New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1911-12-05
WAR AND LAND GRABBING
Writer Sees influence for Peace IN the
Sullivan Short Bill.

To the Editor OF Inc lrlbuh'.
Sir: There is one aspect of Professor
John r. Clark's attitude toward the III
crease Of taxation on land values through
the progressive diminution Of taxation oi
houses that should not be lost sight o.
Professor Clark has been chosen by the
trustees Of the Carnegie SlO@0,VD Peace
Endowment as the head OF the economic
section His reputation as poliucal
economist must have made many hope Tor
great things In the furtherng Of uniVersai
peace through the researches of the ecoho-
mic section. yet we find Professor Clarh
so blind to the effect ot land grabbing
in causing war that he resenis even TIE
slight attempt male by the bill introduced
i'm the New York Legislature looking 10
the weakening Of the power OF Il Few men
to mOnOpoIzo the earth's surface. Pro-
fessor Clark will not dare TO deny that
most Of the wars in the history Of man
kind have been caused by desire for terri
torial EXPANSION or ACKNOWLEDGEMENT, which
is only another name for land grabbing.
Let us name some of the more recent
wars and see whether land grabbing mas
not been the chief element in IT, Inc
Spanish-American War was owing to the
refusal If Spain TO give up the lands in the
West Indies which she had seized long ago
and was exploiting. The South African
War was due tn the desire of Great Britain
to extend her domains In the Boer country.
The greatest Of all wars since the civil
War. that between Russia and Japan, was
the result Of the land hunger that coveted
Manchurla and Corca What has inspired
the present war between Italy and Turkey
but tho formers desire 70 seize Tripoh,
simply a gigantic piece Of land grabbing?
ANY legislative measure that tends 10
bring into larger use the land Of country
should certainly have the support of the
head Of the economic section Of the Peace
Endowment, since such an act must as
suredly look toward the ultimate abolition
OF war. That such a measure as the Sulli-
van-Shortt bill does tend TO break the land
owners grip on the land is shown by the
fact that the most vigorous opponents Of
if are the owners Of real estate. They are
the ones who are making the loudest
clamor against the bill. which is opposed
also by Professor Clark
Professor Clark is very much disturbed
because Of the probable conliscation Of the
land values now going TO the land owners
If such a measure We're passed; but he Is
not at all distressed over the daily con-
hscation by the land owners of the land
values produced by the community Every
time a land owner charges rent for the use
Of piece Of land he is confiscating 20 his
private uses a community made value. and
hence public property and therefore If the
measure Of iniquity is to be confscation.
then is the land owner condemned from the
very beginning. Whether Professor Clark
knows it or not. the same cutlery against
the freeing Of the negroes was made by
the slave holders before the Civil War.
They denounced the proposed "confisca-
ton" Of their property. and right here let
me say that the slave holders had a better
right to their slaves than has the land
owner to the land which the Law permits
him To own. just as the law permitted the
slave holder to own the negro How much
COMPENSATION does a state pay a saloon
keeper or distiller when It adopts the pro-
hibtory law and wipes him out of bust
ness? Is not that confscation pure and
simple?
As lover Of peace may ! urge upon Pro-
fessor Clark to revise his view of the taxa
ton of land values, and thus come into
frame Of mind more fit for that great basic
examination Of the causes of war which
is implied by his appointment as the head
Of the economic section?
WILLIAM EVERETT HICKS.
New York, Dec. p 1911.