me to have shown, as I think I have done, that jpossessioUj occupancy y or labor, superadded, have not the fac- ulty of conferring right ; and for two obvious rea- sons ; 1st : because rights exist of themselves, without being created or conferred, have always existed- — and always will exist j smce no one, of right, can destroy them ; and 2d, because pos- session has no right, unless it be accompanied with the consent of those to whom the property be- longed ; having this, it is altogether useless to en- deavor to derive title from possession : and not having this, any supposed title is good for nothing. Any possessor of property, therefore, who should be foolish enough to undertake to derive his ti- tle to retain possession, merely from the fact of it^ being found in his hands—rather than from the consent of the community, would place his tenure of it, upon a very insecure foundation* For if pos-» session is to give title, the act of fraud, or larceny, the violence of the robber, or a licentious mob, might soon confer as good a title to it, on another, as himself possesses. It becomes all then, to be very careful how they resort to such a source for title. If they can find no better, they may soon be without any, and they would then wish they had not looked to that which avails so little. As it regards my habit, thus far, of contempla- ting the materials of the world, and these only, as property — I will only say, that, when government,, or society, or legislation, or whatever other sy- nonimous term, we may make use of, shall give me marble, for example, as a material upon which to exercise my industry, at as cheap a rate, as that, at which nature has furnished it, that is, for no- thing ; I shall have no particular objections, the7i, to call the labor, which I shall bestow upon it, in converting it into a statue, by the name of proper- ty ; though I should still be of opinion, that the material only deserves the appellation, the labor, skill &c. being the result of personal faculties, and only increasing its value. Both the material and its value being mine, (the one by way of my ori- ginal right to property — the other by right of per- son) makes it a matter of little consequence what is thQ name we call them by, so that I do not lose eo the substance, through any misapplication of terms. I am as much averse to refinements, as any body, especially unnecessary refinements in dis- cussions which ought to be, and in their nature are, of very easy comprehension. But I have been driven into an indulgence of them beyond my wishes, by the clouds of error in which I have found the subject enveloped, and, in self defence, have been obliged to depart from a plainer course, than I had intended to pursue. , Besides, it will be seen, that my view, of the best application of the industry of man, is a se~ parate, single, and exclusive application, such as that which now prevails ; an application, that looks for his own individual welfare, almost exclusive- ly. So far, therefore, as regards this industry^ it never entered into my contemplation, nor does it now, to allow, in any theory of my own, that the government should take its management under their control, or in any way interfere with it, other than as the prosperity of the whole may require it, •in relation to commerce with foreign nations. In the very nature of things, I take it to be a truth not to be controverted, that each individual knows better how to apply his own industry, his own fa- culties, advantages^ opportunities, property respect to both real and personal estate. To break, then, this guarantee, it is necessary to re^ model the Constitution, and for this, a Conven- tion is the proper instrument. The same eternal and indissoluble ^rights, exist for all : " all men are created equal :" and ne> ther governments, nor others, have any right, so to speak, to uncreate them. The black man's right to suffrage, being a personal right, is as perfect as the white man's ; and, so also is his right of property. But, if the present constitution existed, and the colored citizen were put in possession of his equal portion of the domain of the State, and all its personal effects, he would not have the $ame right to appear at the ballot boxes, as the white man. It is necessary that he should have such right ; for elsewhere there is no power, but Unlawful force, with which he may defend hi^ 159 property. Those who could go to the ballot-box- es, and put in their votes, could, by that very act, take it away from him, without hi^ having a chance to make reprisal or resistance. It would be nonsense on the one hand to say, " this is your property f and on the other, to tell him ; " but you shall not have the same power to defend it, as belongs to another." Nor, can it be pretended, on any account, that what, some people call poli* cy, should sanction the with-holding from the black man, the same right of suffrage, which is extended to the white man, by reason of the for- mer existence of slavery among us. The numr ber of colored people, in the State of New-York^ is very small, when compared with the white population. In 1825, the whites were about;^ 1,570,000, and the colored people, about 46,000$ so that there are upwards of 34 whites, to one of the African race. A ratio so disproportionate as to banish every thing like objection to give to them a full enjoyment of their rights, from the most fastidious mind. But if the principle is to prevail, that property is given to any human being, in the right which such being holds to it, in virtue of his existence ; and that the right of suffrage, being a personal right, co-existent with the being himself, belongs to him also, as a means of its defence and preser- vation, as well as of his personal liberty ; it fol- lows that woman as well as man, is entitled tb the same right of suffrage, and ought, on no con- 160 sideration to be deprived of it. It is not necessa^ ry to say one word on the propriety or utility of Its exercise ; this is a matter to be left, wholly and exclusively to the judgement and pleasure of her or him to whom such right belongs, independ- ent and regardless, even> of the whole com* munity. To restore the right of suffrage, to those tf> whom it has hitherto been denied, but to whom of ^course it belongs, with as much propriety as it be- longs to any one, it is necessary that the State Constitution should be remodelled ; and for this^ in addition to the reasons already given, it is re- quisite to assemble a new State Convention. It will be right and proper to repeal all charters of whatever kind they may be, and thus to consign them to a grave from which there shall be no re- surrection. But as I do not undertake to say that any thing ought to be done, without giving a rea- son why, in any case ; I shall not do it, in this. In the first place, if property be equally di- vided among all ; if all have equal personal rights ; if administration of the laws, which of course, are supposed to be made equal, is impar- tially made ; what occasion is there, for charter r Is it that more money, more profit, may be made by the party receiving it> than could be made with- out it? If not, what is it wanted for at all f And if it is wanted for the sake of more profit, than could otherwise be obtained ; out of whom, is it to be made ? Is it not to be made, before charter hi\ 161 granted, out of the community ? And after the charter be given, is it not also to ba^ made, out of the same community ? And is it, then, any benefit to any community that such charter should be granted ? Besides, where is the right ? Where is the correct moral power, to compel any com- munity or any portion of any community, to pay more for a commodity or a service, in the presence of a charter, than in its absence ? And if the cor- rect moral power, the honest principle of right, is wanting to grant such charter, how have Legisla- tures, legitimately done it ? How had they the true power to do it f For the true power to grant a charter, or to do any other legislative act, is the good of the whole community. But it is not to the good of the whole community that they should be made to pay more for a commodity or a service, after the granting of a charter, than before it. How then has any Legislature done it, with any authorized power ? And if they have grantedi what in fact they had no right to grant, is it a le- gal grant, is it, generated, as it is, in wrong, in power usurped ; is it, I ask, any grant at all ? Is it not a nullity, which stands self-revoked before an impartial community :* Besides if the Legisla- ture had no power to bestow any such supposed charter, what right has the party receiving it, to accept it ? Can the thief oi power, give a valid title to the receiver of power stolen; any mofe thalf he who has stolen goodfe, can give a valid title to their receiver ? Will not an impurlial community 14* 162 which punishes crime, and takes charge of the public welfare, chastize the criminals on the one hand, and break their charters on the other ? Of course I say nothing of charters, if any such there be, which do not, and are noi intended to obtain, more from the community than could or would be obtained without them. These, at least, are harmless to the public, whether they be or be not useful to those who receive them. And to suppose that a people ever intended to sanction any other description of charter, would be to say no less than that they were willing to give an express authori- zation to others to rob them ! No constitution, therefore, whatever it may say, can ever be sup- posed to have had any such meaning, without sup- posing a whole people to have lost their senses ; and in such case, such constitution would be a very bad fountain from which to derive authority. But it is said that a charter is, or may be, a contract made between the government, and the Charter-party, for the benefit of the community, and that, therefore, it is not to be broken. This would be strange enough when the breaking of a contract, is a thing which is done every hour of the day. What ! ]>tay not the Public Authority break its contract, with the Brooklyn Ferry Boats! . Why not ? Arc they not able and willing^ too, ta make good all damages, which may arise in con- sequence of any such breach f Besides, how much damage, does any one think, that it is possible, for their proprietors to prove they sustain, merely be- 163 cause they are deprived of the power of preventing others from carrying passengers cheaper than th&y do ? How much damage could the New- York Gas Light Company show that they suffered, if such were the fact, that others furnished hght, of an equal quality and at a lowei price ? Is an in- dividual, is a company wrong e* f ; are they injured, because they are stripped of the power to command greater price, than honester competitors are wil- ling to accept ? Moreover, we are told, it is for the benefit of the community. How is this ? In a question of damages, between the community on the one hand, and the proprietors of a charter, on the other, might not the community say, show us how much you have received at our hands, over and above what would have been required of us, at other hands, and then we will listen to you with some patience. Till then your charter is revoked, and you must be content to do business on the same terms as other men ; that is, you must engage with the competition of your fellow-citizens. But some charters, it is pretended, have actually done public service for which they have not yet re- ceived the promised consideration. The Manhat- tan Bank, it is said, has furnished water to our citizens ! And do not our citizens pay them for it? And if they do not pay them, whose fault is it ? Is it because the company is restrained, by their charter from asking such a price for it, as will indemnify them ? If so, then, are such of our citizens as thus receive water from this company^ 164 receiving it at a price below its worth; and the re- mainder of the community is making good the de- ficiency, with profit to the company. Here then are features of iniquity which are sufficient to viti- ate the whole charter, if there were no other. In- asmuch as only a. few are benefitted, how can it be said that it is for the benefit of the whole commu- nity ; and if not, why should they be called upon to pay the consideration ? In truth, is not the claim for remuneration found to rest with the other party, inasmuch as they have been actually injured instead of being benefitted ? If the fact had ac- tually happened, that some Banking Institution, this, for instance, had constructed for the State, the Erie and Champlain Canals, in manner as useful and valuable as they are now, in consid- eration of receiving a Banking privilege, extending through all time ; still it would be competent, and morally correct, in the present or any other genera- tion, or the government which should act for them, to repeal such privilege, and withhold it altogether. A.nd all that justice could require at the hands of the government, in favor of the Bank, whose char- ter is supposed to be thus repealed, would be sim- ply this : 05 much as they could possibly have made by an equal application, of industry, talents and re- sources in any other way* Then justice would be satisfied ; for no one would be injured, either by giving too much on the one hand, or receiving too little on the other. For justice does not consist in giving more for a commodity or a service, than an 165 equivalent. A promise to do more is an injustice, if it be fulfilled, to the promisor himself, which he has no more right to inflict on himself, than on another. But, there is a very important reason why a charter, which is pretended to be granted /or ever, is one, which, of all others, with the greatest pro™ priety, may be doomed to immediate death. It is because the authority granting, or rather pretend- ing to grant it, has, and can have, by no possi- bility, a right to make such a grant ; and, for the reason that it extends its power over the succeed- ing generation ; whereas it might at least seem to be more plausible, if it only affected to extend power over the generation then in being, and for whom it pretends to act. But as to enforce the truth of this remark, even with reference to go- vernments as they are now constituted, I cannot use language or argument more appropriate, than the following quotation, I shall use it, instead of my own. " There never did, there never will, and there " never can exist a parliament, or any description *' of men, or any generation of men, in any coun- " try, possessed of the right, or the power of " binding and controlling posterity to the end of '* timey or of commanding for ever how the world ** shall be governed, or who shall govern it. Andj ^' therefore, all such clauses, acts, or declarations, ^ by which the makers of them attempt to do, '^ what they have neither the right nor the powe^ to 166 »* do, nor the power to execute, are in themselvcsj '* null and void. Every age and generation must be *' as free to act for itself, in all cases ^ as the ages '^ and generations which preceded it. The vanity ** and presumption of governing beyond the grave, '* is the most ridiculous and insolent of all tyran- •* nies. Man has no property in man ; neither " has any generation a property in the genera- '' tions which are to follow." — Paint's Works, V. 2, p, 39 — Rights of Man. If it were not arguing the question with too lit- tle respect to the dead ; we might say, to all those who are dissatisfied with the arffuments against the validity of charters granted in per- petuity, which have, on a multitude of occasions, been urged, by a multitude of writers of the great- est talents; " inasmuch as it is neither the peo- " pie of the present day ; nor their government, " who have granted you this ancient charter ; go •< ye to your grantors; go ye even to them; '* awake them from their graves ; and demand of " them, either the fulfilment of their grants, or ** restitution in damages therefor ; for it is to '* these, if to any, that you have a right to look *' for the realization of your claims; and not to the *♦ living. These have their own happiness to con- " suit, and know nothing of those, from whom you ** pretend to derive your claims." One of the most common objects for which Charters are solicited is that of carrying on Bank- ing opgrations ; and as these, in the way in which 167 iliey are conducted, are political machines by which more interest is obtained for the use of mo- ney, than they could otherwise receive, (otherwise they would not be wanted), they are objectionable * for the same reason, that charters for ferries, for Gas Light, and for other purpose:^ are. But as to accomplish their object they contrive, through the assistance of Legislatures, who are often and pro- bably always bribed in some way or other, to a greater or less extent, to obtain possession, in whole or in part, of so much of the Sovereign Pow- er as is exercised through the coinage or the Mint ; and as the real nature, of the use they make, of such possession, is not so well understood as it ought to be, it may not be amiss, that it be examined a little more in detail' It will serve to make more heeded the warning which this work gives, not to suffer such institutions as those I am considering, to have existence in the system pro- posed therein to the consideration of the reader. In understanding this subject, as well as any other, it is only necessary to dig deep enough to discover the foundation ; to go hack far enough, to arrive at first principles; and then, the plainest intellect may be sure he does not deceive himself. Let us now suppose the people of this State, to be organized in manner — such as I have already sug- gested ; that each has his equal value of property ; that they are all exercised in the different arts, trades and occupations, which they intend to pur- sue ; that they need perhaps, Roads and Canals. 168 which are not yet constructed, but simply laid oui ready to be completed : and that they have no money. What is to be done ? I suppose them " to be well aware of the use, and importance of money, in effecting exchanges, by substituting its agency, for the troublesome and almost ineffectu- al operation of barter. How may it be introdu- ced ? In one way, thus : Government would possess, it may be supposed, a given quantity of silver which it would cause to be made into coin of various sizes, such as we s,ee now issue from the United States' Mint. And no other than the government is supposed or alj lowed to have any of this metal. So soon as this coin is made in sufficient quantity, in the judg- ment of the government, conveniently to answer its intended purpose, the operation of introducing • it begins. The public authority now addresses each and every individual thus : ** You are all "equal, in rights of person and property; you ^* have each an equal interest in cutting these •■* Canals, and making these Roads ; for, they are "for the common benefit; now, provide, each of ^^ you, yourselves, with your own provisions, imple- *' ments, &c. — and come and labor either on those " public works, each an equal numberof days, until ^' they be completed ; and then receive, each of '* you, an equal share, by weight, of these pieces '' of silver, large and small, and take them home '*' with you ; and, thereafter as you, have received "them, as it were, in satisfaction of your labor; 169 direct or indirect, on these Public Works — -'though they are in truth, your joint property, '*and as such are their own reward; yet let these '* pieces of silver, pass from one to another, in "' lieu of barter, which you have heretofore prac- *' tised, as a full satisfaction, to which ^ be it under- ** stood you all agree, for what you wish to obtain *' or have to dispose of." In this way, may we suppose, probably however contrary to the fact, that money was introduced among men. Being once introduced, and each having an equal quantity, the natural operation of the di- versity of occupations pursued by the different members of the community, would be, immediate- ly to render it unequal. One perhaps is an agri- culturalist, and must wait the progress of the sea- sons, for the return of his industry. In the mean time, he pays away all the money he has, and perhaps contracts debts, for articles of necessity. Others prosecute the arts from which returns are had, hourly, daily, monthly and yearly. So that it is impossible, after the reception, each of his own equal share of his money, from the Public Author- ity, that it should ever be equal again, among them, at any one period of time: though the total quantity which each may possess in any one, two, or three years will be as nearly equal as may be. At least such is the purpose of every well found- ed society. Suppose, now, some sagacious, but avaricious beings, finding how much the possession of money 15 170 is rendered unequal, by the natural and unavoid* able operation of inevitable causes ; and seeing bow eminently beneficial it is, in the transaction of exchanges, over that of barter ; and having also, in their own hands, by the very action of the causes which they so well understand, an une- qual possession, for the time being, of the coin of the country, should, by any means that they may find sufficient to delude the judgement, or corrupt the integrity of the government ; obtain a charter to deal in the precious metals. What might not be expected to take place ? To what calamities to the public, would not such an assemblage of nearly all the coin of the communit)', Into the pos- session, and under the management , of a few hands, inevitably lead ? Would it not amount, in fact, to a destruction of the coinage : to its utter banishment from the community; and to a con- sequent return to a state of barter ; or, in order to avoid such an alternative, would it not lead, to the negotiation of a treaty between each individir- al of the community not interested in such Char- ter, and the Bank itself, as it would be called, whereby sl price would be given, /or the use of that vjhich belongs to the public; which 2vas made at their expense ; and which price, but for this unlawful combination of accidental holders of the coin in question ; could not, by any possi- bility be obtained. I say unlawful combination, notwithstanding it has a charter from the Govern- menf. For it is evidently of that description, 171 which goes to injure the great majority of the community, for the benefit, the iniquitous and guilty benefit, of a few j and it is this feature which makes it unlawful. It is as much unlaw-^ ful in its operation, though not in its form; as a combination, by agreement, of the same holders for the same purposes would be ; and combinations of this kind, all governments have not failed to pun- ish. The principal reason, why charters are sought, is, that government having authorized a combination, the same in principle as a private combination cannot consistently punish a trans- gression, in which they themselves are, in law language, particeps criminis; or in other wordSj partakers ; though stern and rigorous justice de- mands, that they should punish those who receive an iniquitous charter, even, though