St. Paul daily globe. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1884-1896, 1889-01-17
HENRY GEORGE TALKS
To the House and Senate of
the State on Single
Tax.
All Men Are Equally Entitled
to the Use Of the
Land.
Possession Of Land Not Nee
essary to Production
From 1t.
The Story of Burdens Now
Borne Under the Double
Tax.

predominance of my moral qualities"
Thus it was that the sage met laugh
ing reference yesterday noon to some
facial points of resemblance between
| him and the great refOrmer. Henry
| George has the smaller head OF the two,
although the thinkers forehead is not
one whit contracted from the span of
| the cryptographist's brow. And there
| is about Mr.. George and in his actions
| constant suggestion of practical nat
u1e, far more impressive than other
qualities, more brilliant. perhaps, but
| less beneficial in the end to the human
race.
His reception at the state capitol yes
terday noon was most flatterng. COM
ing as it did from a community scarce
knowing the difference between single
and poll tax. Aside from the presence
of the senate and house, there were in
attendance such notabilties as Ignatius
Donnelly, Gen. J. II. Baker. Hon. John
G. Wise, of Mankato: E. III. Dearth, OF
LIE Sueur; E. V. Smalley (who carries
head proportional something like that
of Georges, Prof. Kiehle, John l..
Gibbs, Hon. P. ]. Smalley. w. W.
Braden and others. At a few moments
after IL Speaker Graves said:
II have the honor to introduce to you
Henry George, of New York"
The cartoons of Keppler had made
that face and beard only too familiar
for any one not to know without the
official Introductory that it was Henry
George who rose and, with the scanteSt
ceremony, plunged into an exposition
of the single tax theory. Mr.. George
started out with definition of his sub
hall
place, that all men are equally entitled
to the use of land; that. as man is the
| necessary element to all land. the nee
| essary factor in the production of all
wealth, the equal right Of men to land
involves the equal right to the use of
that land; that the man who has no
right to the use of land is necessarily at
a disadvantage with the man who has
merely the right to the use of his own
| labor, without any right to the
use of that Indispensable element
to all labor; that to appropriate
| the land on which and from which a
| people must live is in itself ultimately
! equivalent to their reduction to slavery.
| We recognize also that while the right
| to the use of land is equal, that the use
| of land does require that its possession
| shall be secured individuality; that in
| OIutI W carly OH pIbuuCtlOIi Vic piO-
| Queer must be assured of the individual
possession of the land. That is neces-
sary to production. A farmer will not
pillow and sow unless there be GER
| tainty that he may reap; no one will eX-
| pend labor in opening mine unless he
| be assured that he can benefit by the
results of that labor; no one Will build a
house unless 4he has such security of
| possession of the lot as is necessary to
his secured possession of the structure.
| With this, by way of explanation, Mr..
| George confined: "These principles
are not diverse and repellant: they are
easily recognized by treating land as
the property of the whole community
| and allowing absolute possession to inn
provers on condition that they shall pay
to the community an equivalent sum
| for the superior advantage obtained by
the possession of the land they have in
use. AS Herbert Spencer well says.
Nothing like all the requirements of
| Justice could be satisfied and in that
way the whole people of the commu-
nifty would be all equal laborerS and
users: all equal tenants. But it
| is not necessary at all to take land as
the formal property Of the state and to
| bother with leases and collect rents in
order to carry out that principle. In
the United States-in- all our states
some portion of needed public revenues
| is raised by tax which falls on the
| value of land. We have but to extend
that so as TO take for the use of the COM
| munity, so far as practical, tine whole
| value of land, in order to arrive at the
same point. In speaking of the value
| of land. what we mean is that value,
| and that value alone, which attaches to
land by reason of the growth of public
| and public improvements; that value
which attaches to land by reason of the
| growth and Improvement of the COM
| munity, excluding altogether the values
| which are created by any labor eX-
pended on or in the land, but is the
| value of improvement, which we7would
leave to the improver. taxing merely
the value of the bare land. Now, the
| value of the bare land. unlike the value
| of anything produced by human labor,
| is something that is brought out by no
individual eXertion."
Mr.. George entered into a lengthy dis
QUESTION of this value. 1t was value
clearly given by the growth of the
mupity grows. Therefore it was value
| belonging to. the community; that
should and ought to be taken for the
use of the community in preference to
any of those values produced by human
labor. I'VE, in short, would manage the
| estate of a community on the same
| principle that any hotel is arranged.
The hotelkeeper does not charge man
! who comes and takes rooms in accord
| ance with his wealth, nor yet in accord
| ance with the use he makes of the room.
He charges him per apartment. We
would collect taxes on vacant land If
respective Of the fact that it
is vacant; we would tax a
lot in valuble part of the city just as
such lot has erected a fine building.
In that way all men would be put on
plane of equality" The man holding
superior piece of land would pay addi-
tional taxes on its value than man
| owning an ordinary tract. ItSeemed
stupid that we should tax men for max
ing improvements. The farmer who
cultivated was adding to the wealth of
the state, and ought not to be taxed any
| more than the speculator who was hold
ing a similar piece of land idle and
doing nothing to add to the wealth of
the state. 1--WE hold that all these taxes
that bear upon wealth, OF any of the
processes of its production, are
| bdNeS Ill IdNUI VI lHC lii
poverishment Il for they diminish
the wealth-of the state; that they tend
to lessen production and to keep and
drive wealth away: that they ought to
be abolished in order that the wealth
production may be as large as possible;
and we hold that the most equitable
distribution of wealth is that which
| gives wealth to the man who produces
| it. We hold that there is a sacred right
of property that whatever anyone, by
his exertions, brings forth from the
reservoirs of nature and adds to the
sum of things that are fitted for the
satisfaction of human desires, obtains