New Iberia enterprise. (New Iberia, La.) 1885-1902, 1898-10-08
HOW THE SINGLE TAX WOULD
AFFECT THE FARMERS.

dress. made in San Francisco
September II, as reported in the
Call. Judge Magnire is running
for governor on the nomination OF
the democrats, the populistS ant
the republicans:
"Although the single tax is moi
and cannot be an issue in this
campaign, for the republican party
by declaring negatively against /
principle cannot commit the other
to the principle-it can only act
for itself; yet ! am not willing
that my personal opinions on the
question of taxation should be mis-
represented in this campaign fol
the purpose of creating prejudice.
They say that the single tax is in
tended to shift the burden Of taxa
ton from the wealthy people to the
farmers. Their sympathy for the
farmers may be questioned, but !
shall not stop to question it now.
| shall attribute the statement to
ignorance. Let us see about that.
The farmers of this state now pay
more than 80 per cent. Of the taxes
for the support Of the state in their
direct taxes upon their homes and
personal property, and indirectly
upon the commodities on which the
taxes paid by merchants and others
are passed to them. If the farmers
could have their share of the states
taxes reduced to % per cent. on the
whole they would be doing we'll.
Let us see how they would fare
under the single tax system. Land
values are now assessed separately
from improvements in this states,
and the total amount of the land
values assessment for 1897 was, |
believe, 1904 900, ,O00-the figures
will be found in the reports of the
state controller. OF that amount
of land values assessed the city of
San Francisco alone contains nearly
one third. Seven cities Of the state
contain more than 50 per cent. of
all the land values in the state.
The other cities and towns certainly
contain another 20 per cent. max
ing Is per cent.
OF the remaining 25 per cent.
not half, nor nearly half, is owned
by occupying farmers; more than
half is owned by spectators, by
others. domestic and alien, who
farm the farmers. (Applause.)
Under the single tax system the
farmer would pay not exceeding
121a per cent. of the state taxes, as
against so per cent. that he now
bears. His proportion of the tax
would not be more than ten per
cent. because his exemptions would
amount to vastly more than the in
creased tax upon the land value,
and to the farmer the single tax
would be beneficence (applause),
and it can be demonstrated from
the official records, and tax rolls.
l am not now advocating the ex-
pediency Of adopting the single tax,
because | will not be drawn aside
from the issues Of the present cam
paign to discuss questions thai are
not in issue. But | do say that the
statement which l have just con-
troverted is glaringly untrue.
Leading republican organs are
declaring and have repeatedly de-
clared that the single tax wOnld
drive capital from the state. Let us
see about that. What is capital9
Capital is movable property applied
to the production of new wealth.
Now all such property would be
exempt from taxation under the
single tax system. Would exemp-
ton from taxation drive capital out
of the state! Is there any man
who thinks so outside the editorial
room of Il railroad paper, or out
side of the platform committee Of a
republican railroad convention! 1t
would not drive capital out of the
state. 1t would bring capital into
the state; whether it is good Or
bad it would bring capital into the
state instead of driving it out.
Would it drive other forms of NOV
able wealth out! No they would
be exempt, and they would flow
into the state upon the same priD-
ciple.
Exemption from taxation never
drives wealth out Of a state. But
they say-they don't say it, but
they intimate it-oh, it would drive
the land out, there is nothing else
that is useful to be driven out. SO
the utter fallacy of that statement
becomes perfectly apparent. The
trouble with all these people is that
they are ignorant of the subject
they are discussing, utterly ignor
ant of it; SO ignorant that men
who understand it dislike the simple
task of answering them.
But they say it is measure for
the confiscatiOn of land. Not at
all. 1t is not a proposition to con-
fiscate land. The cOnfscation of
land would put an end to the single
tax. Can the single tax apply to
land belonging to the state! Ger
tainly not. Ii it is to be taxed it
must be in private occupation, and
under a tenure that will admit of
taxation. If the single tax is to be
continued the segregation of land
into private holdings, with exclusive
right Of control Of the private
holdings, such as gives the basis
and foundation for taxation, must
continue to exist. And that is the
purpose; that is the purpose. But
| will tell you what it would stop.
1t would stop two men like Miller
& Lux from holding IA, 900, 600
acres of the land of these three or