it be from themselves, as readily as they would any other off*ence. But the government, if strict justice were done, ought also to be punished in a similar way. For the term government, in this case,, means simply the public servants. These latter, therefore, as richly deserve punishment, as would the butler of a gentleman, who should give away his master's wine, without authority to do so, to some acquaintance or companion ; and it would be singular enough, if this latter should undertake to detain it, from the butler's master, and that on the plea of contract ! Nor would the matter ap- pear any better, if another of the gentleman's servants, the hostler for instance, should under- take to play the Judge ; and to decide against his 172 master, in favor of the illegal holder of the wine! Yet a transaction of this sort, exhibits all the fea- tures of chartered rights and privileges. I trust, then, it is apparent to the reader, where society begins as it ought to do ; that Charter or combination, is the only means whereby can be obtained a frict for the use of money ; in other words, interest. And these being both illegal and improper, interest is also. Let it not be said, that the holder of a piece of coin, is therefore, owner, absolute owner, and has an absolute right to do with it as he pleases ; to withhold it from circulation, if he chooses ; to de- stroy it. No such thing. He is absolute owner of it, only within certain limits ; and these limits are prescribed by his relation with his fellow-beings, through their common government. This coin was made at the expense oj the whole community ; and was and is therefore^ their sole property. The hol- der has only the use of it. And this use is, to su- percede the necessity of barter in exchanges. To destroy it, then, or what is the same thing, to keep it where it cannot be used at ally is to prevent such use, and to frustrate the purpose, the declared and agreed purpose of its creation. Who, then, has this right thus to counteract, thus to defeat, the intentions of society ? No one. But it may be asked, may not the holder of a piece of coin, keep it by him, ybr any length of time, without use, with the same propriety that the owner of a plantation, may refuse or neglect, for any indefinite period, no 173 matter how long, to cultivate it f I answer, cer- tainly. But I reply, also, that neither has this right. The common property of mankind, when- ever it is divided equally among them, I mean sub- stantially so, is divided for some purpose ; other- wise it would continue to be held in common. What is that purpose ? Why, simply, this : that each for himself may employ his industry to great- er advantage, by consenting to such division of the common property ; and agreeing, one to follow one occupation ; another, another ; and so on ; than he could possibly realize, in any other state of things. Without such agreement, he would necessarily be compelled to sui)ply all his own wants, by direct application of his own industry ; and this would leave him in a condition wretched enough. To avoid such an extravagant waste of his labor, he comes into society ; and agrees to make hats ; if another will make shoes ; a third produce wheat ; a fourth, bar-iron, «fec. &c. and of all these and more, each a quantity, of the articles he produces, beyond his own wants, sufficient for the supply of the wants of others. Here then, is a contract, the fulfilment of which, requires, that each make use of his fatuities and resources for the benefit of others. How then shall it be said, as a matter of right, that any one may leave his pos- sessions, or his industry, unproductive ? It cannot be. Substantially, every man, upon entering into society, agrees, to make his industry and hivS pro- perty, productive of a superfluity, for the use of 15* 174 others ; and others, in like manner, for his use. The obligation on any particular person, is not specific, it is true, as to the objects to which the application of such industry and possession is to be made ; and the reason for this, is obvious enough ; but it is nevertheless imperious, it is substantial ; and for no cause whatever, can it in justice, be suffered to be evaded. This it is, which is the true Social Contract. '' You shall supply some "one of my wants ; I will supply some one of "yours;" and so each one speaks to every mem- ber of the community. Nor was it ever intended that there should be one among them, who should supply no body*s wants ; no not even his own. Money is necessary to transfer these supplies, from their producers to their consumers ; therefore ivas it invented and prepared by society ; and there- fore, also is the purpose for which it was made, a reason sufficient to forbid its destruction or retire- ment from use. But if all these arguments are not competent to satisfy any one's doubts, as to the right he may fancy himself to possess, to destroy, for example, a dollar, which he has honestly acquired, let me present him with another. I have supposed, in the formation of the State in question, that a cer- tain quantity of money was created and issued ; and that, thereafter, no more was introduced into the community. Whatever the quantity might be, prices would soon find their level, and main- tain it, until some cause should disturb it. If we 175 go a step further, and imagine that our State has no connection with any other State or nation, we shall perceive that prices would remain without fluctuation ; they would be steady ; and being so, circulation would perform the greatest service for the community, and all its members, of which it is capable. Let us now imagine, that some one, secretly and unknown to the government, obtains, it may be, silver quite as pure as that which the government has issued, and makes an amount equal to it, of othei coin, so exactly resembling it, that it is not possible to detect any difference. It passes, therefore, as government-coin. What would be the effect of so doing f Would it not transfer, speedily, immeiise possessions into the hands of such a person ? Would it not be pre- cisely the same thing, as if such possessions, were divided off to him in the original instance f Yet, we all know, in the original instance, the great majority of the community, would not suffer such' person, or any other, to have them assigned to him. Nor does the real silver, in this case, hap- pen to have an effect, in any manner different, from that which would be produced, by an equally successful imitation of it by some base metal. It may be more rare, more difficult to be obtained, and thus it may be rendered less jpractieabhj clan- destinely to increase the circulating medium, but it would not be the less counterfeit, in all the ef- fects which it would produce, and which go to dis- tinguish it froni the legitimate coinage, first issued 176 by the government. Nor, is this transfer of pos- sessions, to the spurious and unauthorized manu- facturer and issuer of the coin in question, the only evil attendant upon the illegal introduction of it. By continually varying the quantity of the circu- lating medium from less to more, after prices have once fixed themselves and found their level; it disturbs such level, and brings about, in the minds of the community, a constant uncertainty of price ; and this is, always, seriously detrimental to the progress of the labors of industry. If, then, the addition; the unauthorized addition of coin, which in every other intrinsic requisite, except that it is not issued by the Sovereign Power, is as good as that of the government, pro- duces such effects, what will not be produced by a contrary procedure ? Will it not unfix prices, to diminish the circulating medium, as readily, as it will, to augment it ? If so, no one can have the right, so to speak, to annihilate his own dollar. It is true, by so doing, he does not, as in the for- mer instance, augment his own possessions ; but he diminishes them ; and transfers the amount of such diminution to the remainder of the commu- nity ; and this he has no right to do, more than he has to do the contrary. Justice belongs as much to himself as to another ; and he has no better right to be its violator to the injury of himself, than he has to be its violator in the person of another. If these observations, upon the theory of the ■;j 177 operation of money, and, particularly, of augmen- tations to, and diminutions of, its amount, are well founded; it would seem, that all the governments in the world, if they had truly understood their duties, in relation to it, would have declared the precious metals, wherever found, to he public property. In part, such declarations have been issued, and acted upon; whether from a principle of avarice, or from an enlightened understanding of the propriety of doing so ; it is not now worthy of inquiry. Spain, subsequent to her discovery of Mexico and South America, at one time appro- priated, to herself, one half of the nett proceeds of all gold and silver mines wrought in these coun- tries ; afterwards one third was accepted instead of one half; and ultimately one fifth, at which it continued to remain, until she lost her dominion over them. But the scarcity of these metals, all over the globe, compared with the other metals; the cost, hazard, and uncertainty of working the mines that produced them ; the diminutions con- sequent upon wear, losses in the ocean and other places, where it is irrecoverable ; the appropria- tion of them to purposes of plate, and other uten- sils ; the multiplied demands for them by modern commerce, though a greatly augmented power of production, by means of labor-saving-machines and processes; together with the additional fact, that while the precious metals are increasing, the population of the world is increasing also ; all these have conspired to render it impossible, in 178 any period other than a very long one, consisting of some hundred years perhaps, to produce an augmentation of any more than a trifling compar- ative amount. Had circumstances been otherwise, government vt^ould have found it necessary to have interfered; and to have declared, that they belong inalienably to the sovereign authority; and of course, that they were incapable of private appro- priation or possession ; or to have fixed upon some other material, as the basis of the circulating medium. It results then from this discussion, that banks even for the safe keeping of coins of gold and sil- ver, for these only are money, are institutions not to be tolerated in any community, unless it be that they be wholly^divested of all private control or management ; and have over them, officers ap- pointed by the government, as is the case in Am- sterdam ; whose duty it should be to receive all gold and silver, which any person may wish to leave for safe keeping ; to keep it safe ; to enter the amount to the credit of such person on the books of the bank ; and to pay it, in whole or in part as the case may be, forthwith to his order, or to transfer the credit of its amount, to him who bears the order, on the same books, and for sim- ilar purposes.* But we live at present under governments which * Hamilton's Report on the subject of the National Bank, 1790. p. 34. 110 allow of the receipt of money, for the use of money; in common language, interest. That this is alto* gether, an injustice done to him who pays it, and a crime in him who receives it, will be evident enough, if it is not so already, in the further pro- gress of this work. But as there are too many who suffer under the grinding oppressions which Banking Institutions are inflictmg upon them; and who yet consider, for reasons, which, for the mo- ment are satisfactory to them, that they are a bles* sing to them, rather than otherwise ; and as it is both necessary and proper to undeceive them, it is expedient therefore, to investigate the operation which Banks infallibly have to make worse even the present condition of things. To understand this operation, we must go back to a period anterior to the creation of any Bank, and compare the state of things then existing to the state subsequent to such creation. If, in that ear- ly state, comparatively speaking, (for banks are of quite modern invention, and as far as it regards the greater part of the world, are utterly unknown to them, even now) the rate of interest was allow- ed to fix itself, as now, in commercial transactions, commodities find their own price ; then it would manifestly be an inroad upon the fair principles of trade, to allow the lenders, by means of a charter, or any other process, to combine themselves to* gether, /or the purpose of destroying their own com- petition; and thus enabling them, to obtain more of the horroivers, than they otherwise could. Such 180 ii combination I have already shewn, uhetlier witli charter for its protection, or without it, is as just a subject for punishment, as would be any similar combination of freighters, bakers, butchers, cloth- iers, &c. ; inasmuch as they are all conspiracies for extorting more from the community than they could'otherwise obtain. In their effects and char- acter, they do not differ from a man who should make a garment at a price, such as equal competi- tion compels him to accept, and who afterwards should way-lay his customer, and with a pistol at his breast, compel him to hand forth as much more as would make him the master of as much money for the making the garment, as he could have obtained by being one of the combination. And as one is punishable, so ought the other to be, in an equal degree. But Banks exist, as it regards ourselves, in a country where the rate of interest is fixed by law; and where, in name^ they do not dare to take more than the legal rate of interest ; but where in fact, they do. How is all this accomplished ? It is sometimes attempted by unthinking men, to say, in relation to the interest taken by Banks, that it is not usurious ; that it docs not exceed the limits of the law. Why then, I ask is a Charter wanted ? Is it to allow them to take less 9 Are the money lenders, when the rate of interest is fix- ed at, say, seven per cent, apprehensive of insult- ing the majesty of the law; of trampling upon the rights of others; if they should happen to take three 181 |ret cent? The matter must be explained on other principles, before an inquiring mind is satis- fied. The truth is, they issue notes of an amount greater than they have gold and silver to redeem with ; and yet promise to pay such notes on demand! On these notes w^hich they so issue, they receive interest, as though they actually vc. these will all be selected by such Association ; obey its instructions ; and be subject to be superseded by better men, whenever they shall disobey them. I return now to the po- litical features of these Associations. In contemplating their character, we are to consider them, as having two relations ; one with themselves individually ; another, as acting on, and acted upon by, the community, in which they exist. First, that the Community, or any portion thereof, may receive no injury from them, they are not to be too numerous ; that is to say ; if the wants of this City, required the use of two dry docks ; the same association should not be au- thorized to own them both. I know there are many who will object to such restrictions on pro- perty held by associations ; but, if such persons will consider, that by allowing them to hold pro- perty, without limit, it would, in fact, be authoriz- ing all bakersy for example, to associate their bu- siness under the control of one common head and direction ; and thus to combine to jfix the price of bread ; it will be obvious, that such unne- cessarily large associations, would be adverse to the interests of society. These remarks will ap- ply also, to all other occupations 5 and, if they 196 were to be allowed at all, would lead to reprisal; by one occupation upon another, extending, in their operation, even into new aggressions upon the coram unity. If two or more, dry docks were wanted in this City, as already supposed, there should be two or more associations. Nor should the members thereof, so far be composed, of the same individuals, as that the operations of the two or more associations could be controlled or govern- ed by them. Nor, would it'be allowable, on the sup- position that they were composed in whole or in part of different individuuals, to come into any understanding, or contract, therefore, as to prices, to be charged or received by either, from their customers. To suffer a contrary course of pro- ceeding, would be to subject the community, to all the evils arising from conspiracy or combi- nation. Secondly, these association's must not injure the public by their debts. Every member must be answerable to the full extent of all his property, for the debts contracted on account of the associ- ation. But, if a member contract debts, in his own behalf, and not for the objects of the associ- ation, only his share or interest in the association^ is made responsible for their payment. The other members of the association, are to be kept harmless of him. Thirdly, as it regards the members of the As- sociation internally, that is, among themselves ; the majority is to respect the rights of the minority ; 197 if they do not^ the Great Common Authority, that presides over all, will have the proper power to require it at their hands ; and so of any mem- ber. Organized in this manner, associations could not fail to be productive of all the good effects which we might have a right to expect of them, and to be divested of all the evils that an abuse of power might be fraught with. Sale would be made of the entire property of an association, whenever all the shares were purchased ; and to do this, would require the consent of each and every member. Majorities could not make trans- fer ; they could only direct the method of employ- ing, and using the property, and this only, with strict regard to the rights of all, and subject to the supervision, whenever any one of the association should require it, of the supreme power. The present Constitution, is objectionable on another ground. It undertakes to give privileges, and inflict disqualifications on religious consider- ations. It is necessary, therefore, that a new State-Convention to remodel it, in this respect, should be assembled. If there is any propriety in considering all mankind as equal in the estima- tion of the Creator who made all, it is certainly of importance, that the work of man, for such is go- vernment, should not contradict this equality. He who causes 'Vrain to fall on the just, and on the unjust," who has made this earth alike for all, could not certainly, be expected to sanction such a 17* 198 constitution of government, as on the one hand? \Vould give to every man his equal share in the property of the globe on which he dwells ; and c^i the other ; take it away by the operation of ex- emption from contribution, and equal contribu- tion, too, to the public wants of that very commu- nity, which guarantees to him the possession of his just rights in society. In a community of men, of equal possessions, and who hold them by rights inherent in their very existence, how absurd, how revolting it would be, to see a Constitution, as the present one does, speaking of exempting men of a certain description, from bearing arms ; and of paying an equivalent to the State in money ! In the name of all that humanity can invoke, what is the sum which is the equivalent for life and blood r How strangely, how shockingly perverted does the human understanding exhibit itself, when such a comparative appreciation of money on the one hand, with life on the other, is found on the pages of the Constitution of a free people ! The truth, the whole truth, and notning but the truth in all this business, is this : That there is no natural reason why any particular person should receive his equal portion of this world's property, in any particular section of it, in the State of New- York, for example, more than elswhere : but, on the other hand, there is no natural or reasonable power to forbid his proportion being given to him here, 'provided he is willing to do his equal share of pnhlic duty, in Jcind and quantity ^ in treasure and 190 Sanger, Otherwise there is. Otherwise there would be hazard of injury, even to subjugation, not only to him who fails in this duty, but also to all others. These others, therefore, have manifestly the right to expel him from their society, who will not contribute to the public defence with his blood, if need be, and to associate with them, another in his place, who will. They possess this right, on the principle of self-defence. And, if oh the same principle of self-defence, against a^foreign enemy, a man is unwilling from any motive, to fight for his property and his liberty, he cannot have much cause to complain that his countrymen have dispos- sessed him, and ordered him out of the country, be- fore the enemy has had time or an opportunity to do it, for him. To him it can make little differ- ence, by whom the deed is done. He who will not defend his property ; and in such manner as the government of his country prescribes, has abandoned it already. Tell us not of the rights of conscience. Re has no conscience, who, in the first place, would abandon that which is truly his own to the invader, and then, after it has been de- fended against the enemy, by the blood of others, would come and claim it again ! He has no con- science, who desires to hold his own at the expense of the blood and treasure of another ; and is of course entitled to no other treatment under the laws than that which is meted out to every other citizen. Inasmuch, therefore, as the principle of equali- 200 ty is to be preserved at all hazards, no man is to be suffered to remain a citizen of the State, who contravenes that equality, by refusing to do his du- ty, in a point so essentially important as that of the public defence. It is the same principle of equality also, which forbids another to be ineligible to, or incapable of holding, any civil or military office or place, within the State. Of what avail is it to say, " that by his profession, he is dedicated to ^he service of God, and ought not to be diverted from the great du- ties of his function ?"