Los Angeles herald., 1891-07-06
LETTER BAG.

A Criticism OF DR.. Thomson's Grafton.
EDITORS HERALD: The Sunday HER
AIDS report OF the Rev. j. S. Thomson's
Fourth of July oration, in the academy
of music, makes the reverend gentleman
say that "every nation has enemies and
friends within its own borders," and he
goes on to enumerate some OF the enc
mics or evils OF our country, and he
includes among them ''fraternalism and
the idea that the state should do every
thing" adding that "the American
people do not need governmental
nurse" He also classed as an evil our
present system of taxation, and "enu-
merated the good points of the single
tax or tax on land only" He said that
a tax ON land could not be evaded, and
did not require an army of detectives to
see what man was really worth. Pub
lie opinion, he said, is rapidly setting in
favor of the single tax, and public
opinion is king"
AS probably very few OF his auditors
understand what is meant by the term
''single-tax, will state that it means
the confscation by the government of
the total rental value of land, irrespec-
tive of improvements. The confscation
OF rent is, of course, equivalent to the
.confiscation of the land. Its advocates
admit this and defend it. Therefore,
the single-tax is in effect scheme to
confiscate the land from the present
owners without compensation. Let me
illustrate: The lot on Spring and Second
streets occupied by the handsome Bry-
son-Bonebrake block was purchased by
the owners from the municipality for
100000; the building we will assume
cost like amount; total value, 5000, 900.
We will further assume that the net
returns as rent, after paying insurance,
repairs, and other necessary expenses,
is $4,000 per annum, or s per cent on
the outlay of 5000, 1000; now half that
amount would be the rent derived from
the land, therefore the annual rent or
single tax payable to the government
would be $4,000. 1t will therefore be
clear that the land would have no sell
ing value, for no matter what increase
in the rental value might be it would be
confiscated by the government, and
while the nominal ownership would be
vested in the present owners, it would
remain so only so long as they paid the
annual rental or single tax; therefore it
will be readily apparent that the land
would have no selling value and would
be really the property of the govern
ment.
lam one of those who believe in ezra
ternalism and the idea that the state
should do everything" or at least that
it might do many things that it
does not do. but l confess
confscating the land from the present
owners without adequate compensation,
is something the state has no ethical
right to do. Indeed confscation has no
place in our programme. Seeing that the
effect of our present industrial system is
to concentrate in the hands of the few
who control natural resources and the
tools of production, while the real pro-
ducers are compelled to accept in return
for their product only sufficient for a
bare subsistence, we advocate col
lective control of those forces, in the
interest of the whole community, but
we expect to carry out our programme
upon equitable terms. However, while l
cannot subscribe to the doctors very radi-
cal ideas, both on ethical and economic
grounds, am glad to see one clergyman
with decided economic views and with
Ithe courage to express them.
u w. H. STUART,
Los Angeles, July 5.