A 481848
N
咨​洽
​1?
E
苦海
​場
​吃
​Atul
nit
Economist
1.3.107 Singer Jun-Blue Leribution
nat. Sinique Jes
1704. Shortest road to thu
Jinale tax
>
*C W ** 447:3 6090*** **
UNASES TA
دي
1 *
1;
1
Univ. of Mich.
2
፡
-
a.
吳天
​* 1
2
2
R T
*
7
こ
​1
་ ་
?
A01 E

2
AY
3
3
C
!
ARTES
LIBRARY
1837)
VERITAS
SCIENTIA
OF THE
UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN
1.E PLURIBUS UNUM
TUFBOR
SI QUAERIS PENINSULAM AMOE NAME
CIRCUMSPICE
1313
Q13
1
!



From the Single Tax Information Buse
Vol. 3.
JANUARY, 1901.
дам
un 19
No. 7.
THE QUARTERLY ECONOMIST.
Annual Subscription, 25c.
Single Copy, 10c.
SPECIAL KANSAS CITY NUMBER
!
The Single Tax
*
Direct Legislation
Guaranteed Circulation 10,000 Copies.
PUBLISHED BY FRANK VIERTH,
CEDAR RAPIDS, Iowa.
Office of publication, 908 Seventh Avenue.
Entered at Cedar Rapids, Iowa, postoffice as second-class matter.
}

F. M. Deardorff,
Lumber...
Yard: 20th and Vine St..
Telephone Nos.: East 590-591.
Kansas City, Mo.
H. B. FARLEY, Prest. ED. FARLEY Vice Prest. L. A. FARLEY, Sec. & Treas.
Farley Bros.
HEATING AND PLUMBING CO.,
Plumbing and Gas Fitting,
Steam and Hot Water Heating.
Telephone 640.
1409 E. 12th.
Branch Shop No. 1
Branch Shop No 2
Tel. 2083
Tel. 3326
1033 Grand Ave.
Kansas City, Mo.
L. A. FARLEY, Mgr.
908 East 12th CARLSON & DRAPER, Mg rs
John C. Bovard,
Printer
201-202 New York Life Building.
Superior Law Brief Printing
a Specialty.
Kansas City, Mo.

Western Jobber and Installer of Favorite Furnaces and Hot Air Planum Fan System for
Churches, Schools and Residences. Send for estimates. Long distance 'phone 996.
GRAND
1306
AVE.
A.HOLTMAN
TOO
HOT
FOR
US
KANSAS
FAVORITE
U.S.A.
CITY
The Favorite

The Economic League
1
-Conducted by
THE UNIVERSITY ASSOCIATION.
The object of THE ECONOMIC LEAGUE is to encourage an interest
in the discussion of social and economic subjects and to furnish, by
lectures and printed courses of study, reliable information on such
topics as Trusts, Municipal Ownership, National Expansion, the
Monroe Doctrine, Money, Tariff, Direct Legislation, etc., etc., which
are of vital interest to the American people. In carrying out this plan
it has secured the aid of many of the leading specialists of the world,
men who are recognized as authorities in the departments they have
treated.
THE ECONOMIC LEAGUE is committed to no party, creed or hobby.
Its sole aim is to seek the truth, to arouse public sentiment in each
community to the need of unity of action on public questions, to secure
a better administration of our laws, and to furnish the information
and help needed that all may exercise, intelligently, the rights of
American citizenship.
The education that is imperatively demanded by all classes is
the simple and clear presentation of the truth regarding the great
social and industrial problems which confront the world and demand
solution. This presentation to be from no one standpoint or biased
by the interest of no party or class of men, but from different stand-
points and with the single purpose to ascertain the truth regarding
them.
INSTRUCTION,
In furtherance of this plan two courses of
instruction have been prepared by recognized
authorities.
No. 1. ECONOMICS, POLITICAL SCIENCE AND SOCIOLOGY: Among
the large list of contributors are PROF. RICHARD T. ELY, PROF. JESSE
MACY, PROF. H. H. POWERS, PROF. E. W. BEMIS, PROF. JOHN A. HOB-
son, Prof. GRAHAM TAYLOR, WM. F. WILLOUGHBY, Ñ. O. NELSON,
PROF. JOHN R. COMMONS, etc., etc.
No. 2. THE AMERICAN YEAR: Treating fully and impartially such
great questions as Taxation, Money, Public Finance, Trusts, Expan-
sion, International Law, etc. Among the contribuors are PROF, DAVID
KINLEY, PROF. JOHN B. Moore, PROF. F. L. McVEY, ELTWEED POM-
EROY, PROF. E. W. BEMIS, PROF. W. M. DANIELS, PROF. R. P. FALK-
NER, etc., etc.
Each course contains nearly 800 large quarto pages, fully
illustrated. Price but $3.75 each delivered prepaid.
KANSAS CITY has a large branch
of the Economic League and in-
vites all interested to join in its
work. Address application for
membership to
PROF. I. I. CAMMACK, Sec..
528 Chestnut St.
ADDRESS
The University Association,
Association Building,
CHICAGO
"Read not to contradict nor to believe,
But to weigh and consider."—Bacon.
The Single Tax
An Absolute Necessity for a Government for the People.
Direct Legislation
An Absolute Necessity for a Government by the People.
ALLIED PAINTING
TRADES
"UNION
LABEL | COUNCIL
RA
"When the object is to raise the permanent condition
of the people, small means do not merely produce small
effect, they produce no effect at all.
>>
- John Stuart Mill.
Published under the direction of the Kansas City Single Tax
Propaganda Association.
JANUARY, 1901.
FRANK VIERTH, PUBLISHER,
CEDAR RAPIDs, Iowa.
INTRODUCTION.
To the professional, business, and working men and
women of Kansas City, this little booklet is presented, in
the hope it may lead many of such into a clearer under-
standing of these propositions, that they will make them
the subject of frequent discussion, and take practical
steps to have them incorporated in resolutions at the
primaries and conventions of their respective parties.
Copies of this booklet may be had without charge from
any member of this association, from our advertisers, for
whom we bespeak your patronage, and from the offices
of the officers of the
Kansas City Single Tax Propaganda Association.
1611 Genesee St.
704 New York Life Building.
22 E. 8th St.
*
CONTENTS.
THE SINGLE TAX; WHAT IT IS AND WHY WE URGE IT,
7
THE PATH THE CALF MADE,
13
THE INQUISITIVE BOY,
15
MONOPOLY GULCH,
19
HOW TO GET RICH WITHOUT WORKING,
36
KANSAS CITY AND THE BEE HIVE,
59
SINGLE TAX APPLIED TO VARIOUS INTERESTS,
63
a. The Single Tax and the Farmer,
63
b. The Single Tax Applied to Cities,
67
C.
A Single Tax View of Trusts,
-
73
d. The Single Tax Applied to Kansas City,
77
RESULTS IN Switzerland,
DIRECT LEGISLATION-WHAT IT MEANS
MUNICIPAL WELFARE LEAGUE,
ORGANIZATION AND PROGRESS OF THESE REFORMS,
ITS
81
89
90
LIST OF ADVERTISERS.
Black & MacKay,
Bovard, John C.,
Bovard, Wm. A.,
Boyd, Chas. M.,
Braecklein, John C.,
Bridges, M. & Son,
Brunner, H. J.,
Carroll, Martin,
Continental Varnish Co.,
Courtney, C. C.,
Deardorff Lumber Co.,
Diamond Paint Co.,
Farley Bros.,
Henry George Cigar,
Holtman, A.,
Kennedy House,
Leritz, L.
Moriarty, E. P. & Co.,
National Single Taxer,
Oates & Gillam,
Phoenix Cut-Stone Co.,
Seidel, Frank,
Sopher, B. M.,
The Public,
University Association,
Viavi Company,
"Why?"
Wirthman, J. Geo.
1
F¶¶¶666666666666666646666666EEEEEEEE
[E¶EEEEEE666666666666666666666666666EEEEEE
TELEPHONE 946.
DIAMOND
PAINT COMPANY.
DEVOE
PAINTS, VARNISHES
AND BRUSHES.
1214 GRAND AVE.,
KANSAS CITY, MO.
M. Bridges & Son
+
Painting and
Hard Wood
Finishing
Contractors.

*
Office 209-210 Postal Tele-
graph Building.
Telephone 1967.
Res. 1520 McGee St.
KANSAS CITY, Mo.
Telephone No. 1268.
Box 128 Master Builders' Exchange.
Wm. A. Bovard,
Practical
Building Raiser
and Shorer.
Floors and Girders Raised and
Strengthened.
Brick Work Shored and Held Up,
1313 Holmes Street,
Kansas City, Mo.
Pueblo, Colo.
Augusta, Ga.
H. J. BRUNNER
Hardware
Co.,
Acorn Stoves & Ranges.
A large line of Cutlery,
Carvers, Razors and
Pocket Knives.
Full Line of Worten-
home Goods.
910-912 Walnut St.,
KANSAS CITY, Mo.
➜♪♪♪♪♪>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
The Single Tax
What it is and Why We Urge It.
By Henry George.
I shall briefly state the fundamental principles of
what we who advocate it call the single tax.
We propose to abolish all taxes save one single tax
levied on the value of land, irrespective of the value of
improvements in or on it.
What we propose is not a tax on real estate, for real
estate includes improvements. Nor is it a tax on land,
for we would not tax all land, but only land having a
value irrespective of its improvements, and would tax
that in proportion to that value.
Our plan involves the imposition of no new tax since
already tax land values in taxing real estate. To
carry it out we have only to abolish all taxes save the
tax on real estate, and to abolish all of that which now
falls on buildings or improvements, leaving only that part
of it which now as on the value of the bare land,
increasing so as to take as nearly as may be the
whole of economic rent, or whe is sometimes styled the
"unearned increments of land values."
That the value of the land alone would suffice to pro-
vide all needed public revenues-municipal, county, state,
and national-there is no doubt.
To show briefly why we urge this change, let me
treat (1) of its expendiency, and (2) of its justice.


rom the single tax we may expect these advan-
tages
1 It would dispense with a whole army of tax
gathers and other officials which present taxes require,
and plce in the treasury a much larger proportion of
8
THE QUARTERLY ECONOMIST.
what is taken from the people, while by making govern-
ment simpler and cheaper, it would tend to make it purer.
It would get rid of taxes which necessarily promote fraud,
perjury, bribery, and corruption, which lead men into
temptation, and which tax what the nation can least
afford to spare-honesty and conscience. Since land lies
out-of-doors and cannot be removed, and its value is the
most readily ascertained of all values, the tax to which
we would resort can be collected with the minimum of
cost and the least strain on public morals.
2. It would enormously increase the production of
wealth-
(a) By the removal of the burdens that now weigh
upon industry and thrift. If we tax houses there will be
fewer and poorer houses; if we tax machinery, there will
be less machinery; if we tax trade, there will be less
trade; if we tax cap..al, there will be less capital; if we
tax savings, there will be less savings. All the taxes
therefore that we should abolish are those that repress
industry and lessen wealth. But if we tax land values
there will be no less land.
(b) On the contrary, the taxation of land values has
the effect of making land more easily available by indus-
try since it makes it more difficult for owners of valuable
land, which they themselves do not care to use to hold it
idle 'for a larger future price. While the abolition of
taxes on labor and the products of labor would free the
active element of production, the taking of land values
in taxation would free the passive element by destroying
speculative land values, and preventing the holding out
of use of land needed for use. If any one will but look
around to-day and see the unused or but half-used land,
the idle labor, the unemployed or poorly employed cap-
ital, he will get some idea of how enormous would be the
production of wealth were all the forces of production
free to engage.
•
(c) The taxation of the processes and product of
labor on the one hand; and the insufficient taxation of and
values on the other, produce an unjust distribution of
wealth which is building up in the hands of a few, for
tunes more monstrous than the world has ever fore
seen, while the masses of our people are steadily beom-
ing relatively poorer. These taxes necessarily fall A the
poor more heavily than on the rich; by increasing Fices,
they necessitate a larger capital in all businesses, a con

