The representative. [volume] (St. Paul, Minn.) 1893-1901, 1899-10-12

single fund, and are merged into the
Almighty dollar" without regard to
the origin or source, whether natural or
created by labor, or whether the avails
OF honest industry or of crime.
It is impossible to conceive what
would be the tremendous effect Of the
adoption of the single tax method in
place Of all other modes of taxation. 1t
is an untrfed experiment, and one mans
opinion is about as good as anOthers.
Whether under a system which its adj
vocates claim would make taxation on
land values SO high, that the present
owners of unimproved land would be
compelled either to sell the land at
nominal price, or abandon the owner
ship, another person could afford to pay
this exhorbitant tax and build house
for himself in addition, or how the farm
ers and homesteaders, the bulk of the
land owners, now compelled to pay
more than half the present taxation be-
cause land, unlike personal property,
cannot be hidden and "sworn away"
will be benefited by paying the whole
tax, are interesting questions upon
which much can be said on both sides.
1t is admitted that land is a natural
product. The extension of the seashore
in Holland, the swamp lands restored
by drainage and the vast deserts con-
verted to fruitful fields by irrigation,
do not count in the great result. Land
is imperishable. No new creation of
land is necessary, when additional land
An unlimited supply, without labor, is
always ready, whenever governments
restore to man that right of possession
which God gave him upon the sole con-
dition that he "Subdue the Land"
Gen. 1928.
But land, like all other products, ma
tural, artificial or mixed, is the property
of man. Says the Oldest title deed on
record-Gen. l, 26: "And God said,
Let us make man in Our own image,
after Our own likeness; and let them
have dominion over the fish of the sea,
and over the fowls of the air, and over
the cattle, and over all the earth, and
every creeping thing that crawleth
upon the earth.'"
Man, therefore, may lawfully occupy
and possess the land. He may subdue
it and till it, or he may use the land
itself, it's soil, it's ores and rocks, and
build mound, temple or a tomb.
Even the single takers acknowledge
land to be property; indeed, 1t is the
only form of property they would sub
NIT to taxation. The land tax value
being part of the real estate, with or
without Improvements, and the sole
part liable to taxation under the single
tax, becomes, except In cases where the
improvements are very costly, the chief
incumbrance and expense to the owner
Of the property, which expense that
owner is bound to recoup from the re-
ceipts or rentals Of the property, or he
is without business capacity. No one
claims that the business relations be-
tween landlord and tenant are immoral,
illegal or void. The vast majority of
the civilized world are homeless, except
as some landlord supplies the shelter.
Like any other person engaged in a
legitimate business, landlord is entitl-
ed to such surplus from his receipts
over and above the actual running ex-
penses incurred, as shall give him a
decent compensation for his labor. and
capital invested A tax on ground rent
therefore is nothing more nor less than
an expense or burden on the property,
precisely the same as if the tax we're
the cost of an improvement on the prop
erty-an expense incident to the owner
ship, and which the owner may justly
recoup from the consumer.
Mr.. Mcguire cites as authority to
prove that tax upon ground rents and
land valuation cannot be shifted, Adam
Smith, j. B. Say. and John Stuart Mill
These gentlemen are we'll known and
distinguished political economists, but
Smith and Say died long ago, and never
heard OF the single tax on land values,
and Mr.. Mill, in his works., makes no
allusion to the single tax theory of
Henry George.
Smith says: "a tax upon ground
rents would not raise the rents OF
houses. It would fall altogether upon
| the owner of the land, who acts as a
monopolist, and exacts the greatest rent
which he can get out for the use Of his
| ground" OF course, If the landlord is
| already exacting the highest possible
rent, it would be impossible to increase
| the rental price. Mr.. Smith is speaking
! of the usual terms of ground rent in
England at the time he wrote-"on
| share" where the natural capacity Of
the land to produce would be equal, and
the rent paid and received unchanging
fractions of the product. Mr.. Say re-
| fers to the existence In France of "a
uniform intensity Of supply and de-
mand, which prevents the consumer be-
| ing taxed with the ground rent, but
neither Mr. Smith nor Mr.. Say had any
knowledge whatever Of the single tax
theory. Mr.. Mill says: "A tax on rent
falls wholly On the landlord. There are
- I'll SS s n 49,