overnment," at least not in our time and perhaps
never. It is well for a person to have his own plot for his lifetime,
with the right to use it as he will so long as he does not offend, or
does not despoil it for those who follow: it steadies him, and it
identifies him with a definite program in life.

We usually speak as if all good results in the distribution of the
natural bounty will ensue if "the government" or "the state" owns the
resources; but government ownership of resources and direction of
industries may not mean freedom or escape for the people. It depends
entirely on the kind of government,--not on its name or description, but
on the extent to which the people have been trained to partake on their
own initiative. The government may be an autocracy or only another form
of monopoly.

The aristocracy of land has much to its credit. Great gains in human
accomplishment have come out of it; but this does not justify it for the
future. The aristocracy of land is a very dangerous power in human
affairs. It is all the more dangerous when associated with aristocracy
of birth and of factitious social position, which usually accompany it.
A people may be ever so free in its advantages and in its theoretical
political organization, and yet suffer overwhelming bondage if its land
is tied up in an aristocratic system, and particularly if that system is
connected into a social aristocracy. And whenever rigid aristocracy in
land connects itself with the close control of politics, the subjection
becomes final and complete.

What lies within a nation or a people may lie in enlarged form between
the nations or the peoples. Neighborliness is international. Contest for
land and sea is at the basis of wars. Recognizing the right of any
people to its own life, we must equally recognize its right to a
sufficient part of the surface of the earth. We must learn how to
subdivide it on the basis of neighborliness, friendship, and conference;
if we cannot learn this, then we cannot be neighbors but only enemies.
The proposal now before Congress to cede to Canada the Alaskan
Panhandle, or a part of it, is an evidence of this growth of
international morals, extended to the very basis on which nations have
been the least ready to co-operate.

If we may fraternalize territory, so shall we fraternalize commerce. No
people may rightly be denied the privilege to trade with all other
peoples. All kinds of useful interchange are civilizers