THE SINGLE TAX.
9
sequently give an advantage to large capitals; and they
give, and in some cases are designed to give, special
advantages and monopolies to combinations and trusts.
On the other hand, the insufficient taxation of land values
enables men to make large fortunes by land speculation
and the increase in ground values-fortunes which do
not represent any addition by them to the general wealth
of the community, but merely the appropriation by some
of what the labor of others creates.
This unjust distribution of wealth develops on the
one hand a class idle and wasteful because they are too
rich, and on the other hand a class idle and wasteful
because they are too poor-it deprives men of capital and
opportunities which would make them more efficient pro-
ducers. It thus greatly diminishes production.
(d) The unjust distribution which is giving us the
hundred-fold millionaire on the one side and the tramp
and pauper on the other, generates thieves, gamulers,
social parasites of all kinds, and requires large expend-
iture of money and energy in watchmen, policemen, courts,
prisons, and other means of defense and repression.
It kindles a greed of gain and a worship of wealth, and
produces a bitter struggle for existence which fosters
drunkenness, increases insanity, and causes men whose
energies ought to be devoted to honest production to spend
their time and strength in cheating and grabbing from
each oher. Besides the moral loss, all of this involves
an enormous economic loss which the single tax would
save.
(၁)
The taxes we would abolish fall most heavily
on the poorer agricultural districts, and would tend to
drive population and wealth from them to the great cities.
The tax we would increase would destroy that monopoly
of land which is the great cause of that distribution of
population which is crowding the people too closely
together in some places, and scattering them too far apart
in other places. Families live on top of one another in
cities because of the enormous speculative prices at which
vacant lots are held. In the country they are scattered
too far apart for social intercourse and convenience,
because, instead of each taking what land he can use, every
one who can, grabs all he can get, in the hope of profiting
by its increase of value, and the next man must pass far-
ther on. Thus we have scores of families living under
a single roof, and other families living in dugouts on the
Won
10
THE QUARTERLY ECONOMIST.
prairies afar from neighbors-some living too close to
each other, for moral, mental, or physical health, and
others too far separated for the stimulating and refining
influences of society. The wastes in health, in mental
vigor, and in unnecessary transportation result in great
economic losses which the single tax would save.
Let us turn to the moral side and consider the ques-
tion of justice.
The right of property does not rest on human law;
they have often ignored and violated it. It rests on natural
laws that is to say, the law of God. It is clear and
absolute, and every violation of it, whether committed
by a man or a nation, is a violation of the command,
"Thou shalt not steaï.' The man who catches a fish,
grows an apple, raises a calf, builds a house, makes a
coat, paints a picture, constructs a machine, has, as to any
such thing, an exclusive right of ownership, which carries
with it the right to give, to sell or bequeath that thing.
""
But who made the earth that any man can claim
súch ownership of it, or any part of it, or the right to
give, sell or bequeath it? Since the earth was not made
by us, but is only a temporary dwelling-place on which
one generation of men follows another; since we find our-
selves here and manifestly here with the equal permission
of the Creator, it is manifest that no one can have any ex-
clusive right of ownership in land, and that the rights of
all men to land must be equal and inalienable. There
must be an exclusive right of possession of land, for the
man who uses it must have secure possession of land in
order to reap the products of his labor. But his right
of possession must be limited by the equal right of all,
and should therefore be conditioned on the payment to
the community by the possessor of an equivalent for any
special valuable privilege thus accorded him.
When we tax houses, crops, money, furniture, capi-
tal or wealth in any of its forms, we take from individuals
what rightfully belongs to them. We violate the right of
property, and in the name of the state commit robbery.
But when we tax ground values we take from individuals
what does not belong to them, but belongs to the com-
munity, and which cannot be left to individuals without
the robbery of other individuals.
Think what the value of land is. It has no reference
to the cost of production, as has the value of houses,
DOLW
THE SINGLE TAX.
11
horses, ships, clotues, or other things produced by labor,
for land is not produced by man, it has been created by'
God. The value of land does not come from the exertion
of labor on land, for the value thus produced is a value
of improvement. That value attaches to any piece of
land means that that piece of land is more desirable than
the land which other citizens may obtain, and that they
are more willing to pay a premium for permission to use
it. Justice therefore requires that this premium of value
shall be taken for the benefit of all in order to secure to
all their equal rights.
Consider the difference between the value of a build-
ing and the value of land. The value of a building, like
the value of goods, or of anything properly styled wealth,
is produced by individual exertion and therefore properly
belongs to the individual; but the value of land only arises
with the growth and improvement of the community,
and therefore properly belongs to the community. It
is not because of what its owners have done, but because
of the presence of the whole great population, that land
in New York is worth millions an acre. This value
therefore is the proper fund for defraying the common
expenses of the whole population; and it must be taken
for public use, under penalty of generating land specula-
tion and monopoly which will bring about artificial scarcity
where the Creator has provided an abundance for all whom
His providence has called into existence. It is thus a
violation of justice to tax labor, or the things produced by
labor, and it is also a violation of justice not to tax
land values.
These are the fundamental reasons for which' we urge
the single tax, believing it to be the greatest and most
fundamental of all reforms. We do not think it will
change human nature. That man can never do; but it
will bring about conditions in which human nature can
develop what is best, instead of, as now in so many cases,
what is worst. It will permit such an enormous produc-
tion as we can now hardly conceive. It will secure an
equitable distribution. It will solve the labor problem
and dispel the darkening clouds which are now gathering
over the horizon of our civilization. It will make unde-
served poverty an unknown thing. It will check the soul-
destroying greed of gain. It will enable men to be at
least as honest, as true, as considerate, and as high.
minded as they would like to be. It will remove temp-
Uor M
12
THE QUARTERLY ECONOMIST.
tation to lying, false swearing, bribery, and law-breaking.
It will open to all, even the poorest, the comforts and
refinements and opporunities of an advancing civilization.
It will thus, so we reverently believe, clear the way for the
coming of that kingdom of right and justice, and conse-
quently of abundance and peace and happiness, for which
the Master told His disciples to pray and work. It is
not that it is a promising invention or cunning device
that we look for the single tax to do all this; but it is
because it involves a conforming of the most important
and fundamental adjustments of society to the supreme
law of justice, because it involves the basing of the most
important of our laws on the principle that we should do
to others as we would be done by.
The readers of this article, I may fairly presume, be-
lieve, as I believe, that there is a world for us beyond this.
The limit of space has prevented me from putting before
them more than some hints for thought. Let me in con-
clusion present two more:
I. What would be the result in Heaven itself if
those who got there first instituted private property in the
surface of Heaven, and parceled it out in absolute owner-
ship among themselves, as we parcel out the surface of
the earth?
2. Since we cannot conceive of a Heaven in which
the equal rights of God's children to their Father's
bounty is denied, as we now deny them on this earth, what
is the duty enjoined on Christians by the daily prayer;
"Thy kingdom come, Thy will be done, on earth, as it is
in Heaven?"-Henry George in the Christian Advocate.
Maou
*
The Path the Calf Made.
One day, through the primeval wood,
A calf walked home, as good calves should;
But made a trail all bent askew,
A crooked trail, as all calves do.
Since then two hundred years have fled,
And I infer, the calf is dead.
But still he left behind his trail,
And thereby hangs my moral tale.
The trail was taken up next day
By a lone dog that passed that way;
And then a wise bell-weather sheep
Pursued the trail o'er vale and steep,
And drew the flock behind him, too,
As good bell-weathers always do.
And from that day o'er hill and glade
Through those old woods a path was made;
And many men wound in, and out,
And dodged, and turned, and bent about.
And uttered words of righteous wrath
Because 'twas such a crooked path.
But still they followed-do not laugh—
The first migrations of that calf,
And through this winding woodway stalked,
Because he wabbled when he walked.
This forest path became a lane,
That bent, and turned, and turned again;
This crooked lane became a road,
Where many a poor horse with his load,
Toiled on beneath the burning sun,
And traveled some three miles in one.
And thus, a century and a half
They trod in the footsteps of that calf.
The years passed on in swiftness fleet,
The road became a village street;
And this, before men were aware,
A city's crowded thorougfare;
And soon the central street was this
Of a renowned metropolis,
>
14
THE QUARTERLY ECONOMIST.
1
And men two centuries and a half
Trod in the footsteps of that calf.
Each day a hundred thousand rout
Followed the zigzag calf about;
And o'er his crooked journey went
The traffic of a continent.
A hundred thousand men were led
By one calf near three centuries dead.
They followed still his crooked way,
And lost one hundred years a day;
For such reverence is lent
To well established precedent.
A moral lessen this might teach,
Were I ordained and called to preach;
For men are prone to go it blind
Along the calf paths of the mind,
And work away from sun to sun
To do what other men have done.
They follow in the beaten track,
And out, and in, and forth and back,
And still their devious course pursue,
To keep the path that others do.
But how the wise old wood gods laugh
Who saw the first primeval calf!
Ah! many things this tale might teach,
But I am not ordained to preach.
-SAM WALTER FOSS.
Maou
1
The Inquisitive Boy.
I always read those conversations between a father
and his inquisitive boy boy, which Life publishes, and every
time I read one it reminds me of a conversation between a
father and his son of which I have either read or dreamed.
It went thus:
"What place is that, pa?"
"That is the brickyard, my son."
"Whose brickyard is it, pa?"
"It belongs to me, my son."
"Do all these piles of brick belong to you?”
"Yes, my son, every brick of them."
"My! How long did it take you to make them? Did
you make them all alone by yourself?"
"No, my son, those men you see working there make
them for me."
"Do the men belong to you, pa?"
"No, my son, those men are free men. No man can
own another. If he could the other would be a slave.”.
"What is a slave, pa?"
“A slave, my son, is a man who has to work for an-
other all his life for only his board and clothes."
"If a slave gets sick, who pays for the doctor, pa?"
"Well, his owner does; he can't afford to lose his
property."
"Why do men work so hard, pa? Do they like it?"
"Well, no, I don't suppose they do, but they work or
starve."
"Are these men rich, pa?"
"Not to any great extent, my son."
"Do they own any houses, pa?"
"I rather guess not, my son.
"Have they any horses or fine clothes, and do they go
to the seaside when it's warm like we do, pa?"
Uor M
16
THE QUARTERLY ECONOMIST.
"Well, hardly; it takes them all their time to work for
their living."
"What is a living, pa?"
"Why, a living-well, for them a living is what they
eat and wear.
"Isn't that board and clothes, pa?"
"I suppose it is."
"Well, are they any better off than slaves, pa?”
"Of course they are, you foolish boy. Why, they're
free, they don't need to work for me if they don't like to;
they can leave whenever they choose."
"And if they leave won't they have to work, pa?"
"Yes, of course they will; they will have to work for
some one else."
"And will they get any more than a living from him?"
"No, I suppose not.”
"Well, then, how are they any better off than slaves?"
"Why, they have votes; they are free men.'
"If they get sick do you pay for the doctor, pa?"
"Catch me! What have I got to do with it? They
must pay for their own doctor."
"Can you afford to lose one of the men who work for
you, pa?"
"Of course I can; it don't make any difference to me.
I can hire another whenever I like."
"Then you aren't so particular about them as if they
were your slaves, are you, pa?"
"No, I suppose not."
"Then how is it better for them to be free?"
"Oh, don't ask such foolish questions, boy."
"What are bricks made of, pa?"
"Of clay, my son.'
"Do the bricks belong to the men when they make
them, pa?"
"No, my son, they belong to me."
"Why, when the men make them?"
"Because the clay is mine."
"Did you make it, pa?"
"No; God made it, my son."
"Did He make it for you, pa?"
"No; I bought it."
"Bought it from God?"
"No, from a man."
"Did the man buy it from God?"
"No, of course not; he bought it from another man, I
suppose."
Maou
THE INQUISITIVE BOY.
17
"Did the first man it was bought from buy it from
God?"
"No, I suppose not."
"How did he get it then? How was it his more than
anybody's else?"
"Oh, I don't know, I suppose he just claimed it.”
"Then, if these men should claim it now would it be
theirs?"
"Oh, bother! don't be asking such foolish questions.”
"If you didn't own the brickyard and the clay how
would you make your living?”
“Oh, I don't know, I suppose I should have to work.”
"Would you make bricks, pa?"
"Maybe I would."
"How would you like to make bricks for only your
board and clothes, and let the man who claimed the brick-
yard have everything else?"
"Nobody'd care how I liked it. Poor people must
work for their living."
"If these men had brickyards of their own would they
work for you, pa?"
"Not likely; they'd work of themselves, probably."
"Isn't it lucky that that man claimed this land first
and that you bought it?"
"Why?"
"If he hadn't, maybe somebody else would have
claimed it, and then maybe one of these men would own it
now, and then you'd have to work for him for your board
and clothes."
"Maybe. You ought to be thankful to Providence for
His goodness to you in giving you a father who can support
you without working."
"Should those men's little boys be thankful to Provi-
dence, too, pa?""
"Well, I suppose they should."
"What for, pa?"
"Oh, because their pas have steady work."
"Is steady work a good thing, pa?"
"Of course it is my son."
"Then why don't you work, pa. Nobody could keep
you from making brick, could they, pa?"
"No. I don't want to keep men out of a job. If I
worked I would be keeping one of them out of a job."
“That's kind of you, pa. Do you think if you was to
wheel that man's barrow once while he rested, he'd get
mad about it?"
18
THE QUARTERLY ECONOMIST.
"Oh, pshaw! Gentlemen don't wheel barrows.”
"What's gentlemen, pa?"
"Why, gentlemen,-men who do not have to work—
the upper class."
"I thought there wasn't any upper classes in this
country. I heard a man say all men were equal."
"The man who said it was a socialist, or an anarchist,
or something, or maybe it was election time and he was
trying to catch votes."
"Say, pa, my Sunday School teacher says we are all
God's children. Is she a socialist or an anarchist, or is she
trying to catch votes?"
"Oh, no, that is the right thing to say in Sunday
Schools and churches."
"Well, pa, honest now, are these men God's children
just as much as we are?"
"Why, yes, my son, to be sure they are."
"Say, pa, do you remember when you bought the dozen
allies for brother Jim and me, and I grabbed them all and
nade him give me his top before I'd let him play with
them, and you called me a greedy little hog and gave me
a licking?"
"Yes, my son, I remember."
"Well, do you think you did right?"
"Certainly, my son. A parent does right to correct
his children and keep them from acquiring bad principles.
I bought the marbles for you both. Jim had as much right
to them as you."
"Well, pa, if these men are God's children just as
much as you, then you and them are brothers, and if you
nake them give you nearly all the brick for allowing them
to use the clay which God made, isn't that the same as
me making Jim give me his top for a chance to play with
the marbles?"
"Oh, bother! Don i ask such stupid questions!"
"Say, pa, do you think God thinks you are a greedy
little hog, and that He will punish you for grabbing that
clay?"
"Oh, don't talk so much! Say, ma, put this child to
bed, he makes me tired!"
Monopoly Gulch.
By A. F. Broomhall.
Conclusion by Hon. Freeman Knowles.
"Pard, we've struck it rich at last-just look at them
hens' eggs. Here is a dead cinch on a million. This is
a mighty lonesome place, a long way from nowhere, but
we can lick in and dig out the shiners, and some time or
ruther we'll get 'em out; hey, Hez? Think of them
babies way back in the States!"
The speaker was a tall, lank individual, with a red-
dish beard, pale blue eyes, and a countenance brown and
drawn from hardship and exposure. His age was about
forty-five years. By his side stood a sturdy man of thirty-
five; a matter of fact individual, who was not fluent of
speech, nor opulent in imagination; but his eyes shone
with the keenest satisfaction. He evidently did think of
"them babies away back in the States," and his soul was
stirred to its very depths. Did he not see before him
lumps of pure gold? Even in his prosaic brain Fancy
spread her rainbow wings.
"Yes, Bill, it seems too good to be true. There's
thousands in sight, but if we had all the gold in the hills
it would do us no good unless we could find water near
by. Shake your bottle and you'll find it empty, and it's
miles and miles from here to the nearest drop.'
"You're right, Hez. This gulch looks like there hadn't
been a drop of water in it for a million years. But we've
enough to do us to-night and to-morrow, so let's camp
here and look for liquid in the morning.
At sunrise Hez and Bill began their search for water,
but not a drop could they find. They climbed the steep
rugged sides of the mountain in vain, and were about to
give up in despair, when Hez said he believed there was
water near but it flowed down the other side of the hills.
After a long search his judgment was verified. On the
20
THE QUARTERLY ECONOMIST.
7
other side they discovered a limpid stream, which leaped
out of a crevice in the face of a perpendicular rock, fell
twenty feet or more and ran swiftly away across a little
plateau. This afterwards proved to be the only water
within many miles. Each took a drink, filled his bottle
and sat down to rest.
"Well," said Bill, "gold is good, but water is better
-hey, boss?"
"Yes," replied Hez, "gold is good for what you can
get for it, but when there is nothin' to get it's worth
nothin". Let's walk down the creek a bit.”
Suiting the action to the word he rose and followed
the stream a few yards, when he started with surprise and
shouted to his companion to follow him. Bill hastened at
the word and they were soon together contemplating a
remarkable freak of nature.
The stream disappeared as abruptly as it appeared.
There was a rift in the surface of the plateau, into which
the creek fell and was lost.
"Well, I'm glad that she staid up long enough to
breathe," said Bill. "But enough is enough, so let's
scoot back to the Gulch and stake off our claims."
Hez and Bill got on swimmingly; true, they had to
"tote" their water from Minute Creek, as Bill had dubbed
the stream, but they kept piling up the nuggets, and were
made more than content.
After they had been in the gulch a couple of months,
a stranger on a good horse, rode down the mountain to
their shanty and said: "Good morning, gentlemen.” He
was of medium height, slender and active; his face would
have been handsome but that his eyes were close together
and his lips so closely set. It was apparent that he was
a man of education and nerve. He looked as if a pick-
axe and shovel were strangers to him and that he would
refuse an introduction. Hez and Bill cordially told him
about the richness of their claims. They also told him
of the difficulties in getting water and of the peculiar
appearance and disappearance of Minute Creek. This
interested the stranger very much, and he asked if Bill
would show him the creek next day.
"Certainly," said Bill, and and at sunrise they stood
upon the plateau beside Minute Creek. It was a beauti-
ful spot. The little park sloping gently towards the south,
contained about one hundred and sixty acres of good land
and was altogether desirable. While they strolled about,
Bill did the talking. When he suggested that they go
MONOPOLY GULCH,
21
back the stranger declined, saying that he believed he
would stay there that night. Bill urged him to come
"There's
down to the Gulch and stake off a claim.
plenty for all," said Bill, "but it won't be many months
before the whole valley will be full of prospectors."
"I'll be down in the morning," said his companion,
"but I don't believe I'l dig any gold."
When Bill was gone the stranger said to himself:
"Here's a million! Let the fools dig-I'll get the gold,
or my name is not G. Reed."
Reed went down into the Guich the next morning,
after Bill and Hez had been at work several hours, and
immediately after the usual greetings said: "Gentlemen,
I believe I won't stake off a claim here in the Gulch, but
I'll take up that piece of land around Minute Creek, if
you don't object, and I would like to hire you to help me
put up a cabin. I know it's greedy to ask you to quit
your work here, but I'll pay what you think it is worth.
Hez and Bill replied in one voice, as might have
been expected: "Why, pard, of course we'll help you,
and mighty glad of your company, and you won't pay us
anything for our time, either. We'll have you a shack
up in no time. We don't care if you homestead the whole
mountain range; there's all the yellow boys in this Gulch
that we want. But ye'd better turn in for a miner."
"No," said Reed. "I'm no miner; when can we put
up the shack? I want to go back to the States as soon as
possible and bring in some supplies."
"Why," said Bill, "we'll put it up to-day."
"That's good of you," said Reed. "Get your axes and
shovels and let's start."
Reed rode back up, the hill. Bill and Hez followed,
carrying their axes and shovels. They worked with energy
and dispatch and before sundown they had a small, but
comfortable cabin erected, just south of the banks of
Minute Creek. The view from the cabin door was glori-
ous. They lingered until twilight, watching the sun
paint landscapes on the sky and transform the snowy
mantles of the range into robes of crimson and gold.
Hez and Bill were tired, but G. Reed was as fresh as a
daisy-he had bossed the job. Reed asked his friends to
stay all night, but they declined his hospitality, saying they
would go back so they could go to work early in the morn-
ing. With a hearty and cheerful "good night," carrying
their shovels and axes and a bottle of water each, they
strode down the pathway to their cabin in the Gulch.
22
THE QUARTERLY ECONOMIST.
Reed sat in his door for a time and smoked, and
thought, and plannea. He finally threw his cigar into
the bushes and said, as he rose and stretched himself:
"There's a million in it."
Bright and early Reed appeared at the cabin of Bill
and Hez. "Boys," said he, "I'm going back to the States;
is there anything I can do for you."
"Yes," said Bill, "we want several things, but most
of all we want some oilcloth. It's a nuisance to carry our
water down the hill in bottles, and we want to make oil-
cloth bags, so that we can swing them over a burro, then
we can make a kind of cistern and fill it up and have a
supply on hand. Bring us a lot of it, and we'll make it
all right."
Bill gave him a list of other articles, all of which
Reed carefully noted in his book. Then wishing them
good by and good luck he rode off making a last request
that they would watch the shanty on Minute Creek.
They could
nor why it
Reed was absent about three months. During that
time Hez and Bill worked on, taking out good wages
every day, but they were not long alone.
never tell how Reed happened in the Gulch,
was that the Gulch began to fill up so rapidly after he left.
He had not been gone a month until miners were coming
in, and when Reed returned there were a hundred men
working or prospecting in the hills, living principally off
the game killed in the mountains, and getting water from
Minute Creek.
The Gulch proved rich, but not extensive. There
were barely a hundred gold claims, all told, but the pop-
ulation grew and to overcome the water difficulty, a cistern
was dug, and one man who had some burros earned six-
teen dollars a day in filling it.
Early in August, Reed returned. Behind him were a
train of burros loaded with varied merchandise, including
oilcloth, all of which he sold to Bill and Hez and the
other miners at an enormous profit. He did not tarry
long in the Gulch, but took his train and the six men
who came with him direct to the cabin on Minute Creek.
He found his homestead notice all right and the cabin
intact, thanks to the care of Bill and Hez.
There were some surprising articles in the burros
packs. Among them were several Winchester rifles and
an abundance of ammunition; also long wire nails, coils
of copper wire, wheels, pieces of some peculiar machine,
and a long leather belt.
MONOPOLY GULCH.
223
Reed began improving his claim by laying a pipe
underground from the bed of Minute Creek down the slope
about forty yards, where it came to the surface and fell
wih a graceful curve, into a chasm at the head of the
trail that wound among the rocks of Monopoly Gulch.
The pipe was so arranged that no water could be taken
from it except by catching the stream before it fell into
the chasm. He next built a stockade, planting the first
post against the face of the precipice out of which leaped
Minute Creek, thence building across the plateau along
each side of the stream, bridging the crevice in which the
creek was lost, and then completing the enclosure. His
next move was to construct a strong overshot wheel under
the fall. Then the strange machine was set and the belt
slipped on; and after several barbed copper wires were
run along the stockade, an electric lamp swung from a
high pole in the center of the enclosure, and a large wire
run through the water pipe, G. Reed was ready for busi-
ness.
The miners watched the process of enclosing Minute
Creek with curiosity, and when all was complete the
entire population of the Gulch came to see the "Lightning
Factory." All went merrily for a few days. The stock-
ade was made snug and tight. A little tower was Duilt on
each corner and one of Reed's employes stationed in one
of them, armed with a Winchester.
The Sunday following the completion of the fort was
extremely hot and dry; the heat in Monopoly Gulch was
so intense that the atmoshpere looked like a sea of shim-
mering liquid metal and the water in the cistern having
become too warm and stale to drink, the water carrier, in
response to the general request, started with his train of
burros to Minute Creek to bring the thirsty miners a
draught of fresh water. As he approached the end of the
trail, where the water fell from the pipe, he was tired and
thirsty, even the burros showed signs of discomfort from
the heat; and it was with unusual eagerness that he turned
the corner of the rock that brought the stockade and
the water pipe into view. There was the stockade, cool
and quiet in the shade of the precipice and the grove.
Rude fountains had been constructed in the inclosure,
each casting a wide spray into the air, which reduced the
temperature and kept the grass green and sweet-but no
water flowed from the pipe on the trail. The water
carrier, supposing some accident had occurred to the pipe,
passed on to the gate of the stockade and called for
24
THE QUARTERLY ECONOMIST.
admittance. He was answered by Reed from the lodge
over the entrance.
"Well, what will you have, Mr. Water Carrier?"
"I want water, of course. They are almost famished
down at the Gulch, and I'm frightfully thirsty myself.
There's not a drop running out of the pipe; hurry up and
let me in."
"Why my dear Mr. Water Carrier, you talk like you
owned this place and like you had a right to the water.
You seem to forget that this is my land, my house. I'm
Lot going to let you in-this is Sunday."
"Come, Mr. Reed, don't keep me waiting; I'm in a
hurry. The boys want a fresh drink, and I'm anxious to
get back as soon as possible."
"I may as well tell you first as last," said Reed,
"that I am not joking. I do not intend to let you in nor
give you a drop of water unless you pay for it. This
ranch belongs to me. I've got a good title to one hun-
dred and sixty acres around here, and this water is mine.
I own all there is in the heavens above this quarter sec-
tion, all there is upon the surface of it, and all there is in
the earth beneath it; and I propose to have pay for my
own. Neither you nor anybody else can have a drop of
water unless you pay for it. You can go back to the
Gulch and tell the whole population that until they agree
to give me one-half of all their wages as pay for the
water, you get no water. You can tell them, too, that
they need not come up here and try to take the stockade.
I've supplies enough to last me a year, and they have'nt
water enough to last more than a week. We are well
armed and there are a dozen rows of chain lightning
around the stockade, and the man who touches one of
them will drop dead on the spot. I have the water, they
have the gold. If they divide with me I'll divide with
them. And, by the way, if you should find the water
running out of the pipe at any time be careful how you
touch it. It is full of lightning, and it is as much as your
life is worth to attempt to drink it."
The water carrier was struck dumb-there could be
no mistake about Reed's purpose. He was in earnest,
and closing the door of the lodge, he left the dumb-founded
water carrier standing alone with his burros and his
indignation. The water carrier stood beside his burros a
long time thinking, thinking-and slowly turning away,
without once looking back, he retraced his steps to
Monopoly Gulch.
MONOPOLY GULCH.
25
The miners were gathered in front of Bill's claim in
the shadow of a large rock, watching the burros pick their
way down the narrow trail, and when they reached the
levels, as with one voice, they shouted to their driver to
hurry.
To say that the news the water carrier brought cre-
ated a sensation would be putting it mildly. The miners
raved, and with a common impulse, started for the owner
of Minute Creek. Above the curses and screams of rage
Bill's voice was heard shouting:
"Hold on; Hold on,
boys! Don't act like a lot of maniacs; don't be fools;
wait and let's talk this over." But Bill's plea was without
avail.
A "blunt monster with uncounted heads" ran raging
up the steep. In every hand a weapon, on every lip a
curse, Bill and Hez did not follow at first, but seeing they
could not stay the mob's mad rush, went with the crowd,
hoping to control it, but their more eager companions
outstripped them, and when Bill and Hez arrived at the
plateau the mob was firing at the stockade. The fire was
not returned-all was still within. The miners rushed
on; a huge Kentuckian, far in advance, reached the gate,
threw himself against it with all his force, and, as he
touched the wires, dropped as if struck by a bolt from
the sky.
As the Kentuckian fell Reed's calm, cool voice rang
out, "Halt!" The mob stopped as suddenly as it had
started, dismayed and puzzled by the collapse of their
stalwart leader. No shot had been fired from the stock-
ade, and they did not know the deadly quality of the wires.
The water carrier did not have time to tell them.
"Stand where you are, gentlemen. There is death
between you and me. Though I have no desire to harm
any of you, I must protect myself and my own. The
man who attempts to open that gate or scale the stockade
will meet the same fate as your leader. I am deeply
sorry that he is injured. I shouted to him to stop, but
be did not listen, and I hope you will not be so rash.'
At this juncture Bill and Hez pushed through the
crowd, hot and panting. As soon as Bill could get a
breath he said:
"Reed, what does this mean?"
"It means business," said Reed.
"Do you call it business to refuse men a drink of
water on a day like this," said Bill, "when you have a
26
THE QUARTERLY ECONOMIST.
whole creek full that you cannot use? You must be crazy,
man; open the gate and stop your nonsense!"
"Why, Gumption Bill, I'm surprised; I thought you
a philosopher."
Bill had come to be known as Gumption Bill because
of his calm and impartial way of looking at things.
"I'm not joking. Do you think I would perpetrate
a joke like that one by the gate? No, I'm in earnest-
I'm simply doing what the law gives me a right to do; I
am only asking pay for what belongs to me. I came
here and took up a piece of ground that had water on it
-you men went to the Gulch and staked off land that
had gold in it. You won't let anybody have gold for
nothing; why should you expect me to let you have water
for nothing? The gold is yours, the water is mine.
We've each the same kind of a title, and back of them is
the whole power of the government. Every claim in the
Gulch is taken and you have a monopoly of all the gold
land there already several of you have quit work and let
your claims out on shares. You make the new-comers
give you nine-tenths of all their wages-that is, nine-
tenths of all the gold they take out-for the privilege of
working your claims. You think that is all right; but
here you are, rifle and revolver in hand, ready to murder
me because I propose to do the same with my water-mine
that you are doing with your gold mine. Once for all, 1
tell you my terms. Bring me each day one-half of all
the output of gold in the Gulch, and you may have all the
water you want; otherwise you don't get a drop."
+
Reed, while talking, had been standing behind a
bullet-proof screen in the lodge over the gate, and watched
in perfect safety the effect of his words upon the mob,
and upon Bill in particular.
Gumption Bill's jaw dropped; it was a knock-down
argument. As Reed had suggested, he was somewhat of
a philosopher, and saw the force of Reed's position. He
saw the law in the case, but Hez only saw the injustice.
His eyes glowed with suppressed rage, but, as usual, he
said nothing. A feeling of helplessness seemed to take
possession of the crowd, and they stood like a lot of dazed
animals, waiting for a word from their master. Their
rage was all gone-Bill's wits came back first, and he
essayed to argue the case.
"Reed, your're no better than a murderer or a thief
if you keep that water from us or make us pay for it;
MONOPOLY GULCH.
27
we can't live without it. It is like pointing a gun at a
man and saying, 'Money or your life,'
"Right you are," said Reed; "but it is unkind to call
me a murderer and a thief. Where is the difference
between you gold miners making a man pay you nine-
tenths of his wages for the privilege of digging a little
gold with which to buy food and my scheme to make you
pay half your gold to get a little water? He can't dig
You are
without a mine, and you can't dip without a pool.
master of the man who makes his living by labor in the
mines, because you own the ground he stands on. The
chance to work is food and water and life to him; you
make capital out of his necessities; you make him work
for you because he must work or starve, and he can't
work without your permission. Now I propose to make
something out of your necessities. You may drink and
pay, or famish. How do you like your own medicine?
Why did you men come out from the States if it wasn't to
get the good mines and good lands so that you could
collect rent off those who came after you? You are a set
of cold-blooded monopolists like myself, and you need
expect no mercy from me. I've got the drop on you, and I
propose to keep it. Now, I'll turn off the current and let
the water through the pipe, and you can all get a drink
and go back. Take that dead man with you, and tomor-
row I want you to send me half of all the gold you dig, or
you will all go dry."
The mob was thoroughly tamed, and, after a few
roments' parley, moved down to the water pipe with
their dead comrade, and thence slowly marched single
file down the trail to the Gulch.
When the last miner disappeared from view Reed
climbed down from the lodge over the gate. "Well,"
said he, "that was an easy victory. I thought we should
be compelled to shoot fifteen or twenty of them. My
eloquence was more powerful than bullets. They saw the
point at once. I wonder if they will really give up with-
out a fight. It will go hard with them to give half their
output for a little water, but I have them and they must
come down with their nuggets. No gold, no water.'
It was a silent procession down the mountain, the
dead man in front, the water carrier with empty sacks in
the rear. The dead Kentuckian was carried to his own
shanty, and then the crowd dispersed, after agreeing to
reet at sundown to bury their comrade.
Bill and Hez were the last to leave the shanty, and
28
THE QUARTERLY ECONOMIST.
slowly without words, walked side by side toward their
own claims.
Bill's face was calm and thoughtful, but there was a
volcano in each of Hez's black eyes. Bill as usual broke
the silence:
"Well, what do you think of it, Hez?”
"Bill, don't talk, for I can't answer; I'm too mad to
think, and if I tried to talk I'd do nothing but swear."
Hez maintained his silence the whole afternoon and
Bill respected it. When the hour for the funeral arrived
they joined the others at the dead man's shanty and
helped to bear him to the foot of the hill, where they laid
him to rest. Many a rough eye was dimmed as Bill
solemnly said, "Good-by pard; you were rough, but always
brave and kind; God rest your soul."
The sun sank swiftly behind the mountains. Ere the
grave was filled, night fell and the moon sailed out into
the blue and jeweled sea above.
Hez spoke at last:
"Men," said he, "what are you goin' to do now?
Our dead pard won't need us to-morrow; it is a live devel
we must look after. What are you goin' to do? Are
you goin' to give your wages to that imp on the hill or
are you goin' to fight like men for your own? We left
like a lot of curs to-day; are you goin' back like a pack
of dogs to-morrow and give him half of all you have?
By God, I'm not! I'll die of thirst before he shall have
my gold; I've worked for it, and it's mine."
This was like fire to powder, and the rage of the
miners burst out anew; but they did not start for Minute
Creek again. The influence of the morning had not
wholly waned; they only stormed and swore and argued.
After a time Bill succeeded in restoring comparative quiet,
and, standing upon a little elevation, he thus addressed
the crowd:
"Men, I've been doing a good deal of thinking to-day,
trying to make up my mind what we ought to do,
and my mind's made up. It wouldn't suit Hez, nor most
of you, but there is but one other thing to do, so we might
as well come to bed-rock at once. That imp on Minute
Creek has a cinch on us; he not only has the only
water in the country, but he has a good title to it, and he
has a right to charge for it. He is surrounded by a dozen
rows of chained lightning, and, if necessary, he can bring
the whole power of a national government to back him
with a lot of armed detectives besides. If we should
MONOPOLY GULCH.
29
drive him out of his fort and take possession of it he
would return with a troop of regulars and shoot every one
of us down. This is a free country, and a man has a
right to do as he pleases with his own. If we don't want
to work our claims we don't have to; no one can compel
us to let any one else work them, and no one can prevent
us from collecting rent from any one who does work them.
Now, as Reed says, if we can charge rent for a gold mine
—that is, the chance to dig-why can't he charge rent for
a water-mine-that is, a chance to dip? There isn't
a blamed bit of duference. If one is right the other's
right. He's got the drop, and I'm goin' to drop him; and
the man that don't drop might as well get up and git. I
can make ten times more and pay half to Reed than I
could working back in the States. Reed ain't no worse
than any other fellow who gets a monopoly of something
that everybody wants. He's making the most out of a
good thing, that is all. And how much worse is it for
him to take half of all we earn for water than it is for
landlords in the great cities East to take in rent for one
squalid room half of all that a whole family can earn,
leaving barely enough out of a week's wages to keep
their despairing souls in their starving bodies. Minute
Creek isn't the only monopoly in the world. When a
man owns ground or any other natural advantage that
other men must have, he charges the highest rent people
can pay and live. And Reed has only done like other
landlords; he has put his figure just as high as he can so
as not to drive us out of the Gulch. Reed has the best
of us, but we have the advantage of all those who have
no mines. They can't stick a pick in the sand in this
Gulch without our permission. What a poor devil a man
is in this country who has only his hands to depend on!
I'm going to stay and pay water rent, and I advise the
rest of you to do the same."
And stay they did. Hez finally cooled and all went
smoothly as before, only Reed got his water rent, but the
water carrier no longer got sixteen dollars a day. All
wages were scaled down to help make up the water rent,
and as more men came to the Gulch, it grew harder and
harder each day for the poor fellows whose only source
of supply was the labor of his hands.
A few months later immense silver mines were dis-
covered in the vicinity, and a city quickly grew up in
Monopoly Gulch. Reed, for a consideration, released
the mine owners from their obligation to pay water rent,
30
THE QUARTERLY ECONOMIST.
and accepted in eu thereof the waterworks franchise of
the city. Then arose the great question of taxation.
A young stranger from the States named Harrington
said that all taxes should be laid on Reed's water rent
and the rent of the gold and silver mines, franchises and
city lots exclusive of improvements; that Reed's income
was an unearned income; that rent of mines and increase
i. the value of corner lots due to increase of population
were unearned incomes too, and that it would be robbery
to tax wages-that is, food, clothing and homes-until
the rental value of the lots, franchises, mines and Reed's
water monopoly were exhausted. But nearly every one
called Harrington a fool. And strange to say, all the
ruiners—even Hez and Bill, who, with many others, had
become millionaires, and all the real estate speculators-
joined with Reed like brothers to fight the monopoly tax,
and finally succeeded in securing a provision in the state
constitution taxing all property, real and personal, by a
uniform rule. Then they straightway established the
uniform rule of taxing small homes at nearly their full
value and the mines at a nominal value as compared with
their true value. They also uniformly forgot to return
their stocks, notes and bonds, and put Reed's water
monopoly upon the duplicate as agricultural land. Fol-
lowing the decision of the supreme court of a great
state that a franchise is not property, they did not tax
franchises at all, and on the anniversary of the adoption
of the new constitution they had a banquet, at which a
great statesman responded to the toast:
"America for Americans."
Harrington, by reason of his position as reporter for
one of the city papers, was present at the banquet, and
when the great statesman had finished, though not on the
program, the single tax man involuntarily leaped to his
feet. His soul was in his face; his voice rang like a clar-
ion. So swift was his action, so commanding his tones
that every guest's attention was seized and held until he
finished.
"America for Americans,' but not for all Americans!
In Monopoly Gulch the water God gave to all Americans
is owned by one man; the gold and silver He gave to
all mankind are monopolized by a few; the land that this
city is built upon is owned by a hundred men. Ameri-
cans cannot lie down to sleep in their own city nor drink
a glass of water under their own flag without consent of
the men who surround this table. This is law, but it is
MONOPOLY GULCH.
31
not justice. We declare against alien ownership of land,
with every drop of water and every inch of earth starva-
Houses,
tion high, though owned by patriotic Americans.
likę kennels, hide in the shadows of the palaces; streets,
like devil paths in hell, run by avenues that rival in
We
splendor and beauty the boulevards of paradise.
have stolen the cups from the altar of liberty with which
We cover all our
to drink monopoly's crimson wine.
social crimes with the American flag-but on the wall the
handwriting appears:
'God hath numbered the kingdom
of land monopoly and finished it; it has been weighed in
the balance and found wanting. Henceforth it shall be
administered for all the children of man.'
out this hall the tramp of a mighty host; coming, not
with fire and sword, but with ballots in their hands, on
their banners 'Peace and good will to men,' and on every
lip the cry: 'America for mankind!'
Hark! with-
Harrington's speech broke up the banquet, but as
the banqueters left the hall the band played a medley of
national airs, among which were:
and
"Hail Columbia, happy land,"
"My country, 'tis of thee,
Sweet land of liberty."
"Monopoly Gulch" is only a vivid picture of land
monopoly the world over. In that particular instance,
the very lives of the people of that gulch depended upon
the use of the water on Reed's land. He was thus in posi-
tion to dictate terms to those people. As outrageous as
Reed's conduct seems in this case, it was mild and lenient
to the terms demanded by many landlords. He only
demanded half the product of those men's labor in pay-
ment for access to this natural resource which they must
have or die. The monopolists of the coal mines demand
and take four-fifths of the labor of their employes for the
privilege of digging coal, a privilege which they must
have or die. The miners are as much at the mercy of
the coal monopolist as the people of Monopoly Gulch were
to Reed. In all our large cities the poor are compelled
to give a larger share of the product of their labor to
monopolists for the privilege of staying on God's earth
than Reed demanded of the people of Monopoly Gulch.
But we have been brought up under these conditions
32
THE QUARTERLY ECONOMIST.
and have come to look at them as not only natural and
proper but highly beneficial and meritorious.
It sems natural that the great mass of mankind
should believe that whatever is, is right. I find no fault
with this law of conservatism. It was evidently designed
in nature as a balance wheel in the social system to pre-
vent sudden shocks and changes which might throw
society into chaos. It is probably better that society
should endure the evils which it has until the proposed
remedy has been thoroughly discussed and demonstrated
as an improvement.
But it would seem that the law of self-preservation
should lead all men to see that land should not be monop-
olized. All wealth comes from the land-all our food,
clothing, shelter and all the forms of wealth which man
uses and consumes. The land is the storehouse of
nature, containing all the raw material from which all
forms of wealth are made. If a few own the land, they
are in position to dictate the terms upon which wealth
shall be produced, and to take from labor its entire pro-
duct over and above a scanty living.
If one hundred men were upon an island from which
there were no escape, and one man owned the land, he
would virtually own the other ninety-nine men. Their
very existence would be at his mercy. They could pro-
duce no particle of wealth, food, clothing, shelter or any-
thing else, without his consent. He could dictate the
terms upon which they could labor and take from them
all their product except enough to keep them alive, and
even this he could deny them whenever it suited his pur-
pose to do so.
The earth is an island from which there is no escape
except through death, and the landless man is as much
dependent upon the use of land as in the case above cited.
It matters not whether the land is owned by one man, a
thousand, a million or ten million. The landless must
make terms with the landlord and give such share as the
landlord may dictate. Thus the monopolization of land
cuts labor off from its natural field and makes of it a poor
miserable begging thing which must both beg and buy
the privilege of exerting its powers in the production of
wealth. Talk about the "dignity of labor" when the law
itself declares it a trespasser upon God's earth unless it
begs permission to exist and exert its powers, and give
its products to those whom vicious laws permit to "own"
the earth? Is it not a self-evident truth that God made
the earth for all? Can a greater absurdity be conceived
|
MONOPOLY GULCH.
33
than that a few should be permitted to own the earth and
treat all others as trespassers? I claim that it is the
inalienable right of any man to occupy and use any por-
tion of the earth that no other man is using or occupying
And any law which forbids this is as unjust and as out-
rageous as that other law once recognized in this country
which permitted one man to own another. The poorest
child that comes wailing into the world in the slums of
New York is justly an equal heir to the use of the earth
with a Gould, Vanderbilt, Rockefeller or Astor.
What is the remedy? This is largely a question of
method. As far as right and justice are concerned, the
people through their legislature would be justified in
declaring null and void every paper title in the country.
Every one had its origin in force or fraud. Not one of
the so-called "original owners" had any title. The kings
of England, France and Spain, neither of whom ever saw
the land of this country, assumed to "grant" it to Tom,
Dick and Harry. From them every title in this country
is derived. These Kings had just às good title as did a
certain gentleman who recently wanted to borrow money
at a Boston bank upon chattel mortgage. When asked
what kind of property he desired to mortgage, replied
that he had just discovered a large school of mackerel in
the Atlantic ocean, and claimed them by right of discovery,
and would give a mortgage upon them.
But to destroy titles and dispossess owners would be
a cumbersome and useless process involving unnecessary
injustice and hardships. What the people through the
legislature should do, is to take in taxation the rental
value of land which would be in substance the same as
resuming title. In other words, government should put
all taxation upon land values, regardless of improvements,
increase this tax until it absorbed all the unearned incre-
ment. Under such a system those who use their land
would pay no more taxes than they do now, as all their
improvements and personal property would be exempt
from taxation; but the land monopolist who holds land
out of use for speculative purposes, would be taxed out
of existence, and would either be compelled to use his
land or relinquish to those who would use it. This would
open up land to use, give unlimited employment to labor
and make it easier for men to secure homes. Under the
present system, the man who plays the dog in the manger,
neither using his land nor letting others use it, pays
little taxes. But let another come and, buy this land
employ labor in putting up beautiful buildings or making
34
THE QUARTERLY ECONOMIST.
other improvements, and along comes the assessor and
fines him for his enterprise. Was there ever a more
absurd system?
How often have we seen men buy for a trifle a block
of land in the heart of what eventually becomes a great
city. They hold this land until the enterprise and indus-
try of thousands of other men have built a city around
this land, and the necessities of industry have made it
worth thousands, perhaps millions of dollars. Who
created that value? Was it the owners? Oh no. "They
toil not, neither do they spin." They do not have to.
The toil of other men was making their land valuable.
Whose value is that? To whom does it justly belong?
To the community. It was the community which created
that value, and the community should take it in taxation
for public use instead of taxing industry. Why should
industry be taxed for public expenses while the community
has a fund which it has created, and which justly belongs
to it, sufficient for al public purposes?
Land monopoly is the greatest of all social evils. It
prevents employment by holding natural resources out
of use, thus shutting labor out of its natural field and
denying it access to the earth. It causes depression and
stagnation in business by depriving men of the opportunity
to produce wealth. It is the fertile cause of pauper-
ism, vice, crime and suicide. The single tax will remedy
all this by making it unprofitable to hold land out of use,
thus opening it up to the production of wealth in such
abundance as to make want and the fear of want a thing
of the past. It will relieve industry of the enormous
burden of taxation which is now crushing it to earth, and
take for public use that fund which justly belongs to the
public.
Just now the commercial interests are clamoring for
"expansion" for the purpose of extending their trade.
To this end they are demandig the annexation of the
Philippine Islands with ten millions of savages and bar-
barians, that they may trade with them. This commer-
cial class seem to have forgotten, or never have known,
that we have ten million white American citizens with
whom they have practically no trade because these citi-
zens and their families are denied access to the storehouse
of nature and are therefore unable to produce any wealth
in exchange for the wealth which the commercial classes
desire to sell. The trade of these ten million Americans
would be worth a hundred times as much as the Philip-
pine trade. They each have two strong arms ready and
MONOPOLY GULCH.
35
anxious to produce wealth. They and their families all
desire and need the necessities and luxuries which the
commercial classes have to sell. But land monopoly
stands in the way, denying labor access to the raw mater-
ial of nature and forbidding the production of wealth
These ten million Americans tnus have nothing with which
to trade with the commercial classes, while the latter
must seek a market for their products among the savages
of the Antipodes.
God stored up in the bowels of the earth enough of
the sunbeams of past ages in the form of coal, to last all
His children for all time. But six men sit in Wall Street
and practically control all this natural gift of God to man,
dictating how much coal shall be mined and how much
shall be paid to those who delve for long and weary hours
in the bowels of the earth. They compel those miners to
mine six tons for the coal trust before they are permitted
to take one ton to warm their families or to buy them
bread. While this is going on, millions are suffering for
coal which nature has provided in abundance and which
labor is anxious to furnish, but which land monopoly
forbids to be mined. Let the people resume their title to
their coal lands by applying the single tax to the actual
value of these lands, thus absorbing their full rental value
and the monopolist could no longer afford to hold them
out of use, and labor would open them up, and produce
coal for all. Under the present system the tax upon these
linds is merely nominal and monopoly holds them out of
use.
Under the proposed system, all taxes being placed
upon land values, the tax would be so burdensome as to
compel owners to open up these lands or abandon them to
those who would use them. The same is true of town
lots. Under the present system, taxes upon unimproved
lots being nominal, owners can afford to hold them out of
use. Under the proposed single tax system, taxes would
be exactly the same upon a vacant lot as thought it had a
building worth a million dollars upon it. Under such a
system there would be every incentive to build, while
under the present system there is a distinct premium
paid for not building by partial exemption from taxes.
The present system punishes industry and enterprise
and rewards monopoly. It deprives labor of opportunity
to employ itself and fills the highway with tramps. It
fills almshouses with paupers, prisons with felons and
brothels with women. Let us abandon it by government
resuming the rental values of land, thus recognizing that
land is common property and the common heritage of all.
ad
How to Get Rich Without Working.
By Edward Homer Bailey.
Copyright, 1897, by the author.
I.
I had been a reporter for The Times for over twelve
years. I began work on the paper as "devil," my duties
being to dust the office furniture, clean the spittoons,
attend the fires when fires were needed, carry the mail,
run errands and make myself generally useful. At the
end of three years, during which time I drew a salary of
$1 per week or $52 annually, I was told by Mr. Bishop,
the editor and proprietor of The Times, that I had earned
promotion; that he had employed another boy to serve as
"devil," and that I should have a "case" and a chance to
become a full-fledged printer. I thanked him for his con-
sideration of me, but not in words that conveyed to him
anything like the depth of my gratitude. I cannot recall
a happier day than that on which I enjoyed the distinction
of being promoted from office boy to printer. At once I
entered upon my new duties with a determination and
ambition that must have gratified Mr. Bishop, for one day
he came to me and said:
"Sammy, one of these days you will be a reporter.
You show an attention to detail in following copy that
convinces me you are cut out for a newspaper man; so
I want you to stick to the case for three or four years,
learn all you can, get punctuation, capitalization, grammar
and all that sort of thing down fine, and then come to
me and I will see if I cannot give you a job hustling for
news."
One day in the summer of 1888, after I had mastered
the art of type-sticking, I hung my coat on a peg in the
editorial room. "Coal Oil Charley" peered at me from
his case in the news room. "Old Soak, who was the
swiftest type-setter in the shop and whose thirst for liquor
HOW TO GET RICH WITHOUT WORKING.
37
I
he regarded as one of the blessings of his life, gave me a
stare that indicated that Mr. Bishop would be sorry that he
picked me from the case to send me out as a reporter.
could plainly see that all the printers in the composing
room were disposed to "give me the laugh," as the phrase-
ology of the street goes. However, my coat was hung on
the peg-not because that was a part of the duty of a
reporter, but because the weather was hot in evidence of
which Mr. Bishop himself was in his shirt sleeves, all the
windows were up, the printers were working with their
suspenders down and the exchange editor was mopping
perspiration from his brow.
It is the strangest thing in all my career as a news-
paper reporter that my first reportorial contribution to
The Times was the most notable, romantic and important
that I have any recollection of; and yet the part I played
in it was small. I was merely the machine through
which it was shaped and put into "copy." I did not even
"discover" the man from whom I obtained my topic and
I did not realize until after my article appeared in print
that it contained a remarkable truth that the whole world
seemed to have lost sight of. For years since its appear-
ance I had covered the whole field of journalism, from
writing small personals, weddings, parties, accidents and
deaths, to the great national conventions of the various
political parties including interviews with many of the
most distinguished men of this county and Europe, but in
all this time I had not yet eclipsed my first day's work,
though it may be true that I gained what credit I earned
in my profession wholly as a result of the mass of stuff I
had written for The Times since the event of which I
speak.
Having placed my coat on the peg and felt uneasy
under the stare of "Coal Oil Charley" and "Old Soak," I
took a seat at the desk which Mr. Bishop had advised me
should be my permanent place to work. I busied myself
in getting books and newspapers in order, wondering all
the while how I should begin to grind out "copy" for
printers whom I knew would soon be hungry for it. I was
not long in doubt, however, as to what my first step should
be. Mr. Bishop came to my desk and said: "Here is a
letter from a man who is evidently crazy. He used to live
here. I knew him when he was the laziest boy in town.
He went away years ago way out to Chicago, when that
place was not much larger than a minute and located in
a sickly swamp at that. He says he is back here to take
38
THE QUARTERLY ECONOMIST.
a rest and enjoy the scenes of his childhood. Rest is good.
If he has ever worked a day since he left here and is tired
now, that would we news worth publishing in this town.
Here, read this letter and then go and see if he isn't crazy."
Mr. Bishop tossed a letter to my desk and I read:
My Dear Mr. Bishop: I am here on a visit to the
scenes of my childhood and incidentally to take a rest.
You will doubtless remember when I was a boy here, too
contrary to go to school; that I went away one day and
finally turned up in Chicago. Since that time, you know,
the aunt with whom I was living here, has been buried
now over twenty years, I believe. While I am here I am
going to erect a big monument over her grave. She
deserves the best I can secure, for I am a millionaire now
and I owe every cent of it to her. If you can send a
reporter to my rooms in the hotel I can tell him a story
to fill up the paper with. I can tell him how to get rich
without working, just as I did. I want all my hard-work-
ing friends here to know how simple a thing it is to amass
a great fortune without doing a single day's work. Do
not believe I am jesting. Yours truly.
July 18, 1888.
GEORGE ARCHIE BOWEN.
I read the letter over and over, and was in much doubt
as to the character of the man. But I hurriedly slipped on
my coat, though I would much rather have gone in my
shirt sleeves, so oppressively hot was the day. Jogging
along toward the Le Grande Hotel I drew a mental picture
of the man for whom I was in quest. "Too contrary to go
to school," he said in his letter, yet evidently he had
gone to school, for he could write cleverly. Maybe he
had graduated at a college since locating in Chicago; but
how in the world, I wondered, did he become a millionaire
without working! That was the puzzling question to me
and I was about to assure myself that George Archie
Bowen was a wild lunatic when the clerk at the Le Grande
Hotel tapped the bell for the boy to show me to "Room 20."
"Well, whoever he is," said I to myself, as the elevator
shot upwards, "he is occupying the finest quarters in this
place, and maybe if he is crazy he is not dangerous; for,'
I continued to reason, "they would not harbor dangerous
lunatics in this house."
"Come in, come in," came cheerily from the inside
as I lightly rapped on the door of Room 20. I hesitated
about doing so, a fear having suddenly seized me that the
HOW TO GET RICH WITHOUT WORKING. 3C
man might be at that very moment pointing a bulldog
revolver at the door, ready to shoot as soon as it should
open; but "Come in" from the voice once more reassured
me and I walked into the presence of a sweltering
stranger.
"Samuel T. Essington," he said, glancing at the card I
had previously sent him and advancing with out-stretched
hand. "I am glad to see you; yes indeed, I am very glad
to see you. I like newspaper men; always did like news-
