The record-union., 1898-11-19
A Laboring Mans Views.


Eds Record Union: An article in
the Bee of November 18th quotes
from the Indian Chief Black Hawk and
some other personages of perhaps
equally questionable authority and
property of.
If we must go back to the savages
for criterions, then we certainly are
drifting toward state of retrogres-
sion. Some of the doctrines promulgat-
ed reminds one of the nominally free
love doctrine. but practically free lust
society, a portion of whose members,
understand, contemplate going to the
tropics, where fruits, nuts etc, grow
spontaneously, and there live and wear
the same style of clothes that Adam
and Eve wore in Eden. This would be
retrogression with a vengeance.
But if we are a progressive people,
and living in a progressive age, we cer-
tainly do not wish to be guided by any
such self contradictory congfomeration
of hair Drained verbosity as eAll mem
bers of the universal brotherhood of
man have equal rights to live, which
involves the essentials of life" (From
the Bee" November 12th)
This is true, SO far, but if one is poor
through profiigacy, negligence, poor
management, misfortune or otherwise,
and yet be able to work, should society
or any individual be compelled to give
him these essentials of life? I say no.
If there be work he may do to earn
these essentials, then let him go to
work and earn his living. Of course,
the poor man cannot accumulate wealth
rapidly, like the rich man, because the
poor man has but his two hands, while
the rich one has, so to speak, thousands
of hands with which to gather wealth.
All sensible people acknowledge the
inherent, inalienable and all other
proper rights to all the fire, sunlight,
water, land or other commodities-es-
pecially sunlight-that any individual
or company of individuals may proper
ly acquire, for he who owns property
be it land, money or other wealth,
small or great, is supposed to have
come by it honestly; if otherwise, there
is law to compel him to disgorge.
Yet should Ia very poor man-be
lucky enough to strike a rich mine.
certainly would hate to have some
chump say to me, you have no right
to more than wages and expenses out
of your rich find, and must give up all
the rest Of the proceeds toward sup
porting the common government" after
many years of hardships, privations
and toll in trying to discover such a
find. And certainly the above PROPOSE
ton is exactly what would be the re-
suit should all rental values be taxed
according to the single tax doctrine.
T fool fI1l1v acc,,raJ +ba+
have SO much time to write on such
chimer1cal schemes would employ their
time and brains in devising some way
by which every man or corporation
would be compelled to pay his or it's
just proportion of taxes, as is now pro-
yided by law, sthey would be doing their
country and the people a thousand fold
more good than by promulgating all the
single tax dogmas in the world.
Again, the writer in the Bee" tells
Us that society as a whole creates the
rental values of land" Then. on the
same hypothesis, society as whole
creates the values of all other proper
ties. For Illustration, you might build
the finest store in the world, and fill
it with millions of dollars worth of
merchandise, goods of any or all sorts.
OF what real value is your property.
store and all, if there is no society to
buy your goods or property? 1t is
simply worthless-of no more value
than toy which you might look at
and admire or play with.
We are asked eff the laborer should
be called on to contribute a portion of
his earnings for the support of the
government" In the first place. how
did the men who own land, or valuables,
come in possession of them? Did they
not, in the first place, work to acquire
the money with which to buy their
land? IF they did not work for it. some
relative did, and gave them the money
to buy it with. So it was procured by
labor, directly or indirectly, after all.
1t is the product of labor, in any way
you have a mind to put it.
How many hundreds of thousands of
men have worked at their various vo-
cations, saved their earnings and in
vested them in land. Then, have we
any more right to tax their earnings,
because it is in land, than we have
to tax the mans earnings who has in
vested his wealth in merchandise, ma
chinery, sugar, coal or any of the va
rious other commodities or the various
enterprises?
It is self evident that the single tax
ers are aiming their heaviest blows at
the land monopolists, whereas the land
monopolists are only very few among
the many monopolies and trusts in the
world, which are too numerous to men
ton, and many Of which are equally
as detrimental to the laborer and So
ciety in general. But / suppose when
they down that they will try some
other. If so, the others will have a.
long respite.
If this is published many will doubt
less ask, who is this fellow that is
trying to refute the great bugaboo of
single tax?" Some will say. He is
some political aspirant or officeholder
or land owner" of something Of the
kind. They may be somewhat sur
prised to know he is but a poor pros |
pector, or miner, yet one who is a true
American and wishes for the best in
terests of all, one who has no friends
nor relatives who are either land mo- |
nopolists or millionaires Neither has |
he any hope of office, or aspirations |
therefor. w H