Page:The Green Bag (1889–1914), Volume 08.pdf/151

 130

as they are personally concerned, the failure of the pro posed enterprise was a matter of no consequence, as there is always a demand for capital, and remunerative enter prises are not difficult to discover. But to the agent of the territorial enterprise and the people whom he repre sented it means a disheartening disappointment, and the failure, or at least tedious postponement of an undertaking of almost incalculable value. In one of his lectures on Law and Jurisprudence in Eng land and America, Judge Dillon paraphrases Proudhon's often quoted maxim, " La Propriete c'est le vol," as " Prop erty holders are thieves," and says that " this pernicious doctrine has hitherto found no general acceptance among our people or their legislators; and under the Constitution as it now stands the doctrine can obtain no foothold as to any species of property if the courts are faithful to their high trust as the guardians and defenders of the Constitu tion." But if the maxim should be translated " Alien property holders are thieves," it will be found that this per nicious doctrine has found a very general acceptance among the people of the United States, or at least those who legislate for them, in the West and the newer parts of the country. It is not only peculiarly unfortunate that this restrictive legislation should have been enacted in that part of the community where capital and money are most needed, but that the craze for this sort of restraint on foreign investments has so taken hold upon the community that whenever the opportunity occurs the old and broader laws are amended by putting them in shackles. While, generally speaking, the New England, Middle and Southern States put non-resident aliens on the same footing so far as holding real estate is concerned, with their own citizens, there are a few notable exceptions. Connecticut alone is the exception in the New England States; while New York stands with Mississippi and Kentucky among the Middle

and Southern States as being opposed to the selling of real property to her resident aliens. On the other hand, Ohio, Michigan, the Dakotas, Nevada, California and Oregon are the only States in the West and in the Southwest which show no discrimination between non-resident aliens and citizens. The experiment of restriction has been tried long enough now to afford some test of its results, and it would be inter esting to have testimony on this point. If New York, for instance, has an advantage over Massachusetts by reason of this law, wherein does the advantage consist, and what ill that Massachusetts suffers from has New York escaped? It would be instructive also to know how the rule works in the West, and particularly in the newer States, where capital is needed to develop the country, and population is small. What advantage have Kansas and Nebraska, for example, over the Dakotas and Colorado? And what has Washing ton gained that Oregon has lost? Is it not possible, on the other hand, that the experiments, so far as they can be ascertained, will show that this restric tive legislation has been a mistake, that it was based upon a wrong assumption of an impossible menace, and that it has not the assent of the thoughtful legislators who usually stand in between the clamor of demagogues and the enact ment of useless and harmful laws? Absentee landlordism, it may be admitted, is a curse to Ireland, but it by no means follows that the same results would follow the holding of a portion of the unproductive acres of the Western territories by non-residents, or the investment of foreign capital in the realty of even more populous and better developedf:ommunities. As the law now stands it is impossible for an owner of land in many of the States of the Union to deal with his property to advantage; and this right he has lost in the ma jority of, if not all, the instances without any compensating advantages. Stuff Gown.