The representative. [volume] (St. Paul, Minn.) 1893-1901, 1895-01-23
ARGUMENT RENEWED.
F. E. r., COMES AT US AGAIN.
Questions and Answers.

oui uuUy 10 Try TO set them right. and
II they are right we want them to
stop us from being any longer wrong.
And SO, in all Kindness, we continue
the discussion of the Single Tax cues
tion. Some of our readers NAV he
weary of it, having their minds al
ready fully made up, one way or the
other; but we are after the good peo-
pie VINO believe in it. We want to tear
down the false gods they worship and
intensity their devotion to the Peo-
ple's Party. Truth should have no
divided allegiance.
we have receive another letter from
our esteemed friend, Mrs. f. f. r., of
st. Paul, and shall cut it into pieces
and answer it in detail.
TO the Editor:
Just once more, so that Mr.. DON
nelly will not think / consider myself
vanquished. Mr.. Donnelly's blows
are all aimed at men OF straw set
up by himself.
HE chooses to define Single tax as
tax imposed upon single class of
people, in spite of the letters in the
REPRESENTATIVE declaring. it to
mean the levying Of taxes on land
values alone, by whomsoever held.
since those land values result from
social growth or pnblic enterprise, and
belong justly to their creator, the
public"
Our friend does not seem to perceive
that she is indulging in distinction
OF terms and not Of fact. There can
be no tax upon land unless there is
population to occupy it. What would
tax on thousand acres in the des-
ert of Sahara be worth? How would
it be paid? Who would collect it?
But suppose fountain of water burst
forth in the midst of those thousand
acres, and population poured in: then
you would have men to put that tax
on,-workers, toilers, producers, pro-
ducts, wealth. There can be no
"land values" unless there is class
to occupy and cultivate the land: and
hence all taxes, under any name, must
rest on human beings at last.
Neither is it true that whatever is
made valuable by ''socal growth or
public enterprize' belongs justly "to
their creator the public" Fifty years
ago, we could not have published the
REPRESENTATIVE in Minnesota.
There would have been no one here to
read it or pay for it. Hence this pa
per is made valuab BILE by social
growth and public enterprize" Will
our friend pretend therefore that
there can be no individual ownership
in the REPRESENTATIVE, but that it
belongs to everybody? We hope not.
For that argument would invalidate
all right Of private property in every
thing. Mrs. +. L. r., couldn't own
her own thimble
1t has been discovered lately that
even the animals recognize the right
Of individual ownership. If bird
builds nest and another bird tries to
seize upon it, the whole fcathered
fraternity will turn out to drive off
the robber. And if bird migrates,
at the coming of cold weather, and Sc
turns in the spring. (and they always
return to the same place. its title to
the nest it built the year before is
recognized by all its associates. The
right of property therefore comes
from the same source as our life and
our limbs. But the Peoples Party
perceiyeS that even great natural
right maybe abuse, and therefore it
opposes the ownership of vast tracts
of land without occupancy, to the
detriment Of the masses. But it
never pretends that anything render
ed valuable by civilization or the
presence Of population, could not be
the subject of private ownership.
That is theorizing run mad.
We quote further from our friend
she says:
"Henry George lectured in Chick
ering Hall, New York, on the evening
Of Dec. II, 1894 In that lecture he
said:
''By the Singletax we mean propo-
sition to collect all the public revcn-
ues from one sOurce-that which the
political economist knows as rent. col
lected on the value of land, irreSpec-
tive Of Improvements. This is the
best and the cheapest way Of raising
revenue"
With this understanding of what
the Single-taX means; III IS quite eVl-
dent that the various oppressive
taxes imposed upon the peasantry Of
France who owned about one-fourth
of the land of France (says the
Encyclopedia Britannica, though
Swinton says, one-third), while the
chief land owncrs.-thc nobility and
the clergy,-went untaXed;-it is clear
that the Sngle-taX, as taught by
Henry George, was not in force. Can
not Mr.. DonnelIy see this? Will he
insist upon his own definition of Sin
gle-tax' instead Of that given by Mr..
George: 1t is not tax at all, in
reality. but only so in form"
Now. as we have just shown, all
taxes must be upon individuals, not
dead matter. valueless without popu-
lation. Hence, when, in France, all
the taxes were placed on the cultiva-
tors of the soil it was a Single Taxa
.tar upiq,e, ,"-wheth Henry George
was there to baDtiZc it or not. "A rose
nv any other name will smell as sweet"
Our friend discovers distinction
without difference.
II think Mr.. Donnelly is mistaken
in his statement of Mr. Georges OBJ
iect in pursuing his economic studies
and expositions. He was not aiming
SO much to make homes easy OF owner
a1,:a cor tho vi of nOVprtV as to