The San Francisco call. [volume] (San Francisco [Calif.]) 1895-1913, 1895-06-10

! miserable by pTlvat1On, lie that may be
truly said to be not worth the living. A
! struggle under such obstacles brings a
| thousand deaths in the space of less than
an ordinary lifetime.
with these conditions manifestly open
to the mind of all men who can think at
all, [ defy any man living to show where
| there is the slightest evidence of the inten-
ton of the Creator of this earth that any
man should have better right to it than
any other man, or that one set of men who
| own it should live without labor by hiring
out to others OF their fellow men the privi-
| lege of producing living from it. No such
a decree of the Creator of this earth can be
found anywhere, either by direct express
sion or by implication.
What, then, should be the first function,
the highest and most sacred duty of any
organization of men established for the
purpose of promoting civilization and
human happiness? What should be its
first function? Its first function ought to
be TO secure to every man within its COM
munity his fair and equal right to the
natural resources of the country. 1t
should be the first and highest function of
government to see TO it that every citizen
of the country shall have access to the
natural resources by which it was the de-
sign of the Creator that every one of them
should support his life.
But what have we now? A system of
land tenure which is designed to cut off
that natural right of the majority of the
people of every civilized country in the
world and to put the absolute control of
the solid area of every civilized country
into the hands of a few human owners,
who are to dictate the terms and conditions
upon which their landless fellow men may
get a chance to go to the God-given earth to
establish homes or to make living. That
is the condition existing. Those who own
the land have, independently of all other
men, means of subsistence and comfort,
without let or hindrance from any other
man to get to the land for their living and
support themselves upon the land and
from the land in such comfort as their
mental and physical efforts, voluntarily
put forth, will bring to them. But the land
owners are not required to do this at all.
They do not do it. The men who own the
great bulk of the land of this country and
of every civilized country In the world,
have the same means of oppression to
wiring a toll from the masses of the people.
The masses of the people who produce are
obliged, # they get access to the land atall,
to pay toll and contribute for the privilege
of getting to it-that toll not going to the
benefit of the community"
Judge Mcguire went into the subject of
large land holdings, which he denounced
as an accursed system, and gave some in
stances of personal observation in this very
State. He went on to show that such
lands were held not to Cypress the people
so much as to bring money into the Golfers
of the holders through advances in popu-
lation. Taking the progress of California
for it, Judge Mcguire then went into a re-
view of the rise in land values by the in
crease of population and the growth of in
dustry and enterprise from almost nothing
fifty years ago to millions an acre in city
property to-day. The rent value, which
was figured by the landholder, was the I'M
earned increment, resulting naturally
from the community itself. Take away
that and it takes away the only induce
ment men now have to speculate in land
or monopoliZe land they do not require for
immediate use, or do not use to its best or
highest advantage.
''To take that unearned increment away
from the owner" he continued, lis the
single tax proposition absolutely and COM
pletely. Take it away and there would be
no conceivable inducement to any man TO
invest in land he did not desire to use, or
to hold land in idleness or in inferior use.
"Now, it has been urged against this
proposition that it would be unjust to the
present owners of land. It is said that it
would be dishonest for the masses of the
people to practically resume Government
ownership of all the land of the country
without compensa ton to the present own
ers. That proposition must be met, for
reform thaC is not honest Is not good. L
do not care what it is; change that is not
honest is not good, and if it can be
shown to be dishonest, prima facie, it is
not good. 1t either must be indicated or
it must be concluded that all arguments in
support of it are specious, because the re-
suit would be dishonest, and never yet did
man or nations prosper in wrong. A re-
form must be honest as well as efficacious.
what rights have present owners in
this unearned increment which single-tax
men propose to take for public use? None
at all. None at all, except a purely con-
ventional right that is subject to cancella-
ton at any time by the people"
Judge Mcguire concluded with series
of apt illustrations of the matters he had
set before the club and stated plainly that
the money invested by spectators and
landholders was merely in the nature of
bet placed on the gambling table, depend
ent upon whether or not the people re-
sumed the rights to the land and the prod
ucts thereof given to all men by the Gre
ator.
He was loudly applauded at the close as
he took his seat but he was kept busy dur
ing the next hour or so answering ques-
tons and explaining matters that had
cropped up in his discourse. He was very
apt in his illustrations and happy in his
explanations and made thoroughly good
impression on his hearers.