The Vermont watchman. [volume] (Montpelier, Vt.) 1883-1911, 1885-07-01
Henry Georges Land Theories.

Mr.. EdHor:-I have read with interest your
editorial article on Land and Taxation"
| would like, with your consent, to state to
your readers little more fully just what it
is that MIR. George proposes, and his reasons
for the doctrine he holds on the subject
Not because / am a disciple of Mr.. George.
1t is true that / am forced to admit the
truth of some of his premises, but | am not
quite prepared to accept all of his conclusions.
Mr. George holds that all the land land
water) in the world belongs to all the peo-
pie in the world; that neither are or can be
of right the private property of an individ-
ual This doctrine is admitted as far as the
water is concerned, and many philosophers
have admitted its entire theoretical justice,
supposing the world to be just newly peo-
pied, and mankind now just beginning to
establish social relations with each other.
Mr.. George sees no impossibility in now re-
ducng his theory to practice, if people can
be made to understand it. He thinks its es-
sential rghtness has only to be seen to Sc
cure its acceptance by the majority who are
now supposed to rule, at least in North
America. But, as matter of fact, his ideas
make very little progress on this sparsely
populated continent, compared with their
acceptance in Great Britain, the home of
land monopoly of the most exclusive sort.
Mr.. George believes that unoccupied and
unimproved land has no value-that mans
labor alone gives it value, and that those
men alone who contribute by their labor, or
their capital gained by previous labor to
give value to land are entitled to enjoy the
benefits of such artifcially created value.
Upon his theory all land is the property of
the state-that is, of men in the aggregate
society, in fact. Any man may Obtain from
the state the right to improve land that is
unoccupied, and to enjoy all that he can get
out of 1.-THE fee or title to the soil still re-
naming in the state.
This doctrine does not at first seem to be
Objectionable, or to differ in principle greatly
from our own system, as applied to the pub
lie lands. But it does differ, and differ
vastly, when we come to consider the sub
iect further Take an instance in Dakota,
let us say. Two men each take up quar-
ter section of land, and acquire title to it.
One is located out on the prairie, some dis
lance from the railroad, and from any vii
lage or city. Through the other mans lot
railroad is built, and near it village springs
up which becomes a city. Each man home
steaded his land, and acquired his title from
the government on compliance with the
terms of the homestead act. Whatever may
be got out of the two farms by the labor of
each man, or by labor hired and paid for
with his money, belongs to him, alike by
our present system and by Mr.. Georges
theory. But the building of the railroad
and the growth of the new city soon causes
the value of both of these farms to increase,
yet in very different degrees. The distant
farm may in ten years double in value; the
Htdl a
Now, Mr.. George asks, to whom should this
added value accrue-to the individual home
steaders, or to the public in general? Under
our law, it falls to the individuals but Mr..
George, who would allot the land much as
the government does in the first place,
would not allow to them cent of this " I'M
earned increment y (as John Stuart Mill has
named it,, but would consider it public
property, because it had been produced, not
by personal labor or capital, but by the labor
and capital of the whole community. The
homesteader, under either theory, would
still he allowed the enjoyment of his hold
ing, but under Mr.. Georges this would be
only TO the extent to which his own indus
try and capital was the source of his returns
from 1t. Nothing would be allowed to him
for his luck, or his shrewdness in securing
more or less eligible location. That adj
vantage would still belong to the public,
and he must pay for it, if he retains it, the
whole profit above what is due him for his
own labor and capital actually applied TO
the land.
The farmer out on the prairie finds that
the nearness of the railroad and the city
causes him to receive better prices for his
crops. Mr.. George says he must pay to the
public, in the form of tax, all his addi-
tional profit, to be laid out in public roads,
schools and other improvements. Well,
says the reader, that is practically the case
now, to great extent. There is not much
difference. But try it on the other man,
and see how it comes out. Say this other
man lays out his farm in lots, sells part of
these lots at such prices as he can get and
expends the money he gets for them in
building houses, shops, factories, etc., on
the remainder. AS things now are, he
would rapidly become very rich man.
This is the way great fortunes have been
built up all over the country, and it is also
one way in which such vast wealth has ac-
cumulated in our cities. The acre of land
which originally cost the homesteader
twenty cents, perhaps, is built upon with
money received from the sale of other acres
of the same homestead at large prices, and
these buildings are rented TO the increasing
| population of the city at a constantly in
creasing rental. Mr. George allows none of
this. The people still own the fee of all the
land All the homesteader acquired was
the right TO improve it for his own benefit
! He may improve il as "A farm, or he may
build houses ON it to rent If he wishes to,
but he will not be allowed to sell his right
in II for more than he gave for IL, or to
reckon any higher value for it in the rent
he charges for the buildings he puts upon IT,
1t is not his for any such purpose. His rents
must be computed simply on the value of
his improvements, for that is all that be-
longs to him. The rest belongs to the pub