The representative. [volume] (St. Paul, Minn.) 1893-1901, 1893-07-05
Land Monopoly or Money Monop.
Oly-Which?
EDITOR REPRESENTATIVE:

Oly-Which?
REPRESENTATIVE:
In your reply to Mr.. A. e. Broom
hall in a recent issue it seems to me
that you hardly prove your case: that
the money question effects wages IN
of the effect produced by
our land system. Your hypothesis:
Suppose one half of the money in a
community were owned by one man,
goes on to. show that the results of
this condition would be the cheaper
ing of wares and the consequent
cheapening of wages. But you fail
to say hO,D one half of the money in a
community could be acquired by one
man, and / venture to ask if such
condition be possible except that mand
had a grip on the land of said COM
munity? II he owns no city lots nor
farms nor mortgages, no mines nor
railroads nor stocks in the same. nor
franchises based on land, how could
he become possessed of half the money
of a community? Unless you can
prove that he acquired such proper
tiOn of the whole circulation guiltlesS
of rents, interest on mortgage or di-
vidends, your proposition and your
law of wages are far from being Gin
dependent" of the evils connected
with the traffic in land; so far, indeed
that one can scarce resist the cOnclu-
sion that wages are based both di-
rectly and indirectly upon the deeper
if not the more obvious wrong.
Your hypothesis was quite outdone
in a recent issue of the Knights of
Labor Journal in an article by one
John Davis, M. c., beginning:
A single taXer said to greenback-
er, eff I owned all the land in the
world and you owned all the money,
and should give you notice to quit
what would you dO?" A long dia-
logue follows, which tries to prove
that currency is the all-impOrtant
factor in production and commerce.
OF course, the Single Taxer,' (whO is
no single taxerat all but very stupid
land cranky gets the worst of the
argument and admits that he was
wrong to suppose land was as neces-
Sary to man as money.
Now the whole fallacy in such argu-
ments lies in the suggestions them
selves. No single taXer would for a
moment have entertained such prop
OsitiOn. On the face of it lies it's
abSurdity. For if one man owned
all the world how could any other
man but he own all the money? The
further supposition that the owner
of the land in the world would sub
NIT to paying land taxes and would
have to borrow of Mr.. Greenbacker,
would be more suitable to the innO-
cent minds of two little boys playing
''make believe" than to the grave
and august author of it.
Currency frauds, indeed, exist, and
there is no doubt that the new party
could only have been organized on
this more obvious issue, one which
had already been we'll agitated: but
is it not time now to dig down little
further and expose the real cause of
our greatest oppression, the evil that
shackles us, hand and foot, that the
usurer and the taskmaster may fay
us?
Another time, with the editors
permission, would like to present a
few elementary facts relative to this
chief evil, when trust it will be seen
quite as easy of comprehension as
that so much more talked Of in the
the last campaign, and much more
fatal to our liberties.
Iona /. ROBINSON.
We shall be very glad, indeed, to
hear from Mrs. Robinson on the little
understood single-tax theory. On be-
half of the readers of the Represent
TAT1vE we offer to her room in our
"fOrum."
We have no controversy with the
advocates of the single tax theory.
In our reply to Mr.. Broomhall we Of
fered no objection to his theory, but
invited his consideration of another
force that, like land monopoly, ap-
peared to affect wages, and to be a
power separate and apart from own
ership of the soil.
Our correspondent explicitly ad-
mits the power over wages of those
who control the circulating medium.
The point in controversy seems to be
us money monopoly possible except
as result of land monopoly"
We believe that it is. We contend
that money is taken from the pockets
of one class of the community land
that the largest or producing class
by legislation and added to the ac-
cumulations of wealth.
$1,000 people own one-half the en-
tire wealth of the nation.
Let us take a few shining examples
of these and see if land monopoly has
much to do with the gaining of their
wealth.
Jay Gould inherited no fortune.
He accumulated his vast wealth by
his individual efforts. He began with
a mouse-trap and left an estate that
inventoried $72,OOO,OOO. Was it the
fruit or land monopoly? Surely not.
His share in the profits of Pacific
railroad deal were 10000, 900, accord
ing to the records of the U. S. Senate.
Was this transfer of the peoples
wealth into his possession based on
land monopoly? No, it was based on
corrupt legislation, pure and SIM
pie. iii
Leland Stamford died the other
dow M 1oor,oc n ~ oc< ~-or%l,