Hot-ain't it? Well, hot is no name for it.
am done-done enough right now to carve on
Just look at the sauce on me. I'm boiling
all over. Here, have a chair. Move it over to that
paper men.
Actually, I
the table.
window."
While George Archie Bowen thus chatted and made
me feel at ease all at once, I was making up my mind that
I was in the presence of a jolly, good-natured, fine looking
gentleman. He had a face that was full of fresh bloom,
as plump and smooth as a baby's, and bright blue eyes
that sparkled with good humor. "Laughing George" is the
name I mentally gave him before I had been in his pres-
ence a minute, I observed that his hands were as pretty
as a woman's and at once connected this fact with his
letter in which he said something about how to get
rich without working. He was plainly, though stylishly,
dressed. A diamond sparkled in a milk white shirt front
and a very dainty fob dangled from beneath his vest. He
did not look over 50 years old, though there was a large
glossy, cheerful stretch of baldness on a well-developed
head. There was something in the bald spot which
seemed to inspire confidence in the man. It appeared to
be looking right at me like an old and good friend and I
felt at home in its presence in spite of the forebodings
of a few moments before.
"Why," said Mr. Bowen, as I took a seat at the
window and had not yet been given an opportunity to
thank him for his cordial welcome, "I used to know a
Samuel T. Essington in this town. That was your father,
I guess. That was when I was a mere strippling.
He was
as old then as I am now, and I guess he is dead before
this. He was a mighty good man. I can remember that
ho was a great church-goer and people around here said
be was the best blacksmith in the whole county. So you
are Samuel T. Essinger, Jr.?"
I attempted to stammer out that he had guessed it
40
THE QUARTERLY ECONOMIST.
right, but he evidently did not take note of my embarrass-
ment, for he continued chatting pleasantly.
"Well, now, Sammy," he said, "there isn't a man in all
this town more welcome than you are. As I said before,
I like the company or newspaper men, and I make no dis-
tinction among them. You are a reporter for The Times?"
"Yes, sir," I replied with as much politeness as I
could command.
"Well, you know, I wrote a note to Bishop telling him
I was in town and requesting him to send a reporter up
here. I don't mind telling you that I was sure Bishop
himself would come; for Bishop and I used to be boys
together long years ago, and I thought of course that he
would be glad to see me. I-I-beg pardon."
I was about to interrupt Mr. Bowen with the remark
that Mr. Bishop thought the author of the note a lunatic,
but I caught my tongue in time and merely said:
"He was busy and sent me."
"That was just right. Don't think for a minute that
you are not just as welcome as Mr. Bishop would be.
Mr. Bishop can come any time, but I'll save him the
trouble of making the first call by going to see him-before
the week is over. I don't know many people here any
more. I used to know all of them. My! how the town has
grown! The old mill is about the only familar spot I
have been able to locate. That looks older than it did,
and it ought to, for it was old and full of rats when I
used to play in it. Old Justice Hogue is still running his
little' pill shop and paper stand, I see, only he is in a
new building—that is, the building is new to me, because
it was not here when I left the town. Well, 'Squire
Hogue will die here yet. Seems to me he has been here
twice as long as the town. What's become of Sallie
Sallee?"
"I never knew her," I replied. "However, I know of
her. She married a farmer's son-a fellow named Ed
Shy-and they're living somewhere in the country. Doing
pretty well, I guess," I added.
"Glad to hear it. Very glad to hear it. Sallie used to
be a chum of mine and many is the time I've kissed her at
the parties we youngsters used to have at the neighbors'
in the old days. I wouldn't know her now if she were to
step right in this room. And there was Jimmy O'Donnell.
What in the world has become of Jimmy? He was a
corker when I knew him. He-"
"Jimmy," said I, interrupting, "is an ex-member of
HOW TO GET RICH WITHOUT WORKING.
41
the legislature.
age."
He is living here in retirement in his old
"Good. I'll have to hunt Jimmy up. I'll send him a
zote before tomorrow. We used to be as thick as low-
boiled mush, and played marbles and went swimming
together. And Clarence Safford-what has become of
him?"
"I believe he is married and living in St. Louis."
"Well, I am sorry I didn't know that. I have often
gone from Chicago to St. Louis, but never happened to run
across him. Wouldn't have known him, I guess, if I had.
But he was a monkey when he was a boy! I'll never
forget his tricks on the boys when we used to play ‘grab'
in the barns, and when we used to play 'hole in the
ground.' He was the worst mischief-maker in this whole
countryful of boys around here. I never will forget how
he used to catch innocent little dogs and put turpentine”—
It was manifest that Mr. Bowen had not dwelt on the
fact that I was a business and not a social guest, and when
I pulled out my watch to note the time, and perhaps at
the same time gave evidence of entertaining a fear that I
was remaining away from the office too long, he halted in
his reminiscences, taking a hint that I had not intended
to convey.
"Pardon me, Mr. Essington," he said, pulling out his
own watch. "I am always forgetting that time flies. You
came here in response to my note to Mr. Bishop and I
should not have bored you with my reminiscences. Please
forgive me."
"No offence, I am sure," I politely replied.
"But I have needlessly detained you. The fact is,
I should like to detain you for some time yet, for I want
to tell you something that is as strange as any thing you
ever heard in your life. It is a long story and some way
I feel that the world ought to know it. The story has
never been told-not to a living soul-and if The Times
publishes it, it will be a 'scoop.' I'll tell you what I'll do:
I'll send a note to Bishop requesting him to allow you to
spend the day with me and begging him to excuse you
from the office today."
Mr. Bowen was about to ring the call bell for a
boy, when I interrupted nim.
Let me write the note. I know how to arrange it,"
and I proceeded to scratch off a few lines in my note book.
Mr. Bowen pulled the bell,a boy came and he was off
with my message. I was sure this was a good stroke, a
42
THE QUARTERLY ECONOMIST.
note from Mr. Bowen, urging my presence with him all day,
would have convinced Mr. Bishop beyond all doubt that
Bowen was really insane; that I would know it and that I
would promptly return to the office. This is all
This is all I wrote
Bishop:
"Bowen is not insane. He is a fine, bright fellow and
he has a great story to tell me. I will not get through
with him until late this evening. Don't expect me."
And this message came back.
"All right. Work up his story for all it is worth.
BISHOP."
II.
"Some men," said Mr. Bowen, vigorously fanning him-
self and adjusting a handkerchief about his sweltering
neck, "have grown rich by very hard work; others by
embezzling public and private funds; others by accepting
bribes and others by stage and other arts; but few rich
men, if any, have amassed millions through these avenues.
Being a millionaire myself, I know just exactly how mil-
lionaires obtain their fabulous wealth. You are here to
get my story of how to get rich without working. It is
not by stealing or ways of trickery. That is the reason
my story will interest you and the readers of The Times.
"I have passed the meridian of life," continued Mr.
Bowen, "and I say to you upon my honor as a gentleman
that I possess a fortune aggregating $50,000,000 and that
I have never worked a day in my life to earn a dollar of
it-not a single dollar. But I did obtain every cent of it
legally and all the world could not honestly take one cent
of it from me. When I say that I have never worked a
day in my life, I mean to say that I never engaged in
actual effort to earn a dollar by the sweat of my brow."
Pausing a moment as if anticipating that I might
leave my notes long enough to interject a remark to the
effect that "by the sweat of thy brow thou shalt eat
bread," Mr. Bowen proceeded.
"Never mind that old Bible quotation. I know all about
that. I say I have never earned a single dollar by the
sweat of my brow, but all my vast wealth I obtained
legally, strictly according to the laws of the land; strictly
in acordance with the rules and by the sanction of the
courts; by means practiced and upheld by the church,
by the press, by business men, by the president of the
United States, by your senates and congresses, by your
HOW TO GET RICH WITHOUT WORKING. 43
legislatures, by your governors, by your county and city
authorities. That's why I say, never mind that old Bible
quotation. If I have never earned a single dollar by the
sweat of my brow, your preachers, your churches and your
Christian people can't point their fingers in scorn at me.
The means by which I have become so enormously rich
are believed by them to be right and just; they sustain
and defend the system that has enabled me to grow.
rich without working, and why, then, should I be ashamed
to tell my story to the world? Let it be made plain in
The Times-that I have obtained every dollar of my vast
wealth legally and in accordance with what the courts,
the churches and the people hold to be just, but not a
single dollar of it by the sweat of my brow."
Mr. Bowen left his chair at the window, paced across
the room once or twice, eyed me closely and appeared a
bit excited.
"Is that clear, Mr. Essington?" he inquired.
"That seems to me as clear as a hell, Mr. Bowen," I
replied, perhaps with a puzzled look in my face.
"I see that I've got you guessing," he laughed.
"How do you mean?" I asked.
"Why, you are wondering, of course, how in the name
of goodness I became a millionaire legally without work-
ing. That's just as plain in your face as that hot sun
over this earth is."
I admitted that something of that kind was on my
mind.
"Of course; I knew it," said Mr. Bowen, "and they'll
all be guessing before they get through reading my story
in The Times. Now let me tell you," he proceeded, after
resuming his chair at the window and again applying
the fan. "I was born in this town. I don't remember
anything about my mother. She died when I was an
infant; and then my father died when I was about six
years old. I was the only child. My aunt, my father's
sister, was my only relative. She was never married, but
she had a little home of her own here and she took me
to live with her. She kept a small garden patch, had
three cows, some pigs and raised lots of chickens. She
got along in life very comfortably somehow. She sold
milk and butter and eggs and garden stuff to her neighbors
and earned what I suppose some people would call a good
living. I was her pet. She must have loved me like a
mother. She would never allow me to work. She said
she wanted to give me a good education and she sent me
44
THE QUARTERLY ECONOMIST.
to school. I liked the school room for a while but it finally
grew monotonous and I put in the time playing. I wont
stop to tell you how Safford and I played circus and pur-
sued other amusements. We had a glorious childhood life
of it, anyway. My aunt humored me. When I didn't
want to go to school she did not scold me. She would
simply hug and kiss me and say, 'Auntie is awfully sorry,'
and then she would tell me to run along and play, ‘and
maybe you will be good some day and go to school,' she
would say.
"But I didn't. I just fooled along until one day an
impluse to go west and live with the Indians seized me. I
don't know how long I traveled, nor how many miles, but
I enjoyed the trip, for it was easy in those days to get
along. I never had to go hungry nor without a good bed.
The farmers always seemed glad to see me and had lots
of questions to ask me. I finally found myself in a small
lumber camp near what is now the site of Chicago. I
didn't think about asking anybody for work. I was wel-
come in the camp and had all I wanted to eat. One day a
letter came to me from old 'Squire Hogue. He said my
aunt was dead and had left me her little home. She had
died, he said, of a broken heart because I had left her.
He wanted to know what to do about the property. I
wrote and told him to sell it and send me the money.
Several months later-I had forgotten all about the matter
-Old 'Squire Hogue wrote me stating that he had $150 he
would send me if I would tell him where to send it. Two
weeks later the money came into my hands. It was the
sum total of my aunt's bequest, after paying her funeral
and the necessary court expenses incident to the transfer
of the property. 1 bought a few clothes, treated the boys
in the camp and had $137 left. It was too much money for
I wondered what I should do with it.
me.
'Why not buy some land near Chicago," said Charley
Neeld, a big lumberman who was for years afterwards
my protector and defender.
'What! Swamp land!" said I.
'Certainly,' said he.
""What could I do with it?'
"Just simply put your money in it until you get ready
to leave,' said he.
"I bought 12 acres at $10 an acre two miles from Old
Fort Dearborn, and it was a sickly-looking waste at
that. I didn't think much about it until one day a fellow
came to me and said:
1
HOW TO GET RICH WITHOUT WORKING. 45
'What'll you take for them twelve acres?"
"'Don't want to sell,' said I.
66
'Why?'".
'Just don't want to sell, that's all.'
"How much did it cost ye?
66
''O, just $120'," said I.
'I'll give you $220 for it,' said he.
""But I don't want to sell.'
"I'll give ye $320 for it then.'
'What's that?' shouted Neeld, who was present.
""Why,' said the stranger, 'I'll give this here young
feller $320 fer them twelve acres over yonder.'
piece.'
"Take it, Archie,' said Neeld. 'You can buy a bigger
"I took Neeld's advice, sold the twelve acres and then
looked around for a re-investment. I found five acres nearer
the town that a fellow wanted $50 an acre for. I bought
it and paid the cash and had $70 left. I divided with
Neeld and for a year had forgotten all about my land until
a lawyer in Chicago wrote me saying he had a client who
had taken a fancy to my plot. Chicago by this time had
increased several hundred in population and it was grow-
ing towards my piece. Still I didn't think anything about
that, but the recollection of $200 profit on my first deal
inspired me to call on the lawyer in Chicago. He seemed
mighty glad to see me and said right at once that he
would give me $625 for my land.
"It's worth it,' I said.
C6 C
'Will you take it?' he inquired.
"I guess I will-strictly cash.'
"'O, certainly. All the money is ready.'
"After making ine deal I took a little walk around
the town, wondering what I should do next. I stepped
into a little shoe shop to have some pegs put in my boot
heels and while I was waiting for the shoemaker to finish
the job I was interested in an inquiry he made.
""Don't know nobody around here that wants to buy
a lot, do ye?'
""Where's the lot?'
"This'n right here.'
"Who owns it?
"'I do.'
""This building too?'
"'Yep, sir.'
""How much do you want for it?' I inquired.
66
'Well, not much. You see, I'm no good in this
46
THE QUARTERLY ECONOMIST.
climate. I've got to git out. Doing fine though, but I
can't stand this wind here. Doctor says I must go sommers
else. If you knows as anybody that wants to buy, I'll sell
this whole shootin' match for just what it cost me.'
""How much is that?'
""I paid $150 for the lot and put up the building
myself. And the building cost me $235.'
"'I'll take it,' said I, and I counted out $385. 'Here's
your money; fix the deed.'
"I joined Neeld at the camp with $240 in my pocket
more than I had when I started. I made Neeld a present
of $100 of it.
'Say,' said Neeld, 'what'll I do with this money?"
"Go and buy some land,' said I.
"Neeld laughed. 'I guess I'll send some of it home
to my mother,' he remarked.
** *
*
"Six months later I went to Chicago to see the man
who had been occupying my building for three months.
He was conducting a general store in it and was making
money. He paid me three months' rent-$30-and said
he would like to buy the place if I would sell.
'Guess I wont sell.' I told him. 'But I will rent to
you for another year and guarantee that no one else shall
get it in that time.'
"This proposition suited him, but he said to bind he
bargain he would pay the year in advance. I agreed and
he handed over $120, in return for which I gave him a
receipt in full for one year's rental and a written pledge
that I would not sell the property before the expiration of
the time. So I walked out of the store with $150 of his
money in pocket, and as I sauntered along I wondered
what a real snap I had. There was a lot, I thought, for
which I had no earthly use and to the value of which I
I had not contributed one single cent, yet I was able,
without effort on my own part, to take from the earnings
of the grocer $150 for the privilege of occupying my land.
I had his money right in my pocket, and it struck me as
strange that I should have it. And besides,' I thought
to myself, 'I still possess the house and lot, and yet he has
paid me today almost as much for the use of the lot as
I originally paid for it myself.'
III.
"Here," said Mr. Bowen, reaching in his hip pocket,
producing a small, flat leather case and extracting from
HOW TO GET RICH WITHOUT WORKING.
47
it a piece of paper yellow with age, "is the next chapter.
Read that."
I turned it over and over. It was a clipping from a
newspaper, but there was nothing in it or on either side
of it, to indicate from what paper it had been cut nor when
it had been printed, and I glanced inquiringly at Mr.
Bowen.
"The day following the payment of the $150 rent to
to me by the storekeeper one of the lumbermen brought
a copy of the Chicago Gazette out to camp. It was in that
paper I found the article you hold in your hand.”
Upon one side of it were incomplete parts of adver-
tisements and on the other was this:
RAILROAD COMING.
The Gazette is glad to inform its readers that the
Illinois Central Railroad Corporation is turning dirt and
will build a railroad into Chicago along the route surveyed
two years ago.
Several hundred men and teams have
been put to work grading and the president of the Corpora-
tion informs us that work will not stop until the steam
horse is running into Chicago. He says that Chicago will
scon be a city and there is no doubt that the road will
pay a profit on the money invested. This is certainly
goods news to Chicago property holders, for the building
of a railroad to this place will enhance the value of their
land. Every taxpayer ought to encourage the enterprise,
because it means a boom. Land is already much higher
than it was before the railroad was surveyed and now that
work upon it has commenced a sharp advance has been
noted, especially along the route surveyed. Property that
sold a month ago for $100 an acre cannot be bought now
for $300 an acre. Besides the building of the railroad,
population has increased wonderfully during the past
year and in another year we confidently expect to double
the number of inhabitants.
After I had concluded reading and making a note of
the foregoing, I handed it to Mr. Bowen with the remark:
"The Gazette was a pretty good prophet, wasn't it?”
"Better than it knew," Mr. Bowen responded. "Things
went on a boom at once and the way Chicago grew sur-
prised the whole world. It grew so fast that one could
not keep track of it. Before the year was up with the
storekeeper he offered me $4,000 for my house and lot, but
I concluded to hold on to it. On the day his lease expired
he was so eager to buy the place that he offered me $4,200
48
THE QUARTERLY ECONOMIST.
for it, but I realized that it would pay me to hold onto it.
He was very much put out because I would not sell at
any price, but he was happy two weeks later when he
showed me a deed for the vacant lot adjoining the one
which I refused to sell him.
''I paid $4,500 for it,' he said, 'because I have built
up a large and profitable trade here and I might lose it
if I should locate somewhere else. I am going to build a
big two-story house ou it at once and put in a big stock
of dry goods and boots and shoes and live upstairs with
my family. So I want to rent your place until I can build.
How much rent do you want?'
"6
'Well, the property is worth more than it was,' said
I, 'and I guess I ought to charge you more than $10 a
month.'
'Why should you charge me more?' the merchant
inquired.
66 6
'Simply because the property has increased in value,'
I explained.
(6
'Well, I don't deny that,' he replied; 'but you see
your investment is no larger than it was a year ago, and
you have added no improvements to the building. And
the increased value is not the result of any effort you
have made, because you have not done a thing.'
"I know that,' said I, 'but you can't blame me for
getting all the rent I can. I can rent it to another party
who wants to start a grocery store for more than you are
paying me and I would not be justified in renting it to
you for less than he would be willing to pay.'
""
66
'How much is that?' the shopman asked.
'Fifteen dollars a month.'
'Well,' said he, after a moment's reflection, ‘if you
will rent to me for another four months I will pay you
that much.'
"I agreed to the proposition and received the rent in
advance-$60-and as I had now nearly $150 surplus cash
on hand and a pretty sure thing so far as income from
property was concerned, I felt that I should like to find an
opportunity to invest at least $100 of my surplus.
"After weeks of scheming I conceived the idea of form-
ing a land syndicate. I interested a number of friends in
it. I pointed out to them the fact that a railroad was
coming and that the time to buy was before the railroad
arrived, even at any price, for whatever we should pay we
could sell at a higher figure after the railroad should
come in.
My friends had confidence in me, for all of them
knew I had been lucky. The upshot of it was that eigh-
HOW TO GET RICH WITHOUT WORKING.
49
teen of us pooled our issues, raised $100 each and with the
$1,800 bought one acre of ground adjoining Fort Dearborn
for $9,000, executing a mortgage for deferred payments.
"This investment," continued Mr. Bowen, "proved
a little bonanza. A large portion of it was leased to
parties who at once erected business houses upon it. The
leases, in every instance, were for five years, with the
privilege of purchase at valuation at the expiration of
that time or a re-lease for a period of fifteen years on the
re-valuation. How much do you think the syndicate made
the first five years?"
"Can't guess," said I.
"Well," Mr. Bowen slowly resumed, 'as a matter of
fact the syndicate did not earn a cent, for it did nothing
but take from the occupants of the one acre all in the
form of rent that it could extract. There were, I say, eigh-
teen of us in the syndicate, and the $7,200 balance we
owed as the purchase price we realized the first two years
from rent, so that, if you look at it right, the syndicate
made the occupants of the ground-the business men-pay
for the property. The syndicate was never out but $1,800
--but it even got the $1,800 back and at the expiration
of the first five years not only put back into its pocket the
original $1,800 invested, but the record showed that five
years' rent to the men who did business netted an actual
profit, after paying a debt of $7,200 and interest, of somè-
thing over $17,000-nearly $1,000 each for eighteen people.”
The statement just concluded startled me, and Mr.
Bowen observed the fact.
"I tell you, Mr. Essington, that is only the small end
of the deal. You see, after all, the syndicate did not
buy that land! The men who occupied it-the men who
had use for it and employed labor upon it and helped keep
the world moving-paid for it twice over and yet didn't
own a foot of it. We, the syndicate, that did not buy it
but had the deed for it and the power to charge rent, still
owned it, so that when the five-year leases were up-why,
there the syndicate stood, not only ready but with the
legal power to make the occupants BUY the land a few
times more.
"Well, Chicago was growing wonderfully and demand
for business sites was sharply increasing. The men on
the syndicate land wanted to stay. Some concluded to
buy. Three parties paid $10,000 each for a lot, only a
little total of $30,000 for less than half an acre. The
other tenants re-leased for 15 years on re-valuation, giving
us a steady annual income."
50
THE QUARTERLY ECONOMIST.
"That's certainly a sure way to get rich without work-
ing," I ventured to say.
"Only scheme in the world that is legal; that is justi-
fied by our courts and our legislative powers; that is
upheld by the church, sustained by the great clergy and
the powerful press. People who get rich without working
iu any other way are thieves or gamblers. The man who
speculates in wheat on the board of trade is denounced
by press and pulpit as an enemy of society; and the man
who sits at a card table and bets money on a poker hand
is regarded as only one step from the Devil. Yet after
all, the grain speculator and the card player, while it is
true are dangerous to society, have nothing like the
power the landlord has to extract money from the pockets
of the people. You sit down to a card table with a
gambler. He allows you to deal, and affords you every
opportunity to see that the game shall be square, with
the result that he fails to 'freeze you out,' and you play
along with him with equal chances of winning. But there
is only one dealer when it comes to the land-he is the
landlord. If the landlord says: 'Fork over $1,000,' that is
just what you must pay or get off the earth. If the land-
lord says, 'I must take from you $5,000, $10,000, $20,000,
$50,000, $100,000, $1,000,000,' you have but one alternative:
you must pay or get off. You have no chance to deal.
You are in the game only to the extent that you must
pay as the landlord directs and demands."
"Can't a man leave the game with the landlord and
go somewhere else?"
"Yes," Mr. Bowen smiled. "If one is not a land owner
and wants to escape the landlord's game, he can go jump
into the river and end his existence. Every man who is
not a land owner must play with the landlord, upon the
terms of the landlord, according to the rules of the game
of the landlord, and if he will not so play, he must go
jump off, that's all."
IV.
Mr. Bowen's revelations in the foregoing chapter were
startling to me. The power that some men have to grow
unusually rich, apparently without effort, was as clear to
me now as the noon-day sun. I saw at once where the
"genius" of the Astors came in; how it was possible for
them to astound the world with their display of weak;
how, after all, the property which they "own" was never
paid for by them, but was bought many times over by the
tenants, and how the Astors were able to live like kings
}
51
HOW TO GET RICH WITHOUT WORKING.
in Europe upon the sweat of the brow of labor. But I was
not prepared when Mr. Bowen closely followed with
another revelation of the power of the landlord. I had
only seen part of the claws of the man who plays a “dead
sure game." Taking up the chain of his story where he
left off, Mr. Bowen continued:
"That the syndicate had made a fortune without effort
or expenditure of money belonging to it was fully, under-
stood by me and by my friends. We still owned more
than half the Fort Dearborn property and from this we
were able, upon a revaluation, to fix an annual rental of
$6,000 for a period of fifteen years, at the end of which
time the leases were to expire and the property, if wanted,
to be sold to occupants at present valuation.
"In the meantime however, I was looking after my
property which the storekeeper had occupied. He had
long since vacated my premises and was doing business
alongside in his own house on his own land. But I was
not without a tenant. A cigar manufacturer named
Markee opened up in my place the first day following its
vacation by the thrifty merchant, but not for $15 a month.
The merchant, you see, had increased the value of my
property by building a very substantial business house and
residence right next to it and some new buildings had
gone up across the street and in the adjoining blocks, and
Mr. Markee was very glad to pay me $30 per month for
a period of one year provided I would add a store front
and an additional room in the rear. I told him I never
improved. There was the house and lot. He could use
the lot for $25 a month and do what he pleased with the
house. Under no circumstances would I improve the
property.
"Mr. Markee looked at me in amazement.
66
"How can you expect to rent the place if you don't
keep a decent house on it?' he remarked.
"C
'Easy enough,' said I. 'If you don't want the prop-
erty just as it stands, for $25 a month for one year, you
don't have to take it.'
"I know I don't have to take it,' replied Markee; but
it's the best place I can find for my business, only I can't
do business in such a shack as that.'
"Then go ahead,' said I, 'and fix the building just as
you want it. I'll rent you the lot for $25 a month and
you may do as you please with the building.'
""You are very kind, indeed,' replied Mr. Markee. 'I
can do as I please with the building only I can't move it
cf without you should say so.'
52
THE QUARTERLY ECONOMIST.
"'O,' I hastily added. 'I mean of course you can make
any changes you like.
་
"Markee squirmed around a good while, but he had
to take his medicine. That is, he calculated that my place
offered him a good opportunity to do business and he had
to accept my terms or go somewhere else. He concluded
to accept my terms.
""Now,' said Markee, after an agreement between us
had been drawn up and the property was his for a year,
'now, if somebody would just come along here and build a
street car line on this street I believe it would make
business hum.'
"The observation of Markee," continued Mr. Bowen,
"gave me a cue that has enabled me to amass immense
wealth and led to causes that have served to keep Markee's
nose to the grindstone from that day to this. I went to
my friends and proposed the construction of a street rail-
way on my street and a number of other promising thor-
oughfares.
""Takes too much money,' observed Charley Neeld.
'Not a cent, I replied.
"Not a cent less than a million,' said Neeld.
"It will cost lots of money to build the street car
lines,' I explained to Neeld and my friends, 'but it need
not come out of our pockets-that's what I mean.'
"O, I see through it now,' broke in Neeld. 'You would
build the line on credit and then sell it for more than it
cost to build it, would you?'
"'No.'
"Then what?'
'Gentlemen, listen,' I said to them. 'I have given
this subject the most thorouga examination, and say to
you now that we can build this street car line without a
cent of cost to ourselves and keep control of it and the
profits in the bargain.'
'Boys,' Neeld laughed, 'George Archie has got 'em
for sure this time. See that strange look in his eye!'
'Laugh if you want to, boys, I will show you that I
am right.'
"I see through his scheme,' Ed Laakman ventured
to say.
'He would first borrow a lot of money, then go
into bankruptcy and after everything was all over go
ahead and build the street care line.'
"That's it,' said all the boys, shouting.
"Gentlemen,' I said, earnestly, 'listen to me. Let me
explain to you how we can build this street car line with-
HOW TO GET RICH WITHOUT WORKING.
53
out a cent of cost to ourselves and thus control it and col-
lect all the profits.'
"After the boys had exchanged sly winks among them.
selves and Neeld had cautioned them to allow me a chance
to explain, I outlined my scheme.
\
'You see, boys,' said I, 'under the laws of the land,
you can get free franchises. That is, the authorities of
Chicago have a legal right to pass an ordinance saying
that we shall have the exclusive right to build, maintain
and operate a street railway on certain streets in the city.
Now isn't that true?'
""Certainly.'
'Well, boys, suppose we form a company right here,
and call it the Chicago Street Railway company. We will
bo obliged to incorporate before we can do business as
a company. We can send $1 to the secretary of state at
Springfield and for that $1 he will issue us a charter,
signed by the governor and himself, and with this charter
from the state in our possession we can go to the city
authorities of Chicago and say to them: We want to build
street car lines on your streets. And we ask them to
pass an ordinance granting us exclusive privileges, and
they reply to us: Street car lines are just what our people
want, and they say to us they will give us rights on certain
streets forever.
"And so they pass an ordinance. That ordinance,
gentlemen, provides that the Chicago Street Railway Com-
pany shall have, possess and enjoy, and its heirs and
assigns shall have, possess and enjoy, from and after the
passage of this ordinance, all the rights, titles and
interests of the franchises herewith granted to the Chicago
Street Railway Company to construct. operate and main
tain street railway tracks and cars upon the following
streets, to-wit:'
"And this ordinance, my friends, after its passage, is
duly signed and delivered to us. How much is it worin
to us?'
""Gee whiz!' shouted Neeld. 'Boys, I see it all now.
Archie is right.'
""How much would it be worth to us?' I again asked.
'A million as least,' exclaimed Neeld. excitedly.
""That's no joke, either,' said Ed Laakman, who
seemed to become interested all at once.
I
“Hold on, boys,' I interrupted. 'Don't get excited.
am not through yet. You can all realize that the moment
we should get an ordinance into our hands, signed, sealed
and delivered, granting us and our heirs and assigns for-
54
THE QUARTERLY ECONOMIST.
ever exclusive street car rights upon the very best streets
Chicago we would possess something of great value; and
very naturally we would have a meeting and decide what
the franchise was worth. Suppose we should fix that
value at $2,000,000-and it would be worth it-and decide
to put out stock to that amount. Of course we would
issue $1,000,000 of stock to ourselves, for which, of course,
we would not pay anything; but we would place the other
$1,000,000 in the market to be sold at par. Well, the
stock sells like hot cakes, and we soon find ourselves with
lots of money in our hands, and we at once commence
building the street car lines. We order street cars, buy
mules, build barns and make all necessary preparations
for business. Finally the lines are thoroughly equipped
and we find upon investigation that from the sale of
$500,000 worth of the $1,000,000 placed on the market we
have had much more than enough to pay for all expense
cf construction. We put the balance in our pocket and
being the officers and directors of the company, on big
salaries, we have no difficulty in making it appear at the
stockholders' meeting that we have done very well. The
other fellows having furnished all the money with which
to build the lines, we fix them all right by withdrawing
from the market the $500,000 worth of stock remaining
unsold and issue them 50 per cent of it without price,
and as they know a good thing when they see
it
and especially when they get it, harmony is bound to
prevail among all interests.'
"'Wouldn't a transaction suc as that be illegal?'
Neeld asked.
'Certainly not. The franchise is our exclusive prop-
erty. It was signed, sealed and delivered exclusvely to
us. If outside parties want a slice of it they get it only
upon our terms, and we have a legal right to charge any
price we may see fit. If people don't want to pay it they
can let it alone. If we sell less than half the stock and
realize enough to build the line and still own two-thirds
of the stock that's nobody's business but our own. Cer-
tainly it's not illegal. I simply say, however, that in order
to make everybody feel good, we make the stockholders
who furnished the money to build the lines a present of a
lot of stock. We do that because we are in great luck
ourselves and we feel so good about it that we make the
stockholders happy. Now, then, gentlemen, you have my
scheme. What do you think of it?'
"Greatest snap on earth. Nothing like it,' declared
Neeld.
HOW TO GET RICH WITHOUT WORKING. 55
man.
66
"That's a great head you have, Archie,' said Laak-
"And so they all grew enthusiastic over my scheme
and a company was at once formed. They elected me
president, of course, and in due time we were a regularly
incorporated street car company. The matter of getting
rights of way on several of the principal streets of Chicago
was soon disposed of, the council passing the ordinance
just as we wanted it, and then all the facts were published
in the Gazette and property owners along the proposed
street car lines at once put up the price of their property.
Values went booming generally and everybody felt that
Chicago was the coming great city of the northwest. We
put out stock for sale and it was eagerly purchased. All
of our expectations were realized. It made us all rich
except the stockholders. Of course the stockholders real-
ized a fair return on their investment, but with the rest
of us it was different, for we had never invested anything
owned two-thirds of the stock, consequently two-thirds of
the street car lines, and therefore absorbed two-thirds of
the profits. As the city grew we asked for rights of way
on other streets and secured them without difficulty,
repeating our former scheme-i. e., building new lines
with the money secured from the sale of stock, keeping
the bulk of the issue in our own pockets. I will not detain
you with a recital of how we followed up this street car
franchise business until we had secured a veritable web
of streets in the rapidly growing city and how finally we
al: found ourselves millionaires without working or even
investing money. O, how plain it all is-and yet-God
forgive the nation!-how legal it all is! How just the
church regards it! How equitable the courts decree it!"
V.
Thus I had Mr. Bowen's story of "How to Get Rich
Without Working." I confess I was amazed. It seemed
incredible that such things should be possible under our
boasted Declaration of Independence and under the Stars
and Stripes. Yet that it was everywhere happening-not
only in every city and town in the United States but
throughout the broad land-admitted of no doubt. I had
known all along that such conditions existed, but it had
never once occurred to me that there was anything wrong.
I had never heard any one challenge it. I knew the courts
had never assailed it. In fact, it had never occurred to
me that there was any question to be raised concerning
56
THE QUARTERLY ECONOMIST.
the land system, which everybody accepted as absolutely
just.
But now it was clear to me that there was something
radically wrong. The Astors were worth $200,000,000—
why? Because of the presence of 4,000,000 people in New
York, Brooklyn and Jersey City. The Astors were deriv-
ing a great income from thousands of people from an
investment of money secured originally from business men
and workingmen. I could see now how it was possible
to prove that the wealth claimed by the Astors could be
taken from them. Suppose the 4,000,000 people living in
and about New York should emigrate-what would become
of the $200,000,000 wealth of the Astors? From whom
could they derive income? Ah, you say, if the people of
New York should emigrate somebody else would take their
places. True enough; but it only goes to prove that the
Astors must depend upon the presence of population and
industry for their fabulous incomes. They toil not,
neither do they spin. They are rent gatherers, dogs in
the manger, who contribute nothing to progress, but, like
Captain Kidd of old, demand ransom from all the rest of
mankind.
"Essington," said Bowen, who evidently knew I was
much impressed with his story, "what do you think of it?
Have I not told you the truth? Did you ever see it in
print before? And is it not as true as the Holy Book?"
"Yes," I replied, warmly. "The remarkable thing is
that the truth is so glaring and that nobody has eyes
large enough to see it. But I want to ask you a few
questions before I go."
"Fire away.'
"You said that Markee gave you a cue to a street car
scheme that led to results that kept his nose to the grind-
stone from that day to this. How?"
"Why, don't you see, just as soon as we built the street
car line on the street where he did business property
values went up, and consequently rents went up. Markee
had to pay more rent for doing business on my lot. Then,
you know, we did not stop at building street car lines. We
followed right up, in due time, with gas works. We
secured exclusive rights. Didn't cost us, a cent to build
the works. We let the stockholders do that. Of course
rents went up when the gas works were completed. Then
the city followed with sewers and better sidewalks, add-
ing great value to our land. We accordingly increased
rents. Every time any improvement took place, Markee
of course found himself obliged to pay increased rent. Of
HOW TO GET RICH WITHOUT WORKING.
57
;
course he could have snapped his fingers in my face and
left my property, but what good would that have done
him? I would simply have rented to somebody else and
he would simply have paid rent to some other landlord.
Markee was business man enough to understand that, as
a landlord, I was as good as he could find, and for that
matter he and I were always on the very best of terms,
and to this day he does not blame me for the high rent.
'If I don't pay it somebody else will,' he has confessed
to me many a time. Just now there are twelve to twenty
four-story buildings all about Markee's little cigar store.
There is still an old shack on the lot. I have never put a
dime's worth of improvement on it. It is worth $200,000,
I am holding it for $0,000. Markee is paying me $16,000
a year rent just for the use of the lot. In the twenty-five
years he has occupied the place he has not made $16,000.
Practically all the money comes to me. What have I
done? Not a thing. Not a dollar of my own money did
I ever invest. The hustling people of Chicago made me
rich. They have worked and paid me and my syndicate
for the privileges they enjoy. We secured exclusive fran-
chises, exclusive privileges, until finally we were in a
position to dictate terms. All we need to do now is simply
to say to the toilers of Chicago, 'Fish or cut bait.' You
see, under the law, we are the supreme rulers. Of course,
the people have a right to change the law, but they may
never do it. They seem to like injustice. They praise
injustice. Tell them my story, which is the story of
thousands of millionaires, and see if they bat an eye.
Right in the very face of the truth of my story they will
go right on praising the Lord for things as they are. But
what other question, Mr. Essington?"
"Only this: Are steam railroads constructed after the
manner in which you built the Chicago street railways?"
"I am glad you asked that question. Yes and No.
There is this difference: We secure right of way from
town to town and city to city often without consideration,
many farmers being anxious to have railroads traverse their
farms, on the theory that increased land values result;
but where we must pay for the right of way
way we
often issue stock for it, and having finally secured
right of way from one end of the line to the other we
induce the counties through which surveys were made to
vote on the question of one or two or three per cent tax
for from five to twenty years in aid of the proposed road.
Ninety per cent of the counties vote the tax, which gen-
erally affords enough money to build and equip the line.
58
THE QUARTERLY ECONOMIST.
1
So in that way we become owners of great railroads,
without making any investments, and we make matters
warm for the farmer who gave us his land for stock by
'freezing him out;' and we make it warm for everybody
else by making them pay exorbitant freight rates. Don't
you see how easy it is to become rich without working?"
"Yes; but there are no such opportunities open for
rie. You fellows have gobbied everything."
"Keep your eye open. You can't tell what may turn
up. The world stands ready to help any man who wants
to get rich without working. The law's everywhere are
in his favor. All those who toil must pay tribute to the
man who holds special privilege.
"But as for me," said Mr. Bowen, as I was about to
bid him goodbye, "I am in favor of changing the laws. I
want to see the country adopt the single land value tax
system. That will settle the whole question."
Kansas City and the Bee Hive.
Adapted from "The Twins" by A. F. Broomhall,
We have a beautiful, prosperous city here in Kansas
City. Excuse me, did I say we? If I did, I did not mean
it. I intended to say that Messrs. Smith, Lucky & Com-
pany have a fine city here. Their population has increased
wonderfully in the last few years, and rent and taxes have
been its running-mates.
nian.
Wonderful prosperity! Mr. Smith is a mighty smart
When this country was new the wages of a common
laborer were several dollars per day, to-day they are a dol-
lar and a half. Wonderful progress, great city, great men!
And they tell me that Mr. Smith is not only great, but
good. That of the million he has made by the rise in the
value of real estate, on account of increase in population,
he has given the city a public building costing fifty thousand
dollars, and only yesterday gave a check for five hundred
dollars to the Woman's Christian Association. Good man!
Better, perhaps, than most of us would be if we had a
million. But it is easy to give a crumb when we have
loaves given to us which we cannot use. If Mr. Smith
cornered the bread market and raised the price as the pop-
ulation grew you wouldn't thank him very heartily for
doling out a few loaves to your starving children. But he
owns all the vacant ground in town, and when he gives
back some of the increase, you throw up your hats and
cheer.
When we go to the hive and take out all the honey
except barely enough to keep the bees over winter, are we
superlatively generous in giving the hive a new coat of
paint? And they tell me that Mr. Smith is enterprising;
60
THE QUARTERLY ECONOMIST.
that he has mines and mills, and cars and ships, and gives
work to hundreds of men. How good of him! How kind
it is for the owner of the hive to give the bees a job!
What would the hive be without the bees?
And what would the hive-owner care for the bees if he
could not take as rent nearly all the honey they produced?
It is the hive-owner who is under obligation to the bees for
honey, not the bees to the owner for the job. They make
him rich; he keeps them poor. They might have stored
their honey in a hole in the ground, and kept all they
made for their own use; but they could not find a hole in
all this earth to which some landlord did not hold the key.
This great city is a human hive. No swarm of bees was
ever more industrious, contained fewer drones, nor put in
more hours than do you; and rarely is a hive robbed of
more of its honey.
You workers, by your very presence, give the land this
city is built upon, its value. God made the land; you
make the value. Though the fields and forests were full
of flowers, if the bees were idle or dead there would be no
honey; and there would be no wealth here if you were
absent or cease to toil. But labor as you may, wear your
fingers to the bone, few will ever find rest while the law
permits the owners of the earth to take the greater part
of your earnings for the privilege of making honey in one
of their hives. The law makes the landowner rich in spite
of himself, and keeps you poor in spite of yourselves.
Not every landowner gets rich, but the fact that so many
do, has enticed numberless persons into investing their
ruoney in land speculation, oftentimes discounting the
future beyond reason and many have lost their savings
thereby. What they lose the community does not make,
but what they make the community does lose.
Mr. Smith, old resident landowner, has a brother who
is a hard working farmer living out in the eastern end of
Jackson county. If this city had been built upon his farm,
Tom Smith would have been the nabob, and John Smith
the hayseed. The rise in the value of the land Kansas
City stands on was something with which John Smith had
nothing to do. Two generations ago the 15,000 acres oc-
cupied by Kansas City would not have brought as much
rent as any one of thousands of business lots. But the
eastern hives were over-crowded; the bees swarmed, and
there they are. Mr. Smith perhaps did his share in beat-
ing the tins and making the bands play and raising a boom
THE BEE HIVE.
61
to divert the swarm to this particular place, but diverting
a value is by no means the same as creating it.
You make the honey, Smith eats it. This is not Mr.
Smith's fault, it is yours. The law permits it and custom
approves it, and you alone can change it. As long as you
let Mr. Smith own you and take the fruits of your labor,
he will continue to do so. He is only human, and very
few men in his situation would act differently. Bees be-
long to the owner of the hive, don't they? When they
swarm they become the property of the man who owns
the tree or the land they alight upon. He in turn puts
them in a hive; they go to work, make an abundance of
honey, and the new landlord, like the old one,leaves them
little more than the wax. If you grow dissatisfied with
your life in this city, if the hive seems too full and you
swarm, you will find a landlord at the foot of every tree.
You cannot stay on the tree nor in the streets. There is
not an inch of earth you can get for nothing. You must
go into somebody's hive, and give nearly all you earn for
the privilege of staying there.
The increased land values in this city do not belong by
right to John Smith, but to all the people who create them
by their presence. The single tax proposition is simply to
take for the needs of the community from the value the
community has created. It would leave for the individual
all the individual creates.
The poor we have always with us, but the industrious
poor ought not to be with us at all. When God created
John Smith and his twin brother, He created them equal.
Their mother loved them with equal fondness. Do you
think it was the intention of their father, or the wish of
their mother that John should roll in opulence, and that
Tom should be doomed to unrequiting toil? I cannot be-
lieve it. Both were good boys. Their parents wished
them both to have an equal inheritance and an equal
chance in the world, and they would have tolerated no
arrangement whereby John should have millions and Tom
not enough to educate his children. All human beings are
the offspring of a common parentage. God is our Father.
Earth is our Mother. But some of the children continue
to keep their brothers and sisters from mother's bosom,
not always by force, but by consent. There are few heirs
who will not take all the other heirs will let them have.
They take all they can under the law. Estates are seldom
distributed on purely equitable rules. But unjust laws of
62
THE QUARTERLY ECONOMIST.
inheritance cannot always abide. They must pass away,
and the day will yet come when we can pillow our heads
on mother's breast without paying rent to our brothers
for the privilege.
We will accomplish this by taking for public purposes
all the increase in the value of land caused by the increase
in population. Each will then have the full reward of his
labor, and equality would cease to be a pleasant shibboleth
and become a practical fact.
>
♡
1
Single Tax Applied to Various
Interests.
THE SINGLE TAX AND THE FARMER.
BY THOMAS G. SHEARMAN.
[An extract from an address before the Taxation Committee
of the Ohio state legislature.]
Every tax payer, without exception, is an occupant of
land and improvements upon land, and an owner of per-
sonal property. The only selfish interest which any tax
payer has in deciding between rival systems of taxation, is
to know which will produce a sufficient revenue to the
state with the smallest possible burden to him. In con-
sidering, therefore, te interest of any class, such as farm-
ers, the real question to be answered is not whether they,
in fact, own more or less personal property than mer
chants, bankers and money lenders. It is first, whether
they own more personal property in proportion to the
value of their land than do those Oer classes; and,
second, whether the particular kinds of personal property
which they own are more easily reached by the tax gath-
erer than are the kinds of property owned by the other
classes. The state must raise a certain fixed amount for
public purposes. This amount, it will assess upon all the
tax payers, in proportion to the value of their property, as
reported by the assessors; not in proportion to its real
value, which the assessors, of course, are never able ex-
actly to ascertain. If, therefore, experience proves that
assessors are able to find twenty times as much land value
in the possession of merchants as they can among farmers,
but only ten times as much personal property among mer-
64
THE QUARTERLY ECONOMIST.
chants as they find among farmers, it is a plain result, as
simple as the rule of three, that the taxation of personal
property will end in making farmers pay a larger propor-
tion of the taxes than they would pay, if all the taxes were
concentrated on land values.
Now the average farmer, no doubt, says at once that
this is impossible. He owns, we will say, 100 acres of
land; and he knows of no merchant in any of the great
cities who owns as much as one acre. He owns neither
stocks or bonds, and has only $500 in the bank. He
knows of 1,000 merchants or money lenders, who each own
$100,000 or $1,000,000 in stocks and bonds and keep bal-
ances of $50,000 in the pank. He asserts, therefore, that it
is a matter of plain common sense that the exemption of
personal property from taxation must increase his burden,
so as to make him pay 100 times as much as the merchant
and banker.
But the farmer, in reasoning thus, entirely overlooks
the most important facts of the problem, and abandons the
common sense of which he so much boasts. That common
sense would tell him that, just as his 100 acres are worth
to him far more than 100,000 in the midst of Africa would
be, so one-tenth of an acre in the heart of Cincinnati is
worth more than all his farm. It would also tell him that
the assessor can easily count his cattle, horses, sheep and
hogs, and estimate pretty correctly the value of his house
and barns; whereas the most expert assessor can never find
out how many bonds the banker owns, unless he can per-
suade that banker to tell him; while in estimating the
value of the banker's house and furniture, he might guess
at $10,000, $25,000 or $50,000, with a perfectly equal chance
of being right or wrong, in either case. The banker has
chairs, standing side by side, apparently of exactly equal
value, but one of which cost $25 and the other $250. He
has two paintings, one of which is five times as large as
the other, and which the honest farmer would, therefore,
think to be five times as valuabie; whereas, in fact, the
large picture is barely worth $500, while the small one
would sell as quick as lightning for $20,000. There are
many houses, in large cities, upon the interior decoration
of which the owners have each spent more than $100,000.
The most experienced assessors would fail to discover that
these decorations were really more costly than those in
adjoining houses, which in fact did not cost one-tenth of
that amount.
1
SINGLE TAX AND THE FARMER.
65
Nor is the difficulty of this problem confined to the
difficulty which the assessor finds in doing his work.
Vast amounts of what are commonly called personal pro-
perty, and, indeed, the bulk of those things which the
average farmer seeks to tax as personal property, consist
of.really nothing but rights over real estate. Thus the
stock of railroad corporations, when it has any value, con-
sists very largely in the land which the company covers
by its tracks, engine houses, stations, etc.; and the bonds
of such corporations represent practically nothing else.
The franchises of such corporations, which, of course, con-
stitute a large part of the value of both stocks and bonds,
really consist of nothing but the right to use certain tracts
of land, to the exclusion of all other persons.
Under any
proper system of taxation, assessed on the value of land
alone, those franchises would be assessed at their full
value; because the franchise of exclusive use is all that
gives to any land its commercial value. The system of tax-
ation upon land values alone would, therefore, levy taxes
upon every dollar which corporate franchises are worth.
No system of taxation on personal property is needed in
the smallest degree for this purpose. It is indeed only a
hindrance to it and a convenient means of evading taxa-
tion; for the assessor, not being allowed to compute this
value, in estimating the value of the land, has to take his
chances of finding it, under the name of personal property.
All mortgages on land are of course, practically, interests
in the land itself, and would be fully taxed under a system
of taxation confined to the value of the land alone. The
tax may be collected from either the mortgagor or the
mortgagee, as the legislature should think fit. Either plan
is perfectly consistent with the exemption of personal
property from taxation.
Farmers cannot conceal their sheep and oxen, their
plow's and implements; and they have enormous difficulty
in concealing their wealth in any form, because their
affairs are so well known to all their neighbors. If they
have any money in bank, all the village knows it. If they
have loaned money or sold goods on credit, their debtor is
pretty sure to be someone in the immediate neighborhood;
and all the cicumstances are known to fifty people. The
average farmer, when making his returns to the assessor
is afraid to understate his wealth very greatly; because
he could hardly look the assessor in the face after doing
so; being conscious that, if the assessor does not already
66
THE QUARTERLY ECONOMIST.
1
know the truth, he can with very little difficulty find it out
for himself. But in large towns and cities, scarcely any
man knows, intimately, the affairs of his neighbor; and
the assessor knows least of all. People are reputed to be
worth $1,000,000, who in reality are not worth $50,000;
and others are reputed to be worth only $100,000, who in
reality are worth $2,000,000. Even if the amount of any
man's wealth is approximately known none of his neigh-
bors know how that money is invested, unless it is put in
real estate. The assessor therefore has absolutely no
means of ascertaining the value of any man's personal
property, except by returns from that man himself, or from
the corporations with whom he may happen to invest. If
an Ohio man makes his principal investments in corpora-
tions outside of the state, the assessor is entirely at the
mercy of the tax payer. He can tell any number of lies
with impunity. The assessor rarely or never examines
his books of account; and, if assessors once began to make
such an examination, many rich men would cease to keep
books of account at all, as it is notorious that they did,
when the income tax was in existence. All things com-
bine to make it easy for the assessor to reach the farmer's
personal property and difficult for him to reach that of the
merchant, banker or city capitalist.
The farmer is apt to cry out against what he calls the
injustice of exempting the magnificent buildings, some-
times erected in the cities, from all taxation, forgetting
that such buildings always stand upon the most expensive
land, while his own farm house and barns stand upon land
of utterly insignificent value. In adjusting taxation, the
only question of importance is as to the relative proportion
which will be borne by different classes; and it is of no
importance whatever that any single piece of property
should pay much or little, provided all other properties of
the same kind pay in exact proportion with it. A farm
house, costing $1,500 to build, will stand upon a piece of
land which, including the surrounding garden, on an ample
scale, would not be worth more than $15. But an average
city house, costing $10,000 to build, will stand upon a lot
worth at least $5,000; while a warehouse, costing $50,000
to build, will frequently stand upon a lot worth $50,000.
So far, therefore, as the mere value of the land which is
required for the purpose of supporting the house or build-
ing of any kind is concerned, the farmer would gain
largely by concentrating taxes upon that and exempting
SINGLE TAX AND THE FARMER.
67
all buildings. But he holds, in addition to the land upon
which his house stands, a number of acres, which he uses
for farming purposes; and he assumes that these will be
heavily taxed under a system of taxation upon land values
alone, and that thus a large proportion of the burden will
eb thrown upon him. This is an entire mistake. When
building are exempt from taxation, ali other improvements
on the land must also be exempted; and the result of this
would be to assess improved farm lands at no higher value
than perfectly wild, uncultivated land, in the same im-
mediate vicinity. All fences, all growing crops, all im-
provements of every kind, would be left out of account;
and his land would be assessed only at the value which
it would bring, if had been just swept clean by a prairie
fire. Very little consideration is required to enable any one
to see that, under such a rule of assessment, the taxes
levied upon farms would be much less, in proportion to
those levied upon town lots, than they are today, and that
such a change in the methods of assessment and taxation
would result in lessening the burden of farms and increas-
ing that of the large towns.
THE SINGLE TAX APPLIED TO CITIES
AND TOWNS.
It will be observed that we propose to leave to every-
one-the rich and the poor, the industrious, and the idle
dogs in the manger, the manufacturer, the merchant, the
miner, the farmer and the workingman-the total value of
their improvements and personal property wholly untaxed;
and to concentrate all taxes upon land values only. Mark
well that it is the value of land that is to be taxed and not
the area. This is important, because farmers get the idea
that since they use more land than people in cities, the
single-tax would tax them out of existence. In Chicago
bare land in the business center has been selling and leas-
ing during the last five years at a valuation closely ap-
68
THE QUARTERLY ECONOMIST.
proximating $9,000,000 per acre, while in New York City it
is rated as high as $13,000,000 per acre. Let some farmer
give his little ten year-old-boy attending a district school
this problem: 'If one acre of city land worth $13,000,000,
taxed at 3 per cent, yields $390,000 revenue, how many
acres of farm land worth $20 per acre will be required to
yield as much at the same rate? It would require 650,000
acres, or about 1,016 square miles! Would the farmers
object if single-taxers were to carry some county or town-
ship, under a local option law-permitting the people, at
their option, to exempt capital and all improvements and
personality from taxation for local purposes-and actually
undertake to compel the farmers to pay anywhere from
one-six-hundred-and-fifty-thousandth to one-hundredth as
much tax as the city land speculator, instead of from one-
third to three-fourths, as they do now!
But it is not only the farmer we would endeavor to
interest in the subject of taxation from the single-tax
standpoint. We want his influence, to be sure, but we
want also the influence of every man who is willing to
take his chances in a state of society in which natural op-
portunities will be equal and reward preportioned to ex-
ertion and merit, with such regulations as will make it
absolutely impossible for anyone to get what he does not
earn, unless by voluntary gift or downright theft. As for
those who are not willing to be content with what they
can earn by their daily toil; who wish to keep on living by
their wits, their cunning, their craftiness; by forestalling
labor and industry and by the exercise of their superior
lack of conscientiousness and human sympathy, we expect
them to be against us in the future as in the past, as they
will doubtless be separated from us in the hereafter-for
it is said that "the ruling passion is strong in death."
To make the illustration simple, we assume a small
township or municipality in which the authorities have
determined upon a tax levy of $60,000 for the ensuing year.
The assessor would proceed upon his work the same as
now, only he would take no account of improvements or
personal property. The result under the two systems
would be as follows:
SINGLE TAX APPLIED TO CITIES.
69
ILLUSTRATIVE TAble.

