The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1896-04-12

Of wage. earning mechanics In which labor wari
are bred have increased. and the gulf has beer
widened between employer and employed,
Still this sentiment IL comparatively unrocial
istic. An envoy OF English discomfort, having
come on n mission OF disturbance. goes awaJ
disappointed. saying that the American work
man is a wretch whom no sense OF wrongs car
rouse to vengeance. Anarchism no sooner
kindles It's torch than II finds itself in jail with
the cordial appreciation Of honest labor. The
fabulous circulation Of Looking backward
means, as Mr.. Gilman truly says, very little.
In fact IL means little more than the fabulous
circulation of ''Trilby."
The only movement akin 10 socialism OF
which America can be said TO be the birth
place Is naturalization Of land. Even this
may be said to be rather European than Amor
lean IN its source, inasmuch as the notions re-
s~pecting the origin of landownershlp on which
the demand for contiscation is based. have
clearly reference to the history Of European.
not Of American, land. In the United States
there has been no Norman conquest, there have
been no feudal tenures. Tho land has been ac'
qulred In the fairest way by owners who have
made the best use of II, and has been pur-
chased not only with the full sanction OF the
| com nunity and under the most sacred guar
antees OF its laws, but in large measure from
the community itself. The vast scheme OF
agrarian confscation Mt first designated as
naturalization of land. now wells itself under
the designation of single tax, which Is per-
haps less likely to make the American free
holder take down his rifle. Under the new
name It seems to hare many adherents. There
are people. II appears not a few, able TO per-
suadc themselves that by laying all the taxes
on land without the improvements, they can
not only extinguish poverty and diffuse uni
,araul nnulanaa lint hiring ahOut n most blessed
change In the whole structure OF society. I'M
provements as tho product OF labor they do
not propose to tax. What they propose to tax
is only the value Of the land unimproved or
apart from the improvements. They appear
to be the victims Of q fallacy arising from a
confusion Of the terms value and price.
Unimrroved land has a price, often Il high
speculative price. in anticipation of its having
a value when it shall have been built upon
or otherwise improved so as to yield a profit.
But il has no value, any more than go much
sand Or sea. nor can 1t sustain the expendi-
ture OF Government. or any expenditure what
ever. I. is a pity that the single tax enthu-
siasts. and economical revolutionists.in gen
eral, cannot be assigned TO a territory wherein
practically to test their theories. That for
which the single tax men mainly crave, seems
to be the confscation of rents in cities; but
they apparently fall to ask themselves what
would be the effect of this confiscation on the
future building Of houses by capitalists for
people who cannot afford to build houses for
themselves. That any body of reformers
should have been found capable of believing that
they can vastly enrich and morally regener-
ate society by simply altering the incidents of
taxation Is surely a remarkable fact. even in
the remarkable history Of patent pills. Lay
taxation where you will. its pressure Is soon
diffused.
Thas socialism and the revolutionary theories
cognate to it are destructive rather than con-
structive in their character is shown by their
comparative neglect of the question Of produc-
ton. AS q rule the theorists concern them
selves almost entirely with the distribution of
wealth. On its production they bestow COM
paratively little thought. The first reco m
mendation of a land system would seem TO be
the production of plenty of bread for the peo-
pie. Yet agrarian revolutionists. as a rule.
devote themselves to the destruction of the ex-
listing system of land ownership. little needing
what the result Of ccnf.catton and insecurity
of tenure will probably be, to the efficiency Of
agriculture and the supply of food.
The theories of the Socialist, of the Com
munist, OF the Anarchist, OF the NationaliZcr
Of land. are all open to confutation, and have
all been, in fact, confuted. But that does not
make them the less dangerous. Rousseau's
theory, so far as it was constructive, was .
dream. which nobody seriously attempted to
reduce to practice. Nevertheless. 1t played a
great part in bringing to the ground amid q
cataclysm of blood and havoc the edlfce Of old
French society. The passages In which the
author of Looking depicts the
masses as toiling and bleeding beneath the lash.
to drag the coach while the privileged few cit
at their ease. or In which tho author of Prog
ress and Poverty directs the revengeful Gu
pidity OF the people against the owners of
land, tell on the heart OF the mechanic. though
the reasonings may fail to reach his mind.
We are in a crisi, of social change of which
utopias are the fantastic signs. The
amount of poverty relatively to that of wealth
or well-being. instead of increasing. has d.
minished; yet there is poverty. miserable
poverty. and poverty of which the cause Is
often not the idleness of tho toiler, but his
inability 10 find work. Labor-ssvinR inven-
tions, benehcent as they are sure to be In the long
run. are in their immediate consequences some
times cruel. The keenest and coolest observ-
ers look with profound anxiety on the grow
ing numbers OF tho unemployed. 1t is true
that, as has been already said, the contrast be-
tween wealth and poverty In general is less
hideous than In former times 1t was. It is
true that inequality o, wealth there must be
SO long as there are differences in the produc-
tive ana accumulative capabilities or men,
yet there are still hideous contrasts between
the millionaire's palace and the tenement
house, and there are Inequalities Of lot far
beyond any differences of capability or merit.
Indeed, We need not go to the tenement house
for our examples. Between the life of ease,
pleasure, and summer travel which the rich man
leads, and the poor mans life Of dull and in
"essant toll the contrast is sad enough.
If the rich mans fortune has been made as
too many OF our great fortunes have, the fri
tation will be stu more profound. There is no
hindering the people from seeing and feeling
they have political power in their hands as we'll
as physical force, and they are told by their
class leaders that they can use It for the trans
fer of tho wealth to themselves and the eauali-
zation OF the human lot They are in that twi-
light OF half education In which illusion most
prevails. That hope Of happiness In another
world, which once reconciled them to a hard lot
In this world, has grown faint and seems ike
ly TO expire.
Wealth, il 1t means to escape a crash, will
have TO do its duty. The rich man will have