* Legislation has nothing to do with men's motives. It makes no inquiry into their speculative opinions. It is directed to pro- mote the public welfare, by preserving their equal riglit to the reception of property, in the first in- stance, and to its preservation afterwards, and to the preservation also of the equality of personal rights* Yet how is this equality to be maintained, if, in time of peace, in order to qualify myself to be useful in time of war, I must, at my own ex- pense, give up five days of the year, in disciplining myself in the art of war ; while another, who is, and calls himself a priest, is wholly exonerated from performing a similar service f Undoubtedly, it will be admitted, that he is a good citizen, and that all are good citizens, who thus qualify them- selves for the public defence, w hen the public exi~ * See Constitution of this State, Article VII. Sec. IV. 201 gency requires it. Is it to be said, then, that, any man shall be exempted from a necessity thus to perform the duty of a good citizen ? And in' justification of such an exemption, shall it be said that the " service of God," or any other unmean- ing term, requires it ? Inasmuch as all men are equal ; if the " service of God" is to exonerate one citizen from the performance of any public du- ty no matter what it may be ; so W\\\ it exonerate another, and so will it exonerate all. A priest is but a man ; his duties to God and to man, are the same as those of other men ; neither more, nor less ; he, therefore, is entitled to have measured out to him, the same law of eternal and immutable justice. Beside, if religion were not wholly a pri- vate and personal affair ; if it were not as it is, a matter between man and the Being, who, he be- lieves, has made him, and in which government has no concern ; either to favor the priest or other- wise ; or in which it has no right to interfere, in any way, manner, or shape, whatever, farther than to require of him also the fulfilment of his duties as a citizen ; I might easily ask, what is meant by the ** service of God f". If the expression were applied to man, I should readily understand it. I should understand as any and every man does, that such "service" was something, whereby the man profited ; whereby he benefited ; by which his condition was made better. But, how are we to understand it now ? Is a priest capable of ma- king better the condition of the Almighty ? Is tjie 202 Supreme Being to receive benefaction from the work of his own hands ? I am pursuaded the weak- ness of no human being, is so great as to admit of any such absurdity. And if it be said, that it is meant that the condition of man, that is, the priest himself, is to be made better, then is it quite ano- ther affair, and is no more entitled to consideration, than is any and every other avocation, of any and every other man in society. If, therefore, any man must discipline himself in the art of war, so must the priest ; if any man must march out to bat- tle and to death, in his country's service, so must the 'priest ; and every other citizen. There must and can be no exemption. The equal rights of all require it, and the private wishes of a few, cannot be allowed to evade it. So much as regards the military. As regards ineligibility of the priest, to civil office, it is a disqualification which operates as an oppression upon him. It is manifestly unjust. Nor does it pluck out the sting of injustice, to say, that priests do not desire it. History shews abundant- ly, that the time has been, when they did. Be- sides, let us look around us, among the nations, now, and see, if we can find no priests exercising civil power. Nor is this all. By the presence of such a disqualifying clause in the constitution, the people, the Sovereign People, are prevented from choosing a priest for their civil officer, even, al- though ninety-nine men in every hundred should desire it. Claiming to be supreme over their own 203. uAairs, they have yet fettered their own suprema^ cy, so as in this instance, to render it nugatory. These fetters present an extraordinary appear- ance. They do, in so many words, declare that the people, being fully free, and having all power in their own hands ; yet nevertheless, dare not allow themselves to exercise it, without restrictions^ This is not true freedom. Men should be bolder. And, whon they are truly free, they will be. If there be a class among us, who inspire awe and terror, whenever it is supposed they may aspire to the possession of office ; it is time, high time to dissipate such awe and terror, by coming into collision with those, who are the objects of it, as often as possible, at elections and elsewhere. And this is the only way; at least, it is a very efficient way, in which it can be done. If clerical gentle- men should be ambitious of civil honors ; give them the opportunity, for it is their right ; and my word for it, in a few years, they will lose whatever of undue influence, deference, and re- spect which a blind attachment to them now, on tho part of many, is frequently disposed to accord to them. If they should not desire office, the re- striction now existing would be of no avail. Nor, should it be said, after all, that the priest and the community are about equal ; that the disqualification for civil office, balances the ex- emption from military contribution of personal service. This equality is not to be presumed ; and, for the obvious reason, that it cannot be 204 known. Besides, it is not the business of govern- ment, to make a traffic, or a system of exchanges, in rights of any kind. Each is entitled to all and every that belongs to him, and cannot, by any operation that is just or equitable, be forced into a system of barter. It is proper to abolish the State Senate. Two Legislative Bodies having a negative upon each other, in the enactment, modification, or repeal of laws, present the extraordinary phenomenon, in a government that pretends to consist in the will of a majority, of contradicting this will, in their Halls of Legislation. One, and it may be, the larger body, may give its every vote, in favor of any mea- sure, and yet a majority-fraction of the smaller body, (the Senate) defeats it altogether ! The will of the smaller farty of the whole number of Legislators, is made to be superior to the will of the greater party ! It is time to expunge such an enormity from our Constitution. In no casCy may the minority rule ; either to defeat the en- actment of a new law, or to prevent the repeal or modification of an old one ! Both cases frustrate the public will, as well by a negative as a positive action ; and the one is no more to be tolerated, in a country where equal rights are intended to be preserved, than the other. Besides, how ex- tremely ridiculous does it appear in a community of citizens, to appoint agents to manage their pub- lic, concerns, and then order them so to conduct themselves, as that they may not be able to enact 205 ihe very laws, which, if they were submitted to them, in the first instance, the people themselves would be sure to adopt ! Not less so, however, than it would be, for a government to send two sets of Ambassadors to a foreign nation, with or- ders to each to make such a treaty as it should think proper, and then to return, with the result of their negotiations. If they should happen to be alike ; a treaty is made, that is to have effect ; otherwise, it is to be a mere nullity. Nations do not conduct in this manner, in their intercourse with each other. Nor should they with them- selves. I do not stop to answer a multitude of reasons, as they are called, that have been offered for con- travening the great principle, that a majority is to govern. This great principle being preserved, preserves to man the means of defending his rights : without it they depart immediately, and leave him a slave to others, beyond the hope of redemption. Renounce the rule, for once ; and calls will never cease to be made for more renun- ciations — ^till at last it will come to this, that a single individual shall govern the whole human race at his absolute will and pleasure. There will be no permanent medium. It will be in vain to say that the people appoint all ; and that there- fore, they are safe. It is not so, especially under the present condition of things. For after they have so chosen their Legislators ; there is among us a class of Aristocrats, who have the means of - 18 206 corrupting them — ^which they do not fail to use : — and every one sees that it is easier to corrupt a fewj_ than it would be a greater number. If it be said that in single Halls of Legislation, ma- jorities are sometimes too hasty and inconsiderate; it is admitted. That is, the faet is admitted, but not the inference. Whole communities, particu- larly at periods of election, become excited — and under the influence of the excitement, often do that, which in their better and cooler judsTment. they would not have done. Yet what a strange remedy, for the evils growing out of such excite- ment, would it not be, to provide for the division of the whole mass of voters into two classes—one very large perhaps, and the other very small — with a negative on each other ! In such an event would it ever be possible to choose a public officer at all ? This would be ruling by minority with a vengeance! But still, not more so, than as at present happens. But at the same time that single Halls of Legis- lation, may be occasionally too hasty and incon- siderate ; they may also be corrupt. Both would be offences, injurious to their constituents ; but let them be ready to give an account of their con- duct, and to receive the measure of disapproba- tion or punishment which that conduct merits. It is the apprehension that the Legislator must meet this responsibility, that is the true corrective of the evil complained of ; and not the oversetting the fundamental principle, that a majority is to govern in all cases whatever. 207 Distributed as property now is, and ever has been among mankind, it has been a matter of much indifference with men having none, who were the judges appointed to administer the laws, in relation to it; who appointed them; what was their term of office ; or what were the principles of law, by which they were guided in their ad- ministration. In a new state of things, such as that I now contemplate, this indifference vanishes. All men having an equal amount of property, es- pecially at their first entrance into mature life, will have an equal interest in all these ques- tions. The appointment of judges of every kind, will therefore, of course, be ordered to emanate, directly from the people without the intervention of any appointing power, as is now practised ; they will be limited to short and stated periods of service ; and will adopt principles of law, in their administration, which shall be furnished to them, by the community, and drawn from the elements . of their political edifice, instead of being borrowed as now from the usages of barbarous and stranger nations. To effect this reformation, in connec- tion with the many others which I have already mentioned, it will be necessary if my propositions are ever to be acted upon by the people of this State, to assemble a new State-Convention. So much have I offered, in justification of the necessity of calling a State-Convention, as a pre- vious step, in any attempt which may be made in our State-government, to give to every man his 208 equal share of the property within our limits^ It has necessarily occupied many pages, and required much of the time ^nd attention of the reader. But I trust it has not been without -profit. If ever an equal division of the whole elFects of this State, is to be made among the citizens ; and if ever the succeeding generation is to be allowed to have their proportion, as they come to years of maturi- ty, as it is their equal right they should; it is only to be done so as to be of any value, or importance to them and to us, by shutting out the operation of all those causes, which would go to destroy such equal division almost as soon as if was made ; and which even in the present condition of things, is constantly tending to aggravate, the inequality of property at present existing. As, on some occa- sion, Mr. Pitt,* in his ill humor, observed of the du- ration of republican government, founded upon the prmciples of the rights of man, that if such a government were erected at noon ; it would be dissolved before night ; so also would it be with the equal rights of property : if division were made at noon, it would be disturbed and destroy- ed before night ; if the destroying agents of char- ter, monopoly, privilege, ruling by minority in- stead of majority ; &c. &c., were not first put out of existence. * See " Mr. Paine's Letter to Mr. Secretary Dunda>. Paine's Works, vol. 2, p. 327. 209 The reader will bear in mind, that I am offer- ing my sentiments, and propositions to his consid- eration, on the supposition that he is desirous to come at the truth, and to receive and adopt it, how- ever much it may be at war with his present opinions. If he be not possessed of this candor of disposition, it will be well for him to know, that a majority of mankind are; and that if they shall be- lieve after having heard me through, and under- stood me, that I have marked out the path that leads to their happiness, and to the greatest hap- piness of which they are susceptible; they have the 'power to enforce his submission to the adoption of a system, which he has not the honesty to treat with the candor which justice demands at his hands. It will be of little use, then, for such per- son, or any other, to object to an equal division of property and to support th<5 objection, after the manner of Mr. Pitt, by any ill-natured remark, such 'as that if, at noon, it were so divided, even upon principles, as perfect as I, or any one else can find it in my or his power to name or to wish, it would be unequal before night ; and thence to make the inference that such a division ought not to be made at all. The time has been, and now is, in many countries, where by the law of the land, the oldest son inherits the whole of his fa- ther's estate, with an unimportant exception ; his brothers and sisters receiving nothing. In this country, where wills do not otherwise order, the whole estate, real and personal, is divided equally is* 210 s among sons and daughters. Might not the same man who objects to my proposition for an equal division of property, among all, object also to this equal division of the father's property among the sons and daughters ? Might he not say, with equal truth, that if it were so equally divided, at noon, it would be unequal before night ; and thence infer, that such an equal division ought not to be made ? Might he not as truly say, that it was manifestly better to give it, all at' once, to the oldest son, and leave the rest of the family, in pov- erty, and dependance upon their older brother ? There has been a time in the history of this country, and that not very far distant, when the eldest son, received a double portion ? Would not the same argument apply here ? Since pro- perty, according to the estimation of some who pretend to understand this subject, has a natural tendency to inequality; ther«sfore, it would be bet- ter to leave this oldest son, in possession of this double share of his father's estate, than it would be to divide it among all his children equally. Ac- cording to this doctrine, it is right to promote and increase the action of what it is thought impossible to prevent. Thus if murder sometimes happens, it is argued that it arises from some natural and original tendency which government, it is pretend- ed has no power to prevent ? The argument goes to say, that government should increase the com- mission of this crime as much as possible. So, because, in the opinion of any one, no matter how iie has imbibed such opinion ; no matter whether such an opinion be well or ill founded ; I say, be- cause such person thinJcs that property naturally tends, under any, and all circumstances, to inequali- ty ; therefoi e, it is correct to make such inequalityj or suffer such inequality, (for it is the same thing) to be, as great as possible. Thus, you must not only give to the oldest son, rwice as much as to any other son or daughter, but you must give him the whole ; and to carry out the argument, since among all the oldest sons to be found in any coun- try, at any one time, there is the same natural tendency to inequality among them, even if they were all equal, it wouid be equally proper to select some one of these oldest sons, perhaps the oldest among them, and give him all that belongs to the whole fraternity. Thus should we see the beauty of an argument like this ! The whole world, on thi^ principle, would come into the possession of one man : and he would be the owner of his fel-^ lows, just as now any man may own a tree that grows upon his soil ! It is, therefore, manifestly unjust, to object to an equal division of property, where there is a system accompanying it also, for its equal trans- mission to every individual of every succeeding generation, on any such ground as this. Besides? it goes upon the suj. position that this supposed tendency is a fact. It assumes, that, under the new system, the same causes would exist, which in the old systems have produced inequality, and 212 would likewise continue to produce and promote it in the new. If the objector and myself are to be considered, as looking upon this inequality as an evil, and one which ought to be remedied; then a few plain questions, being answered between us, settles the matter in this point of view for ever. If property be distributed equally among the chil- dren of any father ; is it not much more probable that it will remain and continue equal, than that it could be made equal afterwards, if it be dis- tributed unequally in the first instance ? On tlie one hand, depressed by poverty and its ten thou^ sand attendant evils, is it to be hoped, is it to be expected, is it to be believed, that these non-pro- prietors, can ever acquire property f As a body, they never can. One or two in a thousand, may ; and even these, more frequently than otherwise, by way of a sort of exchange. Thus the foolish habits, and ignorance of the rich on the one hand, and the arts of knavery on the other, which the designing practice upon men who come into the^ hereditary possession of estates, are made efFectu- aH sometimes to transfer these estates, to those who have little or nothing ; but still the inequal- ity exists. There is a change only as to those who are the proprietors, and those who are not. If then, by making property unequal, in families, it has been found, that an immense majority of such families continue to be poor, and miserable for ever ; was it not a very important improve- ment in legislation, which ordered property to be 213 divided equally among all a father's children, where he had not ordered otherwise? Are not such fa- milies, the oldest sons, as well as others, much more happy, under such a distribution, than they _were under a system, where the principle of equal- ity did not prevail. If any one doubts, let him ask himself, if he would consent, to bring back the old condition of things, if it were proposed to do ' so ? Would he say that the oldest son, once more, should have all ? Would he say, that he should have a double 'portion ? Would he or she say? that the sons, equally, should have two shares, and the daughters only one ? The oldest son, where he had an interest to do so, might say it, but what would be the opinion of the others ? If pro- perty, being unequally distributed, produces so much injury as it is known to do, it is becauso it is unequal; and not because any particular person is to have the larger portion or the whole. Thus in the supposed proposal to bring back the ancient condition of things, wherein one should have all, or more than any other, if it were to be determined hy lottery, who such particular person should be, to be drawn after they had resolved upon dividing estates upon the ancient unequal principles in question, it is very certain, that the old system? would not be suffered to be disturbed. It would rest in peace; for men, as they now understand their rights and their happiness, would not con= sent to bring it again into existence. The universal sentiment of mankind is opposed 214 io inequality, as well in property as in other things. Never, since man has existed, has there been found a human being, who has thought that an equal share with his fellow-beings, was likely to be, or by any possibility could be, an injury to him. Not one of all those persons who have re- ceived their equal share of their father's estates, since the laws have been altered so as to admit of it, can be found, or has ever been known, to con- sider such equal portion given to him, as adverse to his rights or his happiness. No such person has ever thought that it could be opposed to either, and has, therefore, sought to preserve, and add to the patrimonial gift, rather than to throw it away, as a curse to him. All this, is evidence of the deep importance of equality, to all who are permitted to partake of it. It is unimpeachable evidence, inasmuch, as if any such person had existed, who supposed this equal share of property to be an in- jury to him, he had in his own hands the remedy. He had only, freely and immediately to give it away, without receiving any return therefor. Nor since the existence of man, has there ever been a time or a place, where such gift could not find acceptance. I know, very well, that there will not be want- ing thoughtless, as well as captious men, who will contradict these positions. They will tell me, that everyday and every where, there may be found men, who will confess ^ that the giving to them, their natural share of property, would be 215 an injury to tlieui. And they will endeavour to convince me of the truth of this confession, by saying, that such are their habits, of intemper- ance, perhaps, that whether they accept it or not, it would be better for them not to possess proper- ty, than otherwise. But, such persons deceive themselves. It is not the ]property that would in- jure them, but the habits which the vicious system of inequality in which they live, has impressed upon their feelings. Let these habits be eradica- ted, and it will |hen be evident, that the objection rests on a foundation which cannot support it. In the multitude of objections which will be raised against the introduction of the system which this work presents to the consideration of my fel- low-citizens and others, there will be one like this, " The present distribution is good enough ; it is "■ better than any other ; inasmuch as it is neces- *' sary, even for the poor, that there should be both «* rich and poor in society ; and that if it be order- *' ed otherwise, the work of society cannot go on, *' as prosperously as it does now, and of course, " the whole community will be sufferers. That '' the evil which we think we are laboring under, '' is imaginary ; that our actual and common suf. *' ferings will be greater, after the proposed '' change than they are now; and that it will be "" better, therefore, to leave things as they are now, "than it would be to alter them, &c. &c.