Present
System. Single Tax.
Property.
Values.
per cent.
Rate
Tax
per cent.
Rate
Tax
MUNICIPALITY.
F
Land..
$2,000,000
3
Improvements
2,000,000
Personalty
2,000,000
6,000,000
1 60,000
60,000
RICH MAN'S HOME.
Lot
10,000
3
300
House..
30,000
Personalty
5,000
45,000
1
450
300

MANUFACTURER.
Lot
10.000
♡
300
Buildings.
50,000
Machinery
50,000
Material, Stock, etc.
30,000
140,000
1
1 400
300

MERCHANT.
Lot-
10,000
3
300
Building
30,000
Merchandise
50,000
90,000
1
9001
300
70
THE QUARTERLY ECONOMIST.
Present
system. Single Tax

Property.
Values.
MINING Co.
per cent.
Rate
Tax
per cent.
Rate
Tax

Coal Land,
(5,000 A. at $100)...
500,000
3
15,000
2 or 3 shafts, Mach-
inery, etc.
20,000
520,000
1 5,200
15,000

STREET Car Co.
Franchise (land)…….
500,000
3 15 000
Equipment
Improvements, etc.
100,000
Capital Stock
600,000 1 6,000.
15 000
Land SpecULATOR.
Vacant Land -.
200,000
3
6,000
200 000
1
2,000
6,000
WORKINGMAN'S
HOME.
Lot..
House
500
3
15
2,000
2,500
1
251
15
WORKING FARMER.
Land (100 A. at $20)
2,000
3
60
House
1,500
Barns, Fences, etc-
3,000
Implements
2,000
Live stock
2,000
Grain, etc..
500
11,000 1
110
60
SINGLE TAX APPLIED TO CITIES.
71
Is it not clear to every workingman who studies this
table that he is standing in his own light when he sup-
ports the system which fines the rich man who chooses to
put more money into a fine house and furnishings than into
land, thereby furnishing work for himself and many others
of his class?
Is it not plain to the manufacturer and the merchant
that any system which operates to the disadvantage of the
laboring people generally must be inimical to their inter-
ests, too?
Is it not clear to everyone that taxes levied on the
manufacturer's products and processes and upon the mer-
chant's goods and appliances are and must be added to
the price of their wares and ultimately rest upon the con-
sumers, the working people?
Is it not obvious that we should tax the mining com-
pany severely, not for expending money in appliances for
getting coal out and in paying wages to large numbers of
miners for their labor, but for holding so many acres of
valuable coal land unu..lized?
Is it not clear that to tax vacant land more tends to
force its improvement or sale, and that it is always by put-
ting the price down rather than up that one who is forced
to sell anything finds a purchaser?
Is it not evident that the more land is improved and
the cheaper unimproved land can be bought, the better it
is for those who are searching for opportunities to work?
Can there be any doubt that when there is an abund-
ant demand for labor and an abundance of good, desirable
land to resort to for little or nothing, workingmen will all
be employed permanently and at good wages?
Is it not the presence of the thousands of idle men in
our industrial centers that makes every strike upon the
part of organized labor a failure? These men cannot be
killed off to satisfy the labor unions, but organized labor
can, if it will, make a strike with the single-tax which will
kill land speculation and make the natural resources of the
earth so abundant and cheap that men now idle and starv-
ing in the cities can maintain themselves in independence
after some fashion, and thus withdraw themselves from
the enforced competition in the labor market. When em-
ployers can no longer fill the places of those who are dis-
satisfied they will go as far as they can to satisfy any
just and proper demands.
When, by the application of the single-tax, land ceases
72
THE QUARTERLY ECONOMIST.
to be the most desirable form of investment to wealthy
speculators and the most certain form of security for loans,
capital will be compelled to seek investment in things that
are the product of labor. This will make money circulate
more freely and abundantly in the channels of trade and
industry. Think of the thousands of clerks and mechanics
who have been drawn into land speculation and induced
to purchase lots on installments. They have economized
most rigidly, and denied themselves and their families
everything except the barest subsistence. Instead of
spending their earnings in the purchase of an abundance
of good food, clothing, shelter, and articles of comfort and
luxury-to supply which in such quantities would have
called into requisition every idle hand in the country-
they have retained for themselves a beggarly pittance and
paid the balance over, with interest, to some land specu-
lator, who paid it over to greater still, and so on until the
earnings of all the little fellows who have engaged in the
speculation have found their way by devious courses into
the capacious vaults of the few.
Trace this money, as it passes from hand to hand in
its maelstrom of iniquitous speculation, and you will not
find that it has anywhere set an idle hand to work in pro-
duction, nor added in any manner to the joy of life. On
the contrary, it has been used to forestall labor, to sand-
bag industry, to cripple production and rob trade. It has
forced the value of land beyond the reach of the masses,
and condemned them to live like rats in the noisome tene-
ments of our great cities, and lie upon the cold stone floors
of the police stations and public buildings in winter. It
has made possible, and perpetually maintains the status
of two extremes, the landlord and the landless, so vividly
pictured in the language of Burns when he wrote:
See yonder poor, o'erlabored wight,
So abject, mean and vile,
Who begs a brother of the earth
To give him leave to toil;
And see his lordly fellow-worm
The poor petition spurn,
Unmindful though a weeping wife
And helpless offspring mourn.
If I'm yon haughty lordling's slave,
By nature's law designed,
Why was an independent wish
E'er planted in my mind?
A SINGLE TAX VIEW OF TRUSTS.
73
If not, why am I subject
To his cruelty and scorn,
Or why has man the will and power
To make his fellow mourn?
Is it not the duty of everyone to candidly and earnestly
examine this question, in the spirit of the poet's inquiry,
and get the explanation from its friends rather than from
its enemies?
A SINGLE TAX VIEW OF TRUSTS.
BY LOUIS F. POST.
j
We recognize that there might be such a thing as a
good trust. There might be commercial combinations that
would reduce prices by economizing. They would indeed
displace men, as machinery and other labor saving meth-
ods do; but under just and normal conditions, there would
be abundant opportunities for all who were displaced. Im-
mediate demands for them in kindred occupations would
constantly exceed the supply. Such trusts would tend to
improve social conditions instead of making them worse.
Those are the kinds of trusts which our pro-trust friends
have in mind when they defend the trust. But in fact
there is no such trust in existence today, and under pre-
vailing industrial conditions there can be no such trust.
The trust question as it faces us is not a question of
business combination. It is a question of legal monopoly.
If competitive conditions prevail, combinations of com-
petitive businesses would do no harm. They would have
to do good or they couldn't keep the combination alive.
But when businesses control legal monopolies and form
combinations of these, then you have harmful trusts. And
that is the kind of trust we have today-the kind of trust
of which we complain. The trust question, I repeat, is at
bottom not a question of business combinations, but a
question of legal monopoly. It is not to be dealt with by
restrictive laws, operating upon methods and effects. That
would only make bad conditions worse. You have got to
go beneath the methods and effects and get at the causes
74
THE QUARTERLY ECONOMIST.
of these bad trusts. You have got to strike at the mon-
opolies which give them their power. Abolish the legal
monopolies that underlie trusts, and trusts will disappear.
Take any trust which on its face seems to be a com-
bination of mere competitive interests. If it were so in
fact, it would be a good or at least a harmless trust. But
scrutinize it and you will find that somehow, directly or
indirectly, it depends for its power upon monopoly. It
may have no monopoly by name. It may simply be taking
advantage of general laws. It may depend, for example,
upon the restrictions upon free competition which are im-
posed by tariffs. To the extent that the tariff narrows the
field of competition, to that extent it fosters trusts. One
of the very objects of the tariff is to produce that con-
dition of strangulated competition without which trusts
could not live. If we wish to get rid of the trusts, we must
sweep away the tariff and make trade as free between the
people of the world as it is between the people of our
states.
While single-tax men demand the abolition of the
tariff-offering in its place for revenue purposes an in-
finitely wiser and juster system of taxation, they do not
suppose that the abolition of the tarin would abolish all
trusts. It would abolish a good many, and weaken the foun-
dation of a good many more. But trusts would still be
fostered by other and more direct systems of legal
monopolies.
That is a highway,
Take the railroad for instance.
and in private hands is a highway monopoly. The mon-
opoly is not in the cars, or tracks, or tunnels, or build-
ings, or anything of that sort. It is in the right of way-
in the land that constitutes the 'way" as distinguished
from the structure. These highways connect places, and
to control them is to control traffic. Railroad corporations
can form oppressive trusts because they control highway
monopolies.
They can and they do do more than that. They make
exclusive contracts with business concerns, which form
trusts upon the basis of special railroad privileges. One
of the most familiar examples of this sub-letting of rail-
road highways is furnished by express companies.
Ex-
press companies thereby acquire monopolies of right of
way, can form oppressive trusts by combining these mon-
opolies into one. Express companies are only one class of
concerns deriving monopoly privileges in that way. There
}
A SINGLE TAX VIEW OF TRUSTS.
75
are others. The Standard Oil trust built up its power in
precisely that way. The cracker trust is said to have priv-
ileges of this kind. And doubtless, if you inquire closely,
you will learn that many a trust witn an innocent face de-
rives its power from railroad privileges. Highway mon-
opolies, then, must be abolished, if we would free ourselves
from vicious trusts.
But even if unat were done, trusts would still have a
firm foundation to build upon. No trust can perpetuate
itself unless it gets its feet upon the ground. All the advan-
tages of tariffs and railway privileges and other monopolies
will not avail trusts that come in conflict with hostile
trusts which monopolize sources of supply and distributive
points. Monopoly of land, then, is the ultimate basis of
the trust. It is an absolute condition to success that the
trust have its feet upon the earth.
This has been discovered by the great trusts. The
steel trust and ne copper trust go back to the land and
make ore mines part of their property, while the coal trans-
porting trust of the anthracite region is careful to secure
not only highways but coal mines. Railroad monopoly it-
self is being subjected to the more powerful monopoly of
land at terminal points.
C
Let us follow the idea a little further. The control of
trusts by trusts is clearly among the possibilities of trust
development. As partnerships have merged into corpor-
ations and corporations into trusts, so will trusts merge
into trusts of trusts, and finally into one all powerful trust.
That is the tendency. It is already manifest, and will be a
thing accomplished unless we kill the trust system.
Suppose, for example, that the steel trust should reach
out until it controlled all the steel business clear back to
all the ore mines. It would then have its feet upon the
ground, and no competitor in the steel business could cope
with it. But it must use coal, and here, let us suppose, is
one coal trust which has reached out until it controls all
the coal mines. It, too, has its feet upon the ground. Sup-
pose now that the interests of these trusts collide, and
what could be the outcome but the consolidation of the two
into one? That illustrates the trend of the trusts. And
if not stopped, that trend will persist until the organiza-
tion of trusts and their absorption into trusts of trusts
eventuate in the ownership of all business by some gigan-
tic combination.
To that triumph of the trusts most socialists look for-
ward with satisfaction. They see in it the opportunity of
the people to take possession not only of the earth but of
76
THE QUARTERLY ECONOMIST.
L
the artificial instruments of production also, by dethroning
the single trust under whose control all business will have
come. But there is little real cause for satisfaction in that.
As the evolution of the trust proceeds, trust employes be-
come in greater and greater degree mere voting machines.
It is not their convictions as citizens that they register at
the polls. They vote as they are ordered to. This con-
dition would be enormously worse if the development of
trusts proceed even approximately to the point of a uni-
versal trust. And when the time came to dethrone trusts,
the voice of the people would be stifled. The trusts them-
selves would decide the issue. They would do it through
the army of dependent voters whose livelihood they would
control. It might be that they would decide in favor of the
substitution of such a government trust as the socialists
look forward to. But if they did, they themselves would
fix the terms. All land and all machinery might by their
consent and with the votes of their dependents be turned
over to the government, but it would be for a price which
the trust magnates would dictate and to a government
which they would control.
It is not by waiting until trusts own everything and
then taking it from them that the trust question must be
met. We must kill the trust by securing in time the point
of vantage toward which it is advancing. We must keep
its feet off the ground.
Since trusts, in order to survive, must get their feet
upon the ground, must control the earth at the points of
supply and the points of distribution, the abolition of all
monopolies except land monopoly would fail to abolish
them. By acquiring control of the land they would con-
trol everything else. So it is that single-tax men, though
they would abolish the tariff, though they would abolish
highway monopolies, though they would repeal every law
that creates or supports monopoly, they would not stop
there. They would strike at the mother monopoly of all.
They would abolish the monopoly of land.
To do that they propose nothing revolutionary. Revo-
lution is not necessary. All that is necessary is to tax into
the public treasury the peculiar value that attaches to es-
pecially advantageous locations. If that were done, no
man or combination of men, whether incorporated or not,
could monopolize the sources of supply or the points of
distribution without paying annually to the public the
value of the privilege. That would deprive them of all
advantage over others. It would lift their feet off the
ground.
1
it
A SINGLE TAX VIEW OF TRUSTS.
77
You remember the classic fable of Hercules and An-
taeus. Hercules with all his strength could not conquer
But
Antaeus so long as Antaeus could touch the earth.
when Hercules discovered wherein the power of his ad-
versary lay, he lifted Antaeus from the earth and then
destroyed him with ease. The trusts are the modern An-
taeus. Let the people lift them from the earth and the
battle against them will be won.
SINGLE TAX APPLIED TO KANSAS CITY.
Two generations ago the 15,000 acres now occupied by
the city had only a very small value, being principally farm
land. The 163,000 people who have since come here have
increased that value to $120,000,000 (exclusive of franchise
values which are from $30,000,000 to $40,000,000 additional)
At five per cent this indicates an annual rental value of
$6,000,000. This is exclusive of the rent for buildings
and improvements which is really a form of interest. In
other words, the professional, business, and working men
and women of Kansas City are paying from their earnings
$6,000,000 a year to the owners of these 15,000 acres as toll
for access to the use of this land.
These figures are estimates from the books of the
city assessor which show the following items of the assess-
ment for 1900:
Value of Land and Improvements.
Value of Personal Property..
•
Value of Railroad Property (State assessment)..
Total
. $57,916,215
21,483,785
423,260
$79,823,260
Land values have not as yet been separated from the
value of the improvements on land, but this is readily done
by a reference to the figures of 1897 where those items
are figured out separately on the assessors books as fol-
lows:
78
THE QUARTERLY ECONOMIST.
*
Land values...
Improvements
Personal Property.
•
Saleable Merchandise.
Bonds
Total
·
$29,680,540
15,189,760
8,555,580
3,432,555
3,878,154
$60,736,589
Land values and improvements together are thus in-
creased from $45,000,000 to $58,000,000 in 1900, or about 30
per cent. This would indicate an increase in land values
cf from nearly $30,000,000 in 1897 to about $39,000,000 in
1900.
The law explicitly requires that all property shall be
assessed at its full value. Assessors ignore the law and
follow the custom of assessing at 40 per cent of its value.
This is further modified so that the actual assessments
will possibly not average 30 to 33 1-3 per cent of the true
value of the property that is gotten at all. This would
indicate the actual value of the ground site of Kansas City
to be in round numbers approximately $120,000,000. To
this should be added properly the franchise values of the
city, a franchise being but a qualified deed to the use of
the land. The franchise of the Metropolitan Street Rail-
way Company alone is worth from $25,000,000 to $30,000,000
being a large fraction of the land values of the city. The
franchises of the gas, electric, telephone and telegraph
companies and steam railroads are also very valuable. If
fairly assessed under the present laws they would add at
least one-fifth to the total assessed value of the city, and
the tax rate would be reduced by that same amount.
The Metropolitan Company now pays a city tax of about
$26,000 on all its lines and about $1,200 on its other real
estate. Its total tax for city, county and state purposes
is almost $70,000. If it paid the regular city tax of 11 1-2
mills on even a 33 1-3 per cent valuation for the $40,000,000
for which it is now reported as seeking to stock and bond
its holdings, it would pay $155,250 yearly into the city treas.
ury, or an aggregate of about $400.000 a year for city,
county and state purposes. As a matter of fact the entire
Metropolitan system is assessed at only $2,500,000, or about
one-third of the value of its physical properties alone.
The first single tax demand is for a franchise tax law,
and the dropping of all merchants' license taxes.
The next practical proposition is for such measure of
SINGLE TAX APPLIED TO KANSAS CITY. 79
local option in taxation as will allow the exemption from
taxation of at first $1,000 or personal property. When the
practical effect of this has been seen, the next step will
be the exemption of $2,000, then $5,000, and finally of all
personal property. This will necessarily extend through
a considerable number of years and will shift the taxes so
gradually upon land values that what loss may come to
those holding land on speculation will be offset by the
greatly increased business opportunities in other ways.
The increased taxes upon land would of course decrease
its selling value and make its purchase easier for anyone
wishing a home or business site. It would give a great
impetus to building and improvements of all kinds. It
would reduce rents by making land cheaper and houses
more plentiful. It would raise wages by increasing the
demand for labor in the building trades, and to supply the
increased demand for furnishings and goods of all kinds.
All legitimate business would be greatly helped and real
estate dealers would gain more in their capacity as brok-
ers than they would lose as speculators.
+
What share of land values would be absorbed in taxa-
tion may be fairly judged by the following facts compiled
chiefly by Mr. Byron Holt, of New York, in the "Municipal
Affairs Quarterly":
In Kansas City the annual per capita value of ground
rentals is about $36, in Chicago $40, in Boston $52, in New
York $60, and in Washington $95. In none of these cities
does the per capita expenditure for municipal government
exceed $30 annually. In Kansas City it is $6.34 (or about
$16 for both city, county and state taxes, exclusive of park
taxes), in Chicago $16, in Boston $25, in New York $30, in
Washington $24. In any of these cities the value of the
ground rent is twice the present cost of government. It may,
therefore, be safely concluded that ground rents furnish
an adequate source of revenue in our cities. The cities to
first recognize this fact, and to secure a sufficient measure
of self-rule to enable them to apply the proposition through
a gradual series of exemptions of personal property will
have attracted to them wealth of all descriptions.
The Ford franchise tax law in New York has added
$170,000,000 to the assessment the first year of its opera
tion. A similar law in Missouri would do almost as much
for our state. Write your state senator and legislator
today to urge such a bill this session.
80
THE QUARTERLY ECONOMIST.
The total increase of real estate values in New York
this year is over $400,000,000, whereas the personal prop-
erty values have decreased $13,000,000. As a matter of
fact the two go hand in hand, every dollar of increase in
personal property bringing an increase in realty values.
But it is a practical impossibility in New York, as else-
where, to properly assess personal property, and the above
figures show that the attempt is being given up more and
more. It is being realized that capital is never attracted
to a state or city that attempts to confiscate it by taxation.
The prosperity of New York and its commercial supremacy
are being established by the trend these figures illustrate.
It is nothing if not a single tax trend. Shall Kansas City
or Missouri profit by this example and "quit our mean-
ness" in trying to tax everything in sight, grasping at the
shadow while we lose the substance?
Our park tax and other betterment taxes, assessed up-
on the value of the land, are, of course, illustrations of
the single tax principle.
Send to-day 25 cents in stamps (the Kan-
sas City club rate) for a year's subscription to
the National Single Taxer, 62 Trinity Place,
New York City.
Direct Legislation.
What it Means-Its Results in Switzerland.
By J. R. Weikert.
Direct legislation is simply an extension of the
right of petition. At present a citizen may petition his
rulers for whatever he may want and they have to receive
his humble petition without punishing him for his presump-
tion; what they may choose to do with the petition is left
for them to decide; they may grant it or throw it into the
waste basket. One hundred thousand voters petitioned for
an equal taxation law in Michigan, but sixteen senators
were able to protect "vested rights" of corporations, and
the petition was denied. Six thousand legal voters of the
city of Detroit petitioned for a charter amendment, the
council ordered a vote according to law, but "vested rights"
prevailed on the courts to issue a "mandamus" forbidding
the vote on the proposition. These two instances will
show the value of the present "right of petition." Under
direct legislation it is understood that when a certain num-
ber or per cent of the legal voters of a district (town,
city, or state, according as the matter petitioned for con-
cerns them) have signed a petition and filed the same with
the proper officials, it becomes mandatory for these officials
to submit the matter petitioned for to the voters of the af-
fected district at the next ensuing election in manner simi-
lar to the present way of voting on constitutional amend-
ments, issuing of bonds, etc. Laws thus enacted by the
people direct would occupy the same ground as the consti-
tution itself; no legislative body could alter or amend
them; no executive officer veto them; no court declare
them unconstitutional. They could be altered, amended,
or annulled only by the court of last appeal-the sovereign
82
THE QUARTERLY ECONOMIST.
people.
This court could not be bribed, and mistakes made
by it would be rectified as soon as discovered.
The various problems of local, state and national con-
cern can not be solved in job lots. The people most con-
cerned will, under direct legislation, deal with each one
separately; they will do it most intelligently and effective-
ly. As long as these problems are to be dealt with by
irresponsible agents we will have the lobbyist, the corrup-
tionist, the political boss, and all the tools of corporate
interests and vested rights in special privileges. As long
as political parties and promises of party candidates must
be depended on to decide these issues the people will be
powerless. And as long as the people is powerless to enact
its will into law, is dependent on these short-lived autocrats
over whom it has no control whatever, present conditions,
if not worse ones, must prevail. THE HISTORY OF THE
WORLD ABUNDANTLY PROVES THAT LAW IS BUT A
WRITTEN EXPRESSION OF THE INTEREST OF THE
LAWGIVER.
CORRECT PRINCIPLES.
Experience demonstrates that a form of government
where all power is placed in the hands of irresponsible
agents, who are not to be controlled in its use, but who
are prone to obey the dictates of self-interest, to be a bad
one.
If a machine or a system is correct in principle its
efficacy will be increased by development through use.
The pressure of steam on a movable piston-head in a cy-
linder moves the piston on the same principle today
when first invented, yet what a difference between the
machines of today and those of a hundred years ago.
as
The development of the initiative and referendum sys-
tem in Switzerland and its remarkable effect on the Swiss
people is another instance. But the representative sys-
tem in actual use in the United States for more than a
hundred years shows no development whatever. It is
neither more economical nor more beneficial and respon-
sive to the people today than when first applied, and there
is more than a suspicion that it has actually deteriorated.
The only development attained has been in party manage-
ment. Political parties have become vast and intricate
machines for the purpose of obtaining control of the gov-
DIRECT LEGISLATION.
83
ཏྭཱ
ernment-not to benefit the people, but to distribute the
spoils and serve the wealth owners. The dominant one
rules the people, and is in its turn ruled by a majority fac-
tion obedient to the dictates of the bosses. Even when
the people obtain control of a party and, perhaps, thereby
of government, its object is only too apt to be frustrated,
its will defied by one or the other of the co-ordinate branch-
es of government beyond its control. Such occurrences
have become only too common in all parts of the system,
from the sixteen senators of the extra session of the
Michigan legislature to the income tax decision of the
United States Supreme Court-the wealth owners' interests
are protected against the interests of the people.
Karl Burkli said: "Experience has taught the ruling
classes the great advantage they derive from political
forms favorable to themselves, and they will, surely, do all
they can to prevent the adoption of a form of government
abolishing their privileges as rulers. Socialism, even of
the most radical kind, has no dangers for them as long
as the political fulcrum is missing on the social lever.
Social reform is condemned to remain in a state of theory until
the right means are found to put it into practice; and these
means can be no other than, above all, to bring about a
governmental reform of such a nature that the laws shall
henceforth be made by the voice of all the citizens and
no longer in accordance to the wishes of a privileged few.”
A popular form of government, a democracy, must be
as good as the people; it can not be otherwise; but a gov-
ernment by unchecked representatives is only as good as
the politicians who govern; or does the past history of
legislatures, whether city councils or Congress, show in
them any divine gift or superior wisdom? Thomas Jeffer-
son said: "Sometimes it is said that man can not be
trusted with the government of himself. Can he then be
trusted with the government of others? Or have we found
angels in the forms of kings to govern him? Let history
answer."
Sir Wm. Blackstone, the great commentator on Eng-
lish law, said: "In a democracy, where the right of mak-
ing laws resides in the people at large, public virtue or
goodness of intention is more likely to be found than in
any other form of government." Direct legislation, by
means of the initiative and referendum, is the only feasible
step towards pure democracy; and it is the only means of
84
THE QUARTERLY ECONOMIST.
reforming the otherwise utterly bankrupt representative
system; it is the only means at hand of procuring the ex-
ercise of an intelligent, free and honest ballot, and it is
upon these qualities of the ballot, after all, that represen-
tative government is based; for when citizens are too ignor-
ant to exercise an intelligent ballot, too dependent to exer-
cise a free ballot, or too corrupt to exercise an honest
ballot, representative government itself is impossible. It
is for this reason, if for no other, that supporters of the
representative form of government should seek the adop
tion of this reform. It is nothing new in principle. It is
not a stranger in this country, where the "town meeting"
system has been in vogue ever since the advent of the
"Pilgrim Fathers." It is a reform which makes that sys-
tem applicable to the government not only of towns, but
to municipality, state, and nation as well.
GOVERNMENT BY THE PEOPLE AS APPLIED IN
SWITZERLAND.
Government by the people direct by means of the
initiative and referendum, has been on trial in Switzerland
for about fifty years. Arising from the town meeting plan,
it has spread from town to town, from city to city, from
canton to canton, until, twenty-five years ago, it was adopt
ed by the national government. It has been a blessing
wherever introduced, and in no instance have the people
ever surrendered it again, but have used it successfully in
solving every problem of importance in town, city, canton,
and nation.
It is known that, singly and collectively, the govern-
ments in Switzerland are today the most popular, econom-
ic, simple and honest on the earth; that previous to the
adoption of this system all those cantons that were gov-
erned, as we are today, by irresponsible agents or represen-
tatives, were suffering from similar confusion of laws,
clashing of authorities, public extravagance and corruption,
partisan prejudice and personal campaigns, from which this
country is suffering under today; and it is a known, and
by the class of wealth owners well-recognized fact, that,
the people ruling, Switzerland is singularly free from
trusts, syndicates and corporations.
Like most people attending strictly to their own busi-
ness, but little is generally said and thought of the Swiss
1
DIRECT LEGISLATION.
85
But
by others except that they form an insignificant nationality.
It is known that two-thirds of the small country is uninhab-
itable, consisting of bleak rocks and icefields, and the
prevailing impression in this country, therefore, is that
the Swiss are poverty-struck, ignorant, and not to be com-
pared with the "enlightened" citizens of the United States.
This was true until the inauguration of the system of
direct legislation. The Swiss were too poor to make a
living at home, however much they loved their home, and
were compelled to emigrate; they were found in all coun-
tries; every petty tyrant had his "Swiss Guard."
since the introduction of direct legislation a tremendous
change has taken place. For several decades now all emi-
gration from Switzerland has not only ceased, but quite
to the contrary now the Germans, French, Italians and
Slavonians are flocking into Switzerland because of its
better economic conditions. The three million Swiss con-
sume more commodities today than the fifteen millions of
Italians, although the natural productiveness of the two
countries can not be compared. There is no country, no
nation on the globe that can compare in quality and num-
ber of educational institutes with those of Switzerland,
according to the percentage of inhabitants. It has the best
and the costliest highways in the world, and not a tollgate
in its boundaries. The highways, as well as the telephone,
telegraph, mail and express are owned by the people. Six-
teen dollars a year for telephone service was found to be
too high and they reduced it. And all this only as a conse-
quence of a government by the people, for the people,
through direct legislation. As showing the educatory fea-
ture of this system it is proper here to state that the prop-
osition to buy the Central Railroad, the most important one
ot the Swiss railroads, was defeated in the referendum
vote of 1891 by a majority of 156,671. But five years later,
cn October 4th, 1896, another national referendum vote de-
cided by 221,222 against 171,671 votes to buy up the five
principal railroad lines, including the Central, for 964,384,
769 francs. A few months later, on the 28th of February,
1897, the nationalization of the banking business was re-
jected by a referendum vote of 194,465 against 244,219, or
by a majority of 49,754 out of a total of 438,684. But the
friends of the proposition, claiming that the education
brought about by the discussion of the proposition has al-
tered not only the faults of the bill but also changed the
86
THE QUARTERLY ECONOMIST.
views of a greater number of electors than required, have
again begun the circulation of another initiative list.
This is the way the Swiss people educate themselves in
practical politics by means of the initiative and referen-
dum; it also shows the conservative feature of the system.
The people are slow to adopt new ideas, prone to move in
the accustomed beaten track, but are open to conviction
where their interests are concerned.
The railroad fares in Switzerland are today the cheap-
est in the world on the highest priced roads. The farmer
markets his produce, the manufacturer or merchant moves
his commodities at cost of service rendered. This explains
the present welfare of the Swiss. They have emancipated
Themselves from political slavery and are now gradually
bettering their economic condition. Their taxes are direct
and what they want them to be and are applied for the
purposes they want them applied to. They have not one
cent for a hireling soldiery, but pay more, per capita, for
educational and industrial institutions than any other na-
tion. They do not waste their money and energy in con-
quering other people, but apply it at home for their own
benefit. Much more could be said of them that would
cause Americans to blush with shame; but as that is not
the purpose of this treatise, a short description of how the
Swiss apply the system of direct legislation will suffice.
Switzerland is a federation of twenty-two cantons or
states and what is said of one will apply to all. For ex-
ample: The canton of Zurich has 350,000 inhabitants, of
whom 80,000 are voters. The legislature consists of but
one house, having 100 members. It prints no records,
rarely listens to set speeches, knows nothing of bribery or
lobbyists, holds two or three short sessions annually, at
which it passes--on an average-less than four laws per
year. Every member must have an absolute majority,
good ones are generally re-elected, some have served for
more than twenty years. Every law is worded so simple
and plain that everybody understands it. Every law or
measure adopted by them has to go to the referendum.
All the various local legislative bodies in the canton com-
ply to the same rules, and each town or municipality de-
cides all questions relating to its own affairs exclusively.
Five per cent are required to apply the initiative; this
means that in measures affecting the whole canton four
thousand voters have to sign the initiative list or petition
*
DIRECT LEGISLATION.
87
before the measure is submitted to the referendum of all
the voters at the ballot box. The referendum is obligatory;
this means that every law or measure whether adopted
by the legislature or initiated by list, has to be approved
by a majority of the people at the ballot box before its
enactment. Voting is obligatory on every citizen, and
neglect without sufficient reason punishable by fine. Elec-
tions are held Sundays, and blank ballots and information
served on every citizen several days previously. As the
people direct control everything, lobbying, corruption and
violent partisanship have disappeared as being useless.
But little interest is developed for candidates for office,
and all interest centers on the principles or measures
themselves. Law making is localized, not centralized;
each city or county (commune) asserts its right to self-
government-home rule being a corollary to direct legisla-
tion-hence each lawgiving body makes only such laws as
are within its proper scope; in the twenty years from 1869
to 1889, inclusive, there were but sixty-eight law's passed
by the legislature, fifty being accepted and eighteen reject-
ed by the people at the polls. The people, and the people
cnly, have the veto power, and they have it on all enact
ments.
There is a majority of the people behind every law in
Switzerland. Who knows what is the case in this country?
There no danger exists from violent agitators, as the exact
position of the people to every measure is well known by
everybody; here the din, noise and uproar of-often paid-
agitators, seems to be the only criterion of a movement.
There, trades unions ask no favor of any political party,
make no bargain with any office seeker, as they have their
cwn organization to make proper use of the initiative and
dare not ask improper or unjust measures for fear of the
referendum; here, professional politicians, so-called labor
leaders—often mere agents of political parties-carry dis-
sension into the unions and cast disgrace on them in the
eyes of other people.
There, partisanship always signifies principles; here,
ruostly prejudice, spoils, or the choice between evils.
There, pure democracy rules-justly, wisely, progres-
sively; here, the people, asserting its sovereignty, is trick-
ed, cajoled, betrayed by its representatives; until popular
government has become a jest and the idea of a true
democracy provokes a sneer.
88
THE QUARTERLY ECONOMIST.
It is high time to reconstruct the legislative mechan-
ism now in use in our towns, cities, and State. Improve it,
reform it, simplify it by direct legislation.
RIGHTS AND DUTIES.
All rights carry with them certain obligations; if these
are not performed, the corresponding right ceases. If
rights are inalienable, their obligations are not transfera-
ble; each individual must in its own person exercise these
duties. Here no division of labor is admissible, no substi-
tution of another person possible without also delegating
the right. The individual shirking a duty deprives itself
of its complement right and, in that far, becomes a serf or
slave.
Woe to the people who delegate their defense to a
class specially trained and kept for this purpose; it creates
a standing army, the most terrible tool in the hands of the
governing class, and inevitably used by them to control
the people.
Ill fares the people who delegate the enacting of laws
to others. The law will be written in the interest of those
enacting it. As well expect slaveholders to enact laws in
the interest of their slaves as to expect the privileged
class to make laws in the interest of the toiling masses,
Utter ruin and death will befall the people who dele-
gate the administration of justice. The self-interest or
bias of mind of the delegate will dictate the decisions
affecting the life, liberty and happiness of the people.
The popular jury is the only guardian of the temple of
justice; this guardian once removed corruption will enter
and cast down the people's highest ideals and substitute its
own idols for the people to worship. With the removal of
that guardian might will take the place of right, justice
will become a farce, trials a mockery; the people, bereft
of faith, a prey to corruption. Such a nation must inevita-
bly sink down into its grave.
History, the tombstone of such nations, in recording
their rise and decline, does not cite a single instance of the
destruction or death of a nation where rights were inalien-
able and exercised as duties, but proves conclusively that
in every instance the decay and death was due to the part-
ing of these rights from their duties. The gathering or
aggregating of the privileges increased the power of a
DIRECT LEGISLATION.
89
continuously decreasing number of rulers, while at the
same time but in a far greater ratio, the performing of
duties without rights increased the poverty, ignorance, and
wretchedness of the ruled.
The power of Rome, which bowed all other nations un-
der its yoke, was shattered when hurled against the Ger-
man tribes, simply because these-though never united *
and far inferior in civilization-never delegated their rights
or used substitutes for performing their duties. Each
member of a tribe was soldier, legislator and judge, ser-
vant and sovereign, in his own person.
Through the long vista of a hundred generations those
principles have descended down to us. The militia, the town
meeting, the jury, are the mainstays of the rights of the
people. Let us make them serviceable for our changed
conditions but never renounce their principles of Liberty
and Justice for all alike.
South Dakota already has a referendum law, and in
many states the agitation for it must soon bear fruit. Write
to your Missouri legislators and senator today to push the
bill to this end to be introduced this session.
MUNICIPAL WELFARE LEAGUE.
The Kansas City Municipal Welfare League is a non-
partisan organization to which is due earnest support by
everyone interested in good government. Such leagues in
Chicago, Baltimore, Rochester and other cities are doing
much to insure clean candidates, pure elections, and a
business-like administration of city affairs. The Chicago
League brought about the defeat of the notorious Allen
franchise law under which the street car companies were
to secure a fifty-year extension of their franchises. That
league has also defeated many bad men and elected many
good men to the council by searching their records and
making them public. The financial and moral support of
every honest man in Kansas City is asked. The organiza-
tion embraces a central or governing body of 100 citizens
of unquestioned integrity, composed of fifty democrats
and fifty republicans.
Committees of six men each, three Democrats and
three Republicans, will be selected from the 100 men, for
the following purposes:
090
THE QUARTERLY ECONOMIST.
A. A committee on candidates for office whose past
records will be investigated and made known to the public.
B. A committee on municipal laws, franchises and
government; police, fire, lights, clean streets, parks and
boulevards, street railways, etc., etc.
C. A committee on elections; prevention, detection
and punishment of persons interfering with pure elections.
D. A committee on county and state affairs.
E.
Such other committees as the necessities from
time to time may require.
Fourth. The central body to appoint a president, vice
president, secretary and treasurer as executive officers.
Fifth. Public meeungs to be called from time to time
to hear reports of committees and officers and the discus-
sion of other matters of public interest.
Sixth. The organization to have headquarters where
its business shall be transacted and where files of munici-
pal laws, government, copies of all important ordinances,
which shall show how each member of the upper and lower
houses of the common council voted thereon, and other doc-
uments of public interest, shall be kept and to which the
public shall have access. The annual dues are $2.00.
The officers and directors of the league are as follows,
equally divided as to the two political parties:
President-Homer Reed.
Vice presidents-A. B. Colton, T. A. Witten, C. E.
Small, Alfred Gregory and Albert Marty.
Secretary-F. E. Nettleton.
Treasurer-Kenyon G. Leavens.
Directors-Homer Reed, J. L. Lombard, R. L. Yeager,
E. H. Phelps, Alfred Gregory, R. L. Winter, F. Muehlchus-
ter, A. B. Colton, T. S. Witten and C. E. Small.
The League headquarters are at 228 N. Y. Life Build-
ing. Telephone 1774. Call in.
THE ORGANIZATION AND PROGRESS OF THESE
REFORMS.
In 1881 Henry George published "Progress and Pover-
ty," the most successful economic book ever issued. Its
reasoning has never been successfully assailed. It has
given birth to a world-wide movement the practical suc-
cess of which is only a question of time. Millions of copies
of this great book have been circulated in America, Eu-
ORGANIZATION AND PROGRESS.
91
rope and Australia. This is also true of "The Condition
of Labor," a classic in English, a book of wonderful moder-
ation and force. Mr. George gave his last years to placing
beyond question the soundness of the theory of the single
tax. The result is his "Science of Political Economy," the
one text-book on the subject worthy of the name of science.
These books have been the chief agencies in asserting, ex-
tending and confirming the principles of the single tax.
The National Single Taxer, published monthly at 62
Trinity Place, New York City, is the most widely circulated
journal of the movement.
it.
"The Public" of Chicago is another strong advocate of
"The Public Welfare," 312 12th N. St., St. Louis, Mo.,
(which is also the local single tax headquarters), gives
especially the news of the movement in St. Louis and
Missouri. Sample copies are sent on receipt of a postal
request.
The Missouri Single Tax League has held three annual
conferences. Mr. Chas. Opel, Jefferson City, is president,
Mr. L. P. Custer, St. Louis, is secretary. Its members
have distributed large quantities of literature and helped
to support a lecturer in the field for some time.
The Equal Taxation Committee of the St. Louis League
has made a gallant fight through legal means for the hon-
est assessment of franchise properties especially, and has
added largely to the city revenues thereby. The Board of
Education has voted the committee a special resolution of
thanks for adding many thousands of dollars to the school
fund.
In Kansas City Mr. W. W. Rose has been president,
and Mr. W. J. Knepp, secretary of the local single tax
club. The Propaganda Association holds meetings, usually
the first Friday evening of each month, at the Midland
Hotel club room. Copies of this book and other literature
may be had without cost of the following officers: R. T.
Snediker, President, 1611 Genesee St.; Jas. C. Fuller, Sec.
and Treas., 704 N. Y. Lift Bldg.; M. McKay, Librarian, 22
E. 8th St.

Telephone 705.
JUST LIKE
L. LERITZ A.-B.-C.
PIANO AND
FURNITURE
MOVER.
Goods packed for shipment and
storage.
Picnic and Party Wagons.
Express and Baggage.
1326 Grand Ave.,
Kansas City, Mo.
This describes the policies of THE
MUTUAL BENEFIT LIFE INSURANCE
Co., OF NEWARK, N. J. In other
words, they are as plain and simple as
language can be made. You pay so
much each year and they pay so much
if you live to a certain time, or die in
meanwhile. Or, if you want to stop
paying, they will give you a definite
amount for your policy. either in cash,
or loan, or paid-up insurance, or ex-
tended time. AND ALL THESE THINGS
ARE IN THE POLICY. Not "words, idle
words," but PLAIN FIGures.
Send for sample copy.
C. C. COURTNEY,
STATE AGENT,
Massachusetts Bldg.-Ground Floor,
KANSAS CITY, MO.
AGENTS WANTED.
E. P. MORIARTY & Co.
IIII WALNUT STREET,
KANSAS CITY, MO.,
GENERAL SPORTING
..GOODS..
KODAKS, BICYCLES,
TALKING MACHINES.
CCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCC
←←6666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666¶¶EEEEEE
Viavi Company.
VIAVI is woman's
"way to health." A
wholesome, rational
home treatment, used
by more than a million
patients yearly.
THE VIAVI MESSAGE
free by mail, or to
callers at Kansas City
offices.
704 New York Life Building.
Repairing neatly and quickly
done.
Sample Trunks and Cases
made to order.
Black & MacKay.
Makers of and
Dealers in
Trunks, Bags and
Traveling Goods.
Old Trunks taken in exchange.
22 East Eight Street,
Near Grand Ave.
End of Viaduct.
...KANSAS CITY, MO.
Continental Varnish and
Color Co.,
Varnish Makers
Hard Oils, Japans, Liquid Wood Fillers,
Agricultural, Finishing and Carriage Varnishes.


Telephone 1224.

1315 West Eight Street, Station A, Kansas City, Mo.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

How Have
Your
Right.
Plastering R
Martin Carroll, Reliable Contractor of Plastering.
Cement Work, Floors, Steps and Sidewalks, Bath Rooms.
121 West 8th St. Tel. 263.
Kansas City, Mo.
Chas.M.Boyd, A Perfect Flt Guaranteed.
Stainer and
Tuckpointer...
of all kinds of
Brick and Stone Work.
Cleaning down fronts a specialty.
Telephone 1967.
Residence. 416 E. 22d St.
Kansas City, Mo.
→JJEEE
Frank Seidel,
..Fine Tailoring..
209 E. 12th Street,
KANSAS CITY, MO.
John G. Braecklein,
Architect and Supt.
211 East 14th St.
Tel. 101 Union.
Kansas City, Mo.
EEEEEEE
EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE
EEEEEEEEEE66666666666666666666666666EEE
Phenix
Cut-Stone Co.
Mill, 19th & Olive Sts.,
Office, 1929 Main St.
Phenix White Stone
Best on Earth.
Estimates given on all
kinds of Cut Stone Work.
Telephones 3298
and East 9.
Kansas City, Mo.
World's
Kidney and
Bladder Cure

of
Is guaranteed to cure all troubles of
these organs, such as Catarrh
Bladder, Gravel, Dropsy, Bright's
Disease. Albumen in Urine, Scanty or
Too Frequent Discharges, Scalding
Sensation by Urine, Pain in the Back
or Bladder.
Price $1.00. One bottle will cure--
guaranteed.
World's Wonder Medicine Co.
SOLE AGENT
J. Geo. Wirthman,
Druggist and Dealer in Paints, Oils
and Glass.
Cor. 16th and Grand Ave.,
Tel. 920.
Kansas City, Mo.
66666666666666666666666666666E
JULIUS A. OATES,
Res. 1112 Bales Ave.
A. J. GILLAM,
Res. 319 Quincy Ave.
Oates & Gillam
Brick Contractors.
Office, Master Builders Exchange.
Lock Box No. 45.
B. M. SOPHER,
General
Contractor
and Builder.
Box No. 24 Master Builders'
Exchange.
Telephone 1967.
EEEEEEEÈEEEE

Tel. 1967.
Kansas City, Mo.
Kansas City,
'
Mo.

