The midland journal. (Rising Sun, Md.) 1885-1947, 1894-08-10
Land and Money.

titled Commerce in Money and Com
merce in Land" the general argument
seems to be that the charge for the use
of money and land is an evil, and
only an evil, and you propose to take il
away by the taxing power. This position
seems to me most untenable. 1t is self
evident that there will be neither indus
try nor frugality unless the reward oil
industry and frugality is secure. If all
lands were to be held in common there
would be continual struggle for the use
of the best land, and this very struggle
would lessen the security of its fruits,
since those who had striven for its use
and failed would imagine that they
possessed some ownership in its products.
Common land must sooner or later lead
to anarchism, and anarchism leads to
humiliation.
Capital is only labor stored up. Two
men labor for equal wages, but one man
saves his wages and the other spends his.
| Certainly no one could think that, in the
course of years, the spender would have
any right to the use of the savings of the
other without compensation. 1t would be
equally just for the saver to demand ser
vice from the other without compensation.
Labor is not the sole producer. Even
land cannot be made to produce without
capital spade is necessary. 1t must
follow then that both forms of labor must
be rewarded, otherwise production must
cease, and society be externinated, for
who would deny himself to store up the
products of his labor if he were not to
enjoy its benefits?
Both interest and rent would therefore
seem to be just and necessary for the
existence of society.
JNo. G. CONNER.
Aug. Ist, 1894
I'VE are glad to receive this criticism
from so intelligent source as Professor
Conner. When such as he fails to conf
prehend the great question of land and
money in relation to society and the bear
ing they have on our civilization, how
shall we hope to enlighten the mass of
people?
The charge for the use of land and
money may or may not be an evil. 1t all
dependsupon the relation existing between
the charger and the charged. Ifone man
should hold all the land and all the
money his charge for either or both
might be great injury to society, which
society composed the rest of the conf
munity. This is almost exactly the con-
dition society is in today only in place
of a single individual a comparatively
small class control or own the larger part
or the land and all of the money. We
don't assume that class owns the greater
area of the land, but that portion which
is far the more valuable. They rent this
land to the users for all the users can be
compelled to pay. This is what is meant
by commerce in land, not the mere ex-
changing or buying of land by its users
Now suppose the users of land, who are
in the great majority, pass laws which
shall exempt all personal property from
taxation, viz, houses, stock, money and
all manner of personal property, and lay
the tax on the rental or yearly value of
land would that deprive any user or nom
user of land of its ownership? Certainly
not. The farmer would own his farm
under the the same fee simple title that
he now holds it. He holds land at present
only so long as he pays the taxes levied
on it. When he refuses to pay the State
offers it at public sale and gives title to
the man who pays the tax, and Gusts the
delinquent. Tax under our present ar
rangement is spread over all personal
property, which mainly belongs to the
users..of land, and the land escapes the
larger part of taxation This enables
Sbecnlators in land to buy up the most
valuable lands and hold them unimproved
till society collects in dense masses in the
vicinity of such lands, and then the conf
petition for the use of such lands begins
and goes on till one acre in the city of
New York is said to be worth $I4, 900, 900.
In every city the land commands fabulous
prices and is held by comparatively few
people, who exact rent-millions for
rent, from the industrial classes. These
land lords do not earn anything They
sit still and enjoy seeing other people toll
to make the rent out of the community,
which is handed over to an idle class.
And now we have reached the turn in
the road where Professor Conner got lost.
Suppose government abolishes the tax on
personal property and collects this rent to
defray public expenses. Would that de-
stroy the title to land The Astors might
hold the titles to their immense real
estate, but they wouldn't pocket the
rents. They do not earn this rent. They
could continue to live in their palatial
houses and enjoy their gorgeous furniture,
have their liveried servants and stylish
turnouts, and not pay one cent of tax
except the ground rent for the lot on
which their mansions and stables stand.
Would that deprive any land owner of
his title to the land ?? Certainly not. He
would be protected in his ownership as
long as he paid the tax, and that tax
would be the rental value of the land.
These are the conditions on which every
person holds land as owner at present.
This would cut off the profits of the idle
land owner and stop the monopoly of
land and squeezing the industrial classes
to pay rent, while they pay most of the
taxes by assessment on their personal
property.
This is the evil commerce in land we
alluded TO The commerce which iS horn