Morning appeal. [volume] (Carson City, Nev.) 1877-1906, 1883-06-21
THE LAND tn cory OF
HENRY GEORGE.
It WoulA Decrease the wages OF
Labor and Injure { he Poor.
FIFTH PAPER.

/ nave arrived 1T u punt III
this discussion where it will be
of advantage to recapitulate the
conclusions reached.
I have shown that the land
theory of Henry George is to
appropriate rent-that is, the
benefits arising from the use Of
the soil, to the Government, for
public purposes; that he pro-
poses to make the appropriation
by levying an annual tax on
land, equal to that part Of the
produce which accrues to the
owners, by virtue Of their
ownership; that the appropria-
ton of rent by the Government,
if rent could not be shifted,
would be unjust, and oppressive
to landowners, because it would
cast the entire burden of the
Government upon them, and de-
Drive them of values created by
labor and acquired in the man.
ner established by the laws and
usages of society; and that II
payment of rent could be shifted,
it would be unjust, and oppres-
sive to labor, because it would
increase the price ofthe products
of the soil, without increasing
wages.
We shall, now see that rent
could be shifted, and that the
plan proposed, would not ad-
vance the interest of labor, or
an.eliorate the condition of the
poor.
In discussing tbs problem be-
fore US, it is proper to consider
the nature Of rent, and the
causes which produce it. Hav-
ing established what rent is, we
shall be better able to trace the
effect Of its csnfiscatiOn.
Ricardo defines rent to be !:
"That portion Of the produce OF
the earth which is paid to the
landlord for the use Of the orig
inaL and iadistructibte p0,cers OF
the SOIL"
Henry George adopting
Ricardo's definition in the main,
slightly enlrges it, holding rent
to be: "The share in the
wealth produced which the ex-
elusive right to the use Of aatu''-
a, capabilities gives to the
owner"
Perry, a recognized authority
on political economy, says
Rent Of land is the measure Of
the service which the owner
renders to the actual cultivator."
And Bowen, that it is: "The
compensation paid to the land
lord for permission to hold and
use a particular portion OF
land"
The definitions Of Perry and
Bowen are substantially alike,
and differ widely from those ol
Ricardo and George. They, in
fact eliminate from the law OF
rent, as laid down by Ricardo,
the vicious and fundamental
error that, rent depends upon
the natural properties Of the
soil, which error is the basis O1
Ricardo's reasoning and when
exposed reduces his theory t.
absurdity.
Now the truth is, rent,
whether considered in its com
mon, or economic sense. Is the
ualue Of the use Of land including
the tabor Incorporated IN 1t: MOI
of the original and indestructi'
BILE properties of the earth, to'
these haze n0r0lue !; but of thu
soil made valuable by human et'
fort expended upon 1t, or IN con
nectiOia scith it. 1t is the share
in the wealth produced, which
accrues to the owner of land, By
virtue Of his ownership.
The assumption Of Ricarde
that rent is the value Of the use
of the "origiaal and indestructi
BILE powers of the SOIL" or a
George puts it "of the natur;.
capabilities of the SOIL" will no
bear analysis, and has been man,
times exposed by writer's of ac-
knowledged ability and stand
ing. The asserted law of rem
has no foundation in practical
or scientific truth, and the deduc
ton drawn from it is utterl,
fallaciOus and absurd.
Rent is not paid for the use O
the "originaI and indestructibl'
powers of the soil," or any cad
vantage Of situation" whatever
and it does not depend upon tn,
existence of lands which yielt
no rent, nor is it measured b,