The morning times., 1896-05-17
IN REBUTTAL.

1OuT original Slngle-tdX
Contributor seems TO have retired either
temporarily or permanently. from the field.
DIS his place was supplied last Sunday by a
new and very green hand. j suppose this
latter to be mem Der ofthe Single Tax Club
OF this city, and request the attention or
the educated and intelligent members OF
that organization, of whom there are many
that they may see what kind of a person
is assuming to represent them in the public
| press of Washington.
quote fIoIu IIIs c, mmuni cation:
AS landlords eventually receive from
tenants both the tax money they pay Ia
government and the profits they put in
their own pockets. he thinks no person
would be willing to use this land fer
which he would not need to pay the land
lords profit above the taxes, aud tnen-O,
DIRE calamity no one would use or paw
taxes on this land''
The above is Il square assertion tbSt the
tax on land values is shifted from the
owners or land and paid by the tenants
Inc Que VINO wrote IL is grossly ignorant
oil the single tax theory, Il S pre- Cmulgated by
Henry George and his followers the entire
fabric or which rests primarily upon the
denial OF the contention that land taxes
can be shifted and upon the assertion that
they are direct taxes and are finally paid
by those against whom they are assessed
Says Thomas G.. Shearmau (''NaturaI Tax
adon," D. 129):
'Can the rent tax be shifted? While
tue l'ukc OF Arg:n and all h.s landlord
allies rcnu the dir with their denuncidtipns
oil the proposed tan on rent as confiscdtion
and robbery. other opponents of the tax.
approaching the fact that tena nts far out
number landlords at the polls devote
their energy TO proving that this tax would
all he shifted upon tenants. by an increase
OF rent SO that landlords would finally
pa none OF it. If this were true. then no
relief from the unequal distribution of
wealth can be had for all direct taxes
would ultimately fall upon consumption
just as surely as do indirect ta Xcs. In short.
no tax would be really direct. The great
est benefit thus far held out. as the result
of adopting an exclusive tax upon ground
rent would be unattaiDable under that
or any other system.
The weight of authority upon such a
question is worthy OF attention. although
by no means decisive. Now while few
respectable and sincere students or economic
science hold TO the doctrine of the trans
fcrability OF the ground rent tax TO the
tenants, no one will dispute that an over
whelming weight OF authority, bOth in
numbers and in reputation, scout that doc
trine absurd. Not only the entire school
of Ricardo and Mill, but also nine-tenths
OF other economic writers make it runda-
mental doctrine of their science that such
a tax never can be transferred to tenants"
Says Shearman again: 1t is not true that
one dollar Of the tax can be transferred
TO the tenant in any case where rent is
fixed upon strictly business principles"
Henry George, in controversy with Ed
ward Atkinson Century Magazine, July,
ls9Ol, speaks as follows:
He certainly knows that in the United
States taxes Oh land are assessed by value.
The most important OF the
taxes that will stay where they are put
are taxes on incomes, taxes on bequcsts
and inheritanccs, aud taxes on land values"
1t must not be supposed that in quoting
tile above passage (which might be multi
piled indefinitely, If space permitted, from
the writings of recognized single tax au
thorties), am stating my own views on
this subject, for the fact is quite the con
trary. | ann merely usurping the position
That should be occupied by some reliable
member OF the local single tax club, and
endcavoring TO inform your readers, who
must be sOrcly puzzled by the vasarles OF
your single tax contributors, little as
to what the single tax really is"
My own beliefs coincide with those Of
Mr.. George in that | consider u surplus
income tax and taxes on bequests and
inheritances, which are a species OF in
lutely untransferable; but l agree with
Mr. Atkinson (and oppose MeSSrs. Rcards,
Mill, George. Sherman, ct als.D In the belief
that land taxes are indirect and can al
ways be shifted TO the tenant. As neces-
sary consequence, l oppose the single tax
theory, as most every intelligent man who
holds with me in this regard. To assert
that taxes on land values can be shifted
is, as Mr.. Sherman clearly puts it. to at
tack the fundamental principle of the
single tax system.
Your readers. including the members of
the single tax club of this City will readily
see in what a ridiculous position the person
who contributed to your last single tax
column has placed himself. Self-conceit
is not wisdom. though it often appears as
such 10 its unluCky posseSSOrS.
1t is needless for me to reply in detail to
this last contribution, for it is full OF
absurdities 10 the close and gives evidence
of the total unfamliarity of the writer
with the subject concerning which he pre-
sumeS to treat, and his ignorance of the use
of the most ordinary terms in political
economy. AS TO the inSinuation that have
accepted the hospitality of the Wash
ington single tax club. l will say that
/ have attended but one of it's meetings
and that some months ago, when arrived
late, sat on a back seat, and left before the
meeting closed.
But if / choose to go again / shall do
so, and shall not consult this writer. who
ever lie is, for l refuse to believe he
represents the intelligent portion of that
organization, which includes many names
of gentlemen OF the highest standing in this
city for attanments Of a scholarly nature
Possibly this writer has forced himself to
prominence among them by misrepreSenta-
ton concerning his experience and ability
If so, the mask is now off
Please also allow me to correct the re-
port OF the debate atthe Secular Lea que last
Sunday confirmed in Mondays Times as
it did injustice to an eminent member of
Washing gton journalistic circles, DR.. w A
Croffutt. The Large" audience comprised,
by actual count between sixty and seventy
people, nearly all being regular ha bitues OF
single tax meetings. Dr.. Crorfutt has too
high a reputation as a writer and public
speaker to have it readily believed by those
who know him that he was ''lashed'' to any
considerable extent by his opponent. Had
the verdict been left to an impartial jury
he would easily have taken the palm with
out dissent. lam sure The Times was mis-
led by volunteer reporter who had per-
sonal reasons for diStorting facts. But The
Times never protects nor conceals fraud.
b.
CHIInREN'S JNTITJTION