*' Let those who shall make such objection take consolation. Although the system I have marked 216 out, (See PLAN, Article, 18, p. 143) forbids any one to give away his property to another, under high and severe penalties ; for reasons which, if they are not already apparent, will be made so, in the progress of this Work ; yet, the State it- self, may, if it pleases, after a General Division has been made, consent to accept his patrimony from any citizen who shall declare that he feels it to be a burthen to him, and an injury to the State! If a number of men can be found to do the same, such as to be equal to the number of men without property now existing among us, then there can be no fear but that the State, un- der its new organization, can and may derive all the advantages which any community can be sup- posed to derive, from having in its bosom such a numerous class, of poor, dependant, and wretched human beings !' It will besides, have this adddi- tional advantage ; that, in the case we are suppo- $ingf the poor, will be poor of choice ; they will be volunteers ; patriots in the cause of their own hap- piness, and that of their common country ; and, of course, reconciled, contented and happy. If they are not so, it will be their own fault. Nor, is it by any means impossible for government to be able to accept these patrimonies, if they should he so offered! Canals, Roads, Bridges, Public Works, of every description, will ever be wanted as long as the State shall exist ; and these could be car- ried to such an extent, as to absorb all that could possibly be presented to it, in this way ! If ii 217 should turn out, that a sufficient number of men* after a General Division had been made, should not be of opinion that such a dispossession, by themselves, of their own patrimony, would be bene- ficial to themselves, and the community ; such as to amount to the number mentioned ; it would not indeed, piove the doctrine maintained to be false ; but it would be evidence, very strong, that its correctness was very much to be doubted ! Still, however, if a majority should not happen to be on the side, of J;hus voluntarily creating an extensive class of poor men, and should prefer, as far as themselves are concerned, that equality of pro- perty should prevail ; whatever the minority might be, they could still consult their own views and feelings without in the slightest degree being opposed by the majority ; and, we should have the uncommon phenomenon of a majority and a mi- nority, in a republic, agreeing to differ, and still acting in perfect acccordance with the views of each ! Let the rich man, therefore, console himself; fov he it is, I presume, if there shall be any one, who will object to the equal participation by all in the property of the State ; I say, let him console him- self that in the new order of thin^rs, he will have abundant opportunity, voluntarily to taste the sweets of poverty and dependance, if there be any such ; and to recommend them to others by his own experience. Indeed, it occurs that even now, it would be well, among all who shall object, on 19 218 (his account i to the miroduction ot this system, if some one would give us an example, in his own person, of such an act of self dispossession. There is no law to prohibit it ; nor any difficulty in finding those who will receive property thus tendered to them. Let the rich man, nowj if he will, give up his property to some one of his fellow- citizens, a poor man I should prefer ; and let them both make an experiment ; one to say how much of evil there is, at least, in a competence ; and the other, how much of good, in entire destitution and poverty. Let them do this ; and I engage to believe that 07ie of them will not fail to be the wiser for it. It necessarily follows, that objections of a great diversity of character, will present themselves to persons of very honest views, as well as others, to the proposition to equalize all property in the State among its citizens ; and a prominent one, among the number will be, that if it be made equal to day ; the jack-tar, and the son of the richest man in Broadway, will have equal por^ tions ; and, that they will both go, in the prodi- gality of habits, in which a most pernicious sys- tem of government has educated them, and squander them forthwith, and thus again reduce themselves to poverty. Of what use, then, would it be, say a multitude of men, who are more ready to look for objections, to any system that may be proposed, than to search after remedies, though easy to be found; of what use, saythey^ 219 would such a division be ? I answer much. Be^ sides, the question is asked as if there were not immense multitudes- of men, in a community, other than the jack-tar, and the gentleman's son in Broadway. Is it of no consequence to these, that they should have their rights ? Are they not to have accorded to them, what belongs to them^ what is so necessary to them, their welfare and happiness ; merely because the present vicious system of holding and transfering property has rendered worthless a portion of the low in life, as well as the high ? What would be said, now, of a proposition, to disinherit all the children of a father, merely from the fact, that one of these children might be a prodigal and a profligate ? Yet, such is the objection that is made to the giving to the whole community what belongs to them ; and what no man can dispute as belonging to them ; merely because it would do no good to" a being, or a few beings among them, already ruined by the vices of society. There can be no doubt, that it is to the influence of these vices, generated by this unequal condition of things, in regard to property, that we are to attribute the existence of this class of heedless and improvident men. For if, on the one hand, the system of the rights of property, had not been such, as to enable the father to have ob- tained an unjust, an overgrown, and more than sufficient wealth, he would not have obtained it ; and his son, from his earliest years, would have been accustomed to rely on his own exertions. 220 instead of living on the means acquired by his fa- ther, for his present and future support. His habits would have been, of a better and a higher order, and necessity w^ould have called upon him to exercise his own faculties, for his own subsist- ance. Other young men of his age, would have been in like condition; so, that both the motive and the opportunity would have been wanting, which are necessary to work that moral ruin, which we every day observe in wealthy families. On the other hand, an original want of property, in nu- merous classes of society, with the consequent relation it holds with the other class, has led to the formation of the other and opposite descrip- tion of character. It will not be proper, therefore, to object to an equal division of property, on account of some persons in the community being unfit to receive it. This would be to place the happiness of the many upon a contingency of a most extraordinary character. The proper course to pursue, is, as far as regards those who are not qualified, who are decidedly and manifestly not qualified, to take proper charge of that which shall be assigned to them, to place it in the hands of trustees or guardians for their benefit. This is what hap- pens every day in many governments as now con- stituted ; and it would be equally proper in this. It is a remedial operation ; useful to correct po- litical vices, already engendered ; and which it is better thus to adopt, than to suffer the greater 221 «vil which would take place without it. With this remark, let us clos e the present diapter, and resume the subject in our next. CHAPTER vj. REASONS 'Jrt sui^port of a General Division of property, and of tlie means pointed out for effecting it ; continued. There is no opinion more erroneous, nor perhaps mOre generally entertained, than that if you destroy the power of making wills and of course of making disposition of estates as to the future, you thereby destroy all mcentive to exer- tion, or industry. It would be like gathering the wheat from the field, it is said, of the farmer who has raised it^ and leaving only the stubble. This opinion deserves to be deeply investigated ; and when it is, I apprehend it will be found full of errors. When put in proper language, it says, that a man works for his posterity and not for himself, liet us see how this is. I can speak for myself and others can judge, from their own bosoms, how far 9712/ feelings coincide with their own. I like property because it gives me a house in which I am protected from the heat of sum- mer, and the cold of winter, and the storms of both f where I can receive my friends and accommodate my fami- ly.* I like it, because it covers my floors with carpets ; * On the principles which thig Work advocates, however, these will have thdr rights guaranteed to them as well as others. ^ 222 gives me looking-glasses and side-boards : because it fur- nishes me with chairs and tables ; books and maps and papers. I like it because it furnishes me with clothing, and with food ; and provides me with the means of prose- cuting distant journies on pleasure or business ; and guar- antees my return ; because it furnishes the paper I write on. and will provide for the means of publishing this Work to the world. These, and a thousand other reasons, all pointing to my own personal gratification, are those that form my attachment to property ; and I can truly say, that if I can see, as it regards the future, that all those who are to succeed me will have the means to make their own con- dition better, than I can make it for them, that I have and ought to have, no wish to interfere^ in any arrangement or disposition which they may wish to make. It is evident, therefore, that I like property^br its own sake ; for the coals in places in my grate ; for the roast beef it puts upon my table ; for the medicine and comfort it gives me when I am sick ; for the carriage it gives me when I do not feel dis- posed to walk ; and for the means it afFords in a thousand different ways of giving me pleasure, comfort and happi- ness, without so much as a thought entering my mind, that I entertain this attachment to property, for the benefit j^f another. If then, there is, as there evidently is, such an innumer- able multitude of causes of attachment to property, /or its own sake, and causes which must not only exist as long as man shall exist, but which will continue to increase as ar- tificial wants increase; there can be no danger of a proper want of incentive to industry. Besides, when we hear men saying that they are gathering wealth, purely for the love they bear to their children, are we sure they do not de- ceive themselves ? Are we sure they do not mistake, the love of property, /or their own sake, for the love oi it, for 223 their children's sake ? How does it happen so often, that parents retain possession of their property, till very late pe- riods of their lives and indeed almost always, untfl they have ceased to be ? Surely if we suppose there really is, as much attachment to property, among parents, for their ''children's sake, as is now pretended, we should oftener than we do, be witnesses of such parents giving to their children a full and sufficient patrimony, at their first setting out in Hfe, when, if ever they are to have it, it is capable of doing them most good. As it is now, nothing Js more common than for a man of fortune to die at the age of eighty ; and, then, for the first timCj to give to his children, the property he has acquired. The oldest of these, in some cases, may then be sixty or near it ; and may have raised a family, the youngest of whom may also have a family. Of what use is a descent of property m this way, at all, if a better system can be devised ? Surely the tena- city with which men cling to property ; a tenacity which nothing but death itself can conquer, can have but little claim to be considered as evidence of any thing but the owner's attachment to it, for its own sake, and/ on the score of policy, in order to encourag^' the augmentation of wealth by the testator, it is and has been urged as necessary and useful, to allow of the willing away property, to such successor as he might think proper to name. On the score of the same good pplicy, (I say nothing of right now), would it not be quite as beneficial, in the way of stimulating the augmentation of riches, of en- couraging industry, so to order affairs, that vast bodies of men, should have SQtne property, to begin life with; as it is to leave them, as we do now, without any thing? Would not a few millions, such as Lorillard's estate for example, distributed among a few thousand men, at their first setting out in life, be productive under iAeir management, of more wealth, than if the same were given into the possession, perhaps, of a single man ? This is a question which I do not expect the rich to hear with pleasure, or to answer with candor ; but the men of toil, the million who prepare the feast, but never taste it, will find an answer in their own bosoms whicJi need not be to]d to any one, to be known. It is easy to enlarge, and to multiply arguments in favor of the policy even, of giving, in addition to the benefit? of a good edtication, a patrimony, and that an equal one too, to every individual on arriving at the age of maturity. Those who object to it, on the ground that it would tend to make men indolent, and improvident of their future wel- fare, seem not to be aware, if the ground oftljeir objection be true, that they prove too i^uch. They are in the situa- tion of the sophist, who declared *' there was no such thing as truth in the world ;" and, to whom a by-stander replied; " Then, Sir, your assertion is not true ; for, if it be, there is, at least, one truth among men." If the giving of pro- perty, be it little or much, to those who are entering the stage of mature life, is to be considered as visiting the evil 20 230 of indolence and laziness, upon those who receive it, and }S, on that account, to be objected to ; so, also, must we object to property being given to any human being what- ever, whether it be by our present system of wills, or other- wise. Now, to say, that no onCt ought to have any pro- perty at all, by way of bequest, or gift, from any source whatever, is proving too much ; and more I apprehend, than those who fancy they see evil in giving to all an equal amount of property on arriving at the age of maturity, have any wish to prove. Besides, how doubly absurd, does it not appear, to fAi- ject, to a moderate and equal share of property being given to each person at the age before mentioned, on ac- count of its inducing indolence; and still, at the same moment, to contend for the giving of immense estates, as is now done by way of will ? If, by a system of equality, the giving three or four, or five thousand dollars, to indi- viduals generally, is to be objected to, as creating idleness and laziness ; how much more, ought we to object, as the system now is, to giving three, or four, or five millions ? Those who oppose the equal system, which it is my plea- sure to support in this Work, and every where else ; ou'ght to take care in the first place, that their facts be true : and in the second, that being true, they do not do more injury to themselves, than to those whom they attempt to assail. I apprehend my readers will agree with me, in the present instance, that these facts are not true ; and that if they were, they would be of no avail, inasmuch as by proving too much, they prove nothing at all. And such, I imagine, is the condition, in which all men must invariably find themselves, who oppose the doctrine of C- quality ; of equality in property, as well as in every thing else. Men who contend for the descent of property to thenest 23i generation, in the way in which it now descends ; and ob- ject to its descending equally to all, as I desire, on the ground of its tendency to promote indolence, seem to con- sider mankind as consisting of two distinct species of be- ings; one of slaves, whose duty it is to toil, but having a very j[rreat aversion to it ; and the other, of despots, to whom it belongs to use the lash, and thus coerce their fel- low-beings to perform it. They seem to forget, that most of the indolence, now existing among mankind (the effect which labor-saving- machmery has to destroy employment, and thus^orce men to be idle, excepted), is the indolence of despair and dis- couragement, on the one hand ; and, on the other, that of ease and indulgence, springing from enormous fortunes, ac- quired without labor, and possessed without right ; and that if these two causes of indolence, were banished, by the introduction of a system of equal pr perty, indolence itself would be banished also. All would then labor for the gratification of their wants ; and this gratification would then be, as it truly is, the true, and only genial and healthful stimulus of industry. I have already observed that if the State, for example, had bestowed patrimonies upon the children of certain supposed families ; it would have relieved the cares of the parents of those children, to a very great and beneficial extent ; and that, their industry would have received, in consequence of such relief, an augmentation of its exercise, by being at hberty to direct itself to the acquisition of the means of new gratifications. There is little doubt, that the present inveterate attachment to the exercise of the rights of the testator, as they are called, owes its origin, principally to its being made use of, as an instrument of conveying property to children. Had it ever been the ease, that a State had given a patrimony, and, an equal 23^ one too, to every person in it, on his cominij to the age of maturity, it is altogether probable that men would have ceased to have any attachment to wills whatever. It is to bo said, indeed, tjjat it would never have been known. It should be understood, th.it to the term will, I affix a signi- fication, which, direct or implied, controls the disposition of property which a man has died possessed of, in manner knpwn, or supposed to be agreeable to his wishes. Thus, although a man, technically speaking, may die without a will, yet, it'thc Legislature order his property, by a general or any other law, to be divided equally among his children, ornext of kin, it presumes what his will would have been, and supplies the omission. But let us look a little at the obstacles which go to pre- vent the execution of wills, however beneficial they may be said to be. A man, it is said, acquires property for his children, and gives it to them by way of will. How far is this true ? there is no doubt he may intend it. But let us hear what the facts are His will may be made, and de- posited in the care of a friend, perhaps, in whom he h^^s confidence, and wiio does not deceive it. Still it may be lost or destroyed by some casualty or accident ; where, then, is the will of the testator ? It is a nullity. It has no legal existence. It is the same thing as if it had never been made. In another instance, the t reachery of another (supposed) friend, to whom another will may have been committed, puts it out of the way altogether. Here again is another violation of will, as eflectual as if it had never been made. Let the dying man, if you please, fearing to trust his will out of his own house, order it to be deposi- ted in his bureau. How often, when death has sealed his eyes, has such will been committed to the flames. If the destiny, the good or ill fortune of heirs, is made to depend on an occurrence of this kind, how precarious and uncer- 2^3 tain may we not consider it ? Again — where it has been supposed that no will has been made, how often has ^ happened that a counterfeit one has made its appearance, clothed m all the legal formalities, and has carried away the estate of the deceased ? Besides, let us suppose the genuine will to be preserved, and to become known to the administrators of the laws. Yei the debts of the deceased must be paid ? Most certainly. Well, then, in court here come witnesses, as many as are necessary, and make oath, false oath, it is true, but which, however, no one has it in his power to prove to be false ; and swear that they saw him, for example, sign or mdorse a prornisory note, to a great amount ; judgment is rendered, in consequence of this testimony, and away goes the estate, out of the chil- dren's hands. But let us pursue the matter still further. Admit the estate to be realized. It must come, of course, into the hands of the executor. What if he should fail in his duty ? Would not the estate pass from the heirs ? No, it is said, if bis surety were available. That might happen not to be the case. Moreover, himself and the executor might act in collusion. And then who could evade the consequence ? Like other men, they could if they pleased, be guilty of fraudulent insolvency ; or increase the number of absconding debtors. In any of all these numerous con- tingencies happening, and more might have been named, what becomes of the testator's designs ? Where is the se- curity of the heir ? What dying man can say he has la- bored for his children ? If they do not get his property, he certainly has not labored for them. He has labored for some one else, and he will not know for whom. On the ground, then, that it is impossible, in a very great many cases, to fulfil the inteh'ions of the deceased, il will be advantageous to look for a better system. For ahhough it may be said, that in a great majority of install- 20* 234. ces, estates descend in the way in which their former pos- sessors desire them, yet there are not wanting many in- stan6es of a contrary description. And these are pregnant with great evils to those who are affected by them. They are too well understood and felt, to need any elucidation. To place numerous families without resources of property of any kind, into a world which seems to be governed al- most altogether by one ruling principle, avarice, is calami- - ty too much to be contemplated with indifference. But such calamity is no greater to him who has had an estate intended to have been given to him, and who did not suc- ceed in obtaining it, than to him who is possessed of no- thing, because he had no parent or legator able or willing to give him property. Inasmuch as I am now speaking of the policy of wills altogether, separate from any consideration of thern as being consistent or otherwise with tl^e equal rights of all ; it is not out of place to look at their moral action, in a- nother point of view. Who does not know the insincere course of conduct, which the expectation of possessing property through the medium of wills, generates in those who have a right to indulge in such expectations ? Do we not know, that, particularly the latter part of any one's life, who has properly to any considerable amount, to give away by will, is assailed by every species of flattery, fraud, and cunning? And when the unhappy man is about to re- sign his life, who does not recognize, around his death-bed, a scene, very much resembling the hovering of carrion,- crows over a dying horse, wishing every moment to be his -last, in order that they may feast themselves on what re- mains after death has done its work ? It would be no small service rendered to our race, if such a disgusting and revolting moral nuisance were eradicated from all human society. 