Morning appeal. [volume] (Carson City, Nev.) 1877-1906, 1883-06-03
THE LAND THEORY OF
HENRY GEORGE.
fits Jastiee Considered
THIRD PAPER.

cGnpensatlng present owners, Is
not only irnpracticable, but it il
unjust.
| 1t would ROB land owners, for
the benefit of non-land owners.
1t would impose the burdens Of
society upon portion of its
members, and exempt portion,
perhaps the least deserving and
best able to bear them.
Those whose wealth consists
of money, stocks, securities and
movable gosds, would be ex-
empt from the payment of taxes,
and landowners and such de-
pendent classes as they could
shift the burden upon, would be
forced to bear the exactionS re-
quired to keep the machinery OF
Government in motion. 1t
would benefit those whose wealth
consists of money and stocks and
chattels, and cOrrespendingly
injure those whose wealth is in
vested in land, and who live by
cultivating the soil. The small
farmer who builds a home and
improves and enriches the soil
with his labor the mechanic,
artisan or common laborer who
by industry and economy has ac-
quired q habitation, would be
overwhelmed in distress, and the
| bCnd-hol;ler, and Shyloch, would
| enjoy the blessings Of Govern
ment without contributing 10
| the cost. If rent should be con
tiscated by taxation, and the tax
| could not be shifted upon other
classes, present owners must
suffer to the extent of the value
of the land, and lose all the ben
efits resulting from private own
ership. II the Government
should take as rent, the part
which. the landowner now takes
for his share-the value of the
use of the land-the substance
| of the estate would be taken and
the shadow only left. AS George
puts it the "kearnel would be
taken and the shell only would
remain"
But is it just to take from
landowners the substance-tfe
kearnel of their property? Can
it be called sjustice" to isnpov-
erish one class, for the benefit of
another? Is it sjust" to take
from present owners for the
common benefit, without GEM
pensation, the land which they
have acquired by exchange, or
purchase, or through their an
ces,ors, or which they have I'M
proved and made valuable by
their labor? No one who COM
prehends what justice is in its
relation to civil rights, will so
| maintain-especiaily no one who
| knows what it is that gives to
land its value.
Wheeler has invested money
or labor in land, has as high and
perfecta right toits exclusive en-
joyment, AS he who has invested
his money or labor in the pro-
duce of the soil, or cattle, or other
property whatsoever. 1t is his
by every principle which under
lies the social compact, and for
every reason which regulates
the conduct of men. If it be said
that the soil is the product of
nature, so it may with equal
truth be said Of every living
thing, and every tangible sub
stance the hand Of man has fash
toned, or upon which the skill of
labor has wrought. Man creates
nothing. He no more makes
the beasts of the field than he
makes land. He no more Gre
ates the products of the soil than
the soil itself. If it be said the
cunning and patience and toll
of man has tanned, and improved
the animal, or planted and cul-
tivated the seed, or fashioned
the tool, and given to personal
property an altered form and in
creased value; 50 also with
equal force it may be said, the
hand Of man has reclaimed the
| soil from the desert and wilder
ness; suhjugated its wild nature,
modified its natural tendencies,
leveled and fitted it for cu!tiva-
ton, enriched it with fertil-
izers, and UNNECESSARILY bcttered
its condition and increased its
value by labor, and the addition
of permanent improvements !;
and above all by the social, po-
litical and economic advantages
and facilities for exchange with
which he has surrounded it.
In the abstract it is undoubt-
edly true that land is the COM