The independent. [volume] (Lincoln, Neb.) 1902-1907, 1903-12-31
AGREES WITH DIR. BARNES.

OWcI, Will ucCp pCioohni iAsCiSot,
your discussion with DR.. Barnes On
the relative Importance of the land
and money questions. To be perfect
Iy frank with you, think Mr.. Barnes
has the best of the argument though
your position Is stated with the great
er clearness. One feature OF your re-
ply reminded me Of debate neard
in school years ago. In answer to an
able argument one speaker said: my
opponent has a beautiful theory, but
like many beautiful theories, IT has
one defect--it amt true" OF course,
1t raised a laugh, but those words
have come back to me a hundred
times since then. They came back
tonight as | read your reply. you
base your reply on the assumption
that taxes can be paid only In gold.
That assumption, like my school
mates theory, has one defect--"it
amt true" And the funny part OF
it all, to my mind, Is shown on page
IL. second column, where you say:
1T must not be forgotten bank
notes are receivable for taxes" In
the words OF western editOr--whose
name I'll not be mean enough to men
tion-the associate editor ousnt to
get together. Seriously, the fact Is
that taxes are payable in any kind OF
money and even in bank credits,
which, like the Indians soda water, Is
just heap sweet wind" No, taxes
are not payable In gold alone, and,
moreover, the exchange value OF the
money in which paid, does not depend
save in the remotest degree--on the
action of the gold owner. Your ar
gument supposes that, before paying
taxes, man must make terms with
some gold monopolist, and that the
great bulk Of the misery and degrade
ton among men results from the ex-
actions of the men with the gold.
Well, / do not think this Is the case
at all--bitterly as hate the gold
standard do not see how it can be
, the case, with conditions as above
stated?
In all your comments, you seem TO
regard the single tax as simply
revenue measure-as something on
par with our new revenue law, as
merely a proposed method of raising
funds. You seem to class 1t among
lax, instead of among reform meas
ures. You rank it in Importance with
such things as tariffs, internal rev.
enue measures, etc. You appear to
disregard entirely the great funda-
mental reform which single takers
propose. To them, as to you, the
mere raising of revenue Is compare
tively unimportant. You are after
monetary reform. They are after land
reform. To get one you propose
monetary laws. To get the other
they propose q law which has rev.
enue features. Now you see the tax
ing part all right, but overlook the
great land reform part which is the
object of the single tax. think you
grant that, as revenue raiser the
single tax idea Is sound, but you sub
ordinate 1t to the money question. II
you see but the revenue feature of
the proposition, you may be right.
But If you see the single tax In its en-
tirety, | do not see how you can be
right. AS DIR. Barnes says. money,
while convenient, is not necessary to
production. Land is. Wealth Is often
produced without money-it never can
be produced without land. Give men
free access to land and they will pro-
duce and wax rich. But deny them
this. as hundreds of thousands are
denied. and they will starve. whether
we have good money or bad. high tar
iff or free trade, high license or pro-
hibition, or what not. Thomas Car
lyle said one time: you Americans
may boast OF your democracy or any
other ocracy. the reason your COM
mon people are happy Is because they
have land" And time Is proving his
analsis TO be correct.
To say that air or sunlight are as
necessary as land, is to beg the ques-
ton. When men are denied access TO
air or to sunlight. except as they
meet another's terms. such observa-
tions will have force. At that time n
tax ON air values or light values will
be In order land | may add that nj
that time someone will explain that
the purpose OF the air tax or light
tax Ia Ia render these things free To
all, rather than To raise revenue.l
One thought more. Only n small