235 Nor is this death-bed scene of immorality that which is the most offensive to every feehng of purity and virtue, of' all those which the exercise of the power of making a will presents ta our view. How often do parents in possession of property, while living, employ it as the instrument of the ipost revolting tyranny"? How often is the son, under the fear of being disinherited, compelled to comply with the unjust and iniquitous de«ires of the father ? How often is the happiness of the daughter sacrificed, by being compell- ed to marry a man, whom her parents order her to marry, but whom she regards with indifference, and often with disgust ? And what, in such a case, does the exercise, by the father, of this power of making a will, produce, but the legalized prostitution of his daughter ? Yet this is what happens almost daily ; and mer^ have not seen how this great demoralizing agent is to be exterminated from all human society ; nor even thought, except in lew instances, that a power producing such effects, must necessarily be one which has no just right to exist ; since no man will pretend that he ought to have the power to prostitute his own daughter ; thougii such is tiiC power he actually holds in his hands, under the present order of things. In my third chapter I have abundantly shewn, I think, that man cannot own property after he ceases to be ; nor give direction who shall own, to the exclusion of another ; or how it shall be disposed of; that to allow of such dispo- sition, would be to interfere with the rights of the living, at a future day ; and therefore is not to be tolerated, any more than any similar injustice is allowed to be practised with impunity, in a society of individuals now Hving. For justice is as much to be practised to those who are absent as to those who are present ; to those who are on distant journies, as to those who are at home ; to those who have not yet arrived on the stage of existence, as to those who 236 have. It does not take its character from the wishes of any man, or of any generation of men, from any period of time, past, present or to come. It is eternal and un- changeable, and operates, if it operate at all, for the equal benefit of all. But, notwithstanding all this.is self-evident- ly true ; although every human heart ; as well his, who feels tyrant-propensities, a&. he who sutlers the anguish they occasion, acknowledges their truth ; still does there lurk a wish in the heart of him, who is now wealthy, to extend his monopoly beyond the grave ; and although he cannot see that it is right, at all, for him to will away the materials of the world, so to speak ; to throw, for example, if he had the power, the plantation on which he has once lived, into the middle of the Pacific Ocean, there to be sunk in the fathomless deep, or to commit any similar annihilation of property; yet he feels " one longing, lingering" wish, that the labors of his life, the result of his yearly toils, those produc- tions of his personal exertions, should be at his disposal. Strange man ! If such be your wish, if you are so inhuman as to desire, when you are about to slumber in the dust, as to make a preference, (for that is all that remains in your power) among those to whom you would give your labors, when the Creator has made them all equal, and knows no difference among them ; show me which and what are youF personal labors, and how your wish can be accomplished, and you shall be gratified. If you have made for yourself a bow, from materials obtained in the forest — go, and re- place that material as you found it ; and if you can possess yourself of the labor, and the labor only, which you em- ployed in its manufacture, go and bestow it upon whom you please. If you have made yourself a pipe, in which to smoke your tobacco — go and restore the clay of which it was made, to its original place and condition as you found it ; and, if you can possess yourself of the labor you 237 expended in its fabrication, give it in welcome to yoiir successor. If you have written the Iliad, go and restore to their original condition, the materials of the paper, ink, &c. which were essential to its existence among mankind ; then, if you can detach the labors you employed in its com- position, from all connection with physical existence, my sensorium or another's, give them in welcome to whomso- ever you will. If you have niade a ship, replace the mate- rials, of which it is made, in situations and conditions as you found them, and if you can lay your hand upon the la* bor} upon the industry you employed its construction, do so, and give it as you will. But, touch not material I Take only labor, skill and fancy ! All else belongs to the suc- ceeding generation. Even the materials of your own body, the moment that animation has departed, belong to them^ and not to you. They can, as they have ever done, mak§ such disposition thereof, as to them shall seem fit. Say not to me, that you will exchange some of all your vast amount of labor, for our materials. We will not con- sent. We will make no treaty with you. For what could labor do? All that you have ever exercised, and all that the whole human race have exercised, since their existence, are not competent to the formation of a grain of sand. If, then, you cannct give us the equivalent, even for the very smallest fraction of a grain of sand, why should we allow you to bestow it away ? Besides, it is only ours dur- ing the period of our existence ; when it will belong to our successors, who will talk to us, as now we talk to you. Besides, is it not altogether possible, that you have re- ceived the benefit of the labors of a preceding generation, from ten thousand sources, fully equal in amount, to that which you now so reluctantly transmit to the generation which is to succeed you ? Are you not in fact a debtor ? Are you not, indeed, a very ^reat debtor ? Have you not 238 had of enjoyment, yourself, a hundred, nay a thousand, or ten thousand times more than you could have had if pre- ceding generations (and that without any regard to those of your kindred among them) had not left their labors be- hind them ? And is not this, of itself, a sufficient reason for you to wave your pretensions altogether ? One would surely think it was. But let us make another investigation : — Some one will say, as many have often said, *' this is my property ; " I have made it by my industry ; it is the work of my " own hands ; therefore is it mine, to will away, as '* well as for any and every other purpose." If it be his, Ids it isy beyond all dispute ; and his shall it remain, for any thing that I will do to dispossess him. But let us inquire. Let us ascertain, when a man boasts how much he has done in his life time, by his own industry/ ; I say, let us ascertainybr ourselves^ how much, after all, it may hap- pen to be. Over-estimates are a very common thing ; and happen as often among rich boasters, as any where else. Let us take the supposition that Lorillard shall give his five hundred houses, and other property to some single legatee. If he manage them with prudence, with industry , I suppose he would say ; inasmuch as principal at five per cent, per annum (whether it comes in the shape of rent or interest is all the same) doubles itself in a little more than fourteen years ; let it even be fifteen ; his houses would be doubled in number in that time ; and in fifteen years more, they would be doubled again. So that in thirty years from the time at which the legatee came into possession, he would actually have fifteen hundred houses more than Lorillard left him, making an increase of fifty houses a year! Is it now to be said that this annual increase is the labor, is the industry of one man ? Is it to be said that he has performed the equivalent of so much work ? Would these 239 houses have been built, or their equivalent in labor per- formed on something else , by this legatee, (who in the mean time has not Hfted his hand), if, at the time, he received his legacy, all the poor, who perform the labor that supports the whole human race, had been struck out of existence ? Do not these same poor men see, that they are the slaves of this vast possessor of property ? Do they not see, that their fathers have been slaves to his predeces- sor? Do they not see, that their children, if this state of things is to continue, will be slaves to his successor or successors ? Do they not see, that they will be required to build for them, in the next thirty years, 6,000 houses more ! which, under a new order of things, they would build for themselves, or employ its equivalent in something else ? And for what is all this ? What par- ticular service to mankind, does Lorillard, or Lorillard's successors, or any man's successors, render more than themselves ? Is the work of creation to be let out on hire ? And, are the great mass of mankind to be hirelings to those who undertake to set up a claim, as government is now constructed, that tlie world was made for them ? Why not sell the winds of heaven, that man might not breathe without price ? Why not sell the light of the sun, that a man should not see, without making another rich ? Why not appropriate the ocean, that man should not find space for his existence, without paying his fellow-being for it ? Ail these things could be done if it were practicable, with as much propriety, as the present exclusive and eter- nal appropriation is made, of the land and all that belongs to it. Mankind have enquired too little after their rights, their interests, and their happiness. If it had not been so, such enormities could not have been allowed to take place, dai- ly and forever before our eyes, without having been reme- 240 * ^ died. They could not have been plunged into such deep distress and degradation as we now see them. The high and the lofty, those who have become so, from the inevit- able operation of causes, which they did not bring into being ; and which neither they have had, nor could have had the power to control ; would have been tumbled from their elevations, and seated on a level with their fellow- beings. Then would they have enjoyed their equal chance of acquiring property ; for then, would they have had only their equal share of it, to begin with ; and with this, they could have had only their proper opportunity to employ their industry and talents ; others would have been in the same enviable situation ; and no one would then be found, in such necessitous condition, that he must work or die ; and work, too, on such termSy that a very great ihare of the value of his labor must go to the employer, or to him, who, no matter liow, affords the means of employ- ment! It is not long since a member of the Common Council of this city, I do not now recollect his name, and on some occasion of which I do not remember exactly the nature, indulged in a strain of feeling and invective against the poor, which brought forcibly to my mind, a tragic affair of the French Revolution. In the origin of this affair, a very wealthy citizen of Paris, was guilty of saying, in an exas- perated tone of feeling, that the people were no better than horses, and ought to be fed on hay ; or words to that effect ; the consequence was, that the populace became exasperated in their turn, by the barbarity of the expres- sion ; they seized him, cut his head off; stuck it on a pole ; filled his mouth full of hay ; and paraded through the streets, in revenge for the unfeeling manner in which Iheir victim had spoken of their rights and their happiness. On the occasion to which I have alluded, the honor- 24i able member launched out into some intemperate expres- sions against those, whose lot, as society is now modelled, it is to perform THE LABOR THAT SUPPORTS US ALL ; such as this, " that he who would not work ought to starve." There is no occasion to question the general truth of the observation ; but the barbarous feeling with which, it struck me, it was uttered, could not fail to raise my indignation. I could not but resent it in the name of my fellow-beings, as an insult to that class who now perform all the work that is done in our support, as well of the honorable member, as of all others, implying an unwillingness to work, which there is no kind of propriety ^n laying to their charge. But it implied also more. It implied, that it is right enough for a certain description of men, among us, to live without labor of their own ; while others are called upon to labor, not only enough to support themselves, but to support also, these DRONES in the hive into the bargain. It is the object of this Work, to inquire why these things should be. Why is it, that men, at our Hall, or elsewhere, should not be called upon to perform the labor that supports them, as well as other men ? If a man will not work, why should he not starve ? This is a question which may well be asked, if it is intended to mean, that all men, shall be called upon to work ahke; and to depend solely upon the labor of their own hands, and draw nothing frbm the labor of others, but what they are wiUing to pay for with an equal return in labor of their own hands, I agree to it. It is an object which I wish to see accomplished. And it will be the object of every man,' who has not been corrupted by the sweets of another's la- bor. Let all our legislation square with this principle ; and there will then be no occasion to suffer large estates to descend to particular persons ; for these it is, (and it is nothing else) which enables them to live on the labor of 21 S42 others ; nor on the other hand, to maintain an order of things, the result of which is, to leave an immense portion of our population without property of any kind whatever, in the utmost misery and wretchedness. But the honorable member, there is every reason to be- lieve did not contemplate so general an application of his maxim. But, why should he not ? Is it not quite as reasonable for a poor man to eat a good dinner, without having labored to earn it, as for a rich man to do it ? Is there a difference in rights ? Is there one sort of rights for one class of men, and another for another ? May one do lawfully what the other will do criminally ; have we two codes of law among us ? Have we a law for the Lillipu- tians, and another for the Brobdingnaggians ? We have been told, in the Declaration of Independence, that " all men are created equal ;" but if one man must work for his dinner, and another need not, and does not, how are we equal ? If the gentleman shall say, the rich man has property, and the poor man has not ; then the question is only changed for another ; what is his right to such pro- perty ? If it should turn out, that he has no better right than he whom now he callg poor, and on whom he casts his in- sults ; it would at least compel him to make his applica- tion of his maxim, more general, I presume, than he had intended to make it. In order, therefore, to ascertain the poor man's rights, or the rich man's either, we must go back to the first for- mation of government. When we have done so; when we have ascended to the first era of society; where do we find our poor man ? Where do we find our rich one ? They are no where to he seen. Everything is in common at this period- No man can call this tree his, or that the other's. No man can say this field is mine; or that is yours. Field there is none. All is one wide common. 243 unapproprkte to any. How they did appropriate, when they resolved to divide among them, that which equally be- longed to all, we may not know at present. But, how they ought to have divided, we know full well. It is en- graved on the heart of man, and there is no power, while he lives and has his faculties, that can efface the engrav- ing. That heart tells him, what it tells every man now who has one ; that he has an equal right with any and every other man, to an equal share of the common pro- perty ; or its undoubted equivalent. That heart tells him, that if, previous to any time, the soil, the common proper- ty of all has been pre-occupied by others, it is his right to demand an equivalent ; or, as the only alternative left him, to enter by force, if necessary, into the possession of that which belongs equally to him, as to another. That heart tells every citizen of this State, or of any other Slate, that he,.too,has the same inalienable right to his portion of the property of the State. That heart tells him, that if those who have first occupied this property, have done it in such a manner, as to shut him out, of his equal original right ; and have not given him his equivalent, in heu thereof, it is his right, and those who are in the same condition with him, to combine their exertions to produce such an ar- rangement, and division of the State, as will be able, even at this late, or at any later day, when they shall possess themselves of power enough to do so; to secure to them- selves the enjoyment of their own equal portion. That heart tells him, that no length of time which oppression may have endured, can legalize its existence : and that the day of its death has come, when moral and physical power enough is found to exist to be able to destroy it. How, then, if the present people of the State of New- York, had now for the first time, met on its soil, and were about to make appropriation of what they found here, how 244 would they proceed ? If their knowledge and experience convinced them, that the system of private and exclusive properly, in every thing, or nearly so ; and consequent upon this system, the system of one pursuing one occupa- tion and another anoiher ; and so on through the whole circle of occupations ; was better adapted to promote their comfort and happiness, than any other ; because, the sum total of the effects of their industry would be greater in this way, than in any other ; would they not, then, be likely to pursue such systems ? Would they not divide the State as nearly equal as possible ? Would they give to one man a territory, equal to the county of Rensselaer; to another a territory equal to the county of Putnam; and to a thousand, or ten thousand others, none at all, or any equivalent ? Would the thousand or ten thousand, if they understood their" rights, sanction such a division as this ? Would they not overthrow it in an instant ? And if, two hundred years ago, such an appropriation, or a similar one was made, shall it not be overthrown now ? Shall it not be put out of existence now, and every thing, as it regards equality, be placed in the same condition as if it had never been ? Is the error, is the injustice of such a distribution of the soil and property of the State, to receive our sanction because it has existed two centuries ? Well, if the people of thfi present day, upon the suppo- sition I have made, that they were now, for the first time met upon its soil, would not sanction or authorize such an unequal distribution of property ; ought they to be called upon to sanction it now ? Ought they to be called upon, and besought to forbear, and not to break it up ? Whose benefit is that, which calls upon the people any longer to tolerate such an injustice ? Is it the benefit of the people themselves ? Is it the benefit of their children, and their children's children to the latest generation ? Or is it the benefit of the single individual among ten thousand ? If^ 246 . then, the people, by altering this condition of things, can yet make all things equal, and consistent with the original rights of all ; and can, among others, make the same pro- vision for him of the ten thousand ; ought it not to be done ? Who is to gainsay ? No man, nor even any majority of men have, or ever have had, or ever can have any right to destroy the equality of rights, or to sufer it to he de^roy- ed. It belongs, inalienably belongs, to each individual of the universe, even though every other individual in the same universe, should oppose its admission or acknowl- edgement. It is not in the moral power of numbers to say, it shall not be. Let it not be said, that because the soil of the State has undergone a vast change in its value, by the progress of improvements; by the labors of art and industry, which for two hundred years, have not failed, in the possession of the present and former owners to be bestowed upon it ; that therefore division ought not now to be made. Whose were these labors ? Were they those of the proprietors ? Were they those of the rich man ? On the contrary, were they not those of multitudes of men, who had, as good a right to the soil they cultivated for another, as that other himself? Were they not those of the ancestors, of the fathers and grandfathers, of the present generation of poor men ? Were they not those whose bones now sleep in dust along with those who never labored at all ? What right, then, has the rich man of the present day, to retain possession of the result of the labor of their lives, and \o deny it to their children ? What right has the rich man of the present day, to hold by inheritance from his ancestor, the labors of a previous generation, when even the ancestor himself had no kind of just title to it ? If there is any one principle, among all the principles which prevail in govera- ments organized as they now are, which can be allowed to 21* . 246 have an operation here ; it is, that the children of these sons of toil, have, at least, an equal title to the labors of their ancestors, with that of the son of him who never la- bored at all; who lived on the labor of others ; and who, if it be yet said, as it may sometimes be, with truth, that he did labor as much as the poorest man living, could certainly claim for his son, no more than an equal share of all these improvements, of all these productions of art and industry. Nor let the man of toil ; the man of no possessions ; for- get to understand himself. Let him not believe that there is aught of value or of worth in man, save such as he and his kindred producers, bring forth to mankind. Let him not forget, that all these improvements ; all these produc- tions of art and industry; the surviving fruits of the labor of his ancestors, are now actually less, than they would have been, if rich men had never existed. For every dollar paid to them by way o^ interest ; by way of rent for houses and lands ; by way o^ profit in trade or manufactures, over and above the same return which poor men receive for similar service in superintendance ; is so much for idleness to sub- sist upon. Let him not fail to see, that the Grand Canal would have been made at less labor furnished by the class of men to which he belongs, but for the existence among us, of what are called, men of fortune. For the labor on which these have subsisted, and that, too, which they have wasted, has been drawn from those whose rights I am vindicating ; and this labor might as well have been given to the Canal, as to have been given where it was. It would have been better. For all that is given to support the rich, (or the poor either) who by their labor, might be able, if they had the opportunity, or were compelled to it by necessity arising from the operation of equal laws, to support themselves, is so much thrown into the sea. Let 247 US look then upon the rich man, as he has been, or as he now is, among^ us, rather as a curse, than as a blessing* rather as a something, himself, which it is proper to exter- minate, than to allow him to arise in the midst of us, and say, *'The changes you design to make, shall not be made.'