Best house in the city for the money.
Neat clean beds a specialty.
Rates in reach of all.
Rooms all steam heated.
CHCHCHH
Kennedy House,
The National
Single Taxer,
Published monthly
at 62 Trinity Place,
New York City,
Ward Kennedy, Prop...
Invites your subscription
today. Send 50 cents in
stamps for one year.....
1609 GRAND AVENUE,
KANSAS CITY, MO.
Are You Dissatisfied?
"Why?" seeks to satisfy those who
are dissatisfied, not by administering
moral anesthetics, but moral stimulents,
showing the true cause of dissatisfaction
and suggesting possible means for need-
ed reform. Features for 1901:
An Entering Wedge.
Truth as Seen by Contrast.
The Evolution of Rent,
A Peculiar Dialogue,
A Lawyer's Reply to Critics,
-
The Law and Ethics of Taxation,
The Study of Political Economy,
The True Light,
Ownedland, a story,
"Thou Shalt not Steal,
Single Tax or Socialism?
Our National Ideals,
Henry Ware Allen
Eliza Stowe Twitchell
Henry George
Annonymous
Samuel B. Clarke
William S. Rann
Henry George
Speed Mosby
Alan C. Thompson
-
Henry George
Robert Cumming
Clarence N. Jenkins
World-wide Progress of the Single Tax,
25 cents a year. Address
"WHY?" Cedar Rapids, Iowa.
"THE PUBLIC"
A SERIOUS PAPER FOR SERIOUS PEOPLE
is a weekly publication which prints in concise
and plain terms, with lucid explanations and with-
out editorial bias, all the really valuable news of
the world. It is also an editorial paper. Though
it abstains from mingling editorial opinions with
its news accounts, it has opinions of a pro-
nounced character, which, in the columns
reserved for editorial comment, it expresses fully
and freely, without favor or prejudice, without
fear of consequences, and without hope of dis-
creditable reward. Yet it makes no pretentions
to infallibility, either in opinions or in state-
ments of fact; it simply aspires to a deserved
reputation for intelligence and honesty in both.
Besides its editorial and news features, the paper
contains a department of original and selected
miscellany, in which appear articles and extracts
upon various subjects, verse as well as prose,
chosen alike for their literary merit and their
wholesome human interest. Familiarity with
“The Public" will commend it as a paper that
is not only worth reading, but also worth filing.
Subscription, One Dollar a Year.
Trial Subscriptions, Six Weeks for Ten Cents.
Free of postage in the United States, Canada
and Mexico. Elsewhere, postage extra, at the
rate of one cent per week.
******
Postoffice Address,
THE PUBLIC, Box 687, Chicago, Ill.
**

8., M. & CO.'S
HENRY GEORGE
ว
Five Cent Cigar
SOLD EVERYWHERE
From the Single Lax Information
Information Bureau
Jom

Vol. 8, No. 4
NATIONAL SINGLE TAXER.
April, 1899.
19.04
SHORTEST ROAD
TO THE
SINGLE TAX
CONTAINING
124530
The Condition of Labor
By HENRY GEORGE.
The Natural Tax
AND
Social Effects of Natural Taxation
By THOMAS G. SHEARMAN.
The Single Tax Platform
NEW YORK:
GEORGE P. HAMPTON, Publisher,
62-64 Trinity Place.
Entered as second class matter at New York, N. Y., Post Office.
Published monthly, $1.00 per year.
10 Cents.
NATIONAL SINGLE TAXER.
***
The "National Single Taxer" is published
to carry forward the propaganda of the
single tax-the sublime truths enunciated
by Henry George. While primarily a
news medium and organ of the single tax
movement, a special feature is made of
presenting the truths of the single tax in
a manner casily understood. Its work is
strictly non-partisan and non-sectarian.
In its general form it is a 32-page illus-
trated monthly magazine, published by
George P. Hampton at 62-64 Trinity Place,
New York City. Subscription price $1.00
per year. Sample copy sent free on appli-
cation.
→
SHORTEST ROAD TO THE SINGLE TAX
QUESTION—Will you please tell me the shortest
possible cut to a clear understanding of Henry
George and the Single Tax?
(C
ANSWER-Read first Henry George's Con-
dition of Labor," 118 pages.
Read second Thomas
G. Shearman's
"Natural Taxation," Chapters IX and XIII
(the constructive chapters).
Read third The Single Tax Platform,
adopted at the Single Tax Conference (Inter-
national), Chicago, 1893.
These are all contained in the "Shortest Road to
the Single Tax."
:
PREFATORY NOTE.
:
A
The LABOR QUESTION is the LAND QUESTION.
The Pope's Encyclical letter of 1891 covers all phases of the
Labor Question and states comprehensively the best majority
thought of the world upon the subject. Henry George, in
his Open Letter in reply, makes exceedingly clear what seems
to him the popular confusion resulting from a failure to dis-
criminate between property in land and other property, and
answers one by one the eight specific reasons usually given、
why private property in land is right.
Having published Progress and Poverty in 1879-The Land
Question in 1881-Social Problems in 1883-Property in
Land in 1884 and Protection or Free Trade in 1886, Mr.
Géorge, when he wrote "The Condition of Labor," was at
the summit of his intellectual powers, all of which were fully
roused to this consummate statement of the moral principle
which from his point of view underlies the Labor Question.
Mr. Shearman's "Natural Taxation" is the practical ap-
plication of a moral principle to economics. The two books,
which, like the two authors, are complements of each other,
are two perfect demonstrations, totally independent in stand-
point, premise and argument. In reading the one, an over-
nástering prophetic sense of things as they ought to be leaves
no room in one's mind for the question: "But how can it
be done?" Reading the other, one becomes engrossed in
the practicability of a perfect system of taxation, so natural
and self-supporting that no sense of need is felt for any appeal
to the moral law,
THE CONDITION OF LABOR
Copyright, 1891, by Henry George.
An Open Letter to Pope Leo XIII.
TO POPE LEO XIII.
Your Holiness:
I have read with care your Encyclical letter
on the condition of labor, addressed, through the
Patriarchs, Primates, Archbishops and Bishops of your
faith, to the Christian World.
Since its most strikingly pronounced condemnations
are directed against a theory that we who hold it
know to be deserving of your support, I ask permission
to lay before your Holiness the grounds of our belief,
and to set förth some considerations that you have
unfortunately overlooked. The momentous serious-
ness of the facts you refer to, the poverty, suffering
and seething discontent that pervade the Christian
world, the danger that passion may lead ignorance in
a blind struggle against social conditions rapidly be-
coming intolerable, are my justification.
I.
Our postulates are all stated or implied in your
Encyclical. They are the primary perceptions of
4
THE CONDITION OF LABOR.
human reason, the fundamental teachings of the
Christian faith:
We hold: That-
This world is the creation of God.
The men brought into it for the brief period of their
earthly lives are the equal creatures of His bounty,
the equal subjects of His provident care.
By his constitution man is beset by physical wants,
on the satisfaction of which depend not only the
maintenance of his physical life but also the develop-
ment of his intellectual and spiritual life.
God has made the satisfaction of these wants
dependent on man's own exertions, giving him the
power and laying on him the injunction to labor—a
power that of itself raises him far above the brute,
since we may reverently say that it enables him to
become as it were a helper in the creative work.
God has not put on man the task of making bricks
without straw. With the need for labor and the power
to labor He has also given to man the material for
labor. This material is land-man physically being
a land animal, who can live only on and from land,
and can use other elements, such as air, sunshine and
water, only by the use of land.
Being the equal creatures of the Creator, equally
entitled under His providence to live their lives and
satisfy their needs, men are equally entitled to the use
of land, and any adjustment that denies this equal
use of land is morally wrong.
As to the right of ownership, we hold: That-
Being created individuals, with individual wants
and powers, men are individually entitled (subject of
OPEN LETTER TO POPE LEO XIII.
course to the moral obligations that arise from such re-
lations as that of the family) to the use of their own
powers and the enjoyment of the results.
There thus arises, anterior to human law, and
deriving its validity from the law of God, a right of
private ownership in things produced by labor-a right
that the possessor may transfer, but of which to de-
prive him without his will is theft.
This right of property, originating in the right of
the individual to himself, is the only full and complete
right of property. It attaches to things produced by
labor, but cannot attach to things created by God.
Thus, if a man take a fish from the ocean he acquires
a right of property in that fish, which exclusive right…...
he may transfer by sale or gift. But he cannot obtain
a similar right of property in the ocean, so that he
may sell it or give it or forbid others to use it.
Or, if he set up a windmill he acquires a right of
property in the things such use of wind enables him
to produce. But he cannot claim a right of property.
in the wind itself, so that he may sell it or forbid
others to use it.
Or, if he cultivate grain he acquires a right of prop-
erty in the grain his labor brings forth. But he cannot
obtain a similar right of property in the sun which
ripened it or the soil on which it grew. For these
things are of the continuing gifts of God to all genera-
tions of men, which all may use, but none may claim
as his alone.
To attach to things created by God the same right of
private ownership that justly attaches to things pro-
duced by labor is to impair and deny the true rights
of property. For a man who out of the proceeds-of
6
THE CONDITION OF LABOR.
his labor is obliged to pay another man for the use of
ocean or air or sunshine or soil, all of which are to
men involved in the single term land, is in this de-
prived of his rightful property and thus robbed.
As to the use of land, we hold : That-
While the right of ownership that justly attaches to
things produced by labor cannot attach to land, there
may attach to land a right of possession.
As your
Holiness says, "God has not granted the earth to man-
kind in general in the sense that all without distinction
can deal with it as they please," and regulations
necessary for its best use may be fixed by human laws.
But such regulations must conform to the moral law
-must secure to all equal participation in the advan-
tages of God's general bounty. The principle is the
same as where a human father leaves property equally
to a number of children. Some of the things thus
left may be incapable of common use or of specific
division. Such things may properly be assigned to
some of the children, but only under condition that
the equality of benefit among them all be preserved.
In the rudest social state, while industry consists in
hunting, fishing, and gathering the spontaneous fruits
of the earth, private possession of land is not necessary.
But as men begin to cultivate the ground and expend
their labor in permanent works, private possession of
the land on which labor is thus expended is needed to
secure the right of property in the products of labor.
For who would sow if not assured of the exclusive
possession needed to enable him to reap? who would
attach costly works to the soil without such exclusive
OPEN LETTER TO POPE LEO XIII.
7
possession of the soil as would enable him to secure
the benefit?
This right of private possession in things created by
God is however very different from the right of private
ownership in things produced by labor. The one is
limited, the other unlimited, save in cases when the
dictate of self-preservation terminates all other rights.
The purpose of the one, the exclusive possession of
land, is merely to secure the other, the exclusive
ownership of the products of labor; and it can never
rightfully be carried so far as to impair or deny this.
While anyone may hold exclusive possession of land so
far as it does not interfere with the equal rights of
others, he can rightfully hold it no further.
Thus Cain and Abel, were there only two men on
earth, might by agreement divide the earth between
them. Under this compact each might claim exclusive
right to his share as against the other. But heither
could rightfully continue such claim against the next
man born. For since no one comes into the world
without God's permission, his presence attests his
equal right to the use of God's bounty. For them to
refuse him any use of the earth which they had
divided between them would therefore be for them to
commit murder. And for them to refuse him any
use of the earth, unless by laboring for them or by
giving them part of the products of his labor he bought
it of them, would be for them to commit theft.
God's laws do not change. Though their applica-
tions may alter with altering conditions, the same
principles of right and wrong that hold when men´
are few and industry is rude also hold amid teeming
8
THE CONDITION OF LABOR.
populations and complex industries. In our cities of
millions and our states of scores of millions, in a
civilization where the division of labor has gone so
far that large numbers are hardly conscious that they
are land users, it still remains true that we are all
land animals and can live only on land, and that land
is God's bounty to all, of which no one can be
deprived without being murdered, and for which no
one can be compelled to pay another without being
robbed. But even in a state of society where the
elaboration of industry and the increase of permanent
improvements have made the need for private posses-
sion of land widespread, there is no difficulty in
conforming individual possession with the equal right
to land. For as soon as any piece of land will yield
to the possessor a larger return than is had by similar
labor on other land a value attaches to it which is
shown when it is sold or rented. Thus, the value of
the land itself, irrespective of the value of any
improvements in or on it, always indicates the precise
value of the benefit to which all are entitled in its
use, as distinguished from the value which as producer
or successor of a producer belongs to the possessor in
individual right.
To combine the advantages of private possession
with the justice of common ownership it is only
necessary therefore to take for common uses what
value attaches to land irrespective of any exertion of
labor on it. The principle is the same as in the case
referred to, where a human father leaves equally to his
children things not susceptible of specific division or
common use. In that case such things would be sold
or rented and the value equally applied.
OPEN LETTER TO POPE LEO XIII.
It is on this common sense principle that we, who
term ourselves single tax men, would have the com-
munity act.
We do not propose to assert equal rights to land by
keeping land common, letting any one use any part
of it at any time. We do not propose the task,
impossible in the present state of society, of dividing
land in equal shares; still less the yet more impossible
task of keeping it so divided.
We propose, leaving land in the private possession
of individuals, with full liberty on their part to
give, sell or bequeath it, simply to levy on it for public
uses a tax that shall equal the annual value of the land
itself, irrespective of the use made of it or the
improvements on it. And since this would provide
amply for the need of public revenues, we would
accompany this tax on land values with the repeal of
all taxes now levied on the products and processes of
industry-which taxes, since they take from the
earnings of labor, we hold to be infringements of the
right of property.
This we propose, not as a cunning device of human
ingenuity, but as a conforming of human regulations
to the will of God.
God cannot contradict himself nor impose on his
creatures laws that clash.
If it be God's command to men that they should
not steal-that is to say, that they should respect the
right of property which each one has in the fruits of
his labor;
And if He be also the Father of all men, who in His
common bounty has intended all to have equal
opportunities for sharing;
10
THE CONDITION OF LABOR.
Then, in any possible stage of civilization, how-
_ever elaborate, there must be some way in which
the exclusive right to the products of industry may be
reconciled with the equal right to land.
If the Almighty be consistent with Himself, it
cannot be, aş say those socialists referred to by you,
that in order to secure the equal participation of men
in the opportunities of life and labor we must ignore
the right of private property. Nor yet can it be, as
seem to argue, that
you yourself in the Encyclical
to secure the right of private property we must
ignore the equality of right in the opportunities of
life and labor. To say the one thing or the other
is equally to deny the harmony of God's laws.
But, the private possession of land, subject to the
payment to the community of the value of any special
advantage thus given to the individual, satisfies both
laws, securing to all equal participation in the bounty
of the Creator and to each the full ownership of the
products of his labor.
Nor do we hesitate to say that this way of securing
the equal right to the bounty of the Creator and the
exclusive right to the products of labor is the way
-intended by God for raising public revenues. For we
are not atheists, who deny God; nor semi-atheists,
who deny that He has any concern in politics and
legislation.
It is true as you say-a salutary truth too often
forgotten-that "man is older than the state, and he
holds the right of providing for the life of his body
prior to the formation of any state." Yet, as you too
perceive, it is also true that the state is in the divinely
OPEN LETTER TO POPĘ LEO XIII.
11
appointed order. For He who foresaw all things and
provided for all things, foresaw and provided that
with the increase of population and the development
of industry the organization of human society into
states or governments would become both expedient
and necessary.
No sooner does the state arise than, as we all know,
it needs revenues. This need for revenues is small
at first, while population is sparse, industry rude and
the functions of the state few and simple. But with
growth of population and advance of civilization the
functions of the state increase and larger and larger
revenues are needed.
Now, He that made the world and placed man in
it, He that preordained civilization as the means
whereby man might rise to higher powers and become
more and more conscious of the works of his Creator,
must have foreseen this increasing need for state
revenues and have made provision for it. That is to
say: The increasing need for public revenues with
social advance, being a natural, God-ordained need,
there must be a right way of raising them-some way
that we can truly say is the way intended by God.
It is clear that this right way of raising public revenues.
must accord with the moral law.
Hence:
It must not take from individuals what rightfully
belongs to individuals.
It must not give some an advantage over others,
as by increasing the prices of what some have to sell
and others must buy.
It must not lead men into temptation, by requiring
19
THE CONDITION OF LABOR.
}
-
trivial oaths, by making it profitable to lie, to swear
falsely, to bribe or to take bribes.
It must not confuse the distinctions of right and
wrong, and weaken the sanctions of religion and the
state by creating crimes that are not sins, and punish-
ing men for doing what in itself they have an un-
doubted right to do.
It must not repress industry. It must not check
commerce. It must not punish thrift. It must offer
no impediment to the largest production and the
fairest division of wealth.
Let me ask your Holiness to consider the taxes on
the processes and products of industry by which
through the civilized world public revenues are
collected the octroi duties that surround Italian
cities with barriers; the monstrous customs duties
that hamper intercourse between so-called Christian
states; the taxes on occupations, on earnings, on
investments, on the building of houses, on the culti-
vation of fields, on industry and thrift in all forms.
Can these be the ways God has intended that govern-
ments should raise the means they need? Have any
of them the characteristics indispensable in any plan
we can deem a right one?
All these taxes violate the moral law. They take
by force what belongs to the individual alone; they
give to the unscrupulous an advantage over the
scrupulous; they have the effect, nay are largely in-
tended, to increase the price of what some have to
sell and others must buy; they corrupt government
they make oaths a mockery; they shackle commerce;
they fine industry and thrift; they lessen the wealth
1
OPEN LETTER TO POPE LEO. XIII.
13
that men might enjoy, and enrich some by impoverish-
ing others.
Yet what most strikingly shows how opposed to
Christianity is this system of raising public revenues
is its influence on thought.
to us.
Christianity teaches us that all men are brethren;
that their true interests are harmonious, not an-
tagonistic. It gives us, as the golden rule of life, that
we should do to others as we would have others do
But out of the system of taxing the products
and processes of labor, and out of its effects in increas
ing the price of what some have to sell and others
must buy, has grown the theory of "protection,"
which denies this gospel, which holds Christ ignorant
of political economy and proclaims laws of national
well-being utterly at variance with His teaching. This
theory sanctifies national hatreds; it inculcates a
universal war of hostile tariffs; it teaches peoples
that their prosperity lies in imposing on the pro-
ductions of other peoples restrictions they do not wish
imposed on their own; and instead of the Christian
doctrine of man's brotherhood it makes injury of
foreigners a civic virtue.
"By their fruits you shall know them." Can any-
thing more clearly show that to tax the products and
processes of industry is not the way God intended
public revenues to be raised?
But to consider what we propose-the raising of
public revenues by a single tax on the value of land
irrespective of improvements-is to see that in all
respects this does conform to the moral law.
Let me ask your Holiness to keep in mind that the
value we propose to tax, the value of land irrespective
14
THE CONDITION OF LABOR.
!
of improvements, does not come from any exertion
of labor or investment of capital on or in it-the
values produced in this way being values of improve-
ment which we would exempt. The value of land
irrespective of improvement is the value that attaches
to land by reason of increasing population and social
progress. This is a value that always goes to the
owner as owner, and never does and never can go to
the user; for if the user be a different person from the
owner he must always pay the owner for it in rent or
in purchase money; while if the user be also the
owner, it is as owner, not as user, that he receives it,
and by selling or renting the land he can, as owner,
continue to receive it after he ceases to be a user.
ì
Thus, taxes on land irrespective of improvement can-
not lessen the rewards of industry, nor add to prices,*
*As to this point it may be, well to add that all economists are
agreed that taxes on land values irrespective of improvement or
use-or what in the terminology of Political Economy is styled
rent, a term distinguished from the ordinary use of the word rent
by being applied solely to payments for the use of land itself—
must be paid by the owner and cannot be shifted by him on the
user. To explain in another way the reason given in the text
Price is not determined by the will of the seller or the will of the
buyer, but by the equation of demand and supply, and therefore
as to things constantly demanded and constantly produced rests
at a point determined by the cost of production-whatever tends
to increase the cost of bringing fresh quantities of such articles
to the consumer increasing price by checking supply, and what
ever tends to reduce such cost decreasing price by increasing
supply. Thus taxes on wheat or tobacco or cloth add to the
price that the consumer must pay, and thus the cheapening in
the cost of producing steel which improved processes have made
in recent years has greatly reduced the price of steel. But land
has no cost of production, since it is created by God, not pro-
duced by man. Its price therefore is fixed-1 (monopoly rent),
where land is held in close monopoly, by what the owners can
extract from the users under penalty of deprivation and con-
sequently of starvation, and amounts to all that common labor
can earn on it beyond what is necessary to life; 2 (economic
rent proper), where there is no special monopoly, by what the
OPEN LETTER TO POPE LEO XIII.
15
nor in any way take from the individual what belongs
to the individual. They can only take the value that
attaches to land by the growth of the community, and
which therefore belongs to the community as a whole.
To take land values for the state, abolishing all taxes
on the products of labor, would therefore leave to the
laborer the full produce of labor; to the individual all
that rightfully belongs to the individual. It would
impose no burden on industry, no check on commerce,
no punishment on thrift; it would secure the largest
production and the fairest distribution of wealth, by
leaving men free to produce and to exchange as they
please, without any artificial enhancement of prices;
and by taking for public purposes a value that cannot
be carried off, that cannot be hidden, that of all values.
is most easily ascertained and most certainly and
particular land will yield to common labor over and above what
may be had by like expenditure and exertion on land having no
special advantage and for which no rent is paid; and, 3 (specu-
lative rent, which is a species of monopoly rent, telling particu-
larly in selling price), by the expectation of future increase of
value from social growth and improvement, which expectation
causing land owners to withhold land at present prices has the
same effect as combination.
Taxes on land values or economic rent can therefore never be
shifted by the land owner to the land user, since they in no wise
increase the demand for land or enable land owners to check
supply by withholding land from use. Where rent depends on
mere monopolization, a case I mention because rent may in this
way be demanded for the use of land even before economic or
natural rent arises, the taking by taxation of what the land-
owners were able to extort from labor could not enable them to
extort any more, since laborers, if not left enough to live on,
will die. So, in the case of economic rent proper, to take from
the land owners the premiums they receive, would in no way
increase the superiority of their land and the demand for it.
While, so far as price is affected by speculative rent, to compel
the land owners to pay taxes on the value of land whether they
were getting any income from it or not, would make it more
difficult for them to withhold land from use; and to tax the
full value would not merely destroy the power but the desire
to do so.
16
THE CONDITION OF LABOR.
cheaply collected, it would enormously lessen the
number of officials, dispense with oaths, do away with
temptations to bribery and evasion, and abolish man-
made crimes in themselves innocent.
But, further: That God has intended the state
to obtain the revenues it needs by the taxation of
land values is shown by the same order and degree of
evidence that shows that God has intended the milk
of the mother for the nourishment of the babe.
See how close is the analogy. In that primitive
condition ere the need for the state arises there are no
land values. The products of labor have value, but
in the sparsity of population no value as yet attaches
to land itself. But as increasing density of population
and increasing elaboration of industry necessitate the
organization of the state, with its need for revenues,
value begins to attach to land. As population still
increases and industry grows more elaborate, so the
needs for public revenues increase.
And at the same
time and from the same causes land values increase.
The connection is invariable. The value of things
produced by labor tends to decline with social develop-
ment, since the larger scale of production and the
improvement of processes tend steadily to reduce
their cost. But the value of land on which popu-
lation centers goes up and up. Take Rome or-
Paris or London or New York or Melbourne.
Consider the enormous value of land in such cities as
compared with the value of land in sparsely settled
parts of the same countries. To what is this due? Is it
not due to the density and activity of the populations
of those cities-to the very causes that require great
OPEN LETTER TO POPE LEO XIII.
17
public expenditure for streets, drains, public buildings,
and all the many things needed for the health, con-
venience and safety of such great cities? See how
with the growth of such cities the one thing that
steadily increases in value is land; how the opening of
roads, the building of railways, the making of any
public improvement, adds to the value of land. Is it
not clear that here is a natural law-that is to say a
tendency willed by the Creator? Can it mean anything
else than that He who ordained the state with its
needs has in the values which attach to land provided
the means to meet those needs?
That it does mean this and nothing else is confirmed
if we look deeper still, and inquire not merely as to
the intent, but as to the purpose of the intent. If we
do so we may see in this natural law by which land val-
ues increase with the growth of society not only such e
perfectly adapted provision for the needs of society
as gratifies our intellectual perceptions by showing us
the wisdom of the Creator, but a purpose with regard
to the individual that gratifies our moral perceptions
by opening to us a glimpse of His beneficence.
Consider: Here is a natural law by which as society
advances the one thing that increases in value is land-
a natural law by virtue of which all growth of popula
tion, all advance of the arts, all general improvements
of whatever kind, add to a fund that both the
commands of justice and the dictates of expediency
prompt us to take for the common uses of society.
Now, since increase in the fund available for the
common uses of society is increase in the gain that
goes equally to each member of society, is it not clear
18
THE CONDITION OF LABOR.
that the law by which land values increase with social
advance while the value of the products of labor do
not increase, tends with. the advance of civilization to
make the share that goes equally to each member'
of society more and more important as compared with
what goes to him from his individual earnings, and
thus to make the advance of civilization lessen rel-
atively the differences that in a ruder social state
must exist between the strong and the weak, the
fortunate and the unfortunate? Does it not show the
purpose of the Creator to be that the advance of man
in civilization should be an advance not merely to
larger powers but to a greater and greater equality,
instead of what we, by our ignoring of His intent, are
making it, an advance towards a more and more
monstrous inequality?
That the value attaching to land with social growth
is intended for social needs is shown by the final
proof. God is indeed a jealous God in the sense that
nothing but injury and disaster can attend the effort
of men to do things other than in the way He has
intended; in the sense that where the blessings He
proffers to men are refused or misused they turn to
evils that scourge us. And just as for the mother
to withhold the provision that fills her breast with
the birth of the child is to endanger physical health,
so for society to refuse to take for social uses the pro-
vision intended for them is to breed social disease.
For refusal to take for public purposes the increasing
values that attach to land with social growth is to
necessitate the getting of public revenues by taxes"
that lessen production, distort distribution and corrupt
OPEN LETTER TO POPE LEO XIII.
19
society. It is to leave some to take what justly
belongs to all; it is to forego the only means by which
it is possible in an advanced civilization to combine
the security of possession that is necessary to improve-
ment with the equality of natural opportunity that
is the most important of all natural rights. It is thus
at the basis of all social life to set up an unjust
inequality between man and man, compelling some
to pay others for the privilege of living, for the chance
of working, for the advantages of civilization, for the
gifts of their God. But it is even more than this.
The very robbery that the masses of men thus suffer
gives rise in advancing communities to a new robbery.
For the value that with the increase of population
and social advance attaches to land being suffered
to go to individuals who have secured ownership of
the land, it prompts to a forestalling of and speculation
in land wherever there is any prospect of advancing
population or of coming improvement, thus produc-
ing an artificial scarcity of the natural elements of
life and labor, and a strangulation of production that
shows itself in recurring spasms of industrial depression
as disastrous to the world as destructive wars. It is
this that is driving men from the old countries to the
new countries, only to bring there the same curses.
It is this that causes our material advance not merely
to fail to improve the condition of the mere worker,
but to make the condition of large classes positively
It is this that in our richest Christian countries
is giving us a large population whose lives are harder,
more hopeless, more degraded than those of the
veriest savages. It is this that leads so many men
to think that God is a bungler and is constantly
worse.
20
THE CONDITION OF LABOR.
bringing more people into His world than He has
made provision for; or that there is no God, and that
belief in Him is a superstition which the facts of life
and the advance of science are dispelling.
The darkness in light, the weakness in strength,
the poverty amid wealth, the seething discontent
foreboding civil strife, that characterize our civilization
of to-day, are the natural, the inevitable results of our
rejection of God's beneficence, of our ignoring of His
intent. Were we on the other hand to follow His
clear, simple rule of right, leaving scrupulously to the
individual all that individual labor produces, and
taking for the community the value that attaches to
land by the growth of the community itself, not
merely could evil modes of raising public revenues
be dispensed with, but all men would be placed on an
equal level of opportunity with regard to the bounty
of their Creator, on an equal level of opportunity
to exert their labor and to enjoy its fruits. And then,
without drastic or restrictive measures the forestalling
of land would cease. For then the possession of land
would mean only security for the permanence of its
use, and there would be no object for any one to get
land or to keep land except for use; nor would his
possession of better land than others had confer any
unjust advantage on him, or unjust deprivation ɔn
them, since the equivalent of the advantage would be
taken by the state for the benefit of all.
The Right Reverend Dr. Thomas Nulty, Bishop
of Meath, who sees all this as clearly as we do, in
pointing out to the clergy and laity of his diocese *
* Letter addressed to the Clergy and Laity of the Diocese
of Meath, Ireland, April 2, 1881
OPEN LETTER TO POPE LEO XIII.
21
the design of Divine Providence that the rent of
land should be taken for the community, says:
"I think, therefore, that I may fairly infer, on the
strength of authority as well as of reason, that the
people are and always must be the real owners of the
land of their country. This great social fact appears
to me to be of incalculable importance, and it is
fortunate, indeed, that on the strictest principles of
justice it is not clouded even by a shadow of
uncertainty or doubt. There is, moreover, a charm
and a peculiar beauty in the clearness with which
it reveals the wisdom and the benevolence of the
designs of Providence in the admirable provision He
has made for the wants and the necessities of that
state of social existence of which He is author, and
in which the very instincts of nature tell us we are
to spend our lives. A vast public property, a great
national fund, has been placed under the dominion
and at the disposal of the nation to supply itself
abundantly with resources necessary to liquidate the
expenses of its government, the administration of its
laws and the education of its youth, and to enable it
to provide for the suitable sustentation and support
of its criminal and pauper population. One of the
most interesting peculiarities of this property is that
its value is never stationary; it is constantly progressive
and increasing in a direct ratio to the growth of the
population, and the very causes that increase and
multiply the demands made on it increase proportion-
ately its ability to meet them.'

""
There is, indeed, as Bishop Nulty says, a peculiar
beauty in the clearness with which the wisdom and
benevolence of Providence are revealed in this great
social fact, the provision made for the common needs
of society in what economists call the law of rent.
Of all the evidence that natural religion gives,.
it is this that most clearly shows the existence of a
22
THE CONDITION OF LABOR.
beneficent God, and most conclusively silences the
doubts that in our days lead so many to materialism.
For in this beautiful provision made by natural law
for the social needs of civilization we see that God
has intended civilization; that all our discoveries and
inventions do not and cannot outrun His forethought,
and that steam, electricity and labor saving appliances
only make the great moral laws clearer and more
important. In the growth of this great fund, increasing
-
with social advance-a fund that accrues from the
growth of the community and belongs therefore to
the community-we see not only that there is no need
for the taxes that lessen wealth, that engender corrup、
tion, that promote inequality and teach men to deny
the gospel; but that to take this fund for the purpose
for which it was evidently intended would in the
highest civilization secure to all the equal enjoyment of
God's bounty, the abundant opportunity to satisfy their
wants, and would provide amply for every legitimate'
need of the state. We see that God in His dealings
with men has not been a bungler or a niggard; that
He has not brought too many men into the world;
that He has not neglected abundantly to supply them;
that He has not intended that bitter competition of
the masses for a mere animal existence and that
monstrous aggregation of wealth which characterize
our civilization; but that these evils which lead so
many to say there is no God, or yet more impiously
to say that they are of God's ordering, are due to our
denial of His moral law. We see that the law of
justice, the law of the Golden Rule, is not a mere
counsel of perfection, but indeed the law of social
life. We see that if we were only to observe it
'
OPEN LETTER TO POPE LEO. XIII.
23
there would be work for all, leisure for all, abundance
for all; and that civilization would tend to give to the
poorest not only necessaries, but all comforts and
reasonable luxuries as well. We see that Christ was
not a mere dreamer when He told men that if they
would seek the kingdom of God and its right doing
they might no more worry about material things than
do the lilies of the field about their raiment; but that
He was only declaring what political economy in the
light of modern discovery shows to be a sober truth.
Your Holiness, even to see this is deep and lasting
joy. For it is to see for one's self that there is a God
who lives and reigns, and that He is a God of justice
and-love-Our Father who art in Heaven. It is to
open a rift of sunlight through the clouds of our
darker questionings, and to make the faith that trusts
where it cannot see a living thing.
II.
By
Your Holiness will see from the explanation I have
given that the reform we propose, like all true re-
forms, has both an ethical and an economic side.
ignoring the ethical side, and pushing our proposal
merely as a reform of taxation, we could avoid the
objections that arise from confounding ownership
with possession and attributing to private property in
land that security of use and improvement that can be
had even better without it. All that we seek practi-
cally is the legal abolition, as fast as possible, of taxes
on the products and processes of labor, and the con-
sequent concentration of taxation on land values
irrespective of improvements. To put our proposals
24
THE CONDITION OF LABOR.
in this way would be to urge them merely as a
matter of wise public expediency.
There are indeed many single tax men who do put
our proposals in this way; who seeing the beauty of
our plan from a fiscal standpoint do not concern them-
selves farther. But to those who think as I do, the
ethical is the more important side. Not only do we
not wish to evade the question of private property in
land, but to us it seems that the beneficent and far-
reaching revolution we aim at is too great a thing to
be accomplished by "intelligent self-interest," and can
be carried by nothing less than the religious con-
science.
Hence we earnestly seek the judgment of religion.
This is the tribunal of which your Holiness as the
head of the largest body of Christians is the most
august representative.
It therefore behooves us to examine the reasons
you urge in support of private property in land-if they
be sound to accept them, and if they be not sound
respectfully to point out to you wherein is their error.
To your proposition that "Our first and most fun-
damental principle when we undertake to alleviate the
condition of the masses must be the inviolability of
private property " we would joyfully agree if we could
only understand you to have in mind the moral
element, and to mean rightful private property, as
when you speak of marriage as ordained by God's
authority we may understand an implied exclusion of
improper marriages. Unfortunately, however, other
expressions show that you mean private property in ·
general and have expressly in mind private property
in land. This confusion of thought, this non-distri-
•
OPEN LETTER TO POPE LEO XIII.
25
bation of terms, runs through your whole argument,
leading you to conclusions so unwarranted by your
premises as to be utterly repugnant to them, as when
from the moral sanction of private property in the
things produced by labor you infer something entirely
different and utterly opposed, a similar right of pro-
perty in the land created by God.
Private property is not of one species, and moral
sanction can no more be asserted universally of it than
of marriage. That proper marriage conforms to the
law of God does not justify the polygamic, or poly-
andric or incestuous marriages that are in some
countries permitted by the civil law. And as there
may be immoral marriage so may there be im-
moral private property. Private property is that
which may be held in ownership by an individual, or
that which may be held in ownership by an individual
with the sanction of the state. The mere lawyer, the
mere servant of the state, may rest here, refusing to
distinguish between what the state holds equally law-
ful. Your Holiness, however, is not a servant of
the state, but a servant of God, a guardian of morals.
You know, as said by St. Thomas of Aquin, that—
"Human law is law only in virtue of its accordance
with right reason and it is thus manifest that it flows
from the eternal law. And in so far as it deviates
from right reason it is called an unjust law. In such
case it is not law at all, but rather a species of
violence.”
Thus, that any species of property is permitted by
the state does not of itself give it moral sanction.
The state has often made things property that are not
justly property, but involve violence and robbery.
..
26/
THE CONDITION OF LABOR.
For instance, the things of religion, the dignity and
authority of offices of the church, the power of ad-
ministering her sacraments and controlling her tempo-
ralities have often by profligate princes been given
as salable property to courtiers and concubines. At
this very day in England an atheist or a heathen may
buy in open market, and hold as legal property, to be
sold, given or bequeathed as he pleases, the power of
appointing to the cure of souls, and the value of these
legal rights of presentation is said to be no less than
£17,000,000.
Or again: Slaves were universally treated as property
by the customs and laws of the classical nations, and
were so acknowledged in Europe long after the ac-
ceptance of Christianity. At the beginning of this
century there was no Christian nation that did not,
in her colonies at least, recognize property in' slaves,
and slave ships crossed the seas under Christian flags.
In the United States, little more than thirty years.
ago, to buy a man gave the same legal ownership as
.to buy a horse, and in Mohammedan countries law
and custom yet make the slave the property of his
captor or purchaser.
Yet your Holiness, one of the glories of whose
pontificate is the attempt to break up slavery in its
last strongholds, will not contend that the moral sanction
that attaches to property in things produced by labor
can, or ever could, apply to property in slaves.
Your use, in so many passages of your Encyclical, of
the inclusive term "property" or "private" property,
of which in morals nothing can be either affirmed or
denied, makes your meaning, if we take isolated
sentences, in many places ambiguous. But reading
OPEN LETTER TO POPE LEO XIII.
27
it as a whole, there can be no doubt of your intention
that private property in land shall be understood when
you speak merely of private property. With this
interpretation, I find that the reasons you urge for
private property in land are eight. Let us consider
them in order of presentation. You urge:
1. That what is bought with rightful property is
rightful property. (5.)*
Clearly, purchase and sale cannot give, but can only
transfer ownership. Property that in itself has no
moral sanction does not obtain moral sanction, by
passing from seller to buyer.
If right reason does not make the slave the property
of the slave hunter it does not make him the property
of the slave buyer. Yet your reasoning as to private
property in land would as well justify property in
slaves. To show this it is only needful to change in your
argument the word land to the word slave. It would
then read:
"It is surely undeniable that when a man engages
in remunerative labor the very reason and motive of
his work is to obtain property, and to hold it in his own
private possession.
"If one man hire out to another his strength or his、
industry he does this for the purpose of receiving
in return what is necessary for food and living; he
thereby expressly proposes to acquire a full and legal
right, not only to the remuneration, but also to the
disposal of that remuneration as he pleases.
"Thus, if he lives sparingly, saves money and invests
his savings for greater security in a slave, the slave in
*To facilitate references the paragraphs of the Encyclical are
indicated by number.
28
THE CONDITION OF LABOR.
1
such a case is only his wages in another form; and con-
sequently a workingman's slave thus purchased should
be as completely at his own disposal as the wages he
receives for his labor."
Nor in turning your argument for private property
in land into an argument for private property in men
am I doing a new thing. In my own country, in my
own time, this very argument, that purchase gave
ownership, was the common defense of slavery. It
was made by statesmen, by jurists, by clergymen, by
bishops; it was accepted over the whole country by
the great mass of the people. By it was justified
the separation of wives from husbands, of children
from parents, the compelling of labor, the appropriation
of its fruits, the buying and selling of Christians by
Christians. In language almost identical with yours
it was asked, "Here is a poor man who has worked
hard, lived sparingly, and invested his savings in a
few slaves. Would you rob him of his earnings by
liberating those slaves?" Or it was said: "Here is
a poor widow; all her husband has been able to leave
her is a few negroes, the earnings of his hard toil.
Would you rob the widow and the orphan by freeing
these negroes?" And because of this perversion of
reason, this confounding of unjust property rights
with just property rights, this acceptance of man's
law as though it were God's law, there came on our
nation a judgment of fire and blood.
The error of our people in thinking that what in
itself was not rightfully property could become rightful
property by purchase and sale is the same error into
which your Holiness falls. It is not merely formally
the same; it is essentially the same.
Private property

