Morning appeal. [volume] (Carson City, Nev.) 1877-1906, 1883-06-05

Gen. Narke's Reply to the Wiz.
gfDla City Critic.

EAoA1 lily SE1t1c.
Whoever is the author of Il
4 anonymous communication pul
lished in the Virginia Chronicle
June second signed "a Visionary
this is certain: He neither con
c prehends the land theory Of Henr
George, the criticisms I have pull
lished, nor the prophecies whic
govern gentlemen in the discussio
of such questions.
! Ii have in any degree misstate
Henry George, his book will shov
it. If there be any fallacy in NJ,
arguments it can be detected an,
exposed by the rules of logic. Blu
what I have advanced, is no
answered, by the detraction, sneers
or dictum of writer, who has no
the courage to sign his name to hi
production and who does not com
prehend that assumption is no.
proof, and lacks the man mess and
manners to deal in respectful
speech.
No reader of ordinary understand.
ing can fail to comprehend that,
| THE SEMINAL IpEA OF HENRY
GEORGES SCHEME Is TO DESTROY PRI-
vArs OWNERSHIP IN LAND AND THAT
THE SOLE REMEDY lie PROPOSES TO
ACCOMPLISH THIS END Is TIE APpRo
! PRIAT1oN of rent by the Govern
| ment. No one who hes read the
papers I have written, can fail to
understand that, the FIRST, was ic-
tended to define Henry Georges
theory, and the SECOND, to show
the impracticability of the remedy
proposed to put the theory into
operation.
No one who has read the criti-
cisms of Visionary" can fail to
detect, and despise, the spirit OF
detraction which characterizes it,
and the unfairness transparent in
the attempt to prove me guilty of
confusion and contradictions" by
putting down in juxtaposition
what I say in one place to define
the position Of Henry George and
what in another place 1 say TO
SHOW IT'S FALLACT = PRETENDING
THAT TIE THOUGHTS ARE IDENTICAL
AND THAT IN EACH CASE MY PER-
soNAL VIEWS ARE EXPRESSED. What
I did, and what the writer Of the
criticism knew I did, if he possess
es com mon sense, was to show that |
Henry George proposed to make
land common property by taking it |
from the owner against his will !; |
and that this could not be done by |
the remedy proposed that is, by |
appropriating rent to the use Of
the Government. It would be
worse than q waste of words, to
repeat the discussion here, but it |
may be of advantage to state the
ultimate reasons by which 1 demon
'trated the impracticability of
Henry Georges REMEDY. FIRST
# the rent exacted by the Govern
nent, were less than the value of
he land, present owners would not
'e!inquish the tit'e, or surrender
he possession !; if more, the land
would lie idle. No one would take
he land if the value of its use and
'art of the wages of labor were re-
Luired to pay the rent.
SEcoNDLY-The land owner could
nd would shift the rent upon other
lasses, by adding it to the cost of
PRODUCTION thus increasing the
rice of the products of the soil.
his last position, is the one which
xcites the astonishment of "Vis-
'nary." and which he attempts to t
nswer by quoting the law of de +
rand and supply, and citing
.icardo's theory of rent.
1t is not my intention at this time !;
, discuss the relation of these laws 4
} the problem in hand; or for that !,
natter ever, with a writer who con-
GALS himself and unfairly holds me
the open field a free mark for his
,ot. In due time, and in the or.
er which I have arranged, I will =
low that, neither Recardo's theory g
rent, nor the argument to prove .
at tax on land values cannot tie
capped BY the owner, are decisive
even pertinent to the question ..
is sufficient now to say that, we ;.
n ~ Ion 1.pv nth,