The independent., 1904-01-07

Since Mr.. W. objects to all Of my
assumed postulates, to prove my
point, here is solid fact; let him
meet it IL he can: According to the
last school census, there are over two
million people residents of Chicago.
Now in an area bounded by the lake
on the east, and the river on the
north and west and Harrison street
On the south, say five blocks either
way from the center, the value OF the
bare land Is equal to seven-eighths
of all the rest of the land on which
the city is located yet this Is the most
sparsely populated portion of the city;
six thousand residents is an outside
figure. In New York, am told, the
disparity is even greater.
Now I ask, therefore, can this fact
be accounted for on the proposition
that the community by it's mere pres
ence and needs creates the land val
ues.
After pointing out in my last al
ticle, uncontradicted by Mr.. W., how
unjust the single tax would be as a
fiscal measure. let us now see what
evil results must inevitably spring
therefrom. First, let me point to the
monumental gall our single tax friends
certainly do possess. Mr.. W., in order
to prove that no bonds need be issued
under their regime, coolly informs US
that almost double the revenue needed
would be raised by that tax, which
have clearly shown must be paid by
productive labor; since there is no
other source from which 1t can be
drawn. Undoubtedly one. Of the worst
features of our form of government Is
the political corruption it engendeis,
as seen by the almost daily revelation
of graft in all its branches
Now, II this corruption Is so ramp
ant, when the revenue Is, comparative
ly speaking, meagre one, for even
the income from protective tariff is
mere bagatele to what the single
tax would bring in, what might be ex-
pected from such an enormous corrup-
tion fund steadily flowing into the
public Golfers with no means at hand
of checking that flow? Use 1t for the
public benefit indeed! Are the single
takers so verdant as not to know that
such an orgie Of wild extravaganza in
all public branches would set In as
the world has not yet seen, for who
has been able to guage the capacity
of tax-eater's NAV?
Talk about the single tax being an
incentive to production! Just con-
slider moment: There on the land
all this wealth must be produced, for
the benefit of the spoils politicians
and their hangers-on. Here at the
public crib it may be had by little
pull" as it is called. No one can OBJ
ject, since this is supposed to be "un-
earned increment and as such is
therefore legitimate political spoils.
Can any one doubt where the attrac-
tion would be?
Not alone would 1t draw all the
worst elements of society to that pub
lie crib, as vultures are drawn to
carrion but it certainly would have
almost an irresistible tendency to try
even the best of men, subject to its
malign influence. Why should a
mere change of method Of taxation, all
other things being left as they are
now, turn men from such a safe graft,
~ oWCil IuC rams VI Iuc utSpOlicu
producers, as single takers claim TO
believe they would? A miracle could
hardly account for it. Therefore
must affirm that the single tax. in
stead of being blessing to mankind,
would be the most corrupting infiu-
ence to which society could be ex-
posed.
No, the remedy does not lie in de-
spelling the individual landlord, only
TO corrupt our poblic officials there
with, instead of returning 1t to the
parties exploited by him. That evil
is so thoroughly intrenched In the
competitive system that II Is virtual
ly part and parcel thereof. The only
remedy. that can give relief. lies In an
entire change from the competitive to
the cooperative system. as advocated
by socialists. under which such spoil
alton would be impossible.
One word In conclusion: Seeing Is
believing. III Mr.. Wakefield will SEND
r pound or SO OF unearned increment
20 ye editor. I'll pay the freight, aud
let him examine Il. then IL he pro-
nounces n genuine substantial wealth,
and created BY the mere presence and