OPEN LETTER TO POPE LEO XIII.
29
in land, no less than private property in slaves, is a
violation of the true rights of property. They are
different forms of the same robbery; twin devices
by which the perverted ingenuity of man has sought
to enable the strong and the cunning to escape God's
requirement of labor by forcing it on others.
What difference does it make whether I merely
own the land on which another man must live or
own the man himself? Am I not in the one case as
much his master as in the other? Can I not compel
him to work for me? Can I not take to myself as
much of the fruits of his labor; as fully dictate his
actions? Have I not over him the power of life and
death? For to deprive a man of land is as certainly
to kill him as to deprive him of blood by opening
his veins, or of air by tightening a halter around his
neck.
The essence of slavery is in empowering one man
to obtain the labor of another without recompense.
Private property in land does this as fully as chattel
slavery. The slave owner must leave to the slave
enough of his earnings to enable him to live. Are
there not in so called free countries great bodies of
workingmen who get no more? How much more of
the fruits of their toil do the agricultural laborers of
Italy and England get than did the slaves of our
Southern States? Did not private property in land
permit the land owner of Europe in ruder times-
to demand the jus primæ noctis? Does not the
same last outrage exist to day in diffused form in the
immorality born of monstrous wealth on the one
hand and ghastly poverty on the other?
In what did the slavery of Russia consist but in giv-
30
THE CONDITION OF LABOR.
ing to the master land on which the serf was forced to
live? When an Ivan or a Catherine enriched their
favorites with the labor of others they did not give men,
they gave land. And when the appropriation of land has
gone so far that no free land remains to which the
landless man may turn, then without further violence the
more insidious form of labor robbery involved in priv-
ate property in land takes the place of chattel slavery,
because more economical and convenient. For under
it the slave does not have to be caught or held, or to
be fed when not needed. He comes of himself,
begging the privilege of serving, and when no longer
wanted can be discharged. The lash is unnecessary;
hunger is as efficacious. This is why the Norman con-
querors of England and the English conquerors of
Ireland did not divide up the people, but divided the
land. This is why European slave ships took their
cargoes to the New World, not to Europe.
Slavery is not yet abolished. Though in all Christian
countries its ruder form has now gone, it still exists in
the heart of our civilization in more insidious form,
and is increasing. There is work to be done for the
glory of God and the liberty of man by other soldiers
of the cross than those warrior monks whom, with the
blessing of your Holiness, Cardinal Lavigerie is send-
ing into the Sahara. Yet, your Encyclical employs
in defense of one form of slavery the same fallacies
that the apologists for chattel slavery used in defense
of the other!
The Arabs are not wanting in acumen. Your
Encyclical reaches far. What shall your warrior
monks say, if when at the muzzle of their rifles they
demand of some Arab slave merchant his miserable
OPEN LETTER TO POPE LEO XIII.
31
,
caravan, he shall declare that he bought them with
his savings, and producing a copy of your Encyclical,
shall prove by your reasoning that his slaves are conse-
quently "only his wages in another form," and ask
if they who bear your blessing and own your
authority propose to "deprive him of the liberty of
disposing of his wages and thus of all hope and
possibility of increasing his stock and bettering his
condition in life?"
2. That private property in land proceeds from
man's gift of reason. (6–7.)
In the second place your Holiness argues that man
possessing reason and forethought may not only ac-
quire ownership of the fruits of the earth, but also of
the earth itself, so that out of its products he may
make provision for the future.
Reason, with its attendant forethought, is indeed
the distinguishing attribute of man; that which raises
him above the brute, and shows, as the Scriptures de-
clare, that he is created in the likeness of God. And
this gift of reason does, as your Holiness points out,
involve the need and right of private property in
whatever is produced by the exertion of reason and
its attendant forethought, as well as in what is pro-
duced by physical labor. In truth, these elements of
man's production are inseparable, and labor involves
the use of reason. It is by his reason that man differs
from the animals in being a producer, and in this
sense a maker. Of themselves his physical powers
are slight, forming as it were but the connection
by which the mind takes hold of material things, so as to
utilize to its will the matter and forces of nature. It
32
THE CONDITION OF LABOR.
4
is mind, the intelligent reason, that is the prime
mover in labor, the essential agent in production.
'
The right of private ownership does therefore in-
disputably attach to things provided by man's reason
and forethought. But it cannot attach to things pro-
vided by the reason and forethought of God!
To illustrate: Let us suppose a company travelling
through the desert as the Israelites travelled from
Egypt. Such of them as had the forethought to
provide themselves with vessels of water would ac-
quire a just right of property in the water so carried,
and in the thirst of the waterless desert those who had
neglected to provide themselves, though they might
ask water from the provident in charity, could not de-
-mand it in right. For while water itself is of the
providence of God, the presence of this water in such
vessels, at such place, results from the providence of
the men who carried it. Thus they have to it an ex-
clusive right.
But suppose others use their forethought in push-
ing ahead and appropriating the springs, refusing when
their fellows come up to let them drink of the water
save as they buy it of them. Would such forethought
give any right?
Your Holiness, it is not the forethought of carrying
water where it is needed, but the forethought of seiz-
ing springs, that you seek to defend in defending the
private ownership of land!
Let me show this more fully, since it may be worth
while to meet those who say that if private property
in land be not just, then private property in the
products of labor is not just, as the material of these
products is taken from land. It will be seen on con-
OPEN LETTER TO POPE LEO XIII.
33
sideration that all of man's production is analogous to
~ such transportation of water as we have supposed. In
growing grain, or smelting metals, or building houses,
or weaving cloth, or doing any of the things that con-
stitute producing, all that man does is to change in
place or form pre-existing matter. As a producer
man is merely a changer, not a creator; God alone
creates. And since the changes in which man's pro-
duction consists inhere in matter so long as they per-
sist, the right of private ownership attaches the
accident to the essence, and gives the right of owner
ship in that natural material in which the labor of
production is embodied. Thus water, which in its
original form and place is the common gift of God
to all men, when drawn from its natural reservoir and
brought into the desert, passes rightfully into the
ownership of the individual who by changing its
place has produced it there.
T
But such right of ownership is in reality a mere
right of temporary possession. For though man may
take material from the storehouse of nature and change
it in place or form to suit his desires, yet from the
moment he takes it, it tends back to that storehouse
again. Wood decays, iron rusts, stone disintegrates
and is displaced, while of more perishable products,
some will last for only a few months, others for only
a few days, and some disappear immediately on use.
Though, so far as we can see, matter is eternal and
force forever persists; though we can neither annihi-
late nor create the tiniest mote that floats in a sun-
beam or the faintest impulse that stirs a leaf, yet in the
ceaseless flux of nature, man's work of moving and com-
bining constantly passes away. Thus the recognition
!
34
THE CONDITION OF LABOR.
of the ownership of what natural material is embodied
in the products of man never constitutes more than
temporary possession-never interferes with the
reservoir provided for all. As taking water from one
place and carrying it to another place by no means
lessens the store of water, since whether it is drunk or
spilled or left to evaporate, it must return again to the
natural reservoirs-so is it with all things on which man
in production can lay the impress of his labor.
Hence, when you say that man's reason puts it
within his right to have in stable and permanent pos-
session not only things that perish in the using, but
also those that remain for use in the future, you are
right in so far as you may include such things as
buildings, which with repair will last for generations,
with such things as food or firewood, which are de-
stroyed in the use. But when you infer that man
can have private ownership in those permanent things
of nature that are the reservoirs from which all must
draw, you are clearly wrong. Man may indeed hold
in private ownership the fruits of the earth produced
by his labor, since they lose in time the impress of
that labor, and pass again into the natural reservoirs
from which they were taken, and thus the ownership
of them by one works no injury to others. But he
cannot so own the earth itself, for that is the reservoir
from which must constantly be drawn not only the
material with which alone men can produce, but even
their very bodies.
The conclusive reason why man cannot claim owner-
ship in the earth itself as he can in the fruits that
he by labor brings forth from it, is in the facts stated
OPEN LETTER TO POPE LEO XIII.
35
by you in the very next paragraph (7), when you
truly say:
"Man's needs do not die out, but recur; satisfied
to-day they demand new supplies to-morrow. Nature
therefore owes to man a storehouse that shall never
fail, the daily supply of his daily wants. And this
"he finds only in the inexhaustible fertility of the earth."
By man you mean all men. Can what nature owes
to all men be made the private property of some men,
from which they may debar all other men?
Let me dwell on the words of your Holiness,
"Nature, therefore, owes to man a storehouse that shall
never fail." By Nature you mean God. Thus your
thought, that in creating us, God himself has incurred
an obligation to provide us with a storehouse that shall
never fail, is the same as is thus expressed and carried
to its irresistible conclusion by the Bishop of Meath:
"God was perfectly free in the act by which He
created us; but having created us He bound himself
by that act to provide us with the means necessary for
our subsistence. The land is the only source of this
kind now known to us. The land, therefore, of every
country is the common property of the people of that
country, because its real owner, the Creator who made
it, has transferred it as a voluntary gift to them
Terram autem dedit filiis hominum. Now, as every
individual in that country is a creature and child of
God, and as all His creatures are equal in His sight,
any settlement of the land of a country that would
exclude the humblest man in that country from his
share of the common inheritance would be not only
an injustice and a wrong to that man, but, moreover,
be AN IMPIOUS RESISTANCE TO THE BENEVOLENT INTEN-
TIONS OF HIS CREATOR.'
""
36
THE CONDITION OF LABOR.
3. That private property in land deprives no one
of the use of land. (8.)
Your own statement that land is the inexhaustible
storehouse that God owes to man must have aroused
in your Holiness's mind an uneasy questioning of
'its appropriation as private property, for, as though
to reassure yourself, you proceed to argue that is
ownership by some will not injure others. You say
in substance, that even though divided among private
owners the earth does not cease to minister to the
needs of all, since those who do not possess the soil can
by selling their labor obtain in payment the produce
of the land.
Suppose that to your Holiness as a judge of morals
one should put this case of conscience:
"I am one of several children to whom our father
left a field abundant for our support. As he assigned
no part of it to any one of us in particular, leaving.
the limits of our separate possession to be fixed by
ourselves, I being the eldest took the whole field in
exclusive ownership. But in doing so I have not de-
prived my brothers of their support from it, for I
have let them work for me on it, paying them from
the produce as much wages as I would have had to
pay strangers. Is there any reason why my con-
science should not be clear?"
What would be your answer? Would you not tell
him that he was in mortal sin, and that his excuse
added to his guilt? Would you not call on him to
make restitution and to do penance?
Or, suppose that as a temporal prince your Holi-
ness were ruler of a rainless land, such as Egypt,
where there were no springs or brooks, their want
being supplied by a bountiful river like the Nile.
OPEN LETTER TO POPE LEO XIII.
$7
Supposing that having sent a number of your subjects
to make fruitful this land, bidding them do justly and
prosper, you were told that some of them had set up
a claim of ownership in the river, refusing the others
a drop of water, except as they bought it of them;
and that thus they had become rich without work,
while the others, though working hard, were so im-
poverished by paying for water as to be hardly able
to exist?
Would not your indignation wax hot when this was
told?
Suppose that then the river owners should send to
you and thus excuse their action:
"The river, though divided among private owners
ceases not thereby to minister to the needs of all, for
there is no one who drinks who does not drink of the
water of the river. Those who do not possess the
water of the river contribute their labor to get it; so
that it may be truly said that all water is supplied
either from one's own river, or from some laborious
industry which is paid for either in the water, or in
that which is exchanged for the water."
Would the indignation of your Holiness be abated?
Would it not wax fiercer yet for the insult to your
intelligence of this excuse?
I do not need more formally to show your Holiness
that between utterly depriving a man of God's gifts
and depriving him of God's gifts unless he will buy
them, is merely the difference between the robber
who leaves his victim to die and the robber who puts
him to ransom. But I would like to point out how
your statement that "the earth though divided among
private owners ceases not thereby to minister to the
needs of all" overlooks the largest facts.
38
THE CONDITION OF LABOR.
From your palace of the Vatican the eye may rest
on the expanse of the Campagna, where the pious toil
of religious congregations and the efforts of the state
are only now beginning to make it possible for men
to live. Once that expanse was tilled by thriving
husbandmen and dotted with smiling hamlets. What
for centuries has condemned it to desertion? History
tells us. It was private property in land; the growth
of the great estates of which Pliny saw that ancient
Italy was perishing; the cause that, by bringing
failure to the crop of men, let in the Goths and Van-
dals, gave Roman Britain to the worship of Odin and
Thor, and in what were once the rich and populous
provinces of the East shivered the thinned ranks and
palsied arms of the legions on the cimiters of Moham-
medan hordes, and in the sepulchre of our Lord and
in the Church of St. Sophia trampled the cross to
rear the crescent!
If you will go to Scotland, you may see great tracts
that under the Gaelic tenure, which recognized the
right of each to a foothold in the soil, bred sturdy
men, but that now, under the recognition of private
property in land, are given up to wild animals. If you
go to Ireland, your Bishops will show you, on lands
where now only beasts graze, the traces of hamlets that
when they were young priests, were filled with honest,
kindly, religious people.*
* Let any one who wishes visit this diocese and see with his own
eyes the vast and boundless extent of the fairest land in Europe
that has been ruthlessly depopulated since the commencement of
the present century, and which is now abandoned to a loneliness
and solitude more depressing than that of the prairie or the
wilderness. Thus has this land system actually exercised the
power of life and death on a vast scale, for which there is no
parallel even in the dark records of slavery.-Bishop Nulty's letter
to the Olergy and Laity of the Diocese of Meath.
Jay
OPEN LETTER TO POPE LEO XIII.
39
*
If
you will come to the United States, you will find
in a land wide enough and rich enough to support in
comfort the whole population of Europe, the growth
of a sentiment that looks with evil eye on immigration,
because the artificial scarcity that results from pri-
vate property in land makes it seem as if there is
not room enough and work enough for those already
here.
Or go to the Antipodes, and in Australia as in Eng-
land, you may see that private property in land is
operating to leave the land barren and to crowd the
-bulk of the population into great cities. Go wherever
you please where the forces loosed by modern invention
are beginning to be felt and you may see that private
property in land is the curse, denounced by the prophet,
that prompts men to lay field to field till they
"alone dwell in the midst of the earth."
To the mere materialist this is sin and shame. Shall
we to whom this world is God's world-we who hold
that man is called to this life only as a prelude to a
higher life-shall we defend it?
4. That Industry expended on land gives owner-
ship in the land itself. (9-10.)
7
Your Holiness next contends that industry expended
on land gives a right to ownership of the land, and
that the improvement of land creates benefits indis-
tinguishable and inseparable from the land itself.
This contention, if valid, could only justify the
ownership of land by those who expend industry on
it. It would not justify private property in land
as it exists. On the contrary, it would justify
a gigantic no-rent declaration that would take land
40
THE CONDITION OF LABOR.
from those who now legally own it, the landlords, and
turn it over to the tenants and laborers. And if it
also be that improvements cannot be distinguished
and separated from the land itself, how could the
landlords claim consideration even for improvements,
they had made?
But your Holiness cannot mean what your words
imply. What you really mean, I take it, is that the
original justification and title of land ownership is in
the expenditure of labor on it. But neither can this
justify private property in land as it exists. For is it
not all but universally true that existing land titles do
not come from use, but from force or fraud?
Take Italy! Is it not true that the greater part of
the land of Italy is held by those who so far from
ever having expended industry on it have been mere
appropriators of the industry of those who have?
Is this not also true of Great Britain and of other
countries? Even in the United States, where the
forces of concentration have not yet had time to fully
operate and there has been some attempt to give land
to users, it is probably true to-day that the greater
part of the land is held by those who neither use it
,nor propose to use it themselves, but merely hold it
to compel others to pay them for permission to use it.
And if industry give ownership to land what are the
limits of this ownership? If a man may acquire the
ownership of several square miles of land by grazing
sheep on it, does this give to him and his heirs the
ownership of the same land when it is found to con-
tain rich mines, or when by the growth of population
and the progress of society it is needed for farming,
for gardening, for the close occupation of a great
OPEN LETTER TO POPE LEO XIII.
41
city? Is it on the rights given by the industry of
those who first used it for grazing cows or growing
potatoes that you would found the title to the land
now covered by the city of New York and having a
value of thousands of millions of dollars?
But your contention is not valid. Industry expended
on land gives ownership in the fruits of that in-
dustry, but not in the land itself, just as industry ex-
pended on the ocean would give a right of ownership
to the fish taken by it, but not a right of ownership
in the ocean. Nor yet is it true that private owner-
ship of land is necessary to secure the fruits of labor on
land; nor does the improvement of land create benefits
indistinguishable and inseparable from the land itself.
That secure possession is necessary to the use and
improvement of land I have already explained, but
that ownership is not necessary is shown by the fact
that in all civilized countries land owned by one person
is cultivated and improved by other persons. Most
of the cultivated land in the British Islands, as in Italy
and other countries, is cultivated not by owners but
by tenants. And so the costliest buildings are erected
by those who are not owners of the land, but who have
from the owner a mere right of possession for a time
on condition of certain payments. Nearly the whole
of London has been built in this way, and in New
York, Chicago, Denver, San Francisco, Sydney and
Melbourne, as well as in continental cities, the owners
of many of the largest edifices will be found to be
different persons from the owners of the ground. So
far from the value of improvements being inseparable
from the value of land, it is in individual transactions
constantly separated. For instance, one-half of the
42
THE CONDITION OF LABOR.
land on which the immense Grand Pacific Hotel in
Chicago stands was recently separately sold, and in
Ceylon it is a not infrequent occurrence for one person
to own a fruit tree and another to own the ground in
which it is implanted.
There is, indeed, no improvement of land, whether
it be clearing, plowing, manuring, cultivating, the
digging of cellars, the opening of wells or the building
of houses, that so long as its usefulness continues
does not have a value clearly distinguishable from the
value of the land. For land having such improvements
will always sell or rent for more than similar land
without them.
-
If, therefore, the state levy a tax equal to what the
land irrespective of improvement would bring, it will
take the benefits of mere ownership, but will leave the
full benefits of use and improvement, which the
prevailing system does not do. And since the holder,
who would still in form continue to be the owner,
could at any time give or sell both possession and
improvements, subject to future assessment by the
state on the value of the land alone, he will be perfectly
free to retain or dispose of the full amount of property
that the exertion of his labor or the investment of
his capital has attached to or stored up in the land.
Thus, what we propose would secure, as it is im-
possible in any other way to secure, what you properly
say is just and right-" that the results of labor should
belong to him who has labored." But private property
in land-to allow the holder without adequate payment
to the state to take for himself the benefit of the value
that attaches to land with social growth and improve-
ment-does take the results of labor from him who
OPEN LETTER TO POPE LÉO XIII.
43
has labored, does turn over the fruits of one man's
labor to be enjoyed by another. For labor, as the
active factor, is the producer of all wealth. Mere
ownership produces nothing. A man might own a
world, but so sure is the decree that "by the sweat of
thy brow shalt thou eat bread," that without labor he
could not get a meal or provide himself a garment.
Hence, when the owners of land, by virtue of their
ownership and without laboring themselves, get the
products of labor in abundance, these things must
come from the labor of others, must be the fruits
of others' sweat, taken from those who have a right to
them and enjoyed by those who have no right to them.
The only utility of private ownership of land as dis-
tinguished from possession is the evil utility of giving
to the owner products of labor he does not earn. For
until land will yield to its owner some return beyond
that of the labor and capital he expends on it-that is
to say, until by sale or rental he can without expendi-
ture of labor obtain from it products of labor, owner-
ship amounts to no more than security of possession,
and has no value. Its importance and value begin only
when, either in the present or prospectively, it will
yield a revenue-that is to say, will enable the owner
as owner to obtain products of labor without exertion
on his part, and thus to enjoy the results of others' labor.
What largely keeps men from realizing the robbery
involved in private property in land is that in the most
striking cases the robbery is not of individuals, but of
the community. For, as I have before explained, it is
impossible for rent in the economic sense-that value
which attaches to land by reason of social growth and
improvement-to go to the user.
to go to the user. It can go only to the
44.
THE CONDITION OF LABOR.
7
owner or to the community. Thus those who pay
enormous rents for the use of land in such centres as
London or New York are not individually injured.
Individually they get a return for what they pay, and
must feel that they have no better right to the use of
such peculiarly advantageous localities without paying
for it than have thousands of others. And so, not
thinking or not caring for the interests of the com-
munity, they make no objection to the system.
It recently came to light in New York that a man
having no title whatever had been for years collecting
rents on a piece of land that the growth of the city had
made very valuable. Those who paid these rents had
never stopped to ask whether he had any right to them.
They felt that they had no right to land that so many
others would like to have, without paying for it,
and did not think of, or did not care for, the rights of all.
5. That private property in land has the support
of the common opinion of mankind, and has conduced
to peace and tranquility, and that it is sanctioned by
-Divine Law. (11.)
Even were it true that the common opinion of man-
kind has sanctioned private property in land, this would
no more prove its justice than the once universal prac-
tice of the known world would have proved the justice
of slavery.
But it is not true. Examination will show that
wherever we can trace them the first perceptions of
mankind have always recognized the equality of right
to land, and that when individual possession became
necessary to secure the right of ownership in things
produced by labor some method of securing equality,
1
OPEN LETTER TO POPE LEO INTI.
45
sufficient in the existing state of social development,
was adopted. Thus, among some peoples, land used
for cultivation was periodically divided, land used for
pasturage and wood being held in common. Among
others, every family wasted to hold what land
it needed for a dwelling d for cultivation, but the
moment that such use and cultivation stopped any one
else could step in and take it on like tenure. Of the
same nature were the land laws of the Mosaic code. The
land, first fairly divided among the people, was made
inalienable by the provision of the jubilee, under
which, if sold, it reverted every fiftieth year to the
children of its original possessors.
Private property in land as we know it, the attach-
ing to land of the same right of ownership that justly
attaches to the products of labor, has never grown up
anywhere save by usurpation or force. Like slavery,
it is the result of war. It comes to us of the modern
world from your ancestors, the Romans, whose civili-
zation it corrupted and whose empire it destroyed.
It made with the freer spirit of the northern
peoples the combination of the feudal system, in
which, though subordination was substituted for equal-,
ity, there was still a rough recognition of the principle
of common rights in land. A fief was a trust, and to
enjoyment was annexed some obligation. The sover-
eign, the representative of the whole people, was the
only owner of land. Of him, immediately or medi-
ately, held tenants, whose possession involved duties
or payments, which, though rudely and imperfectly,
embodied the idea that we would carry out in the
single tax, of taking land values for public uses. The
crown lands maintained the sovereign and the civil
46
THE CONDITION OF LABOR.
list; the church lands defrayed the cost of public wor-
ship and instruction, of the relief of the sick, the
destitute and the wayworn; while the military tenures
provided for public defense and bore the costs of war.
A fourth and very large tion of the land remained
in common, the people of the neighborhood being free
to pasture it, cut wood on it, or put it to other common
uses.
In this partial yet substantial recognition of common
rights to land is to be found the reason why, in a time
when the industrial arts were rude, wars frequent,
and the great discoveries and inventions of our time
unthought of, the condition of the laborer was devoid
of that grinding poverty which despite our marvellous
advances now exists. Speaking of England, the
highest authority on such subjects, the late Professor
Thorold Rogers, declares that in the thirteenth
century there was no class so poor, so helpless, so
pressed and degraded as are millions of Englishmen
in our boasted nineteenth century; and that, save in
times of actual famine, there was no laborer so poor
as to fear that his wife and children might come to
want even were he taken from them. Dark and
rude in many respects as they were, these were the
times when the cathedrals and churches and religious
houses whose ruins yet excite our admiration were
built; the times when England had no national debt,
no poor law, no standing army, no hereditary paupers,
no thousands and thousands of human beings rising in
the morning without knowing where they might lay
their heads at night.
1
With the decay of the feudal system, the system of
private property in land that had destroyed Rome was
OPEN LETTER TO POPE LEO XIII.
47
extended. As to England, it may briefly be said that
the crown lands were for the most part given away to
favorites; that the church lands were parcelled among
his courtiers by Henry VIII., and in Scotland grasped
by the nobles; that the military dues were finally re-
mitted in the seventeenth century, and taxation on
consumption substituted; and that by a process be-
ginning with the Tudors and extending to our own
time all but a mere fraction of the commons were en-
closed by the greater land owners; while the same
private ownership of land was extended over Ireland
and the Scottish Highlands, partly by the sword and
partly by bribery of the chiefs. Even the military
dues, had they been commuted, not remitted, would
to-day have more than sufficed to pay all public ex-
penses without one penny of other taxation.
Of the New World, whose institutions but continue
those of Europe, it is only necessary to say that to the
parcelling out of land in great tracts is due the back-
wardness and turbulence of Spanish America; that to
the large plantations of the Southern States of the
Union was due the persistence of slavery there, and
that the more northern settlements showed the earlier
English feeling, land being fairly well divided and
the attempts to establish manorial estates coming to
little or nothing. In this lies the secret of the more
vigorous growth of the northern states. But the idea
that land was to be treated as private property had
been thoroughly established in English thought before
the colonial period ended, and it has been so treated
by the United States and by the several States.
And though land was at first sold cheaply, and
then given to actual settlers, it was also sold in large
!
48
THE CONDITION OF LABOR.
quantities to speculators, given away in great tracta
for railroads and other purposes, until now the
public domain of the United States, which a genera-
tion ago seemed illimitable, has practically gone.
And this, as the experience of other countries shows,
is the natural result in a growing community of
making land private property. When the possession
of land means the gain of unearned wealth, the strong
and unscrupulous will secure it. But when, as we
propose, economic rent, the "unearned increment of
wealth," is taken by the state for the use of the com-
munity, then land will pass into the hands of users
and remain there, since no matter how great its value,
its possession will only be profitable to users.
As to private property in land having conduced to´
the peace and tranquility of human life, it is not neces-
sary more than to allude to the notorious fact that
the struggle for land has been the prolific source
of wars and of law suits, while it is the poverty en-
gendered by private property in land that make the
prison and the workhouse the unfailing attributes of
what we call Christian civilization.
Your Holiness intimates that the Divine Law gives
its sanction to the private ownership of land, quoting
from Deuteronomy, "Thou shalt not covet thy neigh-
bor's wife, nor his house, nor his field, nor his man-
servant, nor his maid-servant, nor his ox, nor his ass,
nor anything which is his.”
If, as your Holiness conveys, this inclusion of the
words, "nor his field," is to be taken as sanctioning
private property in land as it exists (to-day, then,
but with far greater force, must the words, "his man-
servant, nor his maid-servant," be taken to sanction
OPEN LETTER TO POPE LEO XIII.
49
chattel slavery; for it is evident from other provisions
of the same code that these terms referred both to
bondsmen for a term of years and to perpetual slaves.
But the word "field" involves the idea of use and
improvement, to which the right of possession and
ownership does attach without recognition of prop-
erty in the land itself. And that this reference to
the "field" is not a sanction of private property in
land as it exists to-day is proved by the fact that the
Mosaic code expressly denied such unqualified owner-
ship in land, and with the declaration, "the land
also shall not be sold forever, because it is mine, and
you are strangers and sojourners with me," provided
for its reversion every fiftieth year; thus, in a way
adapted to the primitive industrial conditions of the
time, securing to all of the chosen people a foothold
in the soil.
Nowhere in fact throughout the Scriptures can the
slightest justification be found for the attaching to
land of the same right of property that justly attaches
to the things produced by labor. Everywhere is it
treated as the free bounty of God, "the land which
the Lord thy God giveth thee."
6. That fathers should provide for their children
and that private property in land is necessary to
enable them to do so. (14-17.)
With all that your Holiness has to say of the
sacredness of the family relation we are in full accord.
But how the obligation of the father to the child can
justify private property in land we cannot see.
reason that private property in land is necessary to the
You
50
THE CONDITION OF LABOR.
discharge of the duty of the father, and is therefore
requisite and just, because-
"It is a most sacred law of nature that a father
must provide food and all necessities for those whom
he has begotten; and similarly nature dictates that a
man's children, who carry on as it were and continue
his own personality, should be provided by him with
all that is needful to enable them honorably to keep.
themselves from want and misery in the uncertain-
ties of this mortal life. Now in no other way can a
father effect this except by the ownership of profitable
property, which he can transmit to his children by
inheritance." (14.)
Thanks to Him who has bound the generations of
men together by a provision that brings the tenderest
love to greet our entrance into the world and soothes
our exit with filial piety, it is both the duty and the
joy of the father to care for the child till its powers
mature, and afterwards in the natural order it becomes
the duty and privilege of the child to be the stay of
the parent. This is the natural reason for that rela-
tion of marriage, the ground work of the sweetest,
tenderest and purest of human joys, which the Catho-
lic Church has guarded with such unremitting
vigilance.
We do, for a few years, need the providence of our
fathers after the flesh. But how small, how transient,
how narrow is this need, as compared with our constant
need for the providence of Him in whom we live,
move and have our being-Our Father who art in
Heaven! It is to Him, "the giver of every good and
perfect gift," and not to our fathers after the flesh,
that Christ taught us to pray, "Give us this day our
daily bread." And how true it is that it is through
OPEN LETTER TO POPE LEO XII.
51
Him that the generations of men exist. Let the mean
temperature of the earth rise or fall a few degrees, an
amount as nothing compared with differences produced
in our laboratories, and mankind would disappear as
ice disappears under a tropical sun, would fall as the
leaves fall at the touch of frost. Or, let for two or
three seasons the earth refuse her increase, and how
many of our millions would remain alive?
The duty of fathers to transmit to their children
profitable property that will enable them to keep
themselves from want and misery in the uncertainties
of this mortal life! What is not possible cannot be a
duty. And how is it possible for fathers to do that?
Your Holiness has not considered how mankind really
lives from hand to mouth, getting each day its daily
bread; how little one generation does or can leave
another. It is doubtful if the wealth of the civilized
world all told amounts to anything like as much as one
year's labor, while it is certain that if labor were to
stop and men had to rely on existing accumulation, it
would be only a few days ere in the richest countries
pestilence and famine would stalk.
The profitable property your Holiness refers to, is
private property in land. Now profitable land, as all
economists will agree, is land superior to the land thạt
the ordinary man can get. It is land that will yield an
income to the owner as owner, and therefore that will
permit the owner to appropriate the products of labor
without doing labor, its profitableness to the individual
involving the robbery of other individuals. It is there-
fore possible only for some fathers to leave their chil-
dren profitable land. What therefore your Holiness
practically declares is, that it is the duty of all fathers
52
THE CONDITION OF LABOR.
to struggle to leave their children what only the few
peculiarly strong, lucky or unscrupulous can leave;
and that, a something that involves the robbery of
others their deprivation of the material gifts of God.
This anti-Christian doctrine has been long in practice
throughout the Christian world. What are its results?
Are they not the very evils set forth in your Encycli-
cal? Are they not, so far from enabling men to keep
themselves from want and misery in the uncertainties
of this mortal life, to condemn the great masses of
men to want and misery that the natural conditions
of our mortal life do not entail; to want and misery
deeper and more widespread than exist among heathen
savages? Under the regime of private property in
land and in the richest countries not five per cent. of
fathers are able at their death to leave anything
substantial to their children, and probably a large
majority do not leave enough to bury them! Some
few children are left by their fathers richer than it is
good for them to be, but the vast majority not only are
left nothing by their fathers, but by the system that
makes land private property are deprived of the bounty
of their Heavenly Father; are compelled to sue others
for permission to live and to work, and to toil all their
ives for a pittance that often does not enable them
to escape starvation and pauperism.
What your Holiness is actually, though of course
inadvertently, urging, is that earthly fathers should
assume the functions of the Heavenly Father. It is
not the business of one generation to provide the
succeeding generation with "all that is needful to
enable them honorably to keep themselves from want
and misery." That is God's business. We no more
OPEN LETTER TO POPE LEO XIII.
53
*
create our children than we create our fathers. It is
God who is the Creator of each succeeding generation
as fully as of the one that preceded it. And, to
recall your own words (7), "Nature [God] therefore
owes to man a storehouse that shall never fail, the
daily supply of his daily wants. And this he finds
only in the inexhaustible fertility of the earth." What
you are now assuming is, that it is the duty of men
to provide for the wants of their children by appropri-
ating this storehouse and 'depriving other men's chil-
dren of the unfailing supply that God has provided
for all.
The duty of the father to the child-the duty pos-
sible to all fathers! Is it not so to conduct him-
self, so to nurture and teach it, that it shall come to
manhood with a sound body, well developed mind,
habits of virtue, piety and industry, and in a state of
society that shall give it and all others free access to
the bounty of God, the providence of the All-Father?
In doing this the father would be doing more to
secure his children from want and misery than is
possible now to the richest of fathers-as much more
as the providence of God surpasses that of man. For
the justice of God laughs at the efforts of men to
circumvent it, and the subtle law that binds humanity
together poisons the rich in the sufferings of the poor.
Even the few who are able in the general struggle to
leave their children wealth that they fondly think
will keep them from want and misery in the uncer-
tainties of this mortal life-do they succeed? Does
experience show that it is a benefit to a child to place
him above his fellows and enable him to think God's
law of labor is not for him? Is not such wealth
54
THE CONDITION OF LABOR.
oftener a curse than a blessing, and does not its expecta
tion often destroy filial love and bring dissensions and
heart burnings into families? And how far and how
long are even the richest and strongest able to exempt
their children from the common lot? Nothing is more
certain than that the blood of the masters of the world
flows to-day in lazzaroni and that the descendants of
kings and princes tenant slums and workhouses.
But in the state of society we strive for, where the
monopoly and waste of God's bounty would be done
away with and the fruits of labor would go to the
laborer, it would be within the ability of all to make
more than a comfortable living with reasonable labor.
And for those who might be crippled or incapacitated,
or deprived of their natural protectors and bread
winners, the most ample provision could be made out
of that great and increasing fund with which God in
his law of rent has provided society-not as a matter
of niggardly and degrading alms, but as a matter
of right, as the assurance which in a Christian state
society owes to all its members.
Thus it is that the duty of the father, the obligation
to the child, instead of giving any support to private
property in land, utterly condemns it, urging us by the
most powerful considerations to abolish it in the
simple and efficacious way of the single tax.
This duty of the father, this obligation to chil-
dren, is not confined to those who have actually chil-
dren of their own, but rests on all of us who have
come to the powers and responsibilities of manhood.
For did not Christ set a little child in the midst of
the disciples, saying to them that the angels of such
little ones always behold the face of His father; saying
OPEN LETTER TO POPE LEO XIII.
55
to them that it were better for a man to hang a
millstone about his neck and plunge into the utter-
most depths of the sea than to injure such a little
one ?
And what to-day is the result of private property in
land in the richest of so called Christian countries?
Is it not that young people fear to marry; that married
people fear to have children; that children are driven-
out of life from sheer want of proper nourishment and
care, or compelled to toil when they ought to be at
school or at play; that great numbers of those
who attain maturity enter it with under-nourished
bodies, overstrained nerves, undeveloped minds
under conditions that foredoom them, not merely to
suffering, but to crime; that fit them in advance for
the prison and the brothel?
If your Holiness will consider these things we are
confident that instead of defending private property
in land you will condemn it with anathema!
7. That the private ownership of land stimulates
industry, increases wealth, and attaches men to the
soil and to their country. (51.)
The idea, as expressed by Arthur Young, that "the
magic of property turns barren sands to gold" springs
from the confusion of ownership with possession, of
which I have before spoken, that attributes to private
property in land what is due to security of the products
of labor. It is needless for me again to point out
that the change we propose, the taxation for public
uses of land values, or economic rent, and the aboli-
tion of other taxes, would give to the user of land far
greater security for the fruits of his labor than the
56
THE CONDITION OF LABOR.
present system and far greater permanence of posses-
sion. Nor is it necessary further to show how it
would give homes to those who are now homeless and
bind men to their country. For under it every one
who wanted a piece of land for a home or for produc-
tive use could get it without purchase price and hold
it even without tax, since the tax we propose would
not fall on all land, nor even on all land in use, but
only on land better than the poorest land in use, and
is in reality not a tax at all, but merely a return to the
state for the use of a valuable privilege. And even
those who from circumstances or occupation did not
wish to make permanent use of land would still have
an equal interest with all others in the land of their
country and in the general prosperity.
But I should like your Holiness to consider how
utterly unnatural is the condition of the masses in the
richest and most progressive of Christian countries;
how large bodies of them live in habitations in which
a rich man would not ask his dog to dwell; how the
great majority have no homes from which they are
not liable on the slightest misfortune to be evicted;
how numbers have no homes at all, but must seek
what shelter chance or charity offers. I should like
to ask your Holiness to consider how the great majority
of men in such countries have no interest whatever in
what they are taught to call their native land, for
which they are told that on occasions it is their duty
to fight or to die. What right, for instance, have the
majority of your countrymen in the land of their birth?
Can they live in Italy outside of a prison or a poor-
house except as they buy the privilege from some of
the exclusive owners of Italy? Cannot an English-
Q
OPEN LETTER TO POPE LEO XIII.
87
!
man, an American, an Arab or a Japanesé do as much?
May not what was said centuries ago by Tiberius
Gracchus be said to day: "Men of Rome! you are
called the lords of the world, yet have no right to a
square foot of its soil! The wild beasts have their
dens, but the soldiers of Italy have only water and air!"
What is true of Italy is true of the civilized world—
is becoming increasingly true. It is the inevitable
effect as civilization progresses of private property in
land.
8. That the right to possess private property in land
is from Nature, not from man; that the state has no
right to abolish it, and that to take the value of land
ownership in taxation would be unjust and cruel to
the private owner. (51).
This, like much else that your Holiness says, is
masked in the use of the indefinite terms private
property and private owner-a want of precision in
the use of words that has doubtless aided in the con-
fusion of your own thought. But the context leaves
no doubt that by private property you mean private
property in land, and by private owner, the private
owner of land.
The contention, thus made, that private property
in land is from nature, not from man, has no other
basis than the confounding of ownership with
possession and the ascription to property in land
of what belongs to its contradictory, property in the
proceeds of labor. You do not attempt to show for
it any other basis, nor has any one else ever attempted
to do so. That private property in the products of
labor is from nature is clear, for nature gives such
58
THE CONDITION OF LABOR.
things to labor and to labor alone. Of every article
of this kind, we know that it came into being as nature's
response to the exertion of an individual man or of
individual men-given by nature directly and ex-
clusively to him or to them. Thus there inheres in
such things a right of private property, which originates
from and goes back to the source of ownership, the
maker of the thing. This right is anterior to the
state and superior to its enactments, so that, as we
hold, it is a violation of natural right and an injustice
to the private owner for the state to tax the processes
and products of labor. They do not belong to Cæsar.
They are things that God, of whom nature is but an
expression, gives to those who apply for them in the
way He has appointed-by labor.
But who will dare trace the individual ownership of
land to any grant from the Maker of land? What
does nature give to such ownership? how does she in
any way recognize it? Will any one show from
difference of form or feature, of stature or complexion,
from dissection of their bodies or analysis of their
powers and needs, that one man was intended by
nature to own land and another to live on it as his
tenant? That which derives its existence from man
and passes away like him, which is indeed but the
evanescent expression of his labor, man may hold
and transfer as the exclusive property of the individual;
but how can such individual ownership attach to land,
which existed before man was, and which continues to
exist while the generations of men come and go-the
unfailing storehouse that the Creator gives to man for
"the daily supply of his daily wants?"
Clearly, the private ownership of land is from the
OPEN LETTER TO POPÊ LEO XIII.
-59
state, not from nature. Thus, not merely can no
objection be made on the score of morals when it is
proposed that the state shall abolish it altogether, but
insomuch as it is a violation of natural right, its exist-
ence involving a gross injustice on the part of the
state, an "impious violation of the benevolent inten-
tion of the Creator," it is a moral duty that the state
so abolish it.
So far from there being anything unjust in taking
the full value of land ownership for the use of the
community, the real injustice is in leaving it in private
hands-an injustice that amounts to robbery and
murder.
And when your Holiness shall see this I have no fear
that you will listen for one moment to the impudent
plea that before the community can take what God
intended it to take, before men who have been disin-
herited of their natural rights can be restored to them,
the present owners of land shall first be compensated.
For not only will you see that the single tax will
directly and largely benefit small land owners, whose
interests as laborers and capitalists are much greater
than their interests as land owners, and that though
the great landowners or rather the propertied class
in general among whom the profits of land ownership
are really divided through mortgages, rent charges,
etc.—would relatively lose, they too would be absolute
gainers in the increased prosperity and improved
morals; but more quickly, more strongly, more per-
emptorily than from any calculation of gains or losses
would your duty as a man, your faith as a Christian
forbid you to listen for one moment to any such palter-
ing with right and wrong.
60
THÉ CONDITION OF LABOR.
Where the state takes some land for public uses it is
only just that those whose land is taken should be com-
pensated, otherwise some land owners would be treated
more harshly than others. But where, by a measure
affecting all alike, rent is appropriated for the benefit
of all, there can be no claim to compensation. Com-
pensation in such case would be a continuance of the
same injustice in another form-the giving to land
owners in the shape of interest of what they before
got as rent. Your Holiness knows that justice and in-
justice are not thus to be juggled with, and when you
fully realize that land is really the storehouse that God
owes to all His children, you will no more listen to
any demand for compensation for restoring it to them
than Moses would have listened to a demand that
Pharaoh should be compensated before letting the
children of Israel go.
demand of land owners
We do not seek to spoil
ask that what has been
Compensated for what? For giving up what has
been unjustly taken? The
for compensation is not that.
the Egyptians. We do not
unjustly taken from laborers shall be restored. We
are willing that bygones should be bygones and to
leave dead wrongs to bury their dead. We propose
to let those who by the past appropriation of land
value have taken the fruits of labor to retain what they
have thus got. We merely propose that for the future
such robbery of labor shall cease-that for the fu-
ture, not for the past, landholders shall pay to
the community the rent that to the community is
justly due.
OPEN LETTER TO POPE LEO XIII.
61
1
III.
I have said enough to show your Holiness the injus
tice into which you fall in classing us, who in seeking
virtually to abolish private property in land seek more
fully to secure the true rights of property, with those
whom you speak of as socialists, who wish to make all
property common. But you also do injustice to the
socialists.
There are many, it is true, who feeling bitterly the
monstrous wrongs of the present distribution of wealth
are animated only by a blind hatred of the rich and a
fierce desire to destroy existing social adjustments.
This class is indeed only less dangerous than those
who proclaim that no social improvement is needed
or is possible. But it is not fair to confound with
them those who, however mistakenly, propose definite
schemes of remedy.
The socialists, as I understand them, and as the
term has come to apply to anything like a definite
theory and not to be vaguely and improperly used to
include all who desire social improvement, do not, as
you imply, seek the abolition of all private property.
Those who do this are properly called communists.
What the socialists seek is the state assumption
of capital (in which they vaguely and erroneously
include land), or more properly speaking, of large
capitals, and state management and direction of at
least the larger operations of industry. In this way
they hope to abolish interest, which they regard as a
wrong and an evil; to do away with the gains of ex-
changers, speculators, contractors and middlemen,
which they regard as waste; to do away with the
wage system and secure general co-operation; and
{
62
THE CONDITION OF LABOR.
to prevent competition, which they deem the
fundamental cause of the impoverishment of labor.
The more moderate of them, without going so far,
go in the same direction, and seek some remedy or
palliation of the worst forms of poverty by govern-
ment regulation. The essential character of socialism
is that it looks to the extension of the functions of the
state for the remedy of social evils; that it would
substitute regulation and direction for competition;
and intelligent control by organized society for the
free play of individual desire and effort.
Though not usually classed as socialists, both the
trades unionists and the protectionists have the same
essential character. The trades unionists seek the
increase of wages, the reduction of working hours and
the general improvement in the condition of wage-
workers, by organizing them into guilds or associa
tions which shall fix the rates at which they will sell
their labor; shall deal as one body with employers in
case of dispute; shall use on occasion their necessary
weapon, the strike; and shall accumulate funds for
such purposes and for the purpose of assisting mem-
bers when on a strike, or (sometimes) when out of em-
ployment. The protectionists seek by governmental
prohibitions or taxes on imports to regulate the in
dustry and control the exchanges of each country, so,-
as they imagine, to diversify home industries and pre-
vent the competition of people of other countries.
At the opposite extreme are the anarchists, a
term which, though frequently applied to mere vio-
lent destructionists, refers also to those who, seeing the
many evils of too much government, regard govern-
ment in itself as evil, and believe that in the absence
OPEN LETTER TO POPE LEO XIII.
63.
}
of coercive power the mutual interests of men would
secure voluntarily what co-operation is needed.
Differing from all these are those for whom I would
speak. Believing that the rights of true property are
sacred, we would regard forcible communism as
robbery that would bring destruction. But we would
not be disposed to deny that voluntary communism
might be the highest possible state of which men
can conceive. Nor do we say that it cannot be
possible for mankind to attain it, since among the
early Christians and among the religious orders of the
Catholic church we have examples of communistic
societies on a small scale. St. Peter and St. Paul,
St. Thomas of Aquin and Fra Angelico, the illus-
trious orders of the Carmelites and Franciscans, the
Jesuits, whose heroism carried the cross among the
most savage tribes of American forests, the societies
that wherever your communion is known have
deemed no work of mercy too dangerous or too re-
pellent-were or are communists. Knowing these
things we cannot take it on ourselves to say that a
social condition may not be possible in which an all-
embracing love shall have taken the place of all other
motives. But we see that communism is only
possible where there exists a general and intense re-
ligious faith, and we see that such a state can be
reached only through a state of justice. For before a
man can be a saint he must first be an honest man.
With both anarchists and socialists, we, who for
want of a better term have come to call ourselves single
tax men, fundamentally differ. We regard them as err-
ing in opposite directions-the one in ignoring the
social nature of man, the other in ignoring his individual
64
THE CONDITION OF LABOR.
nature. While we see that man is primarily an
individual, and that nothing but evil has come or can
come from the interference by the state with things
that belong to individual action, we also see that he
is a social being, or, as Aristotle called him, a political
animal, and that the state is requisite to social advance,
having an indispensable place in the natural order.
Looking on the bodily organism as the analogue of
the social organism, and on the proper functions
of the state as akin to those that in the human
organism are discharged by the conscious intelligence,
while the play of individual impulse and interest
performs functions akin to those discharged in the
bodily organism by the unconscious instincts and
involuntary motions, the anarchists seem to us like
men who would try to get along without heads and
the socialists like men who would try to rule the
wonderfully complex and delicate internal relations of
their frames by conscious will.
The philosophical anarchists of whom I speak are
few in number, and of little practical importance. It
is with socialism in its various phases that we have to
do battle.
With the socialists we have some points of agree-
ment, for we recognize fully the social nature of man
and believe that all monopolies should be held and gov-
erned by the state. In these, and in directions
where the general health, knowledge, comfort and con-
venience might be improved, we, too, would extend
the functions of the state.
But it seems to us the vice of socialism in all its de-
grees is its want of radicalism, of going to the root. It
takes its theories from those who have sought to justify
OPEN LETTER TO POPE LEO XIII.
65
It
the impoverishment of the masses, and its advocates
generally teach the preposterous and degrading doc-
trine that slavery was the first condition of labor.
assumes that the tendency of wages to a minimum is the
natural law, and seeks to abolish wages; it assumes that
the natural result of competition is to grind down
workers, and seeks to abolish competition by restrictions,
prohibitions and extensions of governing power. Thus
mistaking effects for causes, and childishly blaming
the stone for hitting it, it wastes strength in striving
for remedies that when not worse are futile. Associat-
ed though it is in many places with democratic aspira-
tion, yet its essence is the same delusion to which the
Children of Israel yielded when against the protest of
their prophet they insisted on a king; the delusion
that has everywhere corrupted democracies and en-
throned tyrants-that power over the people can be
used for the benefit of the people; that there may be
devised machinery that through human agencies will
secure for the management of individual affairs more
wisdom and more virtue than the people themselves
possess.
This superficiality and this tendency may be seen
in all the phases of socialism.
Take, for instance, protectionism. What support
it has, beyond the mere selfish desire of sellers te
compel buyers to pay them more than their goods are
worth, springs from such superficial ideas as that pro-
duction, not consumption, is the end of effort; that
money is more valuable than money's worth, and to
sell more profitable than to buy; and above all from a
desire to limit competition, springing from an unan-
alyzing recognition of the phenomena that necessarily
$6
THE CONDITION OF LABOR.
follow when men who have the need to labor are
deprived by monopoly of access to the natural and
indispensable element of all labor. Its methods.
involve the idea that governments can more wisely
direct the expenditure of labor and the investment of
capital than can laborers and capitalists, and that the
men who control governments will use this power for
the general good and not in their own interests. They
tend to multiply officials, restrict liberty, invent crimes.
They promote perjury, fraud and corruption. And
they would, were the theory carried to its logical
conclusion, destroy civilization and reduce mankind
to savagery.
b
Take trades unionism. While within narrow lines
trades unionism promotes the idea of the mutuality
of interests, and often helps to raise courage and
further political education, and while it has enabled
limited bodies of workingmen to improve somewhat
their condition, and gain, as it were, breathing space,
yet it takes no note of the general causes that deter-
mine the conditions of labor, and strives for the eleva-
tion of only a small part of the great body by means
that cannot help the rest. Aiming at the restriction
of competition-the limitation of the right to labor,
its methods are like those of an army, which even
in a righteous cause are subversive of liberty and
liable to abuse, while its weapon, the strike, is
'destructive in its nature, both to combatants and non-
combatants, being a form of passive war. To apply
the principle of trades unions to all industry, as some
dream of doing, would be to enthrall men in a caste
ystem.
Or take even such moderate measures as the limita
OPEN LETTER TO POPE LEO XIII.
67
tion of working hours and of the labor of women and
children. They are superficial in looking no further
than to the eagerness of men and women and little
children to work unduly, and in proposing forcibly to
restrain overwork while utterly ignoring its cause, the
sting of poverty that forces human beings to it. And
the methods by which these restraints must be
enforced, multiply officials, interfere with personal
liberty, tend to corruption, and are liable to abuse.
As for thorough going socialism, which is the more
to be honored as having the courage of its convictions,
it would carry these vices to full expression. Jump-
ing to conclusions without effort to discover causes, it
fails to see that oppression does not come from the
nature of capital, but from the wrong that robs labor
of capital by divorcing it from land, and that cre-
ates a fictitious capital that is really capitalized monop-
oly. It fails to see that it would be impossible for
capital to oppress labor were labor free to the natural
material of production; that the wage system in
itself springs from mutual convenience, being a form
of co-operation in which one of the parties prefers a
certain to a contingent result; and that what it calls
the "iron law of wages" is not the natural law of
wages, but only the law of wages in that unnatural
condition in which men are made helpless by being
deprived of the materials for life and work. It fails
to see that what it mistakes for the evils of competi-
tion are really the evils of restricted competition-
are due to a one sided competition to which men
are forced when deprived of land. While its meth-
ods, the organization of men into industrial armies,
the direction and control of all production and ex-
68.
THE CONDITION OF LABOR.
*
change by governmental or semi-governmental bu-
reaus, would, if carried to full expression, mean
Egyptian despotism.
We differ from the socialists in our diagnosis of the
evil and we differ from them as to remedies. We have
no fear of capital, regarding it as the natural hand-
maiden of labor; we look on interest in itself as
natural and just; we would set no limit to accumula-
tion, nor impose on the rich any burden that is not
equally placed on the poor; we see no evil in com-
petition, but deem unrestricted competition to be as
necessary to the health of the industrial and social
organism as the free circulation of the blood is to the
health of the bodily organism-to be the agency where-
by the fullest co-operation is to be secured. We would
simply take for the community what belongs to the
community, the value that attaches to land by the
growth of the community; leave sacredly to the indi-
vidual all that belongs to the individual; and, treat-
ing necessary monopolies as functions of the state,
abolish all restrictions and prohibitions save those
required for public health, safety, morals and con-
venience.
But the fundamental difference-the difference I
ask your Holiness specially to note, is in this: socialism
in all its phases looks on the evils of our civilization as
springing from the inadequacy or inharmony of
natural relations, which must be artificially organized
or improved. In its idea there devolves on the state
the necessity of intelligently organizing the industrial
relations of men; the construction, as it were, of a great
machine whose complicated parts shali properly work
together under the direction of human intelligence.
OPEN LETTER TO POPE LEO XIII.
69
This is the reason why socialism tends towards atheism.
Failing to see the order and symmetry of natural law,
it fails to recognize God.
On the other hand, we who call ourselves single tax
men (a name which expresses merely our practical
propositions) see in the social and industrial relations
of men not a machine which requires construction,
but an organism which needs only to be suffered to
grow. We see in the natural social and industrial
laws such harmony as we see in the adjustments of the
human body, and that as far transcends the power of
man's intelligence to order and direct as it is beyond
man's intelligence to order and direct the vital move-
ments of his frame. We see in these social and indus-
trial laws so close a relation to the moral law as must
spring from the same Authorship, and that proves the
moral law to be the sure guide of man where his intelli-
gence would wander and go astray. Thus, to us, all that
is needed to remedy the evils of our time is to do justice
and give freedom. This is the reason why our beliefs
tend towards, nay are indeed the only beliefs consistent
with a firm and reverent faith in God, and with the
recognition of His law as the supreme law which men
must follow if they would secure prosperity and avoid
destruction. This is the reason why to us political
economy only serves to show the depth of wisdom
in the simple truths which common people heard
gladly from the lips of Him of whom it was said with
wonder, "Is not this the Carpenter of Nazareth?”
And it is because that in what we propose-the
securing to all men of equal natural opportunities for
the exercise of their powers and the removal of all
legal restriction on the legitimate exercise of those
70
THE CONDITION OF LABOR.
powers-we see the conformation of human law to the
moral law, that we hold with confidence not merely
that this is the sufficient remedy for all the evils you
so strikingly portray, but that it is the only possible
remedy.
Nor is there any other.
The organization of man
is such, his relations to the world in which he is placed
are such—that is to say, the immutable laws of God
are such, that it is beyond the power of human in-
genuity to devise any way by which the evils born of
the injustice that robs men of their birthright can be
removed otherwise than by doing justice, by opening
to all the bounty that God has provided for all.
Since man can live only on land and from land,
since land is the reservoir of matter and force from
which man's body itself is taken, and on which he must
draw for all that he can produce, does it not irresistibly
follow that to give the land in ownership to some men
and to deny to others all right to it is to divide man-
kind into the rich and the poor, the privileged and the
helpless? Does it not follow that those who have no
rights to the use of land can live only by selling their
power to labor to those who own the land? Does it
not follow that what the socialists call "the iron law
of wages," what the political economists term "the
tendency of wages to a minimum," must take from the
landless masses-the mere laborers, who of themselves
have no power to use their labor-all the benefits of
any possible advance or improvement that does not
alter this unjust division of land. For having no
power to employ themselves, they must, either as
labor sellers or land renters, compete with one another
for permission to labor. This competition with one
OPEN LETTER TO POPE LEO XIII.
71
another of men shut out from God's inexhaustible store-
house has no limit but starvation, and must ultimately
force wages to their lowest point, the point at which
life can just be maintained and reproduction carried
on.
This is not to say that all wages must fall to this
point, but that the wages of that necessarily largest
stratum of laborers who have only ordinary knowledge,
skill and aptitude must so fall. The wages of
special classes, who are fenced off from the pressure of
competition by peculiar knowledge, skill or other
causes, may remain above that ordinary level. Thus,
where the ability to read and write is rare its posses-
sion enables a man to obtain higher wages than the
ordinary laborer. But as the diffusion of education
makes the ability to read and write general this
advantage is lost. So when a vocation requires special
training or skill, or is made difficult of access by
artificial restrictions, the checking of competition tends
to keep wages in it at a higher level. But as the prog-
ress of invention dispenses with peculiar skill, or
artificial restrictions are broken down, these higher
wages sink to the ordinary level. And so, it is only
so long as they are special that such qualities as indus-
try, prudence and thrift can enable the ordinary laborer
to maintain a condition above that which gives a mere
living. Where they become general, the law of
competition must reduce the earnings or savings of such
qualities to the general level-which, land being
monopolized and labor helpless, can be only that at
which the next lowest point is the cessation of life.
Or, to state the same thing in another way: Land
being necessary to life and labor, its owners will be
72
THE CONDITION OF LABOR.
T
able, in return for permission to use it, to obtain
from mere laborers all that labor can produce, save
enough to enable such of them to maintain life as are
wanted by the land owners and their dependents.
Thus, where private property in land has divided
society into a land owning class and a landless class,
there is no possible invention or improvement,
whether it be industrial, social or moral, which, so
long as it does not affect the ownership of land, can
prevent poverty or relieve the general conditions of
mere laborers. For whether the effect of any inven-
tion or improvement be to increase what labor can
produce or to decrease what is required to support the
laborer, it can, so soon as it becomes general, result
only in increasing the income of the owners of land,
without at all benefiting the mere laborers. In no
event can those possessed of the mere ordinary power
to labor, a power utterly useless without the means
necessary to labor, keep more of their earnings than
enough to enable them to live.
How true this is we may see in the facts of to-day.
In our own time invention and discovery have enor-
mously increased the productive power of labor, and at
the same time greatly reduced the cost of many things
necessary to the support of the laborer. Have these
improvements anywhere raised the earnings of the
mere laborer? Have not their benefits mainly gone
to the owners of land-enormously increased land
values?
I say mainly, for some part of the benefit has gone
to the cost of monstrous standing armies and warlike
preparations; to the payment of interest on great public
debts; and, largely disguised as interest on fictitious
•
OPEN LETTER TO POPE LEO XIII.
73
11
capital, to the owners of monopolies other than that of
land. But improvements that would do away with
these wastes would not benefit labor; they would sim-
ply increase the profits of land owners. Were stand-
ing armies and all their incidents abolished, were all
monopolies other than that of land done away with,
were governments to become models of economy,
were the profits of speculators, of middlemen, of all
sorts of exchangers saved, were every one to become
so strictly honest that no policemen, no courts, no
prisons, no precautions against dishonesty would be
needed-the result would not differ from that which
has followed the increase of productive power.
Nay, would not these very blessings bring starva-
tion to many of those who now manage to live? Is it
not true that if there were proposed to-day, what all
Christian men ought to pray for, the complete dis-
bandment of all the armies of Europe, the greatest
fears would be aroused for the consequences of throw-
ing on the labor market so many unemployed
laborers?
The explanation of this and of similar paradoxes
that in our time perplex on every side may be easily
seen. The effect of all inventions and improvements
1} that increase productive power, that save waste and
economize effort, is to lessen the labor required for a
given result, and thus to save labor, so that we speak
of them as labor saving, inventions or improvements.
Now, in a natural state of society where the rights of
all to the use of the earth are acknowledged, labor
saving improvements might go to the very utmost
that can be imagined without lessening the demand
for men, since in such natural conditions the demand
74
THE CONDITION OF LABOR.
for men lies in their own enjoyment of life and the
strong instincts that the Creator has implanted in
the human breast. But in that unnatural state of
society wher the masses of men are disinherited of
all but the power to labor when opportunity to labor
is given them by others, there' the demand for them
becomes simply the demand for their services by those
who hold this opportunity, and man himself becomes
a commodity. Hence, although the natural effect of
labor saving improvement is to increase wages, yet in
the unnatural condition which private ownership of
the land begets, the effect, even of such moral im-
provements as the disbandment of armies and the sav-
ing of the labor that vice entails, is by lessening the
commercial demand, to lower wages and reduce mere
laborers to starvation or pauperism. If labor saving
inventions and improvements could be carried to the
very abolition of the necessity for labor, what would
be the result? Would it not be that land owners
could then get all the wealth that the land was
capable of producing, and would have no need at all
for laborers, who must then either starve or live as
pensioners on the bounty of the land owners?
1
Thus, so long as private property in land continues
-so long as some men are treated as owners of the
earth and other meu can live on it only by their suffer-
ance-human wisdom can devise no means by which
the evils of our present condition may be avoided.
Nor yet could the wisdom of God.
By the light of that right reason of which St.
Thomas speaks we may see that even He, the Al
mighty, so long as His laws remain what they are,
OPEN LETTER TO POPE LEO XIII.
75
}
could do nothing to prevent poverty and starvation
while property in land continues.
How could He? Should he infuse new vigor into
the sunlight, new virtue into the air, new fertility
into the soil, would not all this new bounty go to the
owners of the land, and work not benefit, but rather
injury, to mere laborers? Should He open the minds
of men to the possibilities of new substances, new ad-
justments, new powers, could this do any more to
relieve poverty than steam, electricity and all the num-
berless discoveries and inventions of our time have
done? Or, if He were to send down from the heavens
above or cause to gush up from the subterranean
depths, food, clothing, all the things that satisfy man's
material desires, to whom under our laws would all
these belong? So far from benefiting man, would not
this increase and extension of His bounty prove but a
curse, enabling the privileged class more riotously
to roll in wealth, and bringing the disinherited class
to more widespread starvation or pauperism?
IV.
Believing that the social question is at bottom a
religious question, we deem it of happy augury to the
world that in your Encyclical the most influential of all
religious teachers has directed attention to the condi-
tion of labor.
But while we appreciate the many wholesome
truths you utter, while we feel, as all must feel, that
you are animated by a desire to help the suffering and
oppressed, and to put an end to any idea that the
Church is divorced from the aspiration for liberty and
1
76
THE CONDITION OF LABOR.
2
progress, yet it is painfully obvious to us that one
fatal assumption hides from you the cause of the evils
you see, and makes it impossible for you to propose
any adequate remedy. This assumption is, that pri-
vate property in land is of the same nature and has
the same sanctions as private property in things pro-
duced by labor. In spite of its undeniable truths and
its benevolent spirit, your Encyclical shows you to be
involved in such difficulties as a physician called to
examine one suffering from disease of the stomach
would meet should he begin with a refusal to consider
the stomach.
Prevented by this assumption from seeing the true
cause, the only causes you find it possible to assign for
the growth of misery and wretchedness are the destruc-
tion of workingmen's guilds in the last century, the
repudiation in public institutions and laws of the
ancient religion, rapacious usury, the custom of work-
ing by contract, and the concentration of trade.
Such diagnosis is manifestly inadequate to account
for evils that are alike felt in Catholic countries, in
Protestant countries, in countries that adhere to the
Greek communion and in countries where no religion
is professed by the state; that are alike felt in old
countries and in new countries; where industry is
simple and where it is most elaborate; and amid all
varieties of industrial customs and relations.
But the real cause will be clear if you will consider
that since labor must find its workshop and reservoir
in land, the labor question is but another name for the
land question, and will re-examine your assumption
that private property in land is necessary and right.
See how fully adequate is the cause I have pointed
OPEN LETTER TO POFE LEG XIII.
77
ont. The most important of all the material relations
of man is his relation to the planet he inhabits, and
hence, the "impious resistance to the benevolent inten-
tions of his Creator," which, as Bishop Nulty says, is
involved in private property in land, must produce
evils wherever it exists. But by virtue of the law,
"unto whom much is given, from him much is required,"
the very progress of civilization makes the evils pro-
duced by private property in land more widespread
and intense.
What is producing throughout the civilized world
that condition of things you rightly describe as intoler-
able is not this and that local error or minor mistake.
It is nothing less than the progress of civilization itself;
nothing less than the intellectual advance and the ma-
terial growth in which our century has been so
pre-eminent, acting in a state of society based on private
property in land; nothing less than the new gifts that
in our time God has been showering on man, but
which are being turned into scourges by man's "im-
pious resistance to the benevolent intention of his
Creator."
The discoveries of science, the gains of invention,
have given to us in this wonderful century more than
has been given to men in any time before; and, in a
degree so rapidly accelerating as to suggest geometrical
progression, are placing in our hands new material
powers. But with the benefit comes the obligation.
In a civilization beginning to pulse with steam and
electricity, where the sun paints pictures and the phono-
graph stores speech, it will not do to be merely as just
as were our fathers. Intellectual advance and material
advance require corresponding moral advance. Knowl-
78
THE CONDITION OF LABOR.
edge and power are neither good nor evil. They are
not ends but means-evolving forces that if not con-
trolled in orderly relations must take disorderly and
destructive forms. The deepening pain, the increasing
perplexity, the growing discontent for which, as you
truly say, some remedy must be found and quickly
found, mean nothing less than that forces of destruction
swifter and more terrible than those that have shattered
every preceding civilization are already menacing ours
that if it does not quickly rise to a higher moral level;
if it does not become in deed as in word a Christian
civilization, on the wall of its splendor must flame the
doom of Babylon: "Thou art weighed in the balance
and found wanting!"
One false assumption prevents you from seeing
the real cause and true significance of the facts
that have prompted your Encyclical. And it fatally
fetters you when you seek a remedy.
You state that you approach the subject with confi-
dence, yet in all that greater part of the Encyclical
(19-67) devoted to the remedy, while there is an
abundance of moral reflections and injunctions,
excellent in themselves but dead and meaningless
as you apply them, the only definite practical
proposals for the improvement of the condition of
labor are:
1. That the State should step in to prevent over-
work, to restrict the employment of women and
children, to secure in workshops conditions not un-
favorable to health and morals, and, at least where
there is danger of insufficient wages provoking strikes.
to regulate wages (39-40).
!
OPEN LETTER TO POPE LEO XIII.
79
f
2. That it should encourage the acquisition of
property (in land) by workingmen (50–51).
3. That workingmen's associations should be
formed (52-67).
These remedies so far as they go are socialistic,
and though the Encyclical is not without recognition
of the individual character of man and of the priority
of the individual and the family to the state, yet the
whole tendency and spirit of its remedial suggestions
lean unmistakably to socialism-extremely moderate
socialism it is true; socialism hampered and emas-
culated by a supreme respect for private possessions;
yet socialism still. But, although you frequently use
the ambiguous term "private property" when the con-
text shows that you have in mind private property in
land, the one thing clear on the surface and becom-
ing clearer still with examination is that you insist
that whatever else may be done, the private owner-
ship of land shall be left untouched.
I have already referred generally to the defects
that attach to all socialistic remedies for the evil con-
dition of labor, but respect for your Holiness dictates
that I should speak specifically, even though briefly,
of the remedies proposed or suggested by you.
Of these, the widest and strongest are that the
state should restrict the hours of labor, the employ-
ment of women and children, the unsanitary condi-
tions of workshops, etc. Yet how little may in this
way be accomplished.
A strong, absolute ruler might hope by such regula-
tions to alleviate the conditions of chattel slaves. But
the tendency of our times is towards democracy, and
80
THE CONDITION OF LABOR.
democratic states are necessarily weaker in paternal-
ism, while in the industrial slavery, growing out of
private ownership of land, that prevails in Christen-
dom to-day, it is not the master who forces the slave
to labor, but the slave who urges the master to let
him labor. Thus the greatest difficulty in enforcing
such regulations comes from those whom they are in-
tended to benefit. It is not, for instance, the masters
who make it difficult to enforce restrictions on child
labor in factories, but the mothers, who, prompted by
poverty, misrepresent the ages of their children even
to the masters, and teach the children to misrepresent.
But while in large factories and mines regulations
as to hours, ages, etc., though subject to evasion and
offering opportunities for extortion and corruption,
may be to some extent enforced, how can they have
any effect in those far wider branches of industry
where the laborer works for himself or for small
employers?
All such remedies are of the nature of the remedy
for overcrowding that is generally prescribed with
them-the restriction under penalty of the number
who may occupy a room and the demolition of unsani-
tary buildings. Since these measures have no ten-
| dency to increase house accommodation or to augment
ability to pay for it, the overcrowding that is forced
back in some places goes on in other places and to a
worse degree. All such remedies begin at the wrong
end. They are like putting on brake. and bit to hold
in quietness horses that are being lashed into frenzy ;
they are like trying to stop a locomotive by holding
its wheels instead of shutting off steam; like attempt-
ing to cure smallpox by driving back its pustules.
OPEN LETTER TO POPE LEO XIII.
81
Men do not overwork themselves because they like
it; it is not in the nature of the mother's heart to
send children to work when they ought to be at play;
it is not of choice that laborers will work in dangerous
and unsanitary conditions. These things, like over-
crowding, come from the sting of poverty. And so
long as the poverty of which they are the ex-
pression is left untouched, restrictions such as you
endorse can have only partial and evanescent results.
The cause remaining, repression in one place can only
bring out its effects in other places, and the task you
assign to the state is as hopeless as to ask it to lower
the level of the ocean by bailing out the sea.
Nor can the state cure poverty by regulating
wages. It is as much beyond the power of the
state to regulate wages as it is to regulate the rates of
interest. Usury laws have been tried again and
again, but the only effect they have ever had has
been to increase what the poorer borrowers must pay,
and for the same reasons that all attempts to lower
by regulation the price of goods have always resulted
merely in increasing them. The general rate of
wages is fixed by the ease or difficulty with which
labor can obtain access to land, ranging from the full
earnings of labor, where land is free, to the least on
which laborers can live and reproduce, where land is
fully monopolized. Thus, where it has been com-
paratively easy for laborers to get land, as in the
United States and in Australasia, wages have been
higher than in Europe and it has been impossible to
get European laborers to work there for wages that
they would gladly accept at home; while as monopoli-
zation goes on under the influence of private property
82
THE CONDITION OF LABOR.
in land, wages tend to fall, and the social conditions of
Europe to appear. Thus, under the partial yet sub-
stantial recognition of common rights to land, of which
I have spoken, the many attempts of the British
parliaments to reduce wages by regulation failed
utterly. And so, when the institution of private
property in land had done its work in England, all
attempts of Parliament to raise wages proved unavail-
ing. In the beginning of this century it was even
attempted to increase the earnings of laborers by
grants in aid of wages. But the only result was to
lower commensurately what wages employers paid.
The state could only maintain wages above the ten-
dency of the market (for as I have shown labor de-
prived of land becomes a commodity), by offering
employment to all who wish it; or by lending its
sanction to strikes and supporting them with its
funds. Thus it is, that the thorough going social-
ists who want the state to take all industry into its
hands are much more logical than those timid social-
ists who propose that the state should regulate private
industry-but only a little.
The same hopelessness attends your suggestion that
working people should be encouraged by the state
in obtaining a share of the land. It is evident that
by this you mean that, as is now being attempted
in Ireland, the state shall buy out large land owners
in favor of small ones, establishing what is known as
peasant proprietors. Supposing that this can be done
even to a considerable extent, what will be ac-
complished save to substitute a larger privileged class
for a smaller privileged class? What will be done for
OPEN LETTER TO POPE LEO XIII.
83
+
the still larger class that must remain, the laborers of
the agricultural districts, the workmen of the towns,
the proletarians of the cities? Is it not true, as Pro-
fessor De Laveleye says, that in such countries as
Belgium, where peasant proprietary exists, the tenants,
for there still exist tenants, are rackrented with a
mercilessness unknown in Ireland? Is it not true
that in such countries as Belgium the condition of the
mere laborer is even worse than it is in Great Britain,
where large ownerships obtain? And if the state
attempts to buy up land for peasant proprietors will
not the effect be, what is seen to-day in Ireland, to in-
crease the market value of land and thus make it more
difficult for those not so favored, and for those who
will come after, to get land? How, moreover, on the
principle which you declare (36), that "to the state
the interests of all are equal, whether high or low,"
will you justify state aid to one man to buy a bit of
land without also insisting on state aid to another
man to buy a donkey, to another to buy a shop, to
another to buy the tools and materials of a trade-
state aid in short to everybody who may be able to
make good use of it or thinks that he could? And
are you not thus landed in communism-not the com-
munism of the early Christians and of the religious
orders, but communism that uses the coercive power
of the state to take rightful property by force from
those who have, to give to those who have not?
For the state has no purse of Fortunatus; the state
cannot repeat the miracle of the loaves and fishes:
all that the state can give, it must get by some form
or other of the taxing power. And whether it gives
or lends money, or gives or lends credit, it cannot give
84
THE CONDITION OF LABOR.
¿
to those who have not, without taking from those whe
have.
But aside from all this, any scheme of dividing up
land while maintaining private property in land is
futile. Small holdings cannot co-exist with the treat-
ment of land as private property where civilization is
materially advancing and wealth augments. We may
see this in the economic tendencies that in ancient
times were the main cause that transformed world-
conquering Italy from a land of small farms to a land
of great estates. We may see it in the fact that while
two centuries ago the majority of English farmers
were owners of the land they tilled, tenancy has been
for a long time the all but universal condition of the
English farmer. And now the mighty forces of steam
and electricity have come to urge concentration. It is
in the United States that we may see on the largest
scale how their power is operating to turn a nation of
land owners into a nation of tenants. The principle is
clear and irresistible. Material progress makes land
more valuable, and when this increasing value is left
to private owners land must pass from the ownership
of the poor into the ownership of the rich, just as dia-
monds so pass when poor men find them. What the
British government is attempting in Ireland is to
build snow houses in the Arabian desert! to plant
bananas in Labrador!
There is one way, and only one way, in which
working people in our civilization may be secured a
share in the land of their country, and that is the way
that we propose-the taking of the profits of land
ownership for the community.
14
OPEN LETTER TO POPE LEO XIII.
85
As to workingmen's associations, what your Holi
ness seems to contemplate is the formation and encour-
agement of societies akin to the Catholic sodalities,
and to the friendly and beneficial societies, like the
Odd Fellows, which have had a large extension in
English speaking countries. Such associations may
promote fraternity, extend social intercourse and pro-.
vide assurance in case of sickness or death, but if they
go no further they are powerless to affect wages even
among their members. As to trades unions proper, it
is hard to define your position, which is, perhaps, best
stated as one of warm approbation provided that they
do not go too far. For while you object to strikes;
while you reprehend societies that "do their best to get
into their hands the whole field of labor and to force
workingmen either to join them or to starve;" while
you discountenance the coercing of employers and
seem to think that arbitration might take the place of
strikes; yet you use expressions and assert principles
that are all that the trade unionist would ask, not
merely to justify the strike and the boycott, but even
the use of violence where only violence would suffice.
For you speak of the insufficient wages of workmen
as due to the greed of rich employers; you assume the
moral right of the workman to obtain employment
from others at wages greater than those others are will-
ing freely to give; and you deny the right of any one to
work for such wages as he pleases, in such a way as
to lead Mr. Stead, in so widely read a journal as the
Review of Reviews, to approvingly declare that you
regard “blacklegging," i. e., the working for less than
union wages, as a crime.
To men conscious of bitter injustice, to men steeped
86
THE CONDITION OF LABOR.
in poverty yet mocked by flaunting wealth, such words
mean more than I can think you realize.
When fire shall be cool and ice be warm, when
armies shall throw away lead and iron, to try con-
clusions by the pelting of rose leaves, such labor
associations as you are thinking of may be possible.
But not till then. For labor associations can do
nothing to raise wages but by force. It may be force
applied passively, or force applied actively, or force
held in reserve, but it must be force. They must
coerce or hold the power to coerce employers; they
must coerce those among their own members dis-
posed to straggle; they must do their best to get into
their hands the whole field of labor they seek to
occupy and to force other workingmen either to join
them or to starve. Those who tell you of trades
unions bent on raising wages by moral suasion alone
are like those who would tell you of tigers that live
on oranges.
The condition of the masses to-day is that of men
pressed together in a hall where ingress is open and
more are constantly coming, but where the doors for
egress are closed. If forbidden to relieve the gen-
eral pressure by throwing open those doors, whose
bars and bolts are private property in land, they can
only mitigate the pressure on themselves by forcing
back others, and the weakest must be driven to the
wall. This is the way of labor unions and trade
guilds. Even those amiable societies that you rec-
ommend would in their efforts to find employment for
their own members necessarily displace others.
For even the philanthropy which, recognizing the
evil of trying to help labor by alms, seeks to help
OPEN LETTER TO POPE LEO XIII.
87
men to help themselves by finding them work,
becomes aggressive in the blind and bitter struggle
that private property in land entails, and in helping
one set of men injures others. Thus, to minimize the
bitter complaints of taking work from others and
lessening the wages of others in providing their own
beneficiaries with work and wages, benevolent so-
cieties are forced to devices akin to the digging of
holes and filling them up again. Our American so-
cieties feel this difficulty, General Booth encounters
it in England, and the Catholic societies which your
Holiness recommends must find it, when they are
formed.
Your Holiness knows of, and I am sure honors,
the princely generosity of Baron Hirsch towards his
suffering co-religionists. But, as I write, the New
York newspapers contain accounts of an immense
meeting held in Cooper Union, in this city, on the
evening of Friday, September 4, in which a number
of Hebrew trades unions protested in the strong-
est manner against the loss of work and reduction of ·
wages that is being effected by Baron Hirsch's
generosity in bringing their own countrymen here
and teaching them to work. The resolution unani-
mously adopted at this great meeting thus concludes:
"We now demand of Baron Hirsch himself that
he release us from his charity' and take back the
millions, which, instead of a blessing, have proved a
curse and a source of misery."
Nor does this show that the members of these
Hebrew labor unions-who are themselves immi-
grants of the same class as those Baron Hirsch is
striving to help, for in the next generation they lose
88
THE CONDITION OF LABOR.
with us their distinctiveness-are a whit less gen-
erous than other men.
Labor associations of the nature of trade guilds or
unions are necessarily selfish; by the law of their being
they must fight for their own hand, regardless of who
is hurt; they ignore and must ignore the teaching of
Christ that we should do to others as we would have
them do to us, which a true political economy shows is
the only way to the full emancipation of the masses.
They must do their best to starve workmen who do
not join them, they must by all means in their power
force back the "blackleg"-as the soldier in battle
must shoot down his mother's son if in the opposing
ranks. And who is the blackleg? A fellow creature
seeking work-a fellow creature in all probability
more pressed and starved than those who so bitterly
denounce him, and often with the hungry pleading
faces of wife and child behind him.
And, in so far as they succeed, what is it that trades
guilds and unions do but to impose more restrictions
on natural rights; to create "trusts" in labor; to add
to privileged classes other somewhat privileged classes;
and to press the weaker closer to the wall?
I speak without prejudice against trades unions,
of which for years I was an active member. And
in pointing out to your Holiness that their principle
is selfish and incapable of large and permanent
benefits, and that their methods violate natural rights
and work hardship and injustice, I am only saying
to you what, both in my books and by word of
mouth, I have said over and over again to them.
Nor is what I say capable of dispute. Intelligent
trades unionists know it, and the less intelligent
OPEN LETTER TO POPE LEO XIII.
89
vaguely feel it. And even those of the classes of
wealth and leisure who, as if to head off the demand
for natural rights, are preaching trades unionism to
working men, must needs admit it.
Your Holiness will remember the great London,
dock strike of two years ago, which, with that of
other influential men, received the moral support of
that Prince of the Church whom we of the English
speech hold higher and dearer than any prelate has
been held by us since the blood of Thomas A'Becket
stained the Canterbury altar.
In a volume called "The Story of the Dockers'
Strike," written by Messrs. H. Lewellyn Smith and
Vaughan Nash, with an introduction by Sydney
Buxton, M. P., which advocates trades unionism as the
solution of the labor question, and of which a large
number were sent to Australia as a sort of official
recognition of the generous aid received from there
by the strikers, I find in the summing up, on pages
164–5, the following:
"If the settlement lasts, work at the docks will be
more regular, better paid, and carried on under better
conditions than ever before. All this will be an
unqualified gain to those who get the benefit from it.
But another result will undoubtedly be to contract the
field of employment and lessen the number of those
for whom work can be found. The lower class casual
will, in the end, find his position more precarious
than ever before, in proportion to the increased regu-
larity of work which the "fitter" of the laborers will
secure. The effect of the organization of dock labor,
as of all classes of labor, will be to squeeze out the
residuum. The loafer, the cadger, the failure in the
industrial race-the members of Class B' of Mr.
Charles Booth's hierarchy of social classes-will be no

