The Kalispell bee. [volume] (Kalispell, Mont.) 1900-192?, 1901-02-19
TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 10, 1901.
GEORGE VERSUS ADAMS.

G6OhG6 ven0OS AOA"Os
Some time along about the end of
last month, the Great Falls Tribune
in commenting upon proposition
concerning taxation, submitted to
the Massachusetts legislature by
Charles Francis Adams, said:
Mr.. Adams, in other words, would
not contiscate property in land. at
Henry George proposed, but simply
tax land values because that would
be the simplest, fairest and wiscst
method of collecting the necessary
revenue for the community.
Whereupon the Bee commented
upon the Tribune's comment as fol
lows:
Doubtless if the editor of the Trib
une had familiarized himself with
what Henry George proposed in this
matter of land taxation he would not
have committed the blunder Of saying
that Henry George proposed % con
fiscate property in land any more
than the government now conflscates
a box of cigars when it places tax
thereon, or any more than does the
plan proposed by Mr.. Adams. As
a matter of fact the plan as outlined
by Mr.. Adams is exactly what Henry
George proposed, as the editor OF tina
Tribune can readily find out by read
ing Mr.. Georges greatest work PRO
gress and Poverty"
Now comes the Tribune in its is
sue Of last Sunday, and makes the
following rejoinder:
The Kalispell Bee takes exception
to the Tribunes statement that
Henry George advocated the conf1s
cation of land values. The Bee is
mistaken. Mr.. George advocated the
confiscation of all land values, and
in all his writings he argues that rs
one of the strongest points in favor
of the single tax system.
It is plain from the above that tha
Tribune is seeking to switch the is
sue from the confiscation of land to
the confiscation of land values. TIL
Bee never excepted to any statement
by the Tribune that Henry George
proposed to confiscate land values
for so far as the Bee knows. tn
Tribune never made such state
ment until last Sunday. On the
contrary in the article which prompt
ed the Bees comment, the Tribune
sought to make distinction between
Charles Francis Adams plan ant
Henry Georges plan when, as mat
ter of fact. they are identical.
The evident trouble with the Trib
une is that it is not quite ready II
approve the plan advocated by Herr!
George, because Henry George wa
popularity regarded as something o
an anarchist, socialist and danger
GUS agitator, while Charles Francis
Adams is an eminently respectable
Bostonian, of eminently respectable
parentage, graduate of Harvard, an
for several years president of tn
Union Pacific railroad, besides ha,
ing been breveted a brigadier genel
al for gallant service in the civil wal
One could hardly be accused of hal
boring anarchistic designs agains
property interests by endorsing
plan of taxation approved by Charlie
Francis Adams, Thomas G.Shearmal
Tom L. Johnson and a host of othe
men high in political and financi;
circles, even though their plan
identically the same as that original
proposed by Henry George.
One of the hopeful signs of tn
times is that the single tax is r
ceiving the approval of all classes
society as it becomes better unde
stood. The cry of 'confiscation
whenever Henry George and the ST
gle tax are mentioned is becomir
less common. The character al
standing of many of the men wi
have Endorsed it insures a respectf
hearing, and the hearer is general
convinced and the single tax ON Lar
values would be an immense il
provement over the present cumbe
some. unequal and wholly unsati
factory method of leyying taxes.