Iron County register. [volume] (Ironton, Iron County, Mo.) 1867-1965, 1890-07-17
SINGLE TAX DEPARTMENT.
SINGLE TAX THE INSTRUMENT.

Address of William Lloyd Garrison Be-
fore the Unitarian Ministerial Union at
Claiming Hall, Boston, April IS, 1890.
TcoNTINUED FROM LAST ISSUE.
The cause he saw was the ownership
and monopoly of land. The remedy he
discovered was the single tax, to the
practical examination of which I shall
now address myself. The question of
taxation is broad one. Granted the
necessity of government, and the where-
withal to sustain it must be granted
also The methods of levying tributes
in the form of taxes are innumerable,
yet human ingenuity or avarice or tyr
amy or wisdom has never yet formu-
lated plan for just and equal distri-
button of the burden of taxation. In
every civilized com munity%of the world
the question is a burning one, and a
sense of wrong underlies the popular
complaint. The reason is that tax on
property diminishes wealth and de-
creases its production, subtracts from
the earnings of labor, and. with very
few exceptions, taxes decline to stay
where they are put.
One of the objections most frequently
urged against single tax is that capital
will thereby escape taxation. But cap
ital laughs at the idea of being taxed
1t gladly pays the tax because it can be
easily shifted to the consumer. A more
unequal arrangement than obtains to-
day in the collection of revenues. direct
or indirect, would be hard to devise. I
sat beside a distinguished wooden manu-
facturer of Providence the other day
while Judge Lawrence, of Ohio, in advo-
eating the protection of the wool grow
err, intimated that the manufacturers of
Rhode Island were amply able to pay
the tariff tax on raw material. docs
the Ounce suppose that | stand the tax
of ten cents pound on my Australian
wool?" whispered my neighbour. Il add
it to the price of my cloth with interest
and profit, and sell my goods to the Chi
cago Jews. They make it into clothing
and add the tax and profit and interest
and sell their goods toJudge Lawrence's
constituents-thef farmers, wool growers
and mechanics-who bear the entire
burden. What does he take us for?''
This is merely an example. AS a rule
rich man sheds taxes as a ducks back
does water, and they fall upon the weak
est shoulders.
All wealth comes primarily from the
earth by the application of labor. A
denial of access to land prevents the
production of wealth and diminishes
the opportunity of the worker. Yet we
see land owners grow rich, in utter idle
ness, by simply taking from the land
they hold the value given to it by 9TH
ers. Long John Wentworth, of Chica-
go, understood and practiced the scheme.
His advice to young man was to buy a
farm on the outskirts of city. ''Grow
! cabbage upon it," he said, land the as
SCISSOR will tax it lightly" BY and by
the city will envelop your acres and you
can sell house lots by the front foot and
at great price," This is the secret of
the Astors' fortune. All the time land
is held for a rise in value those who
would use it to advantage are denied
the chance. The owner declines to sell
and refuses to improve it, knowing that
the growing community is increasing
the value of his possession without
causing him expense or effort. And the
present custom of assessing land favors
this kind of speculation. If two men
own adjoining city lots of equal value
ing, the tax on his lot is Immediately
raised. He is fined for adding to the
wealth of the city, and his neigh Dor is
rewarded for preventing the addition Of
wealth by holding his lot idle for specu-
lation. Under the single tax the vacant
lot would pay as high tax as the inn
proved lot and the holder would find
it to his advantage to build
upon it or allow some one
else to do So It would, therefore, make
building lots plenty, and multiply stores
and dwellings. For then buildings would
not be taxed. Personal property would
not have to hide itself away in dark
corners and tax payers would have NO
temptation to perjure themselves or
move to Nahant or Lancaster. There
would be no tax lodging. The land can
not be hidden.
"This might answer in the CITY," you
say; ''but how about the poor farmer
whose chief possession is land? You
would exterminate him." This was the
assertion of the chairman of the commit
tee on taxation this year from the town
of Barnstable, anxiously concerned for
the fate of his farmer constituents.
Look around to-day under the present
vaunted system. Is the farmers lot
desirable one2 On the contrary, of all
the great industries of the countries,
what is there which compares in depres-
sion with agriculture? The farmer is
taxed on every thing he has, for the as
SCISSOR can usually enumerate his prop
erty to sheep or a hog. For the staple
product of the farm he has to accept a
price based on the worlds value of his
surplus in London or Liverpool. 1t is to
him, of all men, that the single tax
would come as an angel of relief.
No improvements would be levied
upon; only the bare land would be taxed,
just as if no spade or pillow had ever
turned up the surface. The house and
tools and machines and stock would be
freed. The indirect tax on his lumber
and hardware, and glass, and blankets,
and carpets, and stoves, and crockery,
and clothing would vanish. Unless his
farm was more valuable for other pur-
poses, like the one on the outskirts of
the city. the relief would be immense.
Instead of refraining from improvement
and enterprise as now, for fear OF higher
taxes, the stimulus of hope would come
to the tiller of the soil. Doubtless the
single tax would diminish farms of ex-
cessive extent of which only part are
would be profitable. Unused tracts of
land now held out of reach would seek
cuItivators. As buildings would increase
in cities to the great advantage of
masons and carpenters and mechanics