* Nor let the word exterminate, be thought a harsh one. Both rich and poor ought to he exterminated : the latter by being made what we may call rich ; and the for- mer by being brought to the common level. If, then, the soil, in its present cultivated state, as well as in the condition in which it comes to us, from the hand of its Creator ; with all the results of the toil, skill and in- dustry of the present and former generations, as well as when none of these existed — belong t6 the present people of the State of New York — what is the disposition, which they may and ought to make of it ? That it would be an equal division in the first instance, no man will doubt. For if he did doubt it, if he did believe that it would be unequal ; and further, if he could believe that himself cou\d have the larger portion ; he would not object. If, therefore, any man objects to a division, it is because he expects after a division is made, to possess less than he possesses now. It is not in the nature of things, that he should object on any other ground. Whoever, therefore, does object to a division, npt only desires to have that which is truly his own, by just and equal right, but that of his fellows — a hundred ; a thousand, or ten thou- sand in number, in addition thereto. But these, when they understand their rights ; when they see clearly what be- longs to them, as much as the same in amount belongs to another, are not to be prevented from possessing it, by any thing which can be done by any human agency. The division, therefore, beyond all question would be equal. At least it would approach as near to it, as it 248 would be in the powei of the communiiy to make it. I am not to be understood as meaning any thing by equality, other than that the value of the effects of our citizens, whether it be lands, or ships, or goods, or whatever else it may be, would be apportioned equally among us all. And if it were not exactly equal ; if it varied from equality, say by five, or ten, or fifty dollars in a thousand, it would be because, under present circumstances, or perhaps under any, a division mathematically equal, cannot be made. But it is not necessary. It is sufficient that it be substan- tially so. And this it can be without any difficulty, arising in executing such division, whatever. But, after this equal division'be made, how is it to be perpetuated ? How is it to be maintained ? How is it to be preserved, at least so far, as to allow wealth, in any man's hands, to accumulate no faster, than his greater talents, strength, ingenuity, indu&try or economy, will enable him ? So far as these qualities are possessed by any man, they ought not to be denied having their full scope. But at the same time, they are not to receive impetus, from having the opportunity of operating upon the destitution of ano- ther. Wealth is not to be allowed to augment its trea- sures, by making treaties of profit with poverty and misfor- tune. Care, then, is to be taken that such poverty and misfortune shall have no existence. The question, then, arises, how is this to be done? Divide the State equally to-day ; and all will be equal for the moment. But if you give to any of these equal pos- sessors the power to consider that which they have re- ceived, as being theirs to the end of time, what will not happen ? Suppose these possessors to be, all fathers ; to have an equal duration of life ; to have an equal num- ber of children, who shall be supposed to have an equal duration of life also ; to- have equal talents, strength, inge- nuity, industry and economy ; still under all these circuiii" stances, property would soon become vastly and enor- mously unequal. And why ? Because each of these pos- sessors ; if he have the power to the end of timCf dis Iha.\e supposed him to have, of disposing of that which is now his, could and would will it away unequally. He would entertain, such is every day the fact among us now, an- tipathies to, or less partiality for, one of hiscildren, than he would for another. He would bestow his property accord- ingly. To him, whom he disliked, (wisely or unwisely, it is no matter) he would give nothing. He, therefore, would be the first of a race, and ultimately of a very nu- merous race of poor men ; of unfortunate human beings ; without resources of property; and, therefore, dependent ;, even for their very existence, upon the pleasure, the ca- price, the tyranny, or the folly of others, who, no better than themselves, had yet the better fortune to be the favor- ites of some former possessor of property, now slumbering in the dust. To him whom he liked less than another, he would give little, and he would be the father of another race, who would be more or less of tyrants, or more or less of slaves, and dependant beings, as the property their an- cestor should receive at the hands of his father should be of greater or smaller amount. To the most esteemed, he would givo all, or nearly sill j and here, then, would be the source from which inequality would spring, and continue to grow, never to be repressed, as long as present circum- stances continued. This possessor would be in the situa- tionsuch as now we behold the rich to be. If it pleases any one to say so, let it be said, that with his greater talents, strength, ingenuity and economy, he goes forward in the career of life, to add to his already great possessions ; yet it is not on these alone, that he depends for making acquisitions thereto. No ; it is on the still better j the stiji. 250 more productive resource which he finds he is in possession of. in the destitution, in the absolute want of every thing., in which he finds a vast mass of men around him. It is on this destitution ; it is on this want ; it is on this poverty^ that he brings his personal qualities, and his hereditary possessions to bear, with a most appalling energy. And without such destitution ; without such vast bodies of men around him who are obliged to make a treaty with him, as it were ybr their lives ; what would he do with his greater talents, strength, industry, ingenuity and economy, about which he and others,* talk so much, and talk so much in vain? Would they avail him, to obtain those vast aug- mentations to his estate, which it is now so easy to ac- complish ? Most certainly not. How alarmingly hostile then, to human happiness, in the case before us, does not the power of wills appear to be ? And yet worse than this happens every day ; inasmuch as legators often dispossess their families entirely, and give to those who already have other testators to give thiem more. It would no doubt, abate, in some measure, the evils growing out of the existence of the power of making wills, if they were required to be made so as to divide all property of the father, among his children, equally. But, as all families do not have the same number of children, and some none at all ; and if they even were to have the same number, still they do not live to come to the age of matu- rity ; so if, in the new disposition of things, the property of the fathers went to tlie children, even on the principles of equality, still a most enormous disproportion would soon en- sue. One father, may have, it may be said, a fortune equal to another, and indeed, in this respect, in the division of the * See Raymond's Political Economy, Vol, ii. pp, 12 and 1«J '^K 25: State which I propose to make ; all families would be e^ qual ; yet, one will have twelve children ; another, ten ; another, eight ; another^^ six ; four ; two ; and one, and some even none at all. ""Where, under circumstances like these, should we find our system of equality, in a short time, if we were to allow the power of wills to come in at all, even though it required all the property of the testator, to be apportioned equally among his children ? The fa- ther of one child would give him all his property ; and the father of ten or twelve children would give them all his> But the child of the former father, would thereby possess, ten or twelve times as much as any one of the children of the latter father. Would this be right ? Would this be consistent with the purpose all should have in view, of mamtaining that equality, which the rights of every man require ? But the inequality, thus supposed to be genera- ted, does not stop here. It may be, that the son who re- ceives ten or twelve times as much as others of his fellow- beings of the same age, may also, have one son only ; and when the father dies, he would be required to leave his .property to him, with all the acquisitions he had made to it, and that too, under extremely favorable circumstances for making those acquisitions. But, on the other hand, these ten or twelve children of one and the same father, might also, be the fathers of ten or twelve children more each ; and this second generation of children ; 100 or 144, as the case may be; would have only so much property, z/ even that remained, as is now in possession of a single individ- ual of another parentage. And every generation would see the evil increasing in aggravation and enormity. Nor to the mischievous operation thus placed in review before us ; is any thing attributed to the effect which would be produced, by the will of him, who has no children to whom to leave his property. If, as such things have happened. 252 he should give to those who already have more than they ought to have, the evil would be greatly heightened ; and this is an event, judging from the past history of mankind, which is more Hkely to happen, than the contrary and more desirable and reasonable disposition. But, we itiust injustice to our subject, take back ano- ther supposition. All fathers cannot have the same term of existence. They cannot be supposed, then, to have the same opportunities of acquiring property, for their chil- dren, admitting for a moment, what is very absurd indeed, that these children are to look to their parents, as such, for their future means of existence, or comfort, or happiness. Here, then, is another fruitful source of inequality of pro- perty, to be added to the foregoing. There needs evidently, some other principle than this, on which to found the ope- ration of transferring property from one generation to ano- ther. Once more I am to say, that the ground I have taken by supposition, is not borne out by facts. All men, in any one age, cannot be supposed to have the same talents, strength, industry, ingenuity, or economy ; and, for this reason alone, it would not be possible, for every father to be able to leave an equal amount of property to his chil- dren, allowing every other circumstance to be as equal as Ivhave made it by my suppositions. Is it to be said then, that the child's right to property, is to depend on the per- sonal quality or qualities of the father ? I am aware ; I know too well, indeed ; that every argument that the imagination of man can conjure up, has been, and will bft resorted to, to defend the miserable system at present pre- vaihng, in the transmission of property from one genera- tion to another. And I regret extremely, to observe the talents of a writer, so respectable as Mr. Raymond, so perverted, as to be employed in supporting a principle. l^OO wiiich would go to no less a length than that 6f declaring that the immortal Newton should never have had, by any acknowledgment which his government should have made^ the right, even to the material of so much paper, as would have been necessary to communicate to the world his Principia, if his father had happened to have been an idiot, and in consequence of such idiocy, had been incapable of obtaining property for him. I am not to be repulsed from the truth of this declaration, by any other declaration ; such as, that Newton could have negotiated for the paper for himself. For Newton either did, or did not own, in his own person, as derived from his supposed father, enough of something wherewith to purchase. If he did not so own it, and the fact so happened, because of his fa- ther's supposed idiocy ; then I repeat, that he has nothing wherewith to purchase ; for, although he might offer his personal services ; those who possess the world, and, of course, the materials of which paper is made, could say to him ; "we want them not ; we will not negotiate ; you *' cannot have the material ; we have monopolized it our- " selves ; and the government we have placed over us, has " so ordered it, that nothing shall be taken from us, but by *' our consent ; and this we do not think fit to give ; you " must, therefore, remain without the paper you so much ^^ desire." Such without number, are the absurdities, which great men as well as others must encounter, when they leave out of viev/, or have never found, the true sources of our rights. But there is yet another exception to our list of suppo- sitions. Although to day, property should be made equal among us all who are of the age of maturity ; and, al- though an additional supposition were made, that no mor-a persons were to come among us ; and, that we were to 22 ,264 continue forever in the possession of what is now assigned equally, as we think, to each of us ; still, we should soon discover sources of inequahty springing up among us, In what would these consist ? To-day when division is made, a mine of the precious or other metals, which, ever to this time, has been productive and profitable, is given to some one or more, as his or their equal portion. In a month or so afterwards, it fails to be productive of as much pro- fit as heretofore ; and, finally ceases to be of any value at all. On the other hand; on the property of another ; where, at the time, when division was made, there was not known, or suspected to be any such mine, in a month or so* afterwards, it may be, discovery of it is made. Here then are two sources of inequality ; the one acting to de»" press, the other to exalt the condition of the respective proprietors. And, it is easy to imagine a multitude of sources, of a similar character in kind and degree. To be prepared to meet all these, to-be-expected occurrences is a part of the duty of those, who shall be prevailed upon to attempt to give to man in soci and leaves others in possession of it ; and goes and em- ploys his industry, and the artificial substitute which he has taken in lieu of such original right, (whenever such sub- stitute shall have been given at aZ/,) and invests them in the arts, that the community has a made a contract with him to consume the productions which he thus prepares for their use. If it be so, and I think it is so unquestiona- "bly, such contract is to be literally fulfilled : and in case of failure, the community are indebted to him in an amount equal to a full indemnity. Let, therefore, society be organized upon principles, as regards property, such as that every man must live by his own industry, instead of rioting upon the labors of others ; and there will be no doubt, that he will be as willing, who- ever he may be, as any one, that there be as ample room as possible for his industry to display itself in. Not to desire this, would be not to understand his own interest ; for, his own interest, under the circumstances I have supposed, would be, to have asfeiv competitors as possible; and in order to obtain this object, it would be necessary to shut out the foreigner's productiops lo the greatest possible ex- tent ; for, by so doing, a much greater variety of occupa- tions would remain to the balance of the community ; who would, or might otherwise have to come and interfere with him, or he with them. Under the organi^-ation in question the4)eople would soon tell their governors, in a voice not to be misunderstood or disregarded, what to shut out, and what to admit ; and this latter would very speedily be very 277 little indeed. If, heretofore, it has been, and still continues to be very great, it is because those who live on the labors of others among us ; who have no industry of their own to be dried up by importations ; whose resources are not anni- hilated by that very trade which, as they think, will give them more for their possessions, than their countrymen can give ; have so far held the ascendancy in the councils of the nation, as to be enabled to suffer immense importa- tions to be made to the manifest prejudice and injury of large classes of our citizens. Let these, however, be placed in situations where their own labor must support them, and they will be as ready as other men who live by labor, to shut out the productions of the labor of other countries. Any diecussion, therefore, in detail, as to what policy, or rule of policy, the governing authority ought to pursue, in relation to importations, it would bo not oniy out of place here, but would be better left to be judged of by those who shall have occasion first to call it into action. But although we waste our time to speak of these details, (for they would vary as to different countries ; and even in the same country, as to different times,) still it may not be amiss to offer a remark or two, by way of gene- ral principles, as to the theory of a highly restricted trade, in opposition to that which is called free ; a theory which all, or nearly all nations, will feel themselves compeilerl to adopt, whenever their people shall awake to an understand- ing of their rights of property, as developed in this work. That an universal free-trade thoughout the nations of the world cannot exist, without mcalculable injury to a ma- jority of nations, is evident from this : that, though all na- tions may have, or may be supposed to have, the same, or in other words, equal artificial facilities for the production of the commodities of commerce ; yet they cannot have the same natural facilities. Climate and diversified natural 24 278 productions ; and these too, in circumstances more or less advantageous, have ordered otherwise. That nation, therefore, which has the greatest aggregate of both these facilities, will be the one, which, going into the common markets of the world without any restriction, if the free- trade system is to prevail, will be able to undersell all other natiotjs ; and, if her resources be sufficiently extensive, to break down their industry altogether ; if not so extensive, to inflict on it irreparable injury. For it is not to be con- troverted, that those w illsell, to the exclusion of all other^, who will give the most for the same money. And he \MfeD has the greatest natural and artificial advantages, is the one, of all others, who can give the most. Thus of two nations, alike in the number and skill of their people, alike in every circumstance save one ; that is, that the wheat- fields, for example, of the one, with the same cultivation, yield double the produce of the wheat-fields of the other ; one will have advantages over the other, with which the latter cannot contend even in his own country. So, in some countries, three crops of wheat are raised in a year, with less expense than is obliged to be laid out, in other countries, to produce one. All other circumstances being the same, the latter, on free-trade principles, would never raise its own wheat ; much less export it to foreign coun- tries; and the field that should produce it, will be left bar- ren ; and the men who should employ their industry upon it, will bury that industry in the grave of idleness for ever. But, it is not, usiially, in a single particular only, that nations are found to have advantages over others, in na- tural facilities and resources ; and the consequence is, that such fortunate nations, in a system of free-trade, must, and inevitably will, have the power of greatly injuring less for- tunate nations. The only protection against such a cala- mity, of which these latter can avail themselves, is, to 279 reSort to exclusion ; leaving the principles of free-trade Co operate only within their own limits ; and, within these^ their operation should, be unobstructed by the slightest hindrance. But, if the power of fortunate nations appears so formi- dable to the prosperity of others, who are less so, tinder the supposition that their artificial facilities are equal; how much more dangerous to the latter, may it not be, when nations which have the greatest natural, shall happen to have the greatest artificial advantages also ? Against such competitors, there could be none but an unavailing anfl suicidal attempt at competition. It is evident, therefore, that statesmen, who have con- tended for the application of the free-trade system to the commerce of the world, have not considered, that the phyr sical constitution, itself, of the globe we inhabit, forbids it, by a decree, which man has not the power to revoke ; since he cannot make all climates similar and equal : and and have not reflected, even if he could make them equal, that still we could not have free-trade. We should then only have free ports^ into which the vessels of all nations 7night-eniex ; but which they would have no inducement to enter ; since, all climates being equal and similar, I , for example, should buy sugar of my next door neighbor, rather than to purchase it of a man who brings it from a distant country, and who, in consequence, must charge me more for it than my neighbor will demand. If thefe be those, who, living in an unfortunate climate, still wish to 'have the productions of climates more favored, and at prices consistent with their advantages, they should know that there is only one way in which their wishes can be gratified, compatibly with the welfare of the State in which they live ; and that is, to emigrate to the favored country in question. Any other method of gratifying their 280 desires, would lead to the destruction of the happiness of those among whom they live, by rendering it impossible to cultivate whatever advantages and resources they might hap- pen to possess. There is an old proverb which says, " As you make your bed, so you must lie." And we may say much in the spirit of it, that where a man lives, there is the country which must afford him, chiefly, the means of his subsistence ; and foreign nations must be allowed to come as Httle as posssible, with their productions into its market. Thre land than any and all want. The children of those, too, who pursue handicraft trades, succeed to the possession of their father's effects ; because the prim iple is seen to be similar ; and because it is perceived, that they will better understand the use of them ; and can better employ them in the s?itisfaction of \\ie wants of others. In the course of time, however, land is taken up so much, that there begins to arise some inquiry as to the extent of rights; none, however, as it regards the rights themselves. Long established custom having sanctioned the latest, as welfas the earhest locations, it does not occur to them, to To entertain an opinion to the contrary of this, would be to sanction the idea, that nations may rob a portion of their citizens or subjects, of their rights of property ; and that such other of these same citizens or subjects, as shall receive the avails of this robbery, may nevertheless, of right, make valid contracts with the party robbed I Thus, in the first settlement of this State, one man, of the name of Van Renssellaer, (see note at the bottom of page 339,) receiv- ed an enormous grant of more than three hundred thou- sand acres of land, having a location second to none, ex- cept to this city and its vicinity, in advantages of every kind ; and yet any contract entered into, between this large possessor, and the thousands and tens of thousands who were denied their equal rights with him, is to be con- sidered as moral and good ! Thus, tooj in the year 1066, when William the Coi^^ queror took possession of England, sev^en hundred barons only, were made owners by Mm, of the whole soil of the nation, with only a triilipg exception ; while a milhon, perhaps, (for I know not the number,) of other human be- ings, having rights ^qual to and with these same barons and their soverei^^, were denied possessions of any kind whatever ! If valid contract can exist between the dispossessed 32* . . 