The representative. [volume] (St. Paul, Minn.) 1893-1901, 1895-03-20
Duluth, MINI
SINGLE TAX AGAIN.

Mr.. Buell. Comes Back In It's Defense.
eve announced some time since that we
had ended the debate on the single tax
question, SO far as we are concerned we
do not propose to reopen it. But as We
published last week very able letter from
Tulare, Cal, against the theory, We think
it no more than fair to let Mr.. Buell. have
a hearing in favor of it, for, apart from
his single-tax delusion, Mr.. Buell. is very
sensible, capable gentleman.-Ed. Rep)
To the Editor
In your issue of Feb. 6 Mr.. Donnelly lays
down as axioms some statements which l
think very many people will not accept as
such at all. With your permission, 1 will
briefly analyze Mr.. DIS "axioms." He
says:
l. There is no reason why all forms of
property should not pay an equal share
toward the support of the government"
Here Mr.. Donnelly assumes as axiom
the very point of fundamental difference
between his opponents and himself. First,
1 desire to call his attention to the fact
that property does not pay taxes at all.
Only men and women can pay taxes. In
the light of this fact, let us translate Mr..
DIS first axiom "There is no reason why
men and women should not be compelled to
pay taxes in proportion to the value of all
This we deny, and for the following rea-
sons: Mr. d. and 1 are both owners of va
cant lots. We have never used them, never
in any way added one cent of value to
them. Whatever value they possess is due
solely to the fact that many people need
them and would like to have them to use.
In other words, the presence and necessi-
ties of the whole people have caused our
lots to have a value The people, the
whole people, the public, the community.
having caused that value to exist, l con-
TESS can't see any reason why the people
shouldn't have it, and I can't see any rea-
son why we should have it. 1 believe that
whoever produces a thing owns it, The
people produced the value of those lots;
therefore the people own that value They
have right to take it for public use. We,
Mr.. d. and I, did not produce it; therefore
we have no right to it.
Now let us look at the other kind of
property" Mr.. Donnelly goes upon one of
his lots and builds house That house is
his creation, the product of his labor.
Therefore the house is his. The public had
nothing to do with the house; therefore the
public has no right or title in it. Mr..
DOnnelly owns the house and he owns the
title to the lot. that is he owns the first
right to possess and the lot. The pub
lie owns the value of the bare lot, because
the public created that value. 1 hope l
have made the distinction clear. Gcd made
Mr.. Donnelly some one else to use. The
public made the value of the bare lot, and
that value is the publics, not Donnelly's.
Mr.. Donnelly made the value of the house,
therefore the value of the house is Don
nelly's, not the public's.
The public may take it's own, and let
Donnelly keep his own.
Mr. Donnellys second reason falls with
the fall of the first. We never proposed to
abolish certain taxes solely because they
were difficult of collection but because
they are unjust.
Third-'"TO put all the taxes on land
means to put them on the occupants of
land: and as the homes of the people must
be upon the land it is to put on the homes
of the people all the burdens of govern
ment.
A most fearful and wonderful conclusion.
AS rail fences must be on land of course
it would put "all the burdens of govern
ment' on rail fences Better think that out
little more carefully Mr.. Donnelly. Then
again nobody proposes ito put all taxes on
land" We propose to put all taxes on the
rental value of land, but that is a very
different thing. Very much of the farm
land has little or no rental value aside
from the improvements. The owners of
such land would pay little or no taxes.
Mr. Donnelly's vacant lots in ST Paul have
considerable value. Therefore he would pay
considerable taxes on them, and would
them than he is now. 1 know 1 would as
to my vacant lots.
Mr. Donnelly's fourth axiom declares that
the single tax would destroy all private
property. No, Mr. Donnelly, you are mis-.
taken again. ITO is human" We
would in no way interfere with your abso-
lutte ownership of the house you had built
or of any good thing you might put inside
of it. They would be yours absolutely.
We wouldn't even tax them. So you see
that as to houses, furniture, etc, guard
your private property" more sacredly than
it is guarded under the present system
where the state county and city each con-
fiscate a part of it's value every year in
taxes. 1t would destroy private ownership
in values created by the public, and it
would destroy public confscation of values
created by you and me. 1 think that is
fair, don't you? 'Let every tub stand on
it's own bottom
1 will not reply to Mr.. Donnelly's fifth
''aXiom." But ask the reader to peruse it
again and see if he really thinks that God
made Henry's shirt and put it on his back.
o, philosopher, straighten out thy reason
ing.