Rock Island Argus. (Rock Island, Ill.) 1893-1920, 1907-09-25
MORE ABOUT SINGLE TAX.
George J. Knapp Takes Issue With John G. Osborn
on the Subject.

Rock Island, Sept. 23-Editor Argus: |
In the issue of The Argus dated the
18th inst, l note letter addressed to
you by John G. Osborn OF Port Byron,
in which he expresses surprise that
the single tax is not dead, but perhaps
Mr.. Osborn will be still more surprised
to hear that the single tax is only in
its infancy, and that we expect soon to
hear a lusty noise issuing from its in
fantile lungs. Mr.. Osborn started out
to show the impracticability of the sin
gle tax hut finished up by trying to
snow Size imprdcticability of some sort
of 4. tud auction scheme Be it here
understood. that Thomas B. Sherman
of brooklyn. TO whom Mr.. Osborn at
tribp1as the and auction scheme, is
singh irNar and advocates no such
scheme ana so that there is nothing
in common he veen single tax and
land auction
From NJ osborn's letter l gather
that his reasons Tor scouting the single
tax idea are four as follows:
l. Because fue present owners of
land cannot justly be "ousted," unless
the public purchases their land from
them at present valuation.
2. Because it is impossible to dis
tinguish between land values and the
artificial value created by improve
ments. (Mr. Osborn calls this the weak
spot in Henry Georges philosophy.
h. III Of in
dustries make the single tax impossi-
BILE.
4. Because, no matter how taxes
are collected, productive industry must
foot the bill, and consequently the pub
lie will be no better off.
Before we examine these reasons it
will not be improper to remark that if
Mr.. Osborn knew anything about the
single tax, he would not have saIu,
suppose the people should be cOnvinc.
ed that the single tax is correct-and
should show their faith by transferring
the land to the government etc.
| would ask Mr.. Osborn to say who
was the bona fide single taXer who
ever advocated transferring the land tC
the government?
If Mr.. Osborn will take the trouble
to look it up, he will quickly see the
difference between appTopriating land
and appropriating land rents.
Again, he says of the Standard Oil
the railroads, etc, they cannot be
ousted, even under the single tax
Will Mr.. Osborn please say who was
hn -;n hn I'D
ousting of anyone from the land? II
he will look it up, he will find that un
der the single tax no one will be GUST
ed. On the contrary, if the Standard
Oil, the railroads, etc, want still more
land than they now hold, no one viii
prevent them from taking it. They car
take all they want, but they will have
to pay to the people the full value
which accrues to them by virtue o
their exclusive possession of such land
1t is also proper here to note, tina
Mr.. Osborne seems TO be puzzled El
that indefinite something which single
takers call ground rent" If he hai
read carefully and considered my prev
ious article on the single tax. the fou
questions IllDIlGu ny HIS lOuI IGGSOll
las | infer them) would have answer
ed themselves, and that ''indefnit
something which single takers cal
ground rent would have assumed
definite shape in his mind. AS to tn
differences between conditions in tn
little town of Faliede, Norway, an
conditions in the United States. the
are after all not so great as they ma
at first glance seem. Labor, capita
and land are the factors necessary t
production in both countries
The people of Norway eat, sleep an
wear clothes, same as we do; they us
all the commodities which we use an
their government needs revenues sam
as ours Their industries may not b
quit as complex, but as we shall pre-
entlg -ao hat cuts only a very sma
figut0
sLot lis now consider the four re
sons T. which Mr.. Osborne seems
pin his faith
1. In connection with his first re
son, have shown that the single ia
will Gust NJ one, so it only remains
consider the Justice of the ''confisc
ton" of land rents. Mr. Osborne
kind enough to admit that there mf