Workmen's advocate. (New Haven, Conn.) 1883-1891, 1889-05-04

way through his floor
As for me, | can no more conceive,
logically, Of a system in which land
would belong to society and machinery
to Individuals than of system in which
land would belong to individuals and
machinery to society, But il is in per
feet harmony with system of private
ownership Of Mnd-thut j., Of Nature
Itself - that the machinery through
which the forces of that Nature are used,
either to obtain raw materials from the
earlu, or to work them into finished
products, should also be private prop.
erty. In this system, Of course, some
ndlN iduals own land and some maChn-
cry, or more or less of each. according
to circumstances But this is merely
convenient division of functions among
membors Of the same class the class of
those who "have." And this class is
very truly mankind 10y divine right,
All such trash as you and |, who "hayc
not. being mere cattle in the eyes Of
the Lord. True, 10y the law Of gravita-
ton, we belong to the planet; but those
who own the planct-lund, machinery
and all-own lis.
Now, if it is plain to you, a. it is
plain to me, that the naturalization of
land without the naturalization Of the
instruments through which both the
land and ito products are made available
would not lessen the ahiect dependence
OF Labor upon private capital, how
much palmer must il be that the So
called single land tax scheme can afford
| no rellct whatever to the working classes.
This scheme As you probably know,
was first brought out in the last century
| by a school of Fren III economists known
in history as the Phy>iocrats. 1t was
| revived some fifty years ago 10y John
Stuart Mill in his ''l'rinciple- of Political
Economy, and was subsequently advo-
| Gated also by Herbert Spencer in his
"Sorial States" All those writer's,
however, presented it simply as a more
| equitable method Of taxation, calculated
to improve the opportunities Of capitaL
| by tightening that portion of the public
| burden which commerce and manufac-
| turing industry had to hear True,
| upon the assumption that in the present
| system Of production the interests of
capital and labor are identical, or. at
least, reciprocal, they contended that
| in so far rs commerce and manufactures
would he directly encouraged by the
| removal Of taxes upon their profits. the
| lahorng classes would be indirectly ben
Gifted also; in other words, that a por-
! ton of the increased profits Of CAPITAL
would ~ To labor in the form of in
creased wages. We now know what to
think Of this assumptions But it re-
manned for Henry George to contend
tllal the single iand'taX would actually
make lahd the property OF the people
III common; and, according to tins new
mlrqrie-worker, ny mere transfer of
ouraehS from the shoulders al one cate
CORY "l capitalists upon TIE thoulders of
another category, OF capitalists, the
ShacklrS OF Labor Would magicaIly'tall to
the ground.
| cannot undertake to review here the
single lahd tax theory IN It's various as
| poets, ana the George movement IN its
| various phases. for the purpose OF this
lecture It Is enough to say that, taking
INTO consideration the discomfort of the
working classes, the extensive organiza-
| tlon OF Labor, the irish question. and
| all other circumstances emlnently favor
able to such movement. Henry George
could never have produced the commo
ton he did as the recognized leader of
| it, had he not constantly proclaimed
that "land was of right the property of
the people in common, To-day his
false theory of taxation is dead beyond
resurrection, but the eternal truth upon
which he ventnred to rest it is deeply
rooted in the popular mind,
Nor was it then the first time that
this great truth, with its power Of cleo
trifying the dlsinherited, had been pro-
claimed in America. A rapid glance
backward will prove instructive, In
1882 new party, small in numbers,
II ronCy in n,1runga abnnarp1 on, thu fold