Sacramento daily record-union. [volume] (Sacramento [Calif.]) 1875-1891, 1883-09-01
MR.. GEORGE AND HIS CRITICS.

Mr. Henry George, whose bold assump-
tions have done more to give his writings
prominence than their defensibility, has
for some time been contributing to popu.
lar New York paper series of articles on
the topics which he has made in recent
years a speciality, and which Herbert
Spencer declares are treated by him on the
basis of the truth of doctrines long since
exploded and abandoned. Contemporaries
GUS with the appearance of these articles,
the editorial page Of the journal has bristled
with oaustio criticisms of the papers them
selves, and it is but just to say that more
brilliancy, keener wit, and better logic
have marked the editorial criticisms than
have characterized Mr.. Georges ingenious
pleas, which wind up with such vague sug-
gestions OF remedies for the evils-and
many of which are undoubted-of which
the essayist complains. In fact, the
trouble with all of Mr.. Georges solutions
of the Problems Of the Times" has been
the lack of practical remedy offered on his
part for the ills which he finds to affict
mankind. One of his latest papers is an
instance in point. He declared that st
is not necessary to the recognition of the
equal right in the land that it should be cut
up into little pieces, and that each should
have his lot" Perhaps not, that each should
have his lot, but we insist that each
should have the opportunity to have his
lot. If the complaint, in which we have
so warmly united, that land monopoly is
an evil, is good. it follows that the induce.
ment to convert into small holdings is
remedy for the evil. It is therefore neces-
sary to the practical recognition of this
doctrine that the lands should be held " in
little pieces" How to accomplish this de.
sideratum, without the infringement of
acquired rights, the dangerous disturbance
of society, or the limitation of Industry
and the laudable ambition to acquire, is the
sole problem. On all else the world is
pretty much agreed. As solution of this
question we should have expected Mr.
George and those of his school to have
given better answer than this. q" That
lcutting it up into little piecesl would be
impracticable. It is only necessary to
take the ground rent-the annual value of
the land irrespective Of the improvements
for the common benefit" To the exam
ination OF this solution the editorial critic
IN question proceeds to direct his atten.
ton. Says he, the value of land is meas
ured by the difficulty of getting it. It's
value is the cost we must pay for appro-
priating it. Take away, as Mr.. George
would, the privilege of appropriating it,
and you take away all that for which we
pay, and our willingness to pay for
which causes the idea of value to
attach to land. So he goes on to explain
that the Georgian idea by its very terms
destroys all land values, and yet In the
same breath offers to support society out
of the net income derived from the inter-
est on the value it destroys. The writer
illustrates in this way The lot on the cor.
ner of Bosrdway and Wall street is worth
g, COO GOO, because of the competition for
its use for business. This results from its
location in spot which men desire to oc.
cupy for business purposes. It's relation to