378 and their dispossessors, in this instance ; then must it be, because the barons and their Sovereign alone had rights ; the residue of the nation having none ! If this be not the cause, and still it be contended that valid contracts may be made between the parties, although one is an aggres- sor upon the other ; then must it be because injury or ag- gression of any kind being made use of, to obtain a con- tract, does not vitiate such contract itself, but leaves it as good and as moral between the parties, as if they had stood, in the presence of each other, in the full possession of the rights that belong to each, and in the total absence of eve- ry thmg like deprivation, constraint, or duress ! With this doctrine before us, the mass of nations may indeed be first robbed of their rights, and then be bound by contract, so as to be compelled to surrender up to those who rob them, the full labor of their lives, with the exception only of so much as may barely keep them in existence, and all will be right ! But without it, there can be no such thing as contract, or debt, arising from contract ; or just possession of proper- ty, or labor .or the avails of labor, growing out oi' payment of any such supposed debt. Let society, however, be so modified, as to give to each man his original riglat to property, at the proper season of his life, equal to that of any other man's, together with equal, early, and ample education ; and then, debts will have a good moral foundation on which to rest. At pre- sent, debt is little more or less than extortion, practised upon the needy, who Viave not, and never have had, what is their own, by those who hato ^Qt only their own, but also what belongs to those to whon. they undertake to sell. It is like the thief, selling his stolen feoods, to the true and original owner.* * I have not thought proper, in this Work, to propose, that 379 Man, in his ignorance of the laws which govern the ope-* rations of nature, as well those that are near at hand, as those that are remote, and almost invisible, is a being o feebleness as it regards his power of supplying his own wants. Circumstances, in the early stage of his social existence, which none, at the time had the power to con- trol, because they had not the power to foresee the future, enabled some men, as it were, to make prisoners of others, and compel them to supply wants, which they were not, of their own individual and equal resources, able to supply themselves. What is called wealth, therefore, is nothing less than the power to make prisoners of our fellow men } and to compel them to erect for its possessor, a palace of marble, for example, when of his own equal or equivalent industry, he could not erect it himself. But it is time, that those who desire to be rich, should desire to be so, without enslaving their fellow men. And it is altogether easier to do so, without such a crying injus- tice, than it is with it. Every morning do I have on my table, what the mightiest of the Roman Emperors could not have had at all, in the best days of his power. And yet in the new organization of society which it contaias, no laws shall be passed for the collection of debts. I appre- hend, however, whether such laws shall be passed or not, that the fact will be, that there will be little of debt in either case ; inasmuch as all, with very few exceptions, indeed, will have the means of present payment ; and credit, of course, will neither be given nor required ; at least to any such amount as to deserve the name. Let us anticipate then, how happy it will be for our species, when the hosts of lawyers, judges, sheriffs, jailors, legislators, &c. &c. which now swarm around us, shall nearly all disappear, and instead of preying upon producers, shall become producers them- selves. 380 I have no means to go forth, and arrest men, who are my equals ; and make them contribute to the satisfaction of my wants. What, then, can this be ? A newspaper. Yet this is the result of the extension'of knowledge in the human mind. Society should be, and under proper circumstan- ces would be, a garden, in which the tree of knowledge M'ould flourish luxuriantly. It is, in discoveries, therefore, that all men should look for the source of their wealth. For, when, by reason of discoveries, men come, for exam- ple, to be able, each, to do as much as five thousand men could do, previous to such discovery ; it is precisely the same thing as if each one of us could go forth, make prisoners of this number, and compel them, without cost to us, to contribute to our use the full quantum of all the labor they are able to perform. To become sensible that such is the true source of all wealth that is honest or legitimate ; and that it is the way to make the most of it, too, we need only recur to the power of producing wealth which the printing press affords. '' In the year 1272, the wages of a laboring man were just '' three halfpence a day ; and at the same period, the price i« of a Bible, fairly written out, was £30 sterling. Of " course, a common laborer, in those days, could not have " procured a copy of the Bible, with less than the entire «' earnings o^ thirteen years! Now, a. beautiful printed '* copy of the same book can be purchased with the earn- " ings of one day.'* " Take another view of the subject. An ordinary clerk «« cannot make a fair manuscript copy of the Bible, in less «' than three months. With a common printing press, work '» equivalent to printing a copy of the whole Bible, can be '« done in ten minutes ; and with a steam-press, of the -' most approved construction, the same work can be done *' in tJiree minutes.'* 381 In the first view abovementioned, it appears, that witfi thirteen years of his labor, a laboring man can now pur- chase 4800 Bibles ; whereas, before the invention of the printing press, with the same amount of labor, he could purchase only one ; and that, of an inferior kmd. Here is precisely the same quantum of wealth placed into the hands of this laboring man, as if, when manuscript, afforded the only means of furnishing copies of any work ; he could have gone forth, and by conquest, force, stratagem, cun- ning, or fraud, made prisoners of 4800 men, and compell- ed them to work for him for nothing. In the subsequent view, two considerations are blended. Thus, it is not a single person, that is capable of using the printing press ; either of the common kind, or of that driven by steam ; whereas the case supposed, allows us only one copier of manuscript. It has relation, thereforCj to time, to rapidity of execution^ rather than to compara-^ tive labor done. Thus, by one common printing presSj copies are multiplied faster than could be, by a single copyist, in the proportion of 13,104 to one ! And in the case of the steam press, as 43,680 to one ! Such, and similar, too, is the case with innumerable othit inventions, which the benefactors of mankind have bestow- ed upon the human race. Nor, notwithstanding, so much have been done by those who have gone before us, is there yet little left for us to do. The discoveries, that yet remain to be made in every department of human knowledge, ar© inexhaustible, as will be the wealth which they will afford to the generations that shall make them, and to those that shall succeed them. But, in orde rthat we may have a multitude, and the greatest multitude possible, of explorers of new truths ; the situation^ the condition^ in one word, \\\Q possessions of all men, at their first mature entrance into life, together with their educationj must be equal, Ar^ 382f tificial and unequal wealth must not be, nor remain built up, by the suicidal consent of society, to place those who possess it, in situations of ease, such as they need not, de- sire, and will not care to contribute their quantum of know- ledge and discovery, to the common fund; nor must oth- ers be depressed into the gulf of poverty, discouragement and degradation, by withholding from them that which is their own, in right of their being; and without which, they also, will add little to the stock of science, and be \xr\i!i able even to preserve that which is now in existence. Under the present unequal distribution of property, where labor is the sole resource the poor have, by which to maintain their existence, degraded as it is, by the slave- ry in which they are plunged, it is not wonderful that they have been found to be opposed to the introduction of im- provements. Fruitless and unavailing as such opposition is, ii is yet less unreasonable than at first sight it may ap- pear to be. It is true, that one consequence of such im- provement, as we have already shown, is, that a poor man even, may obtain 4,800 times as much as he could obtain without it : yet, it may be asked, may he not be an ulti- mate loser ? May not improvement extend to such a de- gree, that there will be no demand for his labor ? Or if it does not reach this point, will it not approach so near it, as to make him an extreme sufferer ? Let it not be forgotten, that while on the one hand, labor-saving machinery is ad- vancing in its march to perfection, with rapid strides, and diminishing demand for labor ; so on the other, are the numbers of the poor, among whom this demand is to be shared, augmenting in a fearful ratio. It will be said, perhaps, that by reducing price, the direct and certain con- sequence of improvements, (otherwise they do not deserve the name,) consumption is augmented; and, therefore, the demand is increased. This is true only in a limited de- S83 gree ; for, as these improvements supersede, sooner or later, in a great measure, all demand for the labor of the poor ; it dries up their resources faster than it multiplies them ; this, in the end, diminishes, rather than increases the demand ; and the consequence is, that as inventionSj any more than revolutions, never go backwards, are never given up, when their benefits are once tasted ; that the whole laboring population must perish, as it were, in a sort of self-destruction, like useless beings on the earth, where, it would seem, they have no right to appear ; or that they must avert such a calamity, by the best means in their power. That they cannot destroy the existence, and even in- -crease of labor-saving machines and processes, is evident from this ; that every one of those whose feelings are en- listed against their inutility to them, on account of their de- stroying demand for their labor, whenever he has occasion, purchases, because they come cheaper, the very produc- tions afforded by the agents which he so much deprecates. Of what use, then, is it, for a laboring man to cry out against improvements, when he goes and buys a coat, for example, or rather the materials of it, at a low price, which these very improvements have made ? It is reward that keeps thesfe, improvements in existence ; and it is not a volley of hard words and abuse that will do them any injury. If, then, the poor themselves contribute, and as they do, by an unavoidable necessity, to the support of that which threatens their own destruction, what hope have they to escape ? It is not the rich, certainly, that will; even if it were right that they should; and, we see the poor cannot forego the advantages, individually speaking, of these inventions ; how then, are they to avert so great a calamity ? The Steam-Engine is not injurious to the poor, when 384 Ihey can have the benefit of it ; and this, on supposition « being always the case, instead of being looked upon, as a curse, would be hailed as a blessing. If, then, it is seen that the Steam-Engine, for example, is likely to greatly im^ poverish, or destroy the poor, what have they to do, but TO LAY HOLD OF IT, AND MAKE IT THEIR OWN ? LET THEM APPROPRIATE ALSO, in the same way, THE COTTON FACTORIES, THE WOOLEN FACTORIES, THE IRON FOUNDE- RIES, THE ROLLING MILLS, HOUSES, CHURCH- ES, SHIPS, GOODS, STEAM-BOATS, FIELDS OF AGRICULTURE, 6z^c. &c. &c. in mannner as pro- posed in this work, AND AS IS THEIR RIGHT ; and they will never have occcasion any more to consider that as an evil which never deserved that character ; which, on the contrary, is all that is good among men ; and of which, we cannot, under these new circumstances, have too much. It is an equal division of property that MAKES ALL RIGHT, and an equal transmission of it to posteri- ty, KEEPS IT SO. Amidst the multitude of efforts, which at different times, and in different countries, have been made to accom- plish for the people what I have endeavored to accomplish for them in this work ; it may be expected that I should take some notice of the labors, in the cause of humanity, which, among others, have distinguished Mr. Robert Owen, of New Lanark, in Scotland That his intentions have been those of the purest character, there can be no doubt. But of what use can a system of the kind be, when it is only to be established, not on the rights of those for whose benefit it is expressly intended, but on the permission of those to whom, according to his plans, it is necessary to apply, before any one of his communities can be allowed to have an existence ? Before any number of unfortunate 385 Imman beings, without property of any kind, or of any amount, can be allowed to have " a local habitation ;" I might almost have added, << and a name," it is neces i sary for them to enter into a treaty with those who now possess the property of the world, for permission to enter into its possession ; and as an inducement to the holder to give such permission, the future labor of the community is to be given up, precisely in manner as now happens throughout the world. Even Mr. Owen and his associates^ from the labors of those whose welfare they consulted, drew an annual interest, on their capital, of twelve and a half per cent.* That Ihose in their employ were evidently greatly improved in their moral, intellectual, and physical condition, is undoubtedly true. But what does this import ? Does it mean, that because their condition is evidently greatly ameliorated, that, therefore, their rights are recog- nized to their fullest extent ? If it does not, why then should not a better system be sought and this renounced ? It has been the purpose of this Work to show, and I trust no one will read it without the conviction that I have shewn, that every thing paid to any one, in the shape of interest, rent, or profit, beyond payment for service rendered, is an invasion of the right of him who pays for the unjust benefit of him who receives it. If this be so, why should it be paid more to Mr.Owen than to another ? He, certainly, I am per- suaded, would be the last man to desire it, if he were con- vinced of its impropriety. How, then, when he has been searching into the causes of human misery ; how has it hap- pened that he has not found an abundant fountain of it in himself; in his own person ? Take away from the possessors of the world their dividends, their rents, their profits ; in one word, that which they receive for the use of it, and which * Byllesby's Observations on the Sources and Efiect^s of Unequal Wealth, p. 144. ^ 3o 386 ' ^ belongs, freely belongs, to one as much as another ; and what ^vould become of the present miserable condition of the hu- man race ? It would be annihilated for ever. But these di- vidends, these rents, these profits, these prices paid for the use of the vi^orld, or of the world's materials, will never cease to be paid, till the possession of these materials is made equal, or substantially equal, among all men ; till there shall be no lenders, no borrowers ; no landlords, no te- nants ; no masters, no journeymen.; no Wealth, no Want. But, allowing Mr. Owen's system to be good ; where shall we fi,nd more men like Mr. Owen ? It is no new thing in the world that Kindness is a greater Despot than Cru- elty. It is no wonder, then, that he and his associates, at the same time that they gave more happiness to those un- der their care, than they might have obtained elsewhere, drew also to themselves greater returns than others are in the habit of obtaining as their reward ; yet still the ques- tion recurs, where shall we find more Owens? Until it shall be shown that they can be found, a system is of little use, which can only exist during the lifetime of a single man. Besides, there is something uncongenial with the best feelings of the heart, (to say nothing of original right,) when it is compelled to contemplate the happiness it en- joys, be it little or much, as flowing from another ; even though it be from a benefactor. It subtracts half the value of such happiness, to feel that it is dependent on another for it, instead of having it indissolubly connected with us, as a part of our existence. Disguise it, as it may be, there seems something silently, but too audibly to tell us ,• that though we may be happy, we owe it to a master. And yet who, better than the poet, has expressed it ? " Man knoiosno master, save creating Heaven, <' Or those whom choice or common good ordain. — Thompson, 387 I approach, then, the close of this Work. I hasten to. commit it to the hands, the heads and the hearts of those for whose benefit it is written. It is to them that I look , for the poMJer necessary, to bring the system it recommends into existence. Tf they shall think I have so far understood myself, and the subject I have undertaken to discuss, as to have perceived, and marked out the path that leads them to the enjoyment of their rights, their interests and their happiness, IT WILL BE FOR THOSE WHO ARE SUFFER- ING THE EVILS, of which I have endeavored to point out the causes and the remedies, TO LEAD THE WAY, Those who are enjoying the sweets of the labor of others, will have no hearts to feel for the misery which the pre- sent system occasions. And the first throe of pain, which they will feel, will be that of alarm, that they are soon to be ordered to riot on the toils of others no more for ever I But those who suffer, will feel no cause of alarm. The very intensity of their sufferings, since now they understand their origin and cure, will add double vigor to their exer- tions to recover their rights. But let them understand, that much is to be done, to accomphsh this recovery. IT IS TO BE THE RESULT OF THE COMBINED EXERTIONS, OF GREAT NUMBERS OF MEN. These, by no means, now understand their true situation ; but when they do, they will be ready and willing to do what belongs to their happiness. If, then, there be truth ; if there be reason ; if there be force of argument, in the work which I thus commit to the hands of those for whose benefit it is written ; let them read ; let it be read ; let it be conversed about, in the hearing of those whose interest it is, to hear whatever of truth, of reason, and argumeht it may contain ; and as often, too, las there may be oppor- tunity. Let them awake to a knowledge of their rights. 308 and how they may be obtained, and they ^vill not be slow (since it will then be so easy) to reclaim them. Let the poor and middling classes understand that their oppressions come from the overgrown wealth that exists among them, on the one hand, and from entire destitu- tion on the other ; and that as this overgrown wealth is continually augmenting its possessions, in a rapid ratio, the public sufferings are continually augmenting also ; and must continue to augment, until the equal and unalienable rights of the people shall order otherwise. Let the parent reflect, if he be now a man of toil, that his children must be, ninety-nine cases in a hundred, slaves, and worse ^ to some rich proprietor ; and that there is no alternative, but the change proposed. Let him not cheat himself with empty pretensions ; for, he who commands the property of of a State y or even an inordinate portion of it, HAS THE LIBERTY AND THE HAPPINESS OF ITS CITI- ZENS IN HLS OWN KEEPING. And if there be some dozen, or fifty, or five hundred of these large pro- prietors, they are neither more nor less than so many addi- tional keepers. He who can feed me, or starve me ; give me employment, or bid me wander about in idleness ; is my master ; and it is the utmost folly for me to boast of being any thing but a slave. In fine, let the people awake to their rights ; let them understand in what they consist ; let them see the course they must pursue to obtain them ; let them follow up that course, by informing each as many as he can, his fellow citizens, of the truth which this Work contains ; let all co-operate, in the early and effectual accomplishment of the objects it recommends, and these objects will easily and speedily be achieved, and none will have labored in vain. At the moment of taking leave of the reader, it occurs 389 io me, that it would be well to add a single remark. If ever the principles of this Work are to prevail; if ever they are to find their way among men, and to restore to them their rights, it is only to be done, by each doing all he can, single and separately, to open the eyes of his fel- lows, to the perception of the evil that oppresses him, its origin and cure. While this is doing, and doing too in many parts of the State, of the Union, and the World, at one and the same time ; for such is the co- extensive and cotemporary energy, with which the productions of the press operate ; the rich, now and then, will cast their eyes on this Work ; and they, too, will see that the system which it proposes, must, sooner or later, take place. Ul- timately, the whole of them will come to the same conclu- sion. So many of them as shall dread its approach, and shall not have the moral honesty to surrender up to the disposition of their fellow citizens, all that they have, will, df course, conceal as much as they can. And that which is the most desirable to conceal, and the easiest concealed, is money. Now, whenever it shall appear, correctly or otherwise, it is no matter, to the rich generally, that the great mass of the people have very nearly awakened to the determination to resume their rights, and pursuant thereto, to order a General Division of property ; these conceal- ments will take place very suddenly ; and, perhaps, to such an extent as to withdraw the precious metals entirely from circulation, out of the banks, as well as elsewhere. In such an event, the banks would be broken ; and as there would be no circulating medium, all business would be instantly suspended. Those who now carry on exten- sive business, would have nothing with which to pay oif their hands ; and if they had, they might be as willing as others, to bury it in the earth, for the purpose of defraud-, ing the community out of it. 33* 390 In such an event, which is far from being impossible, ihe wished for change would arrive earlier, than is already anticipated in this work ; and in manner somewhat differ- ent. For the reader understands, that I have intended ^ that a State Convention, to be chosen by the people, for the purpose, shall order the suspension of all business, which, by this operation of withdrawing all the gold and silver from circulation, and burying it in the earth by the rich, would be anticipated. If it should so happen, it will not be the fault of this Work, or of the great mass of the peo* pie, and may not be that even, of the majority of the rich ; for even a very few of them, would be able to put away all the precious metals, that are to be found in the State ; and as to other States, they could no more spare their precious metals than ourselvei, without coming in contact with a similar catastrophe ; and of which, they too, will be in similar danger. Besides, as to personal property in the city of New- York, alone, there is probably more in value than all the specie money in the United States, twice, or even thrice told. So that, it will be no difficult thing, if dishonesty prevail, even to a small extent among the rich, to bring about the withdrawal of which I am speaking. Under such circumstances, it may be said, that the government has suddenly ceased to exist ; that it has ex- pired, as it were, in a fit of apoplexy ; and it will then be incumbent on the people to organize a temporary commit- tee of safety ; and take care, immediately, that no pro- perty leaves the State, or is wasted, or destroyed, further than is necessary for subsistence ; until a State Convention can be assembled, to form a new government, on princi- ples corresponding with all the rights of man ; and which, as it ensures his happiness, by preserving his equality, and that of all succeeding generations, we may confidently hope will be eternal. INDEX. PAGE. Abolition of all debts ordered 137 Acquire property, as rightly understood, men do not 97 Adam did not buy property, &c. 371 Adults„death of, in ihe different seasons of the year 259 Age of maturity, recommended to be fixed at 18 13D Agrarian Law, among the Romans, what 20 operation and effects of, as applied to the State of New- York 23 the Source of more happiness than socie- ty wotiy furnishes 28 Aliens, on becoming citizens, after the General Divi- sion, must give up all property over the amount of a patrimony 149 Alien Book, General, what 297 Astor, John Jacob, comparison of his lalor, say of fifty years, being paid for with the labor often thousand years 154 Astor, J. J. his imaginary loan of the Chemical Bank 187 B Banks, to be destroyed, why 163 how usurious 180 Rhode-Island, how little specie for its paper in circulation 181 Georgia do. 181 Bank, Chemical, do. 182 Dry Dock do 182 Manhattan 163 392 PAGE. Bible, former cost of 38o Birth-place of, does not give title to soil 131 Births, unequal ; when most of them take place 260 Brooklyn Ferry-Boats, rob the community, how 191 Charity, to be given only by the State, why 266 Charters, all to be repealed 160 null, when they pretend to give what|the receiver has no right to receive 161 Child, may he starved to deaths if the father's property belongs only to the father 103 Children, estimate of, between 5 and 15 in the State 17 proportion of those who read 18 clothed, fed, and educated at the public expense 143 being furnished with a patrimony, at the age of maturity, without expense to the father, the in- dustry of the latter greatly increased thereby 225 their future wants, their parents do not supply them 227 ' no longer placed in manufactories at unsuitable ages 281 supported at the public expense, reasons why 262—266 of the rich, have an interest in insisting that their .fathers consent to the proposed organization of society, and a right to demand it 258 Churches and Church property, to be sold, why 342 Common Council, a member Of, his abuse of the poor 241 Community system, Mr. Owen's, objections to 384 Conquest does not give right 34 Consent, alone, gives title to specific properly, but not the right 42 Constitution of South-Carolina, as drawn by Mr. Locke, its absurdities 66 Constitution of the State must be altered, and why 145—- 207 Contract, there is no such thing as, why 373 Counties, number of in the State 28^1 393 ^ PAGE. Dead and living cannot meet, &c. ^72 Death, of husband or wife, after ; survivor has half the property, after debts are paid ^^ Deaths, of adults, in the diflFerent seasons of the year 259 Debt, there is no such thing as, why 373—378 Debts, no laws for the collection of, probable; note to page ^'® " Department Inventory,'' what it contains 295 Diagram of the world, occupied in common 98 divided equally 106 divided unequally 337 Districts, school, number of 286 Dividend, annual, for ever, of the effects of all deceas- ed persons * 141 Dividend, at the General Division, may be made very near and sufficiently equal 248 Duress, all governments guilty of towards their citi- zens or subjects, wherein 374 E Egypt, lands of, held only for one year 106 Equal division of property, to desire it, not a dictate of nature, as asserted by Raymond, controverted 26 Equal division of property may be brought about, by the rich, how 388 Equal share of property, those who think it an evil, need not take it 215 Equality of rights, no power can justly destroy 44 Extending suffrage in this State, so as to allow men of no property to vote for State Senators, and violated the (then) right of property in the hands of the rich 55 F Fortune, mep of, evils and curses to human Society 246 Fortunes, large, injurious to those which are smaller 334 394 G PAGE. Gaming, a gift, and therefore a felony S48 Gas-Li^ht Company of New- York, a robbery of the community 1^1 "General Alien-Book," what 297 General Division of property compared to a general Bankruptcy 256 '* General Inventory of the State," what 2^7 Gifts, why they may not be made 267 why they will not and cannot be made 346 Governments, all have begun wrong 126 should commence anew 127 Government, may be overthrown, even by a minority, if the latter have not had given to them their pqual share of property * 243 Guardians appointed for those who are not qualified to take care of property, Article 10 140 H Half right, and half wrong systems, wrong altogether 333 Honesty, of the poor, proofs given 345 How long does a man own property ? ^2 Hudson, the first discoverer of Hudson River, attacked by the Indians -^^T I, J JeflFerson, his imperfect view of the principles of gov- ernment 58 Jefferson, more of his errors 72 If a man's property is /ws, and his on/y, he may starve his own child to death 103 Indians, of this country, not exclusively owners, why 130 now living among us, to give up their lands and take their equal share with us 158 attacked the first discoverer of Hudson River 357 Indolence, the true sources oi\ what 2 31 Industry, the true stimulus of. what 231 to have full protection against foreign competition, Art. 20 144 395 T IP PAGE. inequality of property, sources of, even after it shall have been equally divided, enumerated and con- sidered 248-254 insurance, probably by the State 348 -fudges, of whatever kind, to be appointed by the di- rect vote of the pe^ople 207 L Labor, not property, why 33 bestowed on property, does not give title to the latter, why 34 whose it has been, that has made the State what it now is 245 Lands, in Egypt, held for one year only 108 in Peru, do. 108 belonging to the School-Fund to be sold 157 to the Indians, to be given up 158 Large fortunes, injurious and often destructive to those that are smaller 334 Law, Agrarian, among the Romans, what 20 as it would be, if applied to the citizens of the State of New- York 23 Laws, never the same in any two countries 30 Living and dead cannot meet, &c. 372 Locke, his plan of government for the Colony of South Carolina ^./? Lorillard, comparison of his willing away the poor, like so many cattle, beginning at the bottom of page' 225 Lorillard, it is the labor of the poor, that is daily add- ing to his wealth, and the wealth of others; their own industry is as nothing 238 Lottery, in the nature of gifts, and therefore a felony 348 Love of property, reasons why we have it 22 1 M Machinery, labor saving, the poor support it, why 383 Man, black, red, smd white, to have the'same rights 146 black, his rights of suffrage 158 not fit, &c. answered 367~37i 396 Mankind, by some supposed to be of two species ; one, of slaves to work ; the other, of masters to make ^^^ them work ^oq Maturity, age of, recommended to be fixed at la 326 of fortune, the evils and curses of society 246 luaiuiJijr, 05^ v., »«^»*w Men, rich, do not earn their own wealth will away the poor like cattle ^^^ wealthy, can only escape giving up their proper- ty, by fraud, perjury, &c. beginning the world with nothing and getting rich ; why they should give their wealth up 335 & 838 who say *' they have made their property by their industry," answered ^^ without children, love property as much as others 22J with children, often keep it as long as they live 223 of fortune, ought to be exterminated, and how 247 Merchants, as necessary in the new, as in the old system 354 Mint, United States, coinage of ^ 349 Money, theory of, &c. 167—179 N Navy, will be destroyed, its place, how supplied 282 Kewton, Sir Isaac, how he might have been situated on the principle that he could be allowed to have property only from a testator 252 Number of persons in France who cannot read 9 of Counties in the State 286 of Townships do. 286 of School-districts 286 of white persons, for one of the African race 1S5 of the people of this State 17 of children between the ages of 5 and 15 18 of acres of laud in the State 24 O Objections, to equal patrimonies to all, will have still greater force against large legacies being given to the sons of the rich 229 397 PAGBo Objections to an equal division of property among all persons whatever, are equally forcible against an equal division among children of the same family 209 Observations on the theory of money, &c. 167 — 179 Occupancy of property does not give title 36 Occupations, all require property 341 Owen, Mr. Robert, notice of 384 Paine, his imperfect views of the principles of gov- ernment . 63 Patrimony, after General Division, to be given, (in matter of right) to all citizens born here ^ and to these only, Article 4 139 Patrimony, at the General Division, be given to fo- reigners who are then citizens'; and to thoise who, without being citizens, have been five years resident in the State, page 138, Art. 2 317 Patrimonies, difference in, will or inay be very small, and such as to be of no importance 261 Peru, lands in, held for one year only 108 People, a great Judicial Tribunal, judging of the rights of property 311 Place of bi t does not give title to property 131 PLAN, for dividing all property, with form of govern- ment to succeed 137 — 144 Possession or occupancy, does not give title 36 Possessions, Van Kensellaer's held by an unjust title 129 Priests, as well as othei"s, must do military duty 200 must not be prevented by the Constitution from being chosen to office 20^ Property, equal division of, to desire it, not a dictate of nature as stated by Raymond, controverted 26 Property, rights ot, not understood 20 labor bestowed on, does not give title to the for- mer ^ possession of, does not give title 3$ 34 398 PAGE. Property, tiUe to it, consent alone gives it *^ Haw long does a man own it ? As rightly understood, men do not acquire it if it be wholly a man's own, he may starve his own ^^^ child to death has no successors ; all have title to it in their own ^^^ right jgy renunciation of, abroad the present distribution of, good enough, it is said, answered equal share of, those who think it an evil t^ them, need not take it unequal, vices both in high and low life come from it , -x 221 love of, reasons why we have it will descend unequally, even after an equal gene- Division has taken place, if wills remam, rea- , 349—266 sons why in the hands of the rich, often of little use to any body - valuation of, principles of on board vessels out of the State, to be consider- ed as property of the State ; so also the vessels 291 ■ should not descend hereditarily any more than political power men of wealth can only evade giving it up, by fraud, perjury, &c. General Division of, how far it is like a general bankruptcy to the rich 2o6 unequal distribution of, compared to a dinner party 355 true source of, title to, what 3^'' being unequal, the origin of conquest 358 inequality of, the oria^in of it, what, 360—367 of the church, must not be exempted from sale, why 342 Proportion ot the colored to the white population 159 4umsbment, for concealing or not giving up all proper- ty, Art. 8 ^^^ punishment, for giving away property, Art. 18 143 399 Q PAGE. (Quakers, or others, not to be exempted from bearing arms, on any consideration 1^' R Read, men who cannot, number of in France ^ Reasons why w^e love property 231 why debts out of the State, and properly in it, owned by citizens or subjects of .her States or nations, cannot be paid or received 319—333 why a man beginning the world with nothings and getting rich, may yet have his riches taken tiom him 335 why a man, at his death, should give up the la- bors of his life, v.thout saying to whom 237 Rtinunciation of all property abroad 137 Rich men do not earn their own wealth 938 will away the poor like cattle 226 Rights of property not understood 30 the same for the black man, the red man? and the white man 146 equality ot, no power can justiy destroy 44 of man, Mr. Jv ffers'in's erroneous views of 58 — 72 of women to property and suflfrage the same as those which belong to men 159 men have inquired too little after them 239 none have ever abandoned them 340 S Salt Springs,* should be sold, why 146 School districts, number of 28G * Since this work went to press, statements have been given to the public, show- ing the duties on Salt made in this State, the past year, to amount to about 150,000 dollars. In page 148, where the average duties for 12 years are put dowi» at 75,000 dollars per annnm, the value of these Springs is estimated at one mil- lion andja half of dollars. By the same rule of estimation, their value should now bo cousidered at not less than three millions. 400 FAG£. Society, happier, with an Agrarian Law, like the Ro- man, than as it is now organized 28 Sources of inequality of property, even after it shall have been equally divided, enumerated and con- sidered 248—254 Specie, estimate of, for each person in the U. States 349 in England 350 in France 350 Speculation, nc chance for in the new system, why 281 Spendthrift, Jess opportunity for the existence of the, than now, why 354 State Senate to be established, why 204 T Tariff, on imported commodities, why it should be very high and almost prohibitory in almost all cases 268—282 Taxation, exemptions from, instances of; see both the text and note 351 Valuation of property, principles of 287 Value, probable, of the State 352 Van Renssellaer, his possessions held by an unjust title 129 Van Rensselaer, extent of lands granted to his ances: tors, see note to page 339 Vessels, and property on board, being without the State, to be considered as the property af the State 291 Vice, both in high and low life, come from unequal property 219 Voters, 300,000 of them in the State 856 W William, the Conquerer, of England, notice of 377 Wills, if they are good at all, ought not to be forbid- den to be so madC) as to will away even our very lamp-posts 95 Wills, the intention of, now very often defeated, and therefore useless 2S 2 401 PAGE. Wills, immoral in their tendency, why 234 why again 235 unjust and criminal in their operation, why 227 to bestow laJior^ not practicable, even if they were just, why 23G to bestow labor, unjust, even if they were practi- cable, why 237 as they might have affected Sir Isaac Newton 252 Women, to have the right ol suffrage a« well as the right of property 159 World, diagram of, held in common 98 diagram of, held by the tenure of equal and exclu- sive possesion 106 diagram of, held by unequal tenure, much as it has ever been 337 34^ TO THE READER. The indisposition of the Author, during a portion of the time this Work was in Press, through the use, by mistake, duriug that period, of the ariginal Manuscript, instead of a corrected transcript, has led to a f»w errors in print ; of small impor- tance, it is true ; but still something more than it would be strictly proper to term typographical. The following errata, however will correct them, as it will also those of a typographical kind; and the cause that has rendered it necessary, it be hoped* will be considered a sufficient apology. ERRATA. Page 9, 11th line from bottom, after the word " out," insert the word " of," so as to read, ' seventeen millions out of thirty,' &c. Page 21, 2d line from bottom, the word * now,' after the word • is,' is omitted. It should read, ' such power is noup ordinarily understood,' fcc. Page 29, 10th line from top, after the word * remedy,' insert the word ' has,' so so as to read, • the remedy has had, &c.' Same page, 8th line from bottom, after the word * except,' insert the word * in,' so as to read, ' except in so far,' &c. Page 36, li»e 2d from bottom, strike out the word ' possession,' and insert the words ' the title of the possessor,' so as to read ' the title of the possessor, if it be just,' &c. Page 37, line 4th from bottom, for ' anysimilar, read ' any similar,' &c. Page 51, 3d line, from top, after the word ' however, insert the words • so far as prohibition is concerned,' making it read thus—' This right, however, so far as prohibition is concerned, is very rarely exercised,' &g Page 54, line 2d, from top, for ' affords, 'read « afforded,' &e. Page 55, line 14th, froni bottom, strike out the word * any,' immediately before the word * quality,' and insert the word, * one,' ao as to read, any one quality,' &c. Page 56, line 14th, from bottom, strike out the word ' is,' &c, Page 67, line Ith, from top, strike out the words ' the rightful owmers,' andin° sertthe words * any people,' so as to •oad, ' enjoyed by, any people, when,' &c. Page 67, 2d line from bottom, strike oui the word ' he,' and insert the words in him,' so as to read, ' as in Mm whc* proposes,' &c. Page 75, line l4th, from top, insert the words ' they and,' so as to come in bc- for» tke word ' moveable,' &c. It will then read. ' in the same way thi|t theif ani moveable things are now,' &c. Pag* 77, iB the heading to the Chapter, for * On the duration,' &c. read * Of iU dmaiimi &c. 404 Page 78, 6tb and 9th lines from bottom, alter the words ' because possession has uo right,' so as to make it read, 'because ' those in possession have no right, See. Page 81, line 11th, from bottom, strike out one of the words ' the,' inasmuch as it is a duplicate. Page 83, line 2d, from top, strike out the words ' much so,' inasmuch as they are duplicates. Page 85, 7th line from top, for the word ' would,' at the margin on the left of the page, ' read ' could,' &c. Page 86, top line, for the word * possor,' read ' possessor,' &c. Page 95, 1st and 2d line at bottom, instead of ' be t« a greater owner, inasmuch as he has contrihuttd more,* &c., read thus — * he may be a greater owner, inas- much as he may have contributed more,' &c. Page 100. llthline from top, for ' pretensions,' read • pretension,' &c. Page 101, 10th line from bottom, place a semicolon ( ; ) after the word *mmC Page 107, 14th line from top, for • soon, read ' so on,' &c. Same page, 15th line from top, for ' withany,' rctA « with any,' &e. Page 121, 7th line from bottom, for ' It is by the aid of money,* fee. read, ' It i> chiefly by the aid of money,' &c. Page 132, 7th line from bottom, instead of the words ' I am ttow considering,' ice. read, ' I am next to consider,' &c. Page 126, 6th line from top, for ' aflicting,' read * afflicting, &c. Page 128, 9th line from top, for 'substanly,' read ' substantially,' A-c. Page 140, 5th liiio from bottom, after the word * same.' insert tfhe word ' from. " Page 144, 7th line from top, for * partimony,' read ' patrimony,' Ac. Page l-'il, 5th line from bottom of the note, strike out he words * not onfy.' Page 153, 15th line from bonom, alter the words ' as it is afforded,' &c. so a» to read thus — ' as it is to he affo ded,' &c. Page 168, 7tb line from bottdm, the line now reads, * and come and lab^r eithtr on those public works,' it should read thus — * and come and labor ou thesefpublic works.' Page 177, 11th line from bottom, for • produced,' read produce.' Page 196, 12th line from top, for • individuuals,' read ' individuals.' Page 198, 10th line from bottom, for ' notning, read • nothinf .' Page 22*2, I7th line from top. for the word 'in,' at the entire left of the line, rciad * it.' Page 224, 1 9th line from top, for * robbbers,' read ' robbers.' Page 232, 11th line from bottom, for 'egal,' read ' legal." Page 237, llth line from top, for the words ' enaployed its construction,' read ' employed in iti construction ' Page 241, 12Uj line from bottom, punctuate the words < may well be asked, if it is intended,' &c. so as to read thus— 'may well be asked. If it is intended,' &c. Page 283, 15th line from top, for • country,' read ' country. ' ^ge 284, line llth from top, for • atall,' read ' at all.' Page 292, 19th line from top, for < proprety,' read * property:' Page 293, 6th line from top, for ' dene,' read ' done.' Same page, 7th line fi om top, for ' givs in the ames,' read ' give in their names.* Page S94, 13th liue from bottom, for ' commision,' read < coramisrioB.' Page 398, 4th line from top, for * ixuventory,' read • inventory. 405 Page SSY, 171 h line from bottom, for • the names,' road • tli«ir naraas/ Page 308, 13th line from top, for « snd,' read • and.' Page 342, 3d line from bottom, for * tloerated,' read ' tolerated.* Pag« 343, 5th line from top, strike out the w»ri « and.' Page 345, 14th linefrom top, after the word 'poor,' insert the word *tam' Same page, 19th line from the top, strike out, * the,' andiasort * a.' Page 347, 3d line from bottom, for « eomitted, read • conmitted.' Page 355, line 11th from bottom, for ' thatit,' read * that it.' Page 366, ling 5th and 6th Crom bottom, for * he consentSf' read thij consent ABVERTISEMENT. TO SUBSCRIBERS. For reasons that will not fail to suggest them •selves, the author has concluded to bind the pre- sent volume, in a plainer manner, as it regards the gilding, than the prospectus of his work stipu- lates ; and to substitute, instead thereof, the novelj and as he trusts, in this instance, the useful inno- vation upon book-binding, of stamping on the two coyers, IN LETTERS OF GOLD, the title of the work. He hopes it will be satisfactory to all ; but if it is not, those who are dissatisfied, are in- formed, that it rests with their pleasure to accept, or to have their copies gilt, (however ill it may be afforded,) as the proposals specify, by signifying such wish to those who shall deliver them. <>>^ '^/. " 9 N .'9- >^,'> '^.^tir^ ^ -%. V-^ .^^^ -^A V^^ X^^^ -1 <' o , ■■^ V C ° "^ ^' -? '^C '^... .v^'^ ^/ '/ -^« s' O^^ -^ .^V c ^> U^ r:» ^x. ■cf* a'^ %^^ A^^' '^r. K"" ^O V V-, O ^^<^. ,X^ .^^ -^^. v^^ ->^^. ^■\^\:::/^ y^^' ^^ >>, ,A^ vV"^. >^ V ^'" ;^:^^ b. .^ *^' '%■ ■.\ -p ■^ . '. ^-^ 'O