The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1898-11-07

Q.-Who are the principal advocates Of
the local option in taxation amendment
which is to be voted upon Tuesday?
A-E. d. Mclaughlin. Eugene Way.
Thomas Mallory and Robert Bridges.
Q.-To what political party do these men
belong?
A.-None.
Q.-What Is their political creed.
A.-Single tax. confisca,icn and state
ownership OF land.
Q.-Has the theory any foundation in
fact?
A.-None. 1t is founded upon the suppo-
sition that there is In this state land
monopoly, and that IL the state were The
universal landlord and capital were not
taxed it would pay labor higher wages
and poverty would be abolished.
.Q.-H capitalists were not taxed, DO you
wages. or put the difference in their own
pockets as dividends or otherwise?
A.-They would undoubtedly put it into
their own pockets.
OF this state should proceed TO the
wholesale coniiscation Of land. what would
be the immediate effect?
'A-Distrust. uncertainty. stagnation and
bankruptcy 10 every man in the state.
Q!~Why?
A.-Because no one would know what ne
had. what Others could pay him or what
he could pay them. In such uncertainty,
i he had dollar, he would not let It out.
II he had invested in real estate he WOULD
be ruined, as would also his creditors and
their creditors, and SO on until there would
result 2 repetition OF our last panic.
Q--Would that benefit anybody
A.-No. A panic, stagnation and uni
versal distress help no one.
Q.-Would this local option amendment
give the much desired relief 10 small own
ers of. say. SEQ exemption.
Alt would not. Under small exemp-
ton of from $3.50 to N.5oo. the small owner
would be almost entirely relieved OF the
burden of taxation. Under single tax, while
his improvements might bear less, his land
would bear several times the amount OF
the present taxes.
Q.-who would be most injuriously az
fected by this single tax?
A.-Those who have mortgaged their land
in order TO improve IL.
Q.-Who nexte
A.-Those who own their own homes.
Q.-What Is the significance OF the state
owning all the land?
A king of France had notion of
trying single tax, and the first thing ne
said was: The state, that is l." In this
country the state would be the successful
political party which would run the states
affairs.
off this political party. known as the
state, owned all the land. would there not
then be really IA land monopoly in this
statep
Ayes. And having the power to die
tate the amount Of rent each man should
lower another's as reward or punishment
for political services or opposition, as II
saw fit.
Q.-With such power, could they not per-
petuate themselves in officey
A.-They could and probably would.
(Which is the better plan: TO have the
people own their land or 10 have the state
own it. and have her officials collect the
rent?
Att is better and safer to let the people
C-What eject would single tax have on
the tariff?
Att would abolish even "the tariff for
Q-Under the proposed amendment who
would pay the taxesg
A-The class which had the fewest votes
and the least ability IL procure votes.
Q.-Dc you mean the rich or the poor?
A-Neither The poor have the votes
and the rich the wherewithal 70 influences
small owners who have neither the num-
Wealth We r. rs influence votes. finder the
arnen9nent a small class who had one
character of property might have TO bear
nearly the entire burden of taxation.
Q.-Who own most OF the land in 6his
stateg
A-The persons OF small or moderate
means.
Of the whole burden Of taxation as a
means of coniiscation were placed upon
that class would it not cause that class to
almost wholly disappear and leave only
the very rich and the very poor left with
lew intervening pefSoiS'
A.-fes.
Q--is that 8 desirable or a safe condition
of affairs in a repubiicy
Alt is not.
Off the same tax were put upon the
palace Of the millionaire as that upon the
humble home of the man OF moderate
means. would it not relieve the rich ana
ruin the small owner?
Q.-Would that help the poor man?
Q.-Single takers say that no one has the
right to grant or sell the exclusive right
70 use land. do they notI -
Ayes.
Off there Is no power or right In the
state 10 grant the exclusive right to land
by sale, where would the state under their
system. get the right 10 grant the exclu-
sive right by rent or lease?
A.-There would be 10 such right. The
oufy difference between a sale and lease
or rental Is in the length of time
Of one man can have no right to have
or give the exclusive right TO piece or
land, would multiplying the number OF
men give them any greater right 10 its
exclusive posse sS!onr
multiplying that a million such would give
no greater result than the one originally
had. II the state has no right To sell the
exclusive right OF Use. she has no Tight
even 10 rent 1t or To deprive any one OF
the use OF 1t for day, year or a iife-
nay right. then million az men have no
more risht 10 exclude me for one day than
one man has to exclude me for a million
Of DAYS. II IL be my right. then multiplied
ton and division of men and days cut no
figure in it. II it Is mine. the state or
Tor even one day II they have then they
have the right 10 sell and exclude ma Snr