The labor world. [volume] (Duluth, Minn.) 1896-current, 1906-05-12
.PREACHER'S REPLY To
EDITOR TOM WATSON
Watson Gan See No Difference
In the Ownership Of a
Cow or Cow-Lot.
Bigelow Shows tho Difference
and Makes Distinction in
Land and Cows,

Cincinnati, Ohio. May 1o.-Rev.
Herbert 8. Biselow. the Single Tax
preacher, forctbly answered Tom Wat
son in his pulpit last Sunday on tho
difference between the ownership OF
a COW and q COW lot. He spoke as fol-
lows:
Tom Watson's Magazine bears the
motto:-"EQual rights to au-spseiel
privileges to none" His April num-
Der contains two editorials. one In tho
race, and the other on tho land ques-
tion. The editorials strongly suggest
the proprtety Of amending Mr.. Wat
sons motto to read: Equal rights to all
except nsgroes.-special privileges to
none except landlords.
Nothing was to be expected Of Mr..
Watson on the race question. But we
were not prepared to md from his
psn Freshman's essay on the land
question.
NJ. Watson says he sees no distlnc-
tton "in principle. between the prl-
vate ownership Of a COW and private
ownership OF u cowlot."
Cows aud Cow-Lots.
Suppose the owner abandons both
the COW and the cow-lot. Suppose he
pays his taxes In order to retain his
title but decides expend not another
hours labor on either COW or cow-lot.
What happens? In few days the
cow dies The lot remains. That is
one point Of distinction between cows
and cow-lots which vitaly affects the
principle of ownership.
Now suppose 9 prospector discov-
ers coal on the adjoining lot or sup
pose enterprising men build q great
city on tho surrounding land. In
either case the owner can sell the lot
for more than man could make car
ing for herd Of cattle.
Coal mines are not discovered In
Cows, Neither does tt ever happen
that beef steak can be sold for $4,000
front foot Yet Mr. Watson secs
no distinction IN principle between the
private ownership Of cows and cow
lots.
Land and Cow Owneruhtp~
But Mr. Watson does say this:~ .As
to the abuse Of l&nd ownasship, that Il
an entirely; different question. I agree
that there should be no monopoly Of
land for speculative purposes" Why
not. Mr.. Watson7 Do you ever speak
about the abuse Of cow ownership?
Suppose you have a COW and do not
choose to milk her. Are you under
any obligations to let me milk her? II
J were to insist upon any such right
would you not tell mo to go raise my
IQ,,$ ho INIT a.
States Steel Trust says to its COM
petitors: go make another Connels-
willie coal field, these sixty thousand
acres are all mine," you talk about
the abuse of land ownership. Yet the
trust Is simply applying to that coal
field the same unqualified right Of pri-
vate ownership which you apply to
your COW. How can you complain Of
that, If as you say, there is no dis
tinotion in principle between the own
ershfp Of cows and coal-mines?
A PNtsburg Cow-Lot.
Would It not be we'll for Mr.. Wat
son to get together with himself on
this land question? For instance, he
says, Undoubtedly nature teaches that
the earth belongs in common to the
breath he says, Property in land diff
fers in no wise from property in
horses and cows" Then it must be the
undoubted teaching of nature that Mr..
Watson's horses aid cows belong in
common to the entire human race.
In PittsburE there ia lot which
cost $4,000 sixty years ago. It has in
creased In value 100 per cent every
year. 1t IS now worth $4,000. This
is just for the land and it is twenty
four foet one way by. one-hundred the
other. Mr.. Watson, was that value
added by the labor Of the owner or
ty tho growth of Pittsburg? If the
city made the value, why should not
the city take the value?
HERBERT s. BIGELOw,
Pastor Vine Street Congregational
church, Cincinnati. Ohio.