The workingman's advocate. [volume] (Chicago [Ill.]) 1864-1877, 1871-04-15
THE LAND QUEsTION,--r1I.
BY y. r PETERs.

Al meeting OF the English Land
Tenure Reform Association, held in
London last summer, John Stuart Mil
occupying the chair, platform of Prln
c'ples, or programme, was adopted,
which, among various objects proposed
by the Association, specified the one
that follows: ITO int rcept BY taxation
the unearned increase in the value of
land which, without effort or expeudi-
ture on the part of the proprietor, is
constantly accruing through the gen
eral increase Of wealth and popuIa-
ton"
1t is not necessary to consider here
how far it is practica bic to accomplish
the end aimed at by any scheme of tax
alton. The important point is to note
the great breadth Of the principle as
serted, and 70 recolleci that its assertion
occurs, not in resolution passed by an
unreflecting crowd excited by passion
ate speeches from equally unrefecting
orators; but in programme framed
with care, and deliberately adopted by
al association of thoughtful men, pre-
sided over by the chief of British poIit-
ical economists. That principle is the
right OF the State to appropriate for the
benefit OF the entire public all increase
In the value Of land, save that which
results from the labor or expenditure of
theprOprietor Thus, if fifty thousand
dollar farm should double in value
through circumstances independent OF
effort or expenditure on the part Of
tthe proprietor" the entire increase
would inure to the profit Of the State,
or, In other words, Of the general pub
lie, instead OF the individual owner. If.
on the other hand, the lat er could show
that $4,000 Of the increase was due to
improvements which he had put upon
the land, in the form Of buildings,
fences, drains, fertilizers, or aught-etse,
amounting in value to the sum claimed,
then this portion of the increase would
be deducted from the total increase OF
$50 900, and onl y the remaining $40
600 which accrued independently of the
labor and expenditure Of the proprietor
would be appropriated to the public
benefit. 1t is to be observed here.
however, that under the principle in
question improV ements due to labor or
expenditure on the part Of the owner
would in no case be considered as ac-
counting for any greater increase than
their own actual value. Any increase
beyond this would inure to the benefit
of the State-that is, of the public. To
the question of practicabi ity, which
will probably occur torebly to The mind
of the reader, reply by repeating that
is not necessary to consider that
point at present, What we now have
to do With is the principle itself, and
not the methods whereby it might be
applied. 4
The question which deserves to be
first considered is whether the principle
is just one. If person owns a given
tract of land, has he not the right to do
with it whatsoever he will, 10 keep il
just as long as he pleases, and to part
with it only upon bis own terms !?
Though he should have bought it for a
ten dollar bill, when once it became his
had he not a right, if 90 inclined, to
prefer it to all the other property in the
world, and to determine that no price
should induce him to part with itp And
if he had right to refuse all offers, did
not this include the right to set his
price just as high as he chose, though
it might be million times what the
land cost him, and to take that price.
if he found any one willing 10 pay il I?
In short, when he made his purchase,
did not that particular piece of land be-
come his absolute property, without any
regard TO its past or future value. as
compared with money or any of the
various commodities which men ex-
change with each other Did it not be-
come has Just as much as his coat or his
watch, or any other article in his pos
session, and had he not the same right
with it as with them to say upon what
terms he would exchange it for any
property belonging to another. or to de-
termine whether or not he would ex-
change it at allp
1t il true, society, acting through the
State, has the right to forbid any of its
members to use his private property to
the public injury; but f we concede to
the land owner the absolute possession
of such title as has Just been de-
scribed, it il doubtful whether this
right could be construed in such
manner as to justify the measure pro-
posed by the English Land Tenure Re
formers. But suppose they plant them
selves, as they undoubtedly do, upon
higher ground, and maintain that exist
ing land titles, if they could be traced
to their origin, would be found to rest
upon an unjust and arbitrary appOrtion-
ment of the soil; that the surface of the