The Louisiana Democrat. [volume] (Alexandria, La.) 1845-1918, 1890-07-30
SINGLE TAX DEPARTMENT.
SINGLE TAX THE INSTRUMENT.

SINGLE TAX THE INSTRUMENT. |
Address of william Lloyd Garrison Be
fore the Unitarian Ministerial Union at
Charming Hall, Boston, April 20, 1890.
TCoNT1NUED FROM LAST ISSUE.
81 hear you say: Under the single
tax would not the rent be taken just the
same? And what matters it If the town
of Killarney or tho Earl of Kenmare OK
act it?" A pertinent inquiry. Mark the
distinction. When the town gathers
the rent of the land, who gets it? The
town gets it and it belongs to the town,
and the town is the people. Justice pre-
walls. When the Earl takes the rent
the Earl gets it, and squanders it, and
the town ''gets left" When the Earl
sees farmer improving his soil and en-
larging his house he puts up the rent
high enough to absorb the improvement,
and can always take the product OF the
farmers industry, provided he leaves
just enough for scanty living
Under tho single tax the farmer would
not be taxed for a single improvement.
He may have an adjacent neighbor who
neglects his farm and lets it run down.
but as both have by situation land OF
equal value he will pay no more rentfor
his prosperous farm than the sloven will
nav for his neglected one. Now if those
two farms were in Massachusetts aud
the farmers were tho owners, the idler
would pay a low tax and the industrious
one q high rate. The law would thus
reward idleness and punish thrift.
In the city what happens now? Crowd
ed tenements and lofty buildings and
vacant lots. 1t is computed that New
York City is to-day only half built up
on. Per contra, in Philadelphia, where
personal property is highly taxed and
ground rents are common, there are
, more homes and moro comfortable ones
for the working people than in any city
: of the Union, and fewer tenement
+ houses in proportion. Manufacturers
= gravitate there. I saw it stated the
s other day that the manufacturing inter
l ests in the city of Philadelphia equaled
Q those of all New England. But think
how much more Philadelphia would
q prosper and labor secure its comforts il
l. treasury and not to private peck
l. cts. Prof. Ely, of Johns Hopkins
o university, at one time an assessor OF
y Baltimore, asserted that with the single
tax on land values in that city, it would
9 be the most desirable place for living IN
/; the United States. Not only would the
It land yield sufficient revenue for govern
II h,,$ n,,rt, for nfn
70 lie purposes including reduction o
= the fares on the street railroads. Per
haps no single expense of municipal o
10 town government is so great as of thu
\ streets and roads. They are in per
q petual state of repair and extension
st They have great capacity to absor
o. the money paid in taxes. None OF then
or are too good, most of them are far iron
Y. satisfactory, but they represent an i'm
meuse investment made by the people
= Notwithstanding their Importance an
~ cost private corporations have no diff
- Guilty in getting for nothing the stree
y. franchise for their railroads or gas pipe
80 or electric wires. Here is an enormou
-, value, created by the community, an
. belonging to it, practically confiscate
>. by few shrewd men who profit by th
simplicity and blindness of the citizen
ns who submit to and ratify the injustice
ny If the revenue were paid to those WI
ue have the rightful claim to it, it woul
on lift the burdens of labor instead I
swelling the pockets of the Spectator
~ The single tax would prevent sue
IN spoliation, and corporations would ps
"J for the privileges granted them.
But you are wearied by my expositit
of the wrongfulness of prevailing met
eds of taxation and impatient for co
sidcration of the remedy. once ask
Are David A. Wells this question: "Suppt
fng the country were to start afresh a.
~. individual ownership OF land not root
~ in law, would it not be better for
NV NV land to he rented by the people?" ~
90 auestionably," he answered; but t
~ trouble is to reach that desirable con-
=. ton without confiscation and great
" Justice" And this is the position
~; 10 Herbert Spencer. The principle we C
ny tend for is granted, but It's Applicant
is deprecated.
! am one of those who believe Il
no right principles are always suscepti'
aio of application, and while, popula
. vi speaking, Wells and Spencer would
ny. called safe and considerate guides
' 'as this point, and Mr.. George theol
WI and fanatic, / venture to proph
'oo that posterity will give different
=. dict.
y. No reform is possible without distr
on ing vested property and privilef
When railroads were first proposed
-. fo' stage coach interest fought them to
o"s and nail. When gas was introduced
., makers of lamps, the dealers in oil
n s' the whaling interest protested aga
ioie it as ruination to their business.
IN turn gas antagonized the electric
snes long as a fighting chance was
'he Investments made in good faith, wit
IN belief in the stability OF things,
inc often wiped out by now discoveries
De- innovations 1t is unquestionably
for the sufferers, but the many are
mes. fitted and blessed, and progress is
IL Oh law of life and civilization.
ears g. =, ,,our svmnathv for the nor
most, ,;sts ~ land who are to be
izing chief losers in the day OF the 81
ming tax, think for moment OF the mil
heors who crowd the ranks OF poverty
'n'cn want, simply for the reason that
gal opportunities to labor have been c
uper- ~ them nv the iron hands which
natural privileges, and save few