The representative. [volume] (St. Paul, Minn.) 1893-1901, 1895-01-23

the industry and enterprise OF others
increases the value of his land;
such ownership as permits an indi-
vidual to profit by holding great
tracts of land unused near cities and
towns while home-seekers travel far
into the Wilderness. He IS not such an
idiot as to suppose that the poor man
qrould step IN and pay the enormous land
yulue tao which the rich cannot pay He
does believe that if holding land idle
were discouraged, by taxing valuable
land lust the same as land in use,
capital now buried in the ground, (by
buying land to hold idle), would be
used in such ways as to set the unem-
ployed at work and thus increase the
market for all kinds Of produce
Here then we have distinct avowal
that the purpose of Mr.. George is not
to collect revenue but to destroy all
pirate ownership of laad! We did him
too much honor, it seems, in suppos-
ing that he was trying to procure
homes for poor help. Our correspon-
dent acknowledges that the burden OF
the Single-tax would be so "enor-
nous that no poor man could obtain
home She says Mr.. George is not
''such an idiot" as to contemplate the
possibility Of such a thing. Well, then
the whole pretence of Single-tax, as a
philanthropic, home-making meas
ure, falls to the ground. No man is
to have home unless he establishes
it in balloon: access to earthS sur
face. from the highest mountain
peaks to the lowest eys,-woods,
prairies, cverything-is to be denied
to the human family: unless they are
tenants to municipal corporation,
with power to raise the rent to any
extent, and crush the race into uni
versal pauperism. "Home" will cease
to be word known to English
speech.
And so, when all DISCUSSES are swept
away, the Single tax means denial of
the right OF any man to own any part,
however small, OF the surface of the
planet on which he was born, out Of
whose dust he was made, and in which
he will be buried. 1t proposes a
Notwithstanding revolution under the
cover Of Il tax to raise revenue. 1t
does not Say-SOmc men own too much
land and therefore we demand law
limiting the area of ownership. No;
it says no man shall own home I'M
less he is Idiot enough to pay the
enormous taxation for the support
of all the forms Of property.
And think of it. Thousands Of men
were drawn away from the Peoples
Party last November, in Minneapolis
alone, by this shocking lunacy.
While the Peoples Party is fighting
against tenancy, as represented in
the wretched ''cotters" of Scotland,
the peasants of Ireland, the fore
closed-upon farmers of America, and
all the miserable of all the human
family Of the world: while it is trying
to make all men home OwnerS-inde
pendent ycomen;-along comes this
abortive incredibility, and proposes
to turn the world upside down with
the crowbar Of a theory, and reduce
all mankind into tenants, under a
crushing and tremendous burden of
unnecessary and unjust taxation.
Really the thing is too absurd to
argue about.
Our friend continues:
t''Does the man who puts up a fine
building injure his neighbOrS by SO
doing deserve to be fined Tor taXed) for
improving the town? Is it good tinan-
cial policy for city to discourage the
establishment of Industrial concerns
in its vicinity by piling taxes upon
tiem:''
A tax is not a fine. Taxes are in
tended to be the contribution of the
individual for the support of govern
ment, in proportion to what he pos
seSses.
If a man puts $4,000 or 800, 900 into
building. and rents it out, and re-
ceiyes from 500 to 5000 year for it,
why, in Heavens name, should he
not pay his share for the support of
the government which protects him
in the collection of his rent and the
peaceable possession of his wealth?
sAnd if it is fine to make such
man pay taxes on his property, would
it not be ten times more uni unsuitable
to punish another man for raising food
tor the support Of the human family, by
piling ON him all the taxes of the
community. Upon what theory of
justice, fair play, equaLrights or
equity could such a proceeding be
justified:
Mr.. Donnelly asks what difference
it makes whether you pay rent to a
landlord or to a private owner of the
land. Just this: In the first case
you help to create the millionaire who
May be miser and nuisance: in the
second case you put the money where
all, including yourself, share in it's
bene it,"
sour friend is not very clear:-a
"landlord' is a 'private owner Of the
land We suppose she meant to ask.
what difference there was between
paying rent to a landlord or taxes to a
community? Would it not tend to
create millionaires to relieve all
wealth of its taxes? And how much
of the taxes, paid by the common peo-
pie of Minnesota. to-day, ever comes
back to them?
Mrs. L. e. r., wants us to quote the
Single Tax platform. We have not
room for it as it is very long; and this
discussion has sufficient brought ont