Rock Island Argus. (Rock Island, Ill.) 1893-1920, 1907-10-11

decide that l have distorted none of |
his statements.
There is something about Mr.. Os- |
born's letter which | cannot under |
stand 1t is this: In the first two col |
umns OF his letter, be takes special |
pains to show, in detail mind you that
he knows absolutely nothing about the
single tax, but in the third and fifth
columns he proceeds to condemn
roundly and elOquently this same sin
gle tax. Is the impartial reader"
supposed to infer from this that Mr..
Osborn condemns things of which he
is entirely ignorant?
But to return to the charges of dis
tortion. Evidently Mr. Osborn bases
them on my denial of the land auction
scheme, attributed by him to Thomas
b. Sherman. But | would ask him
is a fiat denial a distortion? Ms
words were: BE it here understood.
| that Thomas B. Searman of Brooklyl
is a single taxer, and advocates
no such scheme And | stand b.
WhaN | said. | am familiar with the
book in which Mr.. Osborn found the
plan of operating the land auction
scheme, and l was far from saving
that Me. Sherman never advocated
such scheme, but l did say that he
does not advocate it, and there is
considerable difference between lad
yocates" and advocated" Also | was
aware of the fact that the chapter of
| Blackstone which Mr. Osborn citel
deals with corporations and not with
land titles. | merely quoted book 2
chapter l of Blackstone, not in oppo-
sition to his reference to the same
authority, but because | thought that
it might interest him to know what his
own legal authority thinks of the JUS
tice of private property in land. Will
Mr. Osborn deny that Blackstone. is
as good authority on land titles as he
is on corporate suicide?" Methinks
that the denial of the one, involves
the denial of the other but if he can
figure it out differently, 1 shall glad
to see his figures. Further on Mr.. Os-
born says: "And if the single tax
will not dispossess or GUST present
landholders, as Mr.. Knapp would like
, to have us believe. though he is care.
full not to commit himself positively
ETC. leave it to the impartial reader
to whom Mr. Osborn appeals, whether
. or not 1 committed myself" This
is what l said in my letter of Sept
%: Under the single tax no one will
, be ousted. On the contrary, etc >
And yet in the face of this positive
.; statement, our friend tells us that J
was careful not to commit myself
Apropos, 1 wish it were as clear coll
corning this "committal,s that it was
not Mr.. Osborn's purpose to misrepre
sent, as it is that he knows nothing
about the single tax.
{ | have travelled good deal in my
q life, and so have heard of many won
0 derful things, but it has remained fol-
; Mr.. Osborn to tell me that, l"educatior
I and opportunity for industry are priv
!. lileges offered by the state" tt
3 1.-THE people 1 have Away.
], had the idea that here in the
q United States at least, education an,
opportunity fer industry were not priv
. ileges, but rights. ask the gentleman
to cite the authority which says tina
education, ETC., is privilege rattle
than right. In doing this he mus
I not forget to show that the authorit,
he cites is competent to override tn,
J constitution. If edS - q priv
tege. then do we benignteu alortaI;