Page:The Green Bag (1889–1914), Volume 23.pdf/297

 269

The Editor’s Bag favor a sale of the common property and the investment of the proceeds in

good

interest-bearing

When, however, conditions became

such munitythat could theseparate, memberstheofmost the active com~

securities,

under the control of responsible state officials. "Another consideration which, no doubt, had some inﬂuence in bringing about this decision to sell the lands,

is the probability that when the lands are sold and become the property of individuals, the property will be im proved and developed, and enhanced

in value, thus promoting the general prosperity of the island, and lightening the burdens of taxation, by increasing

the value of the taxable property. But, as already suggested, it is not necessary

that we should agree with the majority as to the general policy of the course

being pursued. The petition of the majority to the legislature, asking that this act be passed, is an assent binding on all the inhabitants of the island, and whether the course is wise, or unwise,

need not be discussed.” In the making of this decision, the Court substantially removes the last trace of this communistic settlement which, early in the days of Louis XIV, was inaugurated as a practical demon stration of what could be done in the direction of common ownership.

All

that remains is the school fund formed from the sale of the community land. The Kaskaskia undertaking, in con nection with others of like kind, oﬁ‘ers

about as conclusive an argument against common ownership and the pooling of

individual interests, as it is possible to conceive. In the days when the coun try was new, and the settlers were bound together by the strong bond of mutual safety from savage depredations and from hunger, the community an swered a great purpose; it seemed,

indeed, for a time, that it might fulﬁll all that it was designed to do.

and capable among them went out in

search of larger opportunities, willingly sacriﬁcing their holdings in the com munity for the better prospects that

lay beyond; and the fact that the com munity mured them freedom from want, and provided a like inheritance for

their

children

even

failed

to

keep them. They refused it all for the chance of facing the world and building up their own fortunes. Those who were faint-hearted, those who liked their ease, and those who were

inﬁrm — these remained to enjoy the security of the community. What they accomplished for it and what it ac complished for them and their descend ants, are now matters of history. If the dreamers who builded their Utopia in New France, could return to earth today and look upon the difference between the structure they

reared and the structures that have risen in the same ﬁeld from freedom of in dividual effort, they would be greatly amazed.

They would

see on

every hand

strong, self-reliant men and women, ﬁne houses and well cultivated farms,

intelligence and independence among the people, and Kaskaskia, weak and dying from want of individual enter prise, which its indulgent care made unnecessary,

giving up its shrunken

heritage to the keeping of the state.

CANDID PROFESSIONAL ADVICE PECULIAR letterhead has been sent us by a correspondent in Iowa. The odd feature of the notice is the way in which the hands of all