<
90
THE CONDITION OF LABOR.
1
gainers by the change, but will rather find another
door closed against them, and this in many cases the
last door to employment.'
""
I am far from wishing that your Holiness should
join in that pharisaical denunciation of trades
unions common among those who, while quick to
point out the injustice of trades unions in denying
to others the equal right to work, are themselves
supporters of that more primary injustice that denies
the equal right to the standing place and natural
material necessary to work. What I wish to point out
is that trades unionism, while it may be a partial
paliative, is not a remedy; that it has not that moral
character which could alone justify one in the position
of your Holiness in urging it as good in itself. Yet,
so long as you insist on private property in land
what better can you do?
V.
1
In the beginning of the Encyclical you declare that
the responsibility of the apostolical office urges your
Holiness to treat the question of the condition of labor
66
expressly and at length in order that there may be no
mistake as to the principles which truth and justice.
dictate for its settlement." But, blinded by one false
assumption, you do not see even fundamentals.
You assume that the labor question is a question
between wage-workers and their employers. But
working for wages is not the primary or exclusive occu-
pation of labor. Primarily men work for themselves
without the intervention of an employer. And the
primary source of wages is in the earnings of labor,
OPEN LETTER TO POPE LEO XIII.
91
the man who works for himself and consumes his
own products receiving his wages in the fruits of his
labor. Are not fishermen, boatmen, cab drivers,
peddlers, working farmers-all, in short, of the many
workers who get their wages directly by the sale of
their services or products without the medium of an
employer, as much laborers as those who work for the
specific wages of an employer? In your consideration
of remedies you do not seem even to have thought of
them. Yet in reality the laborers who work for
themselves are the first to be considered, since what
men will be willing to accept from employers depends
manifestly on what they can get by working for them-
selves.
You assume that all employers are rich men, whò
might raise wages much higher were they not so
grasping. But is it not the fact that the great
majority of employers are in reality as much pressed
by competition as their workmen, many of them
constantly on the verge of failure? Such employers
could not possibly raise the wages they pay, however
they might wish to, unless all others were compelled
to do so.
You assume that there are in the natural order two
classes, the rich and the poor, and that laborers naturally
belong to the poor.
It is true as you say that there are differences in
capacity, in diligence, in health and in strength, that
may produce differences in fortune. These, however,
are not the differences that divide men into rich and
poor. The natural differences in powers and aptitudes
are certainly not greater than are natural differences
in stature. But while it is only by selecting giants
92
THE CONDITION OF LABOR.
}
and dwarfs that we can find men twice as tall as others,
yet in the difference between rich and poor that exists
to-day we find some men richer than other men by the
thousand fold and the million fold.
Nowhere do these differences between wealth and
poverty coincide with differences in individual powers
and aptitudes. The real difference between rich and
poor is the difference between those who hold the toll
gates and those who pay toll; between tribute re-
ceivers and tribute yielders.
In what way does nature justify such a difference?
In the numberless varieties of animated nature we find
some species that are evidently intended to live on
other species. But their relations are always marked
by unmistakable differences in size, shape or organs.
To man has been given dominion over all the other
living things that tenant the earth. But is not this
mastery indicated even in externals, so that no one can
fail on sight to distinguish between a man and one of
the inferior animals. Our American apologists for
slavery used to contend that the black skin and wooly
hair of the negro indicated the intent of nature that
the black should serve the white; but the difference
that you assume to be natural is between men of the
same race. What difference does nature show between
such men as would indicate her intent that one should
live idly yet be rich, and the other should work hard yet
be poor? If I could bring you from the United States
a man who has $200,000,000, and one who is glad
to work for a few dollars a week, and place them
side by side in your ante-chamber, would you be able
to tell which was which, even were you to call in
the most skilled anatomist? Is it not clear that
OPEN LETTER TO POPE, LEO XIII.
93
God in no way countenances or condones the di-
vision of rich and poor that exists to-day, or in
any way permits it, except as having given them free
will he permits men to choose either good or evil, and
to avoid heaven if they prefer hell. For is it not clear
that the division of men into the classes rich and poor
has invariably its origin in force and fraud; invariably
involves violation of the moral law; and is really a
division into those who get the profits of robbery
and those who are robbed; those who hold in exclusive
possession what God made for all, and those who are
deprived of dis bounty? Did not Christ in all His
utterances and parables show that the gross difference
between rich and poor is opposed to God's law?
Would he have condemned the rich so strongly as he
did, if the class distinction between rich and poor
did not involve injustice-was not opposed to God's
intent ?
It seems to us that your Holiness misses its real signi-
ficance in intimating that Christ, in becoming the son of
a carpenter and Himself working as a carpenter, showed
merely that "there is nothing to be ashamed of in
seeking one's bread by labor." To say that is almost
like saying that by not robbing people He showed that
there is nothing to be ashamed of in honesty? If you
will consider how true in any large view is the classifi-
cation of all men into workingmen, beggarmen and
thieves, you will see that it was morally impossible
that Christ during His stay on earth should have been
anything else than a workingman, since He who came
to fulfil the law must by deed as well as word obey
God's law of labor.
See how fully and how beautifully Christ's life
94
THE CONDITION OF LABOR.
on earth illustrated this law. Entering our earthly
life in the weakness of infancy, as it is appointed that
all should enter it, He lovingly took what in the
natural order is lovingly rendered, the sustenance,
secured by labor, that one generation owes to its
immediate successors. Arrived at maturity, He earned
His own subsistence by that common labor in which
the majority of men must and do earn it. Then
passing to a higher-to the very highest-sphere of
labor, He earned His subsistence by the teaching of
moral and spiritual truths, receiving its material
wages in the love offerings of grateful hearers, and
not refusing the costly spikenard with which Mary
anointed His feet. So, when He chose His dis-
ciples, He did not go to land owners or other mo-
nopolists who live on the labor of others, but to
common laboring men. And when He called them to
a higher sphere of labor and sent them out to teach
moral and spiritual truths, He told them to take, with-
out condescension on the one hand or sense of
degradation on the other, the loving return for such
labor, saying to them that the "laborer is worthy of
his hire," thus showing, what we hold, that all labor
does not consist in what is called manual labor, but
that whoever helps to add to the material, intellectual,
moral or spiritual fullness of life is also a laborer.*
•
* Nor should it be forgotten that the investigator, the philoso-
pher, the teacher, the artist, the poet, the priest, though not
engaged in the production of wealth, are not only engaged in the
production of utilities and satisfactions to which the production
of wealth is only a means, but by acquiring and diffusing knowl
edge, stimulating mental powers and elevating the moral sense,
may greatly increase the ability to produce wealth. For man
does not live by bread alone. * * * He who by any exertion of
mind or body adds to the aggregate of enjoyable wealth, increases
the sum of human knowledge, or gives to human life higher eleva-

