Frostburg mining journal. [volume] (Frostburg, Md.) 1871-1913, 1895-08-24
CORRESPONDENTS.
Littlefield and Livcscy Lifted.
MvERAYviLLE, LII, August 10, Is

DOnu nOlUtf ana lnllIlOndlGt, NOT
land owner, entirely and forever un
taxed"
Camm.-The single tax would not
confiscate an inch of land anywhere,
| for the single tax is not Il tax upon
land, but upon the gaJUe Of land. The
word, ''confiscate," comes from the
Latin ''coA,' to join, or add to and
'..fScuS," public treasury. The single
tax would not put land IN the pubic
treasury, but it would put land values,
or rent, there, because community
creates that value and is justly en-
titled to it. We should quit issuing
bonds and making millionaIres.
L.-"Mr. Livesey recognizes the
individuals right to land, and to
the rights of property also"
C.-So do all single takers recognize
the individuals right to the POSSESSION
of land, and Il right of property III all
the possessor produces but as rent, no
individual has IL right to il. The
landlord never produced an inch OF
land, nor. as an individual, IL cents
worth Of its value, yet Mr. Llvesey
holds that he has Il right to take half
or more than half the tenant produces.
This is Il denial of the only ground
upon which the rights of property are
based.
L.--"lf the State or county, or city,
or a railroad needs land'-
o. The State exercises the right of
eminent domain, the highest right, the
right OF good public policy. 1t can
exercise the same right in case of taxa
ton, and does do every year /; for it
sells at auction all lands upon which
taxes, now assessed, are not paid, and
it could do no more under the single
than it now does under the double tax.
SO this 50 called farm reform calls
for an exercise Of the same right as
the single tax does.
Now let me answer Mr.. Livespy. |
must still believe he is IL genuine
single taXer who wants to demonstrate
how weak and superficial all the argu-
ments against the single tax are.
L.-''So tar DIS the south Is concerned,
all that anybody has to do is to get the
news III Il nutshell by reading the
'S0uthe17s .St0teS magazine Of Baltimore."
C.-No, he must do more than that
he must know what land is and then
go down south and see some OF this
brag land that spectators are ad-
vertlSlng. | have been there |
would NOT advise my friends to lump
out of the trying pan INTO the tiren
Could give lots of practical and per-
sonal experience on this head but will
not take the space now.
L.-"We know that Old slave owners
who felt that way fell that slavery
was sinfuD freed their slaves"
C.-And hence the single taXer who
feels that land holding is sinful should
give up his land? Bosh The single
taXer under present conditions is Just
flied i'll holding on to his land in self
defense. The slave owner had his own
labor to fall back on when he let his
slave go; but the single taxer who
gave the land from under his feet
would have nothing to fall back on,
nothing to apply his labor on until he
bought back the right to work which
he had foollshly given away. But no
single taXer has asked anybody to give
up his land. Every single taXer holds
that land should be privately held.
but should not be used contrary to
good public policy; that is, for gain
without labor. And we claim that it
is the duty of the State to exercise the
right Of eminent domain to prevent
the misuse of land by spectators and
landlords. If the single tax will take
the single takers land tooe Did you
ever hear Of single taXer who was
not willing to take his own medicine
We are not fools, Mr.. l..
L.-"Christian reformers have been
fools for Chlist's sake
C.-1es they started out as Ebionites
OF poor people, and went straight
into raw communism, where ''to every
man was given according to his needs,'
not according to his deeds. If facing
gibes and contume!y is meritorious we
may claim some credit as self Sacri-
ticers, for spectators and landlords
give US plenty of both.
H." Where does the State now get
its money from to support panpers and
the poor Of the cities ?"
C.-From the double tax by fining
industry and letting the unearned in
crement, two billions II year in the
| United States, go into landlords
| pockets. Mr.. L.. now proposes to
raise values by having the State find
the money to buy land for poor people
with, and SO put enormous sums into
the pockets Of spectators. That's too
| thin. Even if You could give every
poor man ''forty acres and a cow" it
| would, under our present system of
| taxation, soon be bad case of land
lord on top again. During the last
decade population increased enormous
! ly, but the rural population decreased
WAS driven by landlordism into
towns and cllies-lnto the street. No
thing short of the abolition of land
lordlsm will bring the people back to
the land and allow them to stay there
| You don't want to hurt landlordism
but to help 1t by putting lot of little
landlords in between danger and the
big ones, as William Caird advised
the British nobility to do. Your
scheme is too thin, Mr.. L., it's too thin.
L.-"Pingree's plan is putting
! people in favor Of owning homes Of
| their own in the country"
Good, so far; but Pingree has
one other object in view. AS soon as
there is steady demand for vacant
lots created the owners will begin to
/ charge rent for their use. | hear they
are "onto' thai racket in St. Louis
/ now-and then the people will favor
Pingree's plan Of tax reform and not
yCur scheme of farm reform. Yes, the
| potato-patch plan Is giving temporary