Telegram-herald., 1890-01-16

theory 81 = logseat colel1si0a AID pgr-
&sn lisass.f > ta . n.all. pl.eisy Of wives.
Ani the faet -3AG hs car 29s - -, ls .
s.sd canaasalzry o2 ta&s extensive
freedom 4E1 LIBERTY whlch be FMS
"a shs Constitution,
Ar- HalEs nay nlzzes = transition tToEn
LFoe trade g. the d0e.rlae Of ss.Dge
tax, y precl stag tat ~we VII see
tns soFk.nsulan s.ga nOTs OF - Iust
rghtz. this Of course means tie single
t41 just @hy the 's.agle tzx' : one
"a tae wofxlugInau :, or any 0theE
mans, ''Iust rigats,' NJ. Hathaway ~
usuzl, fails 10 sa0w. 10 appears - be
hls 0pin.oa that he Is entitled ~ the
''siBgle tax because q slll relleYe him
trom taXat.gn--Ih4l = - say, enable
hlm - get somsthllg f0r nothing
Bat Mr. Hathaway las already ap-
prov ga the dOetEne that ali men were
created equal II 80, what IS one mau's
rghl auotneF's, ard Al. ought 10 ct
something Tor nothing that j. 20 say,
get the t'enehts OF Government without
. burdens Just Why this should be
the right OF any man, however, : not
apparent ~ one whO has been trained
up under the paraiyzlng influence OF
the ignorance OF ai former aces. II Ia
usually been considered honest doctrine
thAt man should pay for what he gets
whether he gets groceries from hls
nelghbor OF protection from Govern
ment. ~ uAn should be relieved from
contribution % the expenses OF Govern
ment, not even the man who has no
property. But Mr. Hathaway's theory
would Tag the burden OF taxation upon
the owners of one class OF property,
namely, "upou lands now held unim-
proved for speculative purposes" Let
us see why he thinks this should be
done.
First, that some one else may get rid
OF the burden. which does not strike Il
man Of oId-fa-hioned honesty a. very
honorable proceeding;
Second, a penalty for something,
although it Is hard - see why citizens
should De taught by Government that
the payment of is legitimate expenses
IS q punishment. it would seem 10 be
better policy 70 .ncuicate the doctrine
that a good citizens first duty is owed
10 the Government that protects him.
Penalty for what FOr failure to I'M
prove lands. Suppose the owner i'm
proves them. Then they are no longer
taxable and the Government gets no
more revenue from them. Then the
Government would compel its citizens
10 do that which would deprive il of
sustenance--in other words, compel its
citizens to starye it % death. Penalty
FOR what? For speculating-fo doing
business, for all business IS speculation.
The application of the single tax"
Mr. Hathaway says, "is really but free
trade carried to is full logical con
clusiOn." Then let Us carry it out and
see what free trade Is. He says that
the result of the single tax "would be
that idle properties would be opened
up and consequently give much
employment to labor" As property
gradually became improved, taxa
ble property would grow less and less,
and yet the expenses of Government
would be practically the same. Finally
the Governments sources of revenue
would be gone. Government would be
gone Restraint would be gone. And
We should have, indeed, the blessed
freedom and liberty" of grabbing
what We could get, fighting for more
and cutting one another's throats until
"the survival Of the fittest' left one
man monarch Of all ne surveyed, :"
with the privilege of doing just as he
pleased "full logical conclu-
sion" Is Mr.. Hathaway's idea Of free
/ trade.