The herald., 1894-12-18
SOCIAL|SM,S|NG[E TAX, INTEREST
The Three Subjects Discussed
Last Night.
The business of Interest Defended
by Single Takers.
Ownership OF Land IL Wrong, but own
ership and Rent of Money IL
Right, According to Clar-
ence MilIers

proceedings were of very interesting
character. Chairman Hoyt announced
that on the night of December 31st the
club would give its fret public enter
tainment, for which preparations were
being made, particulars to be an
nounced in due time. The principal
feature OF the meeting was the address
of Clarence A. Miller on the question.
Is Interest Just? The speaker held the
close attention OF the audience by his
exposition OF the subject from single
tax standpoint, and was heartily ap.
plauded. After his address there was a
very animated discussion, participated
in by numerous speakers, single takers
and others, on the subject matter OF
Mr.. Miller's speech, and also on the
question of idle land and idle men in
this city.
Following is a uyno psia of Mr.. Mil.
ler's address:
The corner stone OF Socialism or Ma
tionalism ia the doctrine that the taking
of interest for the use OF capital is wrong
and should be abolished. Manifestly 90
long as capital is owned by one indivld-
ual and needed by smother it will be
loaned and interest will be sgreed upon,
charged ana paid. There is, therefore.
no way to abolish interest unless the
state assumes the ownership OF oil capi-
tai, as proposed by the Socialist or Ma
t;onslst.
The Socialist orator in attacking the
right to take interest, is certain to call
attention 10 the millionaire who loans
out his money, lives on its interest, and
commands every luxury without doing a
stroke OF work. Edward Bellamy, the
chief priest of Nationalism, with rare
power uses this style of argument in his
first chapter of Looking Backward. 1t
10 assumed that the laborer who pros
duces and pays over this income to the
millionaire who does none OF the work,
is robbed. Why? The Socialist
answers: Because the laborer is enti-
tied to all that his labor produces.
To this last proposition we who are
called single tax men and who uphold
the justice OF taking interest agree. l
repeat it and amplify it. He who la.
bors with hand or brain, as q newer OF
wood, a drawer OF water, or captain Of
industry, is entitled absolutely and uns
conditionally to the entire product of
his labor. Nor even does any OF it be-
long to the state-it should be abso.
lutely free OF taxation.
In this proposition is summed up all
the rights of labor, and no more. And
the laborer's ownership OF the products
OF his labor involves:
First-Freedom to use ii. Therefore.
al tavi al Ia nnnnuad IN
the rights OF labor.
Second-Freedom to sell and exchange
it. Therefore. all tariffs are opposed to
the rights OF labor.
Third-Freedom from all claim of
state, for taxes. Therefore, taxation OF
personal property is opposed to the
rights OF labor.
Fourth-Freedom to loan it on such
terms as the parties may freely agree.
laws abolishing interest and Social
ism-are alike opposed to the rights OF
labor.
But. / hear come one say. are you not
also inconsistent? How can the laborer
get the entire product of his labor If he
has to pay interest to the capitalist?
l answer that the laborer is entitled
only to the product OF his labor. Sup-
pose two laborers 60 into partnership in
the making of boat. One dresses and
shapes the lumber. and the other puts
it together and completes the boat. Can
the latter claim the entire boat because
he made it, and because the other only
made the lum beI? He must divide the
ownership with the other, or, what is
more probable, and amounts to the SAM Q
thing. pay the other for. his assistance.
If we have learned from this that what
ever assists labor should be recon-
pensed, we are ready for another case.
Suppose boat builder commences a
boat and islapproached by tool maker,
who offers the loan OF some improved
tools that he has made. The offer is
accepted and the boat is built with
half the labor it would have cost if
made with simpler and ruder tools.
The tools are returned to the owner.
The tool maker has assisted tho boat
builder ia truly &c the lumber dresser
did in the other case. 1t il right that
the boat builder should either allow
the tool maker an interest in the boat
or pay him for that assistance. The
Socialist apparently thinks that the
tool maker is sufficiently paid if he gets
his tools back in as good condition as
when he loaned them-for it was q
loan, and recompense for loan means
interest.
But you say the tool maker did not
work on the bost-the boat maker
made the entire boat and should have
it all. answer, the boat maker did
not make the entire boat. If he had
worked without the improved tools he
would only have made half boat in
thst time. When the tool maker was
making those improved tools he was, in
reality, helping to build boats. II he is
continually to loan those tools without
recompenee, when will he ever get the
reward of his labor in making them?
Capital is things made, not for their
own sake. but for the sake of making
other things, or being made into other
things or exchanged for other things.
Capital is therefore an intermediate or
unfinished product of labor. Where
such capital ia owned and loaned by the
man whose labor made it, it is easy to
see that the interest which he gets is
really part OF his wages.
At the close OF our last meeting q
gentleman approached me and while
admitting the right to take rent or hire
for the use OF things. denied the righ
to take interest for the use OF money.
1t is an ancient objection, that because
money is barren and cannot breed, in
terest should not be paid for it. 1t oc-
ours in The Merchant of Venice.
Antonio-Was this inserted to make
interest good? Or is your gold and sill
m ~. RI