The herald., 1894-10-16
SINGLE TAX DOCTRINE
EXP0UNDED BY OLIVER P. SMITH,
OF OAKLAND.
Messrs. Miller, Creighton, Levi and
President Hoyt Make Rsspon-
sss to Inquirers and
Opponents.


at Unity church last night and the
meeting was protracted until late
hour in animated discussion of the single
tax philosophy.
The chief speaker of the evening was
Mr.. Oliver P. Smith of Oakland, who
in ptiloaophic vein to which it would
be difficult to do Justice in epitome. He
reviewed the history of land tenures
from the time the conqueror created the
British empire to the present day and
showed how they eventuated in dom.
mating and dominated class, virtually
that of master and slave.
In England, some centuries ago, he
said, the land virtually belonged to all
the people, and our present private land
ownership both in England and here,
is comparatively a young institution.
When our government was formed the
main evil OF the English land tenure
system crept in and although we have
escaped primogeniture and entails, wo
have the evil OF the non-producer draw
ing rents from industry without giving
any returns. During that terrible era
known to history as the military age,
the custom OF property in man was
more firmly rooted into the institutions
of the world than private property in
land ever was, yet slavery has been
abolished. Why look upon land own
ership ss custom impossible to abol-
ishP Today human need has nothing
to do with the problem of employment.
That is all Rxed by trusts and combina-
tions. Women and children starving
among US, but we have no time for such
small things as that; civilization today
has greater things TO attend to, such as
scheming to increase the returns on
watered stocks or to raise the rents of
poor unemployed labor. Many of you
here who are gray headed will remem-
Der the arguments and wrangling about
the institution of slavery. Where is
slavery today? Where will planet own.
ing be in the future?
The census OF 1891 Of Great Britain
says 1873 men own three-fourths of Scot
land. In this country, according to
than one-half OF the wealth OF this
country. Truth will stand and the
government of God will be vindicated
on earth in the end.
Mr.. Miller here responded to some OF
the points made at a previous meeting
by Judge Widney, in his speech on pro.
tective tariff.
Among the questions from the audi
ence read and answered were the fol-
lowing:
"What is the difference in principle
between subjecting property in land to
taxation and imposing it upon the prod
ucts of labor?"
Mr.. s. Creighton answered the quea-
ton briefly:
The difference in principle is radical
and fundamental. To take liberty
with legal pnraseology. it is the differ
ence between bonum prohibitum and
malum in SO. To take for public uses
the unearned increment OF land-the
values created by the community and in
no respect the creation of landlords-is
juet and equitable system of taxation
now prohibited. Whereas to impose
taxes upon the products oflabor, mans
own handiwork, is an evil in itself,
discourager Of Improvements. and entails
double tax, for in SO doing you not
only fine the producer by taking from
him the work of his hands, but you per-
nit by law the appropriation by land
lords of values that the aforesaid pro-
ducer has contributed by virtue simply
of his residence in a community-the
enhancement given to realty for business
sites, farming, etc., the measure of
which is the amount consumed by one
individual, his Improvements. and his
moral. social, intellectual and physical
worth ae a citizen. This incidental
communal service the individual may
properly be called upon to surrender as
per capita tax to defray the expenses
OF the administration of government. Ii
more or other taxation be levied it
should only be imposed as q dernier
resort, the communal source of revenue
provin inadequate.
Another question was: Has not the
right to own homes existed and could
not the power which abolisbes homes
also abolish all other kinds of property
S. Byron Wilson responded: Those
two questions l would answer yes, and
would ask another question, Why was
that question asked the Single Tax
club? Because come people think single
tax would abolish homes by taxation.
But let me inform such people that sim
gle tax would not tax homes, but untax
them. We would not tax the owner of
fine home any more than we would tax
the speculator who owns the next lot
without house on it. How then would
home owners suffer by the single tax?
A number of other questions we're
asked until 10 o'clock. when the meetinL
adjourned for q week.