The Louisiana Democrat., 1891-10-14
SINGLE TAX DEPARTMENT.
CUT THE GIVES.

:"
been called to our attention especially
with reference to its report of an at
tempt of DR.. J. NJ. Buchley, editor of
the Christian Advocate, to answer off
hand conglomerate list of questions
almost cyclopedic in their range, illus
trates the folly of this kind of per-
formance for any other purpose than
that of amusing thoughtless audience.
DIR. Buckley answered two. of the 9ues-
tions correctly He said that the first
circulating library in America was
founded by Benjamin Franklin, and
that he didn't know who was the man
with the iron mask. If the other re-
plies were trustworthy it was accident.
al for they gave but little evidence of
research, and none of thoughtfulness.
| The one regarding which it is our duty
| to speak is as strange mixture, moral
", logically and economically. as q
man of such reputation as a teacher
could he expected to concoct.
Asked whether the single tax would
| abolish poverty DIR. Buckley replied
| that it would not because it makes no
provision for the taxation of personal
property, and leaves no stimulus to the
poor man to work for shelter for him
self in life and for his wife and children
should he be called away. How the
taxation of personal property, which is
| produced by work ands only by work,
can benefit men who.live by working,
DR.. Buckley did not explain. He could
not. He simply undertook to teach re-
| garding subject to which he had given
no adequate thought. Nor did he ask
himself why, though able and willing
to work, poor men are now unable to
get homes. Being informed that the
value of a lot for which he paid $1,000,
and on which his own home stands,
would disappear under the single tax,
his mind was impervious to the thought
that if the single tax had been in vogue
when he built his home, he would not
have been obliged to pay such sum
| for piece of Gods earth on which to
build it, Neitheridid he consider that
with the future incoming of the single
| tax his children and his brothers chill
|
tortion. Had he done SO, he would
have seen that the single tax, SO far
from preventing home building, will
promote it. His thoughtlessness is the
more astonishing when considered in
the light of the words with which he
began his reply. He said
| I firmly believe that the present sys-
TEN is not in harmony with either phi.
losophy or religion. When was born
into the world every square foot of land
was held in private ownership by some
one else. / came into the world handi-
capped. The land was all held in pri-
vate ownership by some one else, and
it was, or had been. owned by uncon-
scious infants, who never lifted hand
or did stroke of work; and this same
thing goes on all the time, and from
generation to generation.
One would suppose that a moral
teacher, inspired with this idea, would
not sleep for thinking of how most
quickly to abolish SO great an injustice.
But DIR. Buckley's sleep was not dis
turbed. Offering no remedy himself,
he rejected the only one that is offered
because it would confscate land values
That is to say, if he. had the slightest
apprehension of the terms he used, be-
| cause it would prevent owners of land
from lcvying private tribute upon users
of land.
If some one owned a taxing franchise
say of 10 per cent. on the annual pro-
duction of a given community, Dr.
Buckley would object to taking away
or otherwise abolishing this franchise,
because that would destroy its value
would prevent the owner from contin-
uing or empowering another to con-
tinue the extortion. If it were a slave,
Dr. Buckley would object to freeing
him, because that would destroy his
value to the slave owner--would pre-
vent the slave owner from appropriate
ing the result of the slaves labor.
Tha5 we do not misrepreseut Dr.
Buckley, nor even exaggerate his men
t,l and moral confusion, seems clear
from his response to suggestion that
1t would be no more unjust to deprive
him OF the value of his land than to free
his slave had he invested his $1,000 in
that kind OF "prop .rty." Here it is:
sHNe do not set the slaves free under
ordinary circumstances. If it had not
been for the Southerners firing on Fort
Sumter the slaves would not have
been freed as they. were; but slavery
would have been abolished by tn ;,
people coming together and making
some kind OF an adjustment. The Re-
publican party never dared to take
ground in favor of the absolute aboli,
ton of slavery; the only ground that
they dared to take was that slavery
should not be carried into the terri
tories. If it had not been for the war
the anti-slavcry sentiment would have
developed until there would have been
some sort of compromise devised SO
that their slaves would not have been
taken away from them without some
compensation" - 9s
Let it be remem bered that DR.. Buck
ley is not considering compensation as
cheaper or otherwise more expedient
t1an aDOi1tion. Eic iS coHsiueTihS VIC
Justice OF abolition. And his own
words leave no other inference than
that, in his opinion, it is more in har-
mony with justice to continue slavery
until a compromise can be effected un-
der which masters will be compensated
for the loss of whatin justice they can
not own. than to abolish slavery re-
gardless of the interest of masters In
other words, the legally purchased
power of one man to levy tribute upon
a-1,4l,or &. mora cncrnd fbar tho n a f,,ral