Frostburg mining journal. [volume] (Frostburg, Md.) 1871-1913, 1895-01-05
X GEN. WAYNE AND TIE PENNSYLVANIA rUTlNtER5. n7b.


theological, or. to be more specific. on
christian reasons This, too, is not
true. Mr.. Georges reasoning is
throughout based on economic pin
ciples. Bnt Mr.. Livesey is as much at
faul in his political economy as in his
christian doctrine. | do not want to
pose as christian theologian, yet
know enough about christianity to
affirm that it does not countenance
misstatement. Still, do not wish to
get around the question whether Henry
Georges doctrines are or are not con
trary to christianity by accusing Mr.
Livesey of not being good christian
| will join issue with him on that point
| shall not bother you with theological
arguments, though. | base my case
on authority His Holiness. the Pope,
the acknowledged head of about half
of christianity, has through his delegate
declared that there is nothing in the
doctrines OF Henry George that is con-
trary to christian doctrine and morals. y
In the Episcopal churches the Right
Revs. Huntington, Bishop of Central
New York, and Hugh Miller. Bishop
Of Mississippi, and Father J. o. S.
Huntington, of Westminster, Md, are
three ecclesiastics known to me as
adherents of the Single Tax doctrine.
Not to weary you, | will say that | am
ready to supply Mr.. Livesey with the
names and addresses of scores of
ministers of all possible christian
denominations, all OF whom publicly
declare their adherence to the Single
Tax. | have yet to hear of one who
has been read out of his church for
such adherence
There are to my knowledge some 100
professors of political economy who
are believers in the Single Tax, all of
them teachers in American colleges
Nearly all OF these colleges are more
or less christian, and the Single Tax
professors are suffered to stay and
teach. 1t does not seem then that the
churches diSavow these doctrines as
unchrlstlan.
And what of Mr.. Livesey's political
economy? He calls the statement '.thot
all pricate opnership Of land is unnatural,
unjust and ecrong' a DO and broad as
sumption, contrary to the precepts and
examples of The saints and sages of
antiquity, to the laws of God and man
alike.
AS for the snints of antiquity-I
confess | do not know. AS for the
laws of Cod have already shown
what representatives of the Christian
churches who speak in the name of the
New Testament think about Henry
Georges doctrines. AS for the Old
Testament it distinctly discounte-
nanceS private property in land and
treats land us national property.
But it is of the laws of man | would
speak now. To be quite brief | will
say read the article, "Laud," volume
xiv, pages 209 to 270 of the Encyclo-
paedia Britannica, and you will find
that the laws of men IN all times re-
garded land as the common property
of the whole, and the history of land
tenure is tersely summed up in the
sentence Il * Tin every stage the
conditions of its the lands enjoyment
and use have been absolutely egulated
by the community in reference to the
general welfare" q. c. page 265). OF
the English law we are told that it is
an ''unquestionable legal rule that
there is no such thing in onr system as
an absolute private right of property
in land, but that the State alone is
vested with that right and comedies to
the individual possesSor only strictly
defined subordinate right, subject to
conditions from time to time enacted
by the community Q.c. page 264.
And this is also good law here. John
Stuart Mill says in his "Principles of
Political Economy that when
private property in land is not ex-
pedient it is unjust" (book |, chap ii.
=, 81. This admits the injustice and
makes private property in land a
question of eXpediency. But John
Stuart Mill has not proved nor can
anybody else ever do it, that eX-
pediency can ever be superior to
justice. There is but one thing which
can supersede juStice-love. Might
may strangle it, hut it can not abrogate
it. Herbert Spencer, sage to be sure
but not Christian, in chapter tx of
Social States proves that private
property in land is contrary to liberty
and that all men have an equal right
to the use of land. Astonishment at
the assertion of the injustice of private
property in land sounds rather anus
ing when expressed by one who pre-
sumeS to write on economic questions.
Hoping that You will kindly give
a limited use of your columns, |
wish TO extend an invitation to Mr..
Livesey, Let him take any part of
Henry Georges Progress and Pow
erty" and show where it fails either
in logic or i'll ethics let him do
so, though, by fair argument; not by
insinuating illusions to Most, anarchy,
atheism and other such stuff. | will
answer him, and if you, after speci-
fed number of letters, shall award the
palm to him, will present him with
complete set of Henry Georges
works. Yorrs very respectfully,
j. l.. STERN.