The Colfax chronicle. [volume] (Colfax, Grant Parish, La.) 1877-1981, 1892-07-02
SINGLE TAX DEPARTMENT
Mr.. Horr Falls Upon the Single Tax

| sale by man who has studied it. He
IL Roswell q. Horr, once q member of
Congress. Nor has Mr. Horr studied
the single tax in Q merely casual way:
1t is subject to which he has given
'long aud patient study" No one
| would suspect this after reading his
criticism, which appears in the Tri-
bune, but he says it is so.
BY way of introduction, Mr.. Horr in
forms his READERS that ''the single tax
theory was proposed and advocated in
Europe nearly one hundred years ago."
and that after examination, the finan.
cicrs of Europe discarded it as vision
sry. lie should be more explicit with
his facts when hurting what he regards
as weighty arguments. Having given
the subject long and patient study he
must be able to name the place more
definitely than "in Europe" and tho
time moro exactly than nearly one
hundred years ago" Who proposed,
| who advocated, who examined, who
| condemned, and when and -Where was
all this done? Surely, Mr.. Horr does
not allude to the Physiocrats of France.
This impot unique bore less resem-
| blance to the single tax than peach
pit bears to a peach tree. Besides, as
they fiourishcd more than hundred
years ago, the statement that the the
DRY was proposed nearly hundred
years ago." coming as 1t does from a
mn, who has given long and patient
study to the subject, can not alone be
\ l. e.. D.
| them. Yet we are ut q loss to guess
his meaning if it is not to the Physi.
Gratis that he alludes. It is Of little mo-
ment, however, for few people will at
tach as much Importance as Mr.. Horn
does to the conclusions OF European
| financiers who lourished nearly q
hundred years ago"
Passing from history to political
economy, our CRITIC makes an exhibi-
ton of the kind of long and patient
Istndy that he has given to the subject,
by repeatedly using the terms ''land'
and real estate" as interchangeable
Lawyers, when dealing with legal
problems, may do this, for legal prin.
ciples distinguish property not accord.
| ing to its economic character, but as
movable or immovable,- But students
of political economy may not do 1t
without confusion; economic analysis
logically resolves real estate into two
classes of things-land and improve.
fnents.
Though his readers, especially those
who rely upon his assurance that he
has given long and patient study to the
subject, are LIABLE to be misled by con-
fusion of these terms, Mr.. Horr himself
does not appear to have been He really
seems to understand that the single tax
is intended to fall upon the value of
land alone, irrespective of improve
ments. But he does not comprehend
the subject despite his long and patient
study. If he did he could not suppose
that the single tax would confscate
improvements. On this point he OBJ
jects that taxing the value of land ire
spective of improvements would 'of
necessity carry with it the right to use
and occupy the improvements, because
'syou can not separate brick block from
the land on which it stands without the
entire destruction of the block itself"
In the course of his long and patient
study, Mr.. Horr evidently neglected to
confer with anyone conversant with
real estate transactions. Nor does his
study seem to have involved any very
careful thought. Judged by the re-
suit as exhibited In his criticism, 1t
was more in the nature of "cram" for
examination than of serious inquiry.
OF course, no one supposes that we can
separate lot of land from the build
ing it supports without destroying or at
least removing the building; but neither
does anyone, with the possible excep-
ton of Mr.. Horr, imagine that the sim
gle tax proposes a physical separation
of buildings from blocks. What
it proposes is separation of the
value of one from the value
of the other. That this can be done
with substantial equity. almost any
school boy knows; and that it Is con-
stantly done, any man familiar with
real estate transactions could have told
Mr. Horr before he exposed the deplor-
able effect upon his mind of long and
patient study.
1t should be said that when Mr. Horr
speaks of the separation of farm land
from farm improvements, such as ditch
ing and fencing. he does disclose
glimmering notion that a separation of
values and not physical separation is
proposed, for he remarks that the 'two
values are SO interlaced with each 9TH
err that no human ingenuity can sepa-
rate the one without subordinating the
rights of the other" But is it possible
that Mr. Horr, after long and patient
study of the subject. really believes
this?
Let us put the question to any fairly
intelligent farmer; whose farm lies in q
well settled farming community: IF
fire were to sweep over your farm,
burning vour huildinns uo,ar crops and