The Louisiana Democrat., 1891-11-11
SINGLE TAX DEPARTMENT.
THE NEW ABOLITION.

SlNUllE lAA UEE ALL MLN1 La
THE NEW ABOLITION.
From Speech Delivered by william
Lloyd Garrison Before the Chicago (Ill.)
Single Tax Club, September 3, 1891.
CONTINUED FROM LAST ISSUE.
We are the new abolitionists because
our object is be attained purely by the
abolition Of vicious taxes, taking off
one by one, until land values alone sup
ply government with revenue. While
working for the ideal society where
justice shall make charity obsolete, we
strike directly at the obstacles which
lie nearest our land. We do not ques-
ton the result
"Ws may not live to see the day,
Rut earth shall glisteA in the ray
Ofthe good time coming"
have time only to suggest few Of
the points wherein single tax puzzled
me, hoping that the reasons which dis
sipated my objections may remove sim
liar ones from some hearers mind.
had no hesitation in accepting the
basic proposition of our creed, that man
has q, right to the use OF the earth
SO long as all wealth is drawn
from that source by the application of
labor, and to deny human being ac-
cess to this great storehouse of nature
is, of course, wrong. The simple state.
ment carries with it conviction, and for
the bounty of the Creator to be con-
trolled or monopolized by individuals
for aggrandizement, at the expense of
their fellow creatures is manifestly
unjust and indefensible. and needs no
demonstration.
That this is our strong fortress is mani
fest by the disinclination of our oppo-
nents to debate it. never yet met one
who tried to controvert our principle.
1t is about details and methods and re-
suits that the controversy always RACES.
The failure of all attempts to reach
personal property is widely recognized,
the rich escaping and the poor and con-
scientious making up the deficit The
and is premium on deception. So
students Of long experience, like David
| A. Wells and Edward Atkinson, con-
tend that real estate should bear the
burden, because it lies open to the, sun
and can not be hidden, and the tax will
distribute itself most fairly. Strange
that these men, with whom we are so
nearly in agreement should range
themselves among our opponents.
Now the single tax would lift every
burden from the product of labor, not
taxing the houses and improvements
put upon the land, as the economists l
have mentioned propose to do. We arc
defenders of property and insist upon
the sacredness of mems just earnings
and their inalienable right to exchange
their products or services to the best
advantage.
Our difference arises in our definition
of property, under which head we
deny that land properly comes It is
the element from which property, Is
evolved by labor, but in equity is nc
more property than the air or the sun
shine. It'has been treated as such, be-
cause, unlike air and sunshine, it is
possible to monopolize it, but the gen.
sis of every title deed rests on 'force,
fraud or cunning"-to borrow Mr..
Spencer's words. We do not deny that
the law considers land property, but
thirty years ago it also recognized the
ownership Of human flesh. We say
with regard to land, as the righteous
Vermont judge said to the STAKEHOLDER
claiming his fugitive: "Show me bill
Of sale from the Almighty and 1 will
deliver him to you"
was puzzled at first about land
bearing the sole burden Of taxation, be
cause thought the farmer would suffe,
most But when learned that land
values only were to be taxed, not land,
saw that farmers would pay less In
stead or more, because the value o!
farms, irrespective OF all improvements
would be Small, while under the pres
ent system the more Industrious and
self-denying farmer is, the more the
tax gatherer takes from him. Two
farms, side by side, having the same
site value, are taxed to-day in proper
ton to their working, and the thrifty
farmer is made to pay heavily because
of his industry. and his shiftless neigh
Dor is let off with small contribution
Thrift is punished and neglect is re
warded. The single tax would leave
to labor its entire earnings. The rea
land values are to be found in cities
What enormous farms the little lot nn
der this building would buy!
The hardest thing for me to under
stand was the fact that land taxes cal
not be shifted by the landlord, and to
day neither Mr.. Wells nor Mr. Atkin
son can see it, thereby differing will
the recognized authorities on politica
economy.
thought if 1 leased a lot of land,
could make my tenant pay the tax bacl
to me in added rent, 1t seems as If
might do SO. But it takes two to max
bargain, and 1t is not what ask tha
I l get, but as near that as my custome
will give. / get all that can, and h,
gives the least that he can and the rem
is fixed at the line where neither will
advance or recede. The taxes / mus
pay. because he has given me all h,
will. and il should insist that they g
with the rent, he would seek other lots
! noted also that the city lots mos
heavily taxed contained stores wher
the lowest priced goods are sold. Thi
convinced me that the landlord wa
not recovering his taxes from the pull
lie, but that the advantage of situation