OPEN LETTER TO POPE LEO XIII.
95
In assuming that laborers, even ordinary manual
laborers, are naturally poor, you ignore the fact that
labor is the producer of wealth, and attribute to
the natural law of the Creator an injustice that
comes from man's impious violation of His benevolent
intention. In the rudest stage of the arts it is possible,
where justice prevails, for all well men to earn a living.
With the labor-saving appliances of our time, it should
be possible for all to earn much more. And so, in
saying that poverty is no disgrace, you convey
an unreasonable implication. For poverty ought to
be a disgrace, since in a condition of social justice, it
would, where unsought from religious motives or un-
imposed by unavoidable misfortune, imply recklessness
or laziness.
The sympathy of your Holiness seems exclusively
directed to the poor, the workers. Ought this to be
so? Are not the rich, the idlers, to be pitied also?
By the word of the Gospel it is the rich rather than
the poor who call for pity, for the presumption is that
they will share the fate of Dives. And to any one
who believes in a future life the condition of him who
wakes to find his cherished millions left behind must
seem pitiful. But even in this life, how really pitiable
are the rich. The evil is not in wealth in itself—in
its command over material things; it is in the possession
tion or greater fullness-he is, in the large meaning of the words,
& "producer," a working man," a laborer," and is honestly
earning honest wages. But he who without doing aught to make
mankind richer, wiser, better, happier, lives on the toil of others—
he, no matter by what name of honor he may be called, or how
lustily the priests of Mammon may swing their censers before-
him, is in the last analysis but a beggarman or a thief.-Protec-
tion or Free Trade, pp. 74-75.
96
THE CONDITION OF LABOR.
of wealth while others are steeped in poverty; in being
raised above touch with the life of humanity, from
its work and its struggles, its hopes and its fears, and
above all, from the love that sweetens life, and the
kindly sympathies and generous acts that strengthen
faith in man and trust in God. Consider how the rich
see the meaner side of human nature; how they are
surrounded by flatterers and sycophants; how they find
ready instruments not only to gratify vicious impulses,
but to prompt and stimulate them; how they must
constantly be on guard lest they be swindled; how
often they must suspect an ulterior motive behind
kindly deed or friendly word; how if they try to be
generous they are beset by shameless beggars and
scheming impostors; how often the family affections
are chilled for them, and their deaths anticipated with
the ill-concealed joy of expectant possession. The
worst evil of poverty is not in the want of material
things, but in the stunting and distortion of the
higher qualities. So, though in another way, the
possession of unearned wealth likewise stunts and
distorts what is noblest in man.
God's commands cannot be evaded with impunity.
If it be God's command that men shall earn their bread
by labor, the idle rich must suffer. And they do. See
the utter vacancy of the lives of those who live for
pleasure; see the loathsome vices bred in a class who
surrounded by poverty are sated with wealth. See
that terrible punishment of ennui, of which the poor
know so little that they cannot understand it; see the
pessimism that grows among the wealthy classes
that shuts out God, that despises men, that deems
{
5
OPEN LETTER TO POPE LEO XIII.
97
existence in itself an evil, and fearing death yet
longs for annihilation.
When Christ told the rich young man who sought
Him to sell all he had and to give it to the poor, He
was not thinking of the poor, but of the young man.
And I doubt not that among the rich, and especially
among the self-made rich, there are many who at
times at least feel keenly the folly of their riches and
fear for the dangers and temptations to which these
expose their children. But the strength of long habit,
the promptings of pride, the excitement of making
and holding what has become for them the counters
in a game of cards, the family expectations that have
assumed the character of rights, and the real difficulty
they find in making any good use of their wealth,
bind them to their burden, like a weary donkey to his
pack, till they stumble on the precipice that bounds
this life.
Men who are sure of getting food when they shall
need it eat only what appetite dictates. But with the
sparse tribes who exist on the verge of the habitable
globe life is either a famine or a feast. Enduring
hunger for days, the fear of it prompts them to gorge
like anacondas when successful in their quest of game.
And so, what gives wealth its curse is what drives men
to seek it, what makes it so envied and admired-the
fear of want. As the unduly rich are the corollary of
the unduly poor, so is the soul-destroying quality of
riches but the reflex of the want that embrutes and
degrades. The real evil lies in the injustice from
which unnatural possession and unnatural deprivation
both spring.
But this injustice can hardly be charged on individ-
98
THE CONDITION OF LABOR.
F
uals or classes. The existence of private property in
land is a great social wrong from which society at large
suffers, and of which the very rich and the very poor
are alike victims, though at the opposite extremes.
Seeing this, it seems to us like a violation of Christian
charity to speak of the rich as though they individually
were responsible for the sufferings of the poor. Yet,
while you do this, you insist that the cause of
monstrous wealth and degrading poverty shall not be
touched. Here is a man with a disfiguring and
dangerous excrescence. One physician would kindly,
gently, but firmly remove it. Another insists that it
shall not be removed, but at the same time holds up
the poor victim to hatred and ridicule. Which is
right?
In seeking to restore all men to their equal and
natural rights we do not seek the benefit of any class,
but of all. For we both know by faith and see by fact,
that injustice can profit no one and that justice must
benefit all.
Nor do we seek any "futile and ridiculous equality.”
We recognize, with you, that there must always be
differences and inequalities. In so far as these are
in conformity with the moral law, in so far as they
do not violate the command, "Thou shalt not steal,"
we are content. We do not seek to better God's work;
we seek only to do His will. The equality we would
bring about is not the equality of fortune, but the
equality of natural opportunity; the equality that
reason and religion alike proclaim-the equality in
usufruct of all His children to the bounty of Our
Father who art in Heaven.
And in taking for the uses of society what we
OPEN LETTER TO POPE LEO XIII.
99
clearly see is the great fund intended for society in
the divine order, we would not levy the slightest tax
on the possessors of wealth, no matter how rich they
might be. Not only do we deem such taxes a violation
of the right of property, but we see that by virtue of
beautiful adaptations in the economic laws of the
Creator, it is impossible for any one honestly to ac-
quire wealth, without at the same time adding to the
wealth of the world.
To persist in a wrong, to refuse to undo it, is always
to become involved in other wrongs. Those who
defend private property in land, and thereby deny
the first and most important of all human rights,
the equal right to the material substratum of life,
are compelled to one of two courses. Either they
must, as do those whose gospel is "Devil take the
hindermost," deny the equal right to life, and by
some theory like that to which the English
clergyman Malthus has given his name, assert that
nature (they do not venture to say God) brings into
the world more men than there is provision for; or,
they must, as do the socialists, assert as rights what in
themselves are wrongs.
Your Holiness in the Encyclical gives an example oi'
this. Denying the equality of right to the material
basis of life, and yet conscious that there is a
right to live, you assert the right of laborers to em-
ployment and their right to receive from their
employers a certain indefinite wage. No such rights
exist. No one has a right to demand employment of
another, or to demand higher wages than the other is
willing to give, or in any way to put pressure on
100
THE CONDITION OF LABOR.
another to make him raise such wages against his will.
There can be no better moral justification for such
demands on employers by workingmen than there
would be for employers demanding that workingmen
hall be compelled to work for them when they do
ot want to and to accept wages lower than they are
willing to take. Any seeming justification springs
from a prior wrong, the denial to workingmen of
their natural rights, and can in the last analysis only
rest on that supreme dictate of self-preservation that
under extraordinary circumstances makes pardonable
what in itself is theft, or sacrilege or even murder.
A fugitive slave with the bloodhounds of his pur-
suers baying at his heels would in true Christian
morals be held blameless if he seized the first horse
he came across, even though to take it he had to
knock down the rider. But this is not to justify
horse-stealing as an ordinary means of traveling.
When his disciples were hungry Christ permitted
them to pluck corn on the Sabbath day. But He
never denied the sanctity of the Sabbath by asserting
that it was under ordinary circumstances a proper time
to gather corn.
He justified David, who when pressed by hunger
committed what ordinarily would be sacrilege, by
taking from the temple the loaves of proposition.
But in this He was far from saying that the robbing
of temples was a proper way of getting a living.
In the Encyclical however you commend the appli-
cation to the ordinary relations of life, under normal
conditions, of principles that in ethics are only to
be tolerated under extraordinary conditions. You
are driven to this assertion of false rights by your
OPEN LETTER TO POPE LEO XIII.
101
-
denial of true rights. The natural right which each
man has is not that of demanding employment or
wages from another man; but that of employing
himself—that of applying by his own labor to the
inexhaustible storehouse which the Creator has in the
land provided for all men. Were that storehouse open,
as by the single tax we would open it, the natural de-
mand for labor would keep pace with the supply, the
man who sold labor and the man who bought it
would become free exchangers for mutual advantage,
and all cause for dispute between workman and em-
ployer would be gone. For then, all being free to em-
ploy themselves, the mere opportunity to labor would
cease to seem a boon; and since no one would work for
another for less, all things considered, than he could
earn by working for himself, wages would necessarily
rise to their full value, and the relations of workman
and employer be regulated by mutual interest and
convenience.
This is the only way in which they can be satisfac-
torily regulated.
Your Holiness seems to assume that there is some
just rate of wages that employers ought to be willing
to pay and that laborers should be content to receive,
and to imagine that if this were secured there would
be an end of strife. This rate you evidently think of
as that which will give workingmen a frugal living,
and perhaps enable them by hard work and strict
economy to lay by a little something.
But how can a just rate of wages be fixed without
the "higgling of the market" any more than the just
price of corn or pigs or ships or paintings can be so
fixed? And would not arbitrary regulation in the
102
THE CONDITION OF LABOR.
one case as in the other check that interplay that most
effectively promotes the economical adjustment of
productive forces? Why should buyers of labor, any
more than buyers of commodities, be called on to pay
higher prices than in a free market they are com-
pelled to pay? Why should the sellers of labor be
content with anything less than in a free market they
can obtain ? Why should workingmen be content
with frugal fare when the world is so rich? Why
should they be satisfied with a life time of toil and
stinting, when the world is so beautiful? Why should
not they also desire to gratify the higher instincts, the
finer tastes? Why should they be forever content to
travel in the steerage when others find the cabin
more enjoyable?
Nor will they. The ferment of our time does not
arise merely from the fact that workingmen find it
harder to live on the same scale of comfort. It is also
and perhaps still more largely due to the increase
of their desires with an improved scale of comfort.
This increase of desire must continue. For working-
men are men. And man is the unsatisfied animal.
He is not an ox, of whom it may be said, so much
grass, so much grain, so much water, and a little salt,
and he will be content. On the contrary, the more
he gets the more he craves. When he has enough
food then he wants better food. When he gets a
shelter then he wants a more commodious and tasty
one. When his animal needs are satisfied then men-
tal and spiritual desires arise.
This restless discontent is of the nature of man-of
that nobler nature that raises him above the animals by
so immeasurable a gulf, and shows him to be indeed
OPEN LETTER TO POPE LEO XIII.
103
5
created in the likeness of God. It is not to be quar-
relled with, for it is the motor of all progress. It is
this that has raised St. Peter's dome and on dull, dead
canvass made the angelic face of the Madonna to
glow; it is this that has weighed suns and analyzed
stars, and opened page after page of the wonderful
works of creative intelligence; it is this that has
narrowed the Atlantic to an ocean ferry and trained
the lightning to carry our messages to the remotest
lands; it is this that is opening to us possibilities
beside which all that our modern civilization has as
yet accomplished seem small. Nor can it be repressed
save by degrading and imbruting men; by reducing
Europe to Asia.
Hence, short of what wages may be earned when
all restrictions on labor are removed and access to
natural opportunities on equal terms secured to all, it
is impossible to fix any rate of wages that will be
deemed just, or any rate of wages that can prevent
workingmen striving to get more. So far from it
making workingmen more contented to improve their
condition a little, it is certain to make them more dis-
contented.
Nor are you asking justice when you ask employers
to pay their workingmen more than they are compelled
to pay more than they could get others to do the
work for. You are asking charity. For the surplus
that the rich employer thus gives is not in reality
wages, it is essentially alms.
In speaking of the practical measures for the im-
provement of the condition of labor which your Holi-
ness suggests, I have not mentioned what you place
104
THE CONDITION OF LABOR.
much stress upon—charity.
But there is nothing
practical in such recommendations as a cure for
poverty, nor will any one so consider them.
If it
were possible for the giving of alms to abolish poverty
there would be no poverty in Christendom.
Charity is indeed a noble and beautiful virtue,
grateful to man and approved by God. But charity
must be built on justice. It cannot supersede justice.
And
What is wrong with the condition of labor through
the Christian world is that labor is robbed.
while you justify the continuance of that robbery it is
idle to urge charity. To do so-to commend charity
as a substitute for justice, is indeed something akin in
essence to those heresies, condemned by your prede-
cessors, that taught that the Gospel had superseded
the law, and that the love of God exempted men from
moral obligations.
All that charity can do where injustice exists is here
and there to somewhat mollify the effects of injustice.
It cannot cure them. Nor is even what little it can
do to mollify the effects of injustice without evil.
For what may be called the superimposed, and in this
sense, secondary virtues, work evil where the funda-
mental or primary virtues are absent. Thus sobriety
is a virtue and diligence is a virtue. But a sober aud
diligent thief is all the more dangerous. Thus
patience is a virtue. But patience under wrong is the
condoning of wrong. Thus it is a virtue to seek
knowledge and to endeavor to cultivate the mental
powers. But the wicked man becomes more cap-
able of evil by reason of his intelligence. Devils we
always think of as intelligent.
And thus that pseudo charity that discards and
OPEN LETTER TO POPE LEO NI.
105
:
}
denies justice works evil. On the one side, it demor
alizes its récipients. outraging that human dignity
which as you say " God himself treats with reverence,"
and turning into beggars and paupers men who to be-
come self supporting, self respecting citizens only need
the restitution of what God has given them. On
the other side, it acts as an anodyne to the consciences
of those who are living on the robbery of their fellows,
and fosters that moral delusion and spiritual pride
that Christ doubtless had in mind when he said it was
easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle
than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of Heaven.
For it leads men steeped in injustice, and using their
money and their influence to bolster up injustice, to
think that in giving alms they are doing something
more than their duty towards man and deserve to be
very well thought of by God, and in a vague way to
attribute to their own goodness what really belongs to
God's goodness. For consider: Who is the All-pro-
vider? Who is it that as you say,
66 owes to man a
storehouse that shall never fail," and which "he finds
only in the inexhaustible fertility of the earth." Is it
not God? And when, therefore, men, deprived of
the bounty of their God, are made dependent on the
bounty of their fellow creatures, are not these crea-
tures, as it were, put in the place of God, to take
credit to themselves for paying obligations that you
yourself say God owes?
But worse perhaps than all else is the way in which
this substituting of vague injunctions to charity for the
clear-cut demands of justice opens an easy means for
the professed teachers of the Christian religion of all
branches and communions to placate Mammon while
106
THE CONDITION OF LABOR.
persuading themselves that they are serving God.
Had the English clergy not subordinated the teaching
of justice to the teaching of charity-to no further
in illustrating a principle of which the whole history
of Christendom from Constantine's time to our own is
witness-the Tudor tyranny would never have arisen,
and the separation of the Church been averted; had the
clergy of France never substituted charity for justice,
the monstrous iniquities of the ancient regime would
never have brought the horrors of the Great Revolu-
tion; and in my own country had those who should
have preached justice not satisfied themselves with
preaching kindness, chattel slavery could never have
demanded the holocaust of our civil war.
No, your Holiness; as faith without works is dead,
as men cannot give to God His due while denying to
their fellows the rights He gave them, so charity
unsupported by justice can do nothing to solve the
problem of the existing condition of labor. Though
the rich were to "bestow all their goods to feed the
poor and give their bodies to be burned," poverty
would continue while property in land continues.
Take the case of the rich man to-day who is hon-
estly desirous of devoting his wealth to the improve-
ment of the condition of labor. What can he do?
Bestow his wealth on those who need it? He may
help some who deserve it, but will not improve gene-
ral conditions. And against the good he may do will
be the danger of doing harm.
Build churches? Under the shadow of churches
poverty festers and the vice that is born of it breeds.
Build schools and colleges? Save as it may lead
men to see the iniquity of private property in land,
OPEN LETTER TO POPE LEO XIII.
$107
increased education can effect nothing for mere la
borers, for as education is diffused the wages of edu-
cation sink.
Establish hospitals? Why, already it seems to la-
borers that there are too many seeking work, and to
save and prolong life is to add to the pressure.
+
Build model tenements? Unless he cheapens house
accommodations he but drives further the class he
would benefit, and as he cheapens house accommoda-
tion he brings more to seek employment and cheapens
wages.
Institute laboratories, scientific schools, workshops
for physical experiments? He but stimulates inven-
tion and discovery, the very forces that, acting on a
society based on private property in land, are crush-
ing labor as between the upper and the nether mill
stone.
Promote emigration from places where wages are
low to places where they are somewhat higher? If
he does, even those whom he at first helps to emi-
grate will soon turn on him to demand that such emi-
gration shall be stopped as reducing their wages.
Give away what land he may have, or refuse to
take rent for it, or let it at lower rents than the mar-
ket price? He will simply make new land owners or
partial land owners; he may make some individuals
the richer, but he will do nothing to improve the
general condition of labor.
Or, bethinking himself of those public spirited citi-
zens of classic times who spent great sums in improv-
ing their native cities, shall he try to beautify the
city of his birth or adoption? Let him widen and
straighten narrow and crooked streets, let him build
108
THE CONDITION OF LABOR.
parks and erect fountains, let him open tramways and
bring in railroads, or in any way make beautiful and
attractive his chosen city, and what will be the result?
Must it not be that those who appropriate God's
bounty will take his also? Will it not be that the
value of land will go up, and that the net result of
his benefactions will be an increase of rents and a
bounty to land owners? Why, even the mere an-
nouncement that he is going to do such things will
start speculation and send up the value of land by
leaps and bounds.
What, then, can the rich man do to improve the
condition of labor?
He can do nothing at all except to use his strength
for the abolition of the great primary wrong that, robs
men of their birthright. The justice of God laughs
at the attempts of men to substitute anything else
for it.
If when in speaking of the practical measures your
Holiness proposes, I did not note the moral injunc-
tions that the Encyclical contains, it is not because we
do not think morality practical. On the contrary it
seems to us that in the teachings of morality is to be
found the highest practicality, and that the question,
What is wise? may always safely be subordinated to
the question, What is right? But your Holiness in
the Encyclical expressly deprives the moral truths you
state of all real bearing on the condition of labor,
just as the American people, by their legalization of
chattel slavery, used to deprive of all practical mean-
ing the declaration they deem their fundamental
charter, and were accustomed to read solemnly on
OPEN LETTER TO POPE LEO XIII.
*109
1
12
every national anniversary. That declaration asserts
that "We hold these truths to be self evident that
all men are created equal and are endowed by their
Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among
these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
But what did this truth mean on the lips of men who
asserted that one man was the rightful property of
another man who had bought him; who asserted that the
slave was robbing the master in running away, and
that the man or the woman who helped the fugitive
to escape, or even gave him a cup of cold water in
Christ's name, was an accessory to theft, on whose
head the penalties of the state should be visited?
Consider the moral teachings of the Encyclical:
You tell us that God owes to man an inexhaustible
storehouse which he finds only in the land. Yet you
support a system that denies to the great majority
of men all right of recourse to this storehouse.
You tell us that the necessity of labor is a conse-
quence of original sin. Yet you support a system
that exempts a privileged class from the necessity for
labor and enables them to shift their share and much
more than their share of labor on others.
You tell us that God has not created us for the
perishable and transitory things of earth, but has
given us this world as a place of exile and not as our
true country. Yet you tell us that some of the exiles
have the exclusive right of ownership in this place of
common exile, so that they may compel their fellow
exiles to pay them for sojourning here, and that this
exclusive ownership they may transfer to other
exiles yet to come, with the same right of excluding
their fellows.
110-
THE CONDITION OF LABOR.
You tell us that virtue is the common inheritance
of all; that all men are children of God the common
Father; that all have the same last end; that all are
redeemed by Jesus Christ; that the blessings of
nature and the gifts of grace belong in common to
all, and that to all except the unworthy is promised
the inheritance of the Kingdom of Heaven! Yet in
all this and through all this you insist as a moral duty
on the maintenance of a system that makes the reser-
voir of all God's material bounties and blessings to
man the exclusive property of a few of their num-
ber-you give us equal rights in heaven, but deny us
equal rights on earth!
It was said of a famous decision of the Supreme
Court of the United States made just before the civil
war, in a fugitive slave case, that "it gave the law to
the North and the nigger to the South." It is thus
that your Encyclical gives the gospel to laborers and
the earth to the landlords. Is it really to be won-
dered at that there are those who sneeringly say "The
priests are ready enough to give the poor an equal
share in all that is out of sight, but they take precious
good care that the rich shall keep a tight grip on all
that is within sight."
Herein is the reason why the working masses all
over the world are turning away from organized re-
ligion.
And why should they not? What is the office of
religion if not to point out the principles that ought
to govern the conduct of men towards each other; to
furnish a clear, decisive rule of right which shall
guide men in all the relations of life-in the work-
OPEN LETTER TO POPE LEO XIII.
111
shop, in the mart, in the forum and in the senate, as
well as in the church; to supply, as it were, a com-
pass by which amid the blasts of passion, the aberra-
tions of greed and the delusions of a short-sighted
expediency men may safely steer? What is the use
of a religion that stands palsied and paltering in the
face of the most momentous problems? What is
the use of a religion that whatever it may promise for
the next world can do nothing to prevent injustice in
this? Early Christianity was not such a religion,
else it would never have encountered the Roman
persecutions; else it would never have swept the
Roman world. The sceptical masters of Rome, tol-
erant of all gods, careless of what they deemed vulgar
superstitions, were keenly sensitive to a doctrine
based on equal rights; they feared instinctively a re-
ligion that inspired slave and proletarian with a new
hope; that took for its central figure a crucified car-
penter; that taught the equal fatherhood of God and
the equal brotherhood of men; that looked for the
speedy reign of justice, and that prayed, “ Thy King-
dom come on Earth!"
To-day, the same perceptions, the same aspirations,
exist among the masses.. Man is, as he has been
called, a religious animal, and can never quite rid
himself of the feeling that there is some moral gov-,
ernment of the world, some eternal distinction be-
tween wrong and right; can never quite abandon the
yearning for a reign of righteousness. And to-day,
men who, as they think, have cast off all belief in re-
ligion, will tell you, even though they know not what
it is, that with regard to the condition of labor some-
112
THE CONDITION OF LABOR.
thing is wrong! If theology be, as St. Thomas of
Aquin held it, the sum and focus of the sciences, is it
not the business of religion to say clearly and fear-
lessly what that wrong is? It was by a deep impulse
that of old when threatened and perplexed by gen-
eral disaster men came to the oracles to ask, In what
have we offended the gods? To-day, menaced by
growing evils that threaten the very existence of soci-
ety, men, conscious that something is wrong, are put-
ting the same question to the ministers of religion.
What is the answer they get? Alas, with few ex-
ceptions, it is as vague, as inadequate, as the answers
that used to come from heathen oracles.
Is it any wonder that the masses of men are losing
faith?
Let me again state the case that your Encyclical
presents:
What is that condition of labor which as you truly
say is "the question of the hour," and "fills every
mind with painful apprehension ?" Reduced to its
lowest expression it is the poverty of men willing to
work. And what is the lowest expression of this
phrase? It is that they lack bread-for in that one
word we most concisely and strongly express all the
manifold material satisfactions needed by humanity,
the absence of which constitutes poverty.
Now what is the prayer of Christendom-the uni-
versal prayer; the prayer that goes up daily and
hourly wherever the name of Christ is honored; that
ascends from your Holiness at the high altar of St.
Peter's, and that is repeated by the youngest child
OPEN LETTER TO POPE LEO XIII.
113
that the poorest Christian mother has taught to lisp a
request to her. Father in Heaven? It is, "Give us
this day our daily bread!"
Yet where this prayer goes up, daily and hourly, men
lack bread. Is it not the business of religion to say
why? If it cannot do so, shall not scoffers mock its
ministers as Elias mocked the prophets of Baal, say-
ing, "Cry with a louder voice, for he is a god; and per-
haps he is talking, or is in an inn, or on a journey or
perhaps he is asleep, and must be awaked!"
answer can those ministers give? Either there is no
God, or He is asleep, or else He does give men their
daily bread, and it is in some way intercepted.
What
Here is the answer, the only true answer: If men
lack bread it is not that God has not done His part
in providing it. If men willing to labor are cursed
with poverty, it is not that the storehouse that God
owes men has failed; that the daily supply He has
promised for the daily wants of His children is not
here in abundance. It is, that impiously violating
the benevolent intentions of their Creator, men have
made land private property, and thus given into the
exclusive ownership of the few the provision that a
bountiful Father has made for all.
Any other answer than that, no matter how it may
be shrouded in the mere forms of religion, is practi-
cally an atheistical answer.
+
I have written this letter not alone for your Holi-
ness, but for all whom I may hope it to reach. But
în sending it to you personally, and in advance of
publication, I trust that it may be by you person-
2
114
THE CONDITION OF LABOR.
ally read and weighed. In setting forth the grounds
of our belief and in pointing out considerations which
it seems to us you have unfortunately overlooked, I
have written frankly, as was my duty on a matter of
such momentous importance, and as I am sure you
would have me write. But I trust I have done so
without offence. For your office I have profound
respect, for yourself personally the highest esteem.
And while the views I have opposed seem to us
erroneous and dangerous, we do not wish to be un-
derstood as in the slighest degree questioning either
your sincerity or intelligence in adopting them. For
they are views all but universally held by the pro-
fessed religious teachers of Christendom, in all com-
munions and creeds, and that have received the
sanction of those looked to as the wise and learned.
Under the conditions that have surrounded you, and
under the pressure of so many high duties and
responsibilities, culminating in those of your present
exalted position, it is not to be expected that you
should have hitherto thought to question them. But
I trust that the considerations herein set forth may
induce you to do so, and even if the burdens and
cares that beset you shall now make impossible the
careful consideration that should precede expression
by one in your responsible position I trust that what
I have written may not be without use to others.
And, as I have said, we are deeply grateful for
your Encyclical. It is much that by so conspicuously
calling attention to the condition of labor, you have
recalled the fact forgotten by so many that the social
evils and problems of our time directly and pressingly
OPEN LETTER TO POPE LEO XIII.
115
concern the Church. It is much that you should thus
have placed the stamp of your disapproval on that,
impious doctrine which directly and by implication
has been so long and so widely preached in the name
of Christianity, that the sufferings of the poor are
due to mysterious decrees of Providence which men
may lament but cannot alter. Your Encyclical will
be seen by those who carefully analyze it to be
directed not against socialism, which in moderate form
you favor, but against what we in the United States
call the single tax. Yet we have no solicitude for
the-truth save that it shall be brought into discussion,
and we recognize in your Holiness' Encyclical a most.
efficient means of promoting discussion, and of pro-
moting discussion along the lines that we deem of
the greatest importance-the lines of morality and re-
ligion. In this you deserve the gratitude of all who
would follow truth, for it is of the nature of truth
always to prevail over error where discussion goes on.
And the truth for which we stand has now made
such progress in the minds of men that it must be
heard; that it can never be stifled; that it must go on
conquering and to conquer. Far off Australia leads
the van, and has already taken the first steps towards
the single tax. In Great Britain, in the United States,
and in Canada, the question is on the verge of prac-
tical politics and soon will be the burning issue of
the time. Continental Europe cannot long linger be-
hind. Faster than ever the world is moving.
Forty years ago slavery seemed stronger in the
United States than ever before, and the market price
of slaves-both working slaves and breeding slaves—
116
THE CONDITION OF LABOR.
was higher than it had ever been before, for the title of
the owner seemed growing more secure. In the
shadow of the Hall where the equal rights of man
had been solemnly proclaimed, the manacled fugitive
was dragged back to bondage, and on what to
American tradition was our Marathon of freedom,
the slave master boasted that he would yet call the
roll of his chattels.
Yet forty years ago, though the party that was to
place Abraham Lincoln in the Presidential chair had
not been formed, and nearly a decade was yet to pass
ere the signal gun was to ring out, slavery, as we may
now see, was doomed.
To-day a wider, deeper, more beneficent revolution
is brooding, not over one country, but over the world.
God's truth impels it, and forces mightier than He
has ever before given to man urge it on.
It is no
more in the power of vested wrongs to stay it than-it
is in man's power to stay the sun. The stars in their
courses fight against Sisera, and in the ferment of to-
day, to him who hath ears to hear, the doom of
industrial slavery is sealed.
Where shall the dignitaries of the Church be in
the struggle that is coming, nay that is already here?
On the side of justice and liberty, or on the side of
wrong and slavery? with the delivered when the tim-
brels shall sound again, or with the chariots and the
horsemen that again shall be engulfed in the sea?
As to the masses, there is little fear where they will
be. Already, among those who hold it with religious
fervor, the single tax counts great numbers of Cath-
olics, many priests, secular and regular, and at least
OPEN LETTER TO POPE LEO XIII.
117
some bishops, while there is no communion or denomi-
nation of the many into which English speaking
Christians are divided where its advocates are not to
be found.
Last Sunday evening in the New York church that
of all churches in the world is most richly endowed, I
saw the cross carried through its aisles by a hundred
choristers, and heard a priest of that English branch
of the Church that three hundred years since was sep-
arated from your obedience, declare to a great congre-
gation that the labor question was at bottom a relig
ious question; that it could only be settled on the
basis of moral right; that the first and clearest of
rights is the equal right to the use of the physical
basis of all life; and that no human titles could
set aside God's gift of the land to all men.
And as the Cross moved by, and the choristers sang,
Raise ye the Christian's war-cry—
The Cross of Christ the Lord !”
men to whom it was a new thing bowed their heads,
and in hearts long steeled against the Church, as the
willing handmaid of oppression, rose the "God wills
it!" of the grandest and mightiest of crusades.
Servant of the Servants of God! I call you by the
strongest and sweetest of your titles. In your hands
more than in those of any living man lies the power
to say the word and make the sign that shall end
an unnatural divorce, and marry again to religion all
that is pure and high in social aspiration
Wishing for your Holiness the chiefest of all bless-
ings, that you may know the truth and be freed by
118
THE CONDITION OF LABOR.
the truth; wishing for you the days and the strength
that may enable you by the great service you may
render to humanity to make your pontificate through
all coming time most glorious; and with the profound
respect due to your personal character and to your ex-
alted office, I am,
Yours sincerely,
HENRY GEORGE.
NEW YORK, September 11, 1891.
?
1
i
FROM
NATURAL TAXATION.
Copyright, 1895, by Thomas G. Shearman.
Entered at Stationers' Hall, London.
Copyright, 1898, by Thonias G. Shearman.
}
THE NATURAL Tax.
§ 1. Automatic taxation. Having seen that every
form of indirect taxation is unjust to the poor, and that
every form of so-called direct taxation thus far examined
is unjust to the honest, we cannot be surprised at the
unanimity with which it has hitherto been declared that
there is no scientific or natural method of taxation.
Nevertheless, if we can find in actual operation, in every
civilized country, a species of taxation which automati-
cally collects from every citizen an amount almost exactly
proportioned to the fair and full market value of the bene-
fits which he derives from the government under which he
lives and the society which surrounds him, may we not
safely infer that this is natural taxation? And is not such
taxation capable of being reduced to a science?
Such an automatic, irresistible, and universal system does
exist. All over the world men pay to a superior author
ity a tribute, proportioned with wonderful exactness to
these social advantages. Each man is compelled to do
this, by the fact that other men surround him, eager to
pay tribute in his place if he will not. The just amount
of this tribute is determined by the competition of all his
neighbors; who calculate to a dollar just how much the
privilege is worth to them, and who will gladly take his
place and pay in his stead. Every man must, therefore,
116
NATURAL TAXATION.
pay as much as some other man will give for his place; and
no man can be made to pay any more.
§ 2. Ground rent. This tribute is sometimes paid to
the state, when it is called a tax; but it is far more often
paid to private individuals, when it is called ground rent.
Where there is no government there is no ground rent.
As government grows more complex and does more for
society, ground rents increase. Any advantage possessed
by one piece of land over another will, it is true, give rise
to rent; but that rent cannot be collected without the
aid of government; and no advantage in fertility is ever
equal in value to the advantage of society and govern-
ment. An acre of sand on the coast of New Jersey, at
Atlantic City, Cape May, or Long Branch, is worth more
rent than a million acres of fertile land five hundred miles
distant from all human society. The sixteenth of an acre
of bare rock in New York City is worth more than a
thousand acres of the best farming land in Manitoba.
Ground rent, therefore, is the tribute which natural laws
levy upon every occupant of land, as the market price of
all the social as well as natural advantages appertaining to
that land, including, necessarily, his just share of the cost
of government.'
1 The definition of rent here given is not inconsistent with the principles
of Ricardo; although it is not expressed in his words. As Senior and other
friends of Ricardo have remarked, he never took pains to express himself
accurately; and he constantly assumed that his readers would remember
every limitation which he had once laid down and would comprehend all
that was implied in his mind. His definition of the law of Rent is a remark-
able illustration of his peculiar methods.
No man could have been more fully aware than was Ricardo, of the enor
mous amount of rent which was collected in his own time from land which
had no fertility and no productive power. Most of his life was spent upon
just such land in London; and for the use of such land he paid and re-
ceived great rents. Yet his famous definition assumes that rent is never paid
for anything except "the use of the original and indestructible powers of
THE NATURAL TAX.
117
1
$
83. The justice of ground rent. Now observe how
perfectly this natural tribute meets all the requirements
of abstract justice, with which our professor-friends have
so long wrestled in vain. Here is the exact quid pro
quo. No sane man, in any ordinary society, pays too
much rent. For he pays no more than some other man
is willing to pay for the same privileges. He therefore
pays no more than the market value of the advantage
which he gains over other men by occupying that precise
position on the earth. He gains a certain profit out of
that position, which he could not gain elsewhere. That
the soil." And his exposition of the operation of this law is confined so
strictly to the growth of " corn" (that is, wheat) that some of his disciples
and many of his critics seriously assume that Ricardo did not suspect the
existence of any law of rent, which was not governed entirely by the growth
of "corn."
But Ricardo's methods, in this and in other instances, recall the style of
the Ten Commandments. Taken literally, those commandments are as de-
fective a code of morals as can be found in almost any ethical system. They
do not in terms forbid the most brutal violence or recklessness, if death
does not result, nor any form of fraud or swindling not amounting to literal
theft. They do not forbid any form of outrage upon unmarried women.
They do not forbid lying, except in judicial proceedings. They have not
a word about malice, envy, hatred, bribery, betrayal of trust, or even treason.
And yet both the Hebrew nation and the Christian church have always seen
these prohibitions implied in the curt words which denounce merely a few
of the worst and most striking forms of crime.
So it is with Ricardo. He took the most striking and easily understood
illustration of a principle, as his method of stating the principle itself. His
writings always bear the marks of a genius, which was driven by its own in-
ternal energy to find relief in utterance, but which cared very little whether
its utterances were understood or not. In this particular instance, he sug-
gested a principle by a single illustration of the most familiar character.
But the principle is not limited by the illustration. Any advantage which
one piece of land has over another, for the use of man, was included, in Ri-
cardo's mind, among the "original and indestructible powers of the soil."
And foremost among these advantages stands that of affording standing
ground, in the midst of a highly civilized society, under the protection of a
highly organized and faithful government,
118
NATURAL TAXATION.
fact is conclusive proof that this profit is not the fruit of
his labor, but comes out of some superior fertility in the
soil, some superior opportunity for selling the fruits of
his labor, some superior protection from government in
the enjoyment of those fruits, or some other advantage
of mere position. Thus he receives full value, in exchange
for his payment. He receives it; not merely society in
general. He receives the whole of it: he is not compelled
to divide a dollar's worth of this benefit with his neigh-
bors. But, on the other hand, he pays the full value of
what he thus receives; and he owes nothing more to any-
body. The transaction is closed, upon fair and equal
terms.
Here, then, is a tax, just, equal, full, fair, paid for full
value received, returning full value for the payment, meet-
ing all the requirements of that ideal tax, which pro-
fessors and practical men alike have declared to be an
impossibility. It is not merely a tax which justice al-
lows; it is one which justice demands. It is not merely
one which ought to be collected: it is one which in-
fallibly will be and is collected. It is not merely one
which the state ought to see collected; it is one which,
in the long run, the state cannot prevent from being
collected. The state can change the particular landlord:
it cannot abolish rent.
§ 4. Landlords natural tax-gatherers. It is quite
true that some men do not pay ground rent to any one
else. But these are landlords, of the most highly de-
veloped type. A few of these men seem, at first glance,
neither to pay nor receive ground rent. But this is an
illusion. They do receive such rent, in the value which
remains in their possession, in excess of what they would
hold if they paid rent like other people. Moreover, such
men almost invariably have either paid a price for the
THE NATURAL TAX.
119
land on which they live (which is capitalized rent paid by
them), or they hold land which cost them less than they
could sell it for (which is capitalized rent gained by them),
or they have done both.
Those who actually receive ground rent, or who could
receive it if they would, form the class which we call'
"landlords." They are the tax-gatherers appointed by Na-
ture. Year by year they assess the value of the privilege of
occupying their land. They can do this, with an accuracy
to which no government assessor can ever attain; because
they receive, at least once a year, the best possible infor-
mation as to this value, in the form of bids from tenants.
They have only to announce their willingness to receive
bids; and the bids come in. Nobody runs after the assess-
or, to tell him what property is worth. Everybody runs
after the landlord, to tell him what his land is worth.
Not that everybody tells him the truth; but he soon finds
out what is the truth, by comparing conflicting state-
ments.
The landlord, we repeat, is Nature's elected tax-gath-
erer. But Nature does not compel him, any more than any
other collector of taxes, to pay over to the state what he
collects. This must be done by the state itself.
§ 5. Taxation of ground rents. Nature, having thus
provided a method by which all men pay, of necessity, a
tribute sufficient to defray all expenses of government,
clearly points to the collection of such expenses from this
tribute. We have already seen that Nature and Science
condemn every other method of raising public revenue,
by making equality and justice impossible under any
such method. Do they not, with equal clearness and
precision, point to the taxation of ground rents, as not
merely a just method of raising revenue, but also as the
only just one? Scientifically speaking, a tax upon ground
1)
120
NATURAL TAXATION.
rents is not a tax at all: it is merely the collection, by the
state, of a tax already levied by an automatic process. If
we call it a tax, it is a tax upon the proceeds of taxation,
and nothing else. Until this source of revenue is ex-
'hausted, every other tax is double taxation. So long
as this fund remains, every other tax is of necessity.
unjust, as truly as it would be unjust to squander the
proceeds of any tax among a few favored officials and
then levy the whole of the same tax over again upon the
people. Seldom has there been a more beautiful illus-
tration of the wise yet relentless working of natural law,
than in the proved impossibility of justly collecting any
tax other than upon ground rent. It shows that Nature
makes it impossible to execute justly a statute which is in
its nature unjust. The propriety of an exclusive tax
upon ground rents is established, not merely by affirmative
proof of its justice, but by the demonstration of universal
experience that no other form of taxation can be made
effective, adequate, just, and equal.
A
§ 6. No objectionable methods of collection. The
absolute soundness of the theory upon which the tax on
ground rents is based is further established by the fact
that its efficient collection requires no objectionable meth-
ods. Such a tax already exists in the United States; al-
though it is covered up by a multitude of other taxes.
We all know, by experience, that such a tax is entirely
free from the oppressive and corrupting incidents of other
taxes. It calls for no personal returns, no taxpayers'
oaths, no exposure of private affairs. The collector of
such a tax would not have the slightest excuse for inquisi-
torial proceedings, for the examination of private books,
for entry into houses, for personal searches, or for asking a
single question of the taxpayer. In fact, he would not
pay the smallest attention to any statement which a tax
THE NATURAL TAX.
121
!
payer might make. Women and children would be taxed
no more heavily than men. Trust estates would pay no
more than others. There would be no exemptions, no
favoritism, and no preference given, either to the rich or to
the poor. Mistakes of course would occur; and the brib-
ery of assessors would be possible. But those are an ex-
tremely small part of the evils of all existing methods of
taxation; and some of the most monstrous inequalities
are found where the assessors are absolutely incorruptible
and thoroughly competent. All of these would disappear.
§ 7. Assessment of ground rent practicable. It is
asserted by a few persons, who have given no careful con-
sideration to the subject, that it is as difficult to assess
accurately the value of the bare land, as it is to assess any
other property. This objection will not bear the least
examination.
Of course absolute accuracy is not to be expected in
anything. It has not pleased God to make this world
literally perfect, in any respect; and man cannot hope to
be wiser than his Maker. But a close approach to accuracy
is possible in taxing ground rents; and it is not possible
in any other tax.
Where land is rented separately from its improvements,
the tax can be collected with almost ideal accuracy. The
tenant can be required to pay it, being allowed to deduct
it from his rent. He will have no motive for understating
the rent; and if he overstates it, the loss will be his own.
Nothing but positive fraud on the part of the official as-
sessor can produce inequality in this tax; and such fraud
would be too dangerous to be common.
Where land and improvements are rented together, the
value of the land alone is always approximately ascertain-
able. Real estate dealers in the district would have little
difficulty in estimating the price at which any tract of land
122
NATURAL TAXATION.
could readily be sold; and this would be the proper basis
for assessment.
Where land is owned by the actual occupier, dealers can
still easily estimate its market value. Titles to town lots
are continually changing; thus fixing a standard of prices:
while in rural districts there is much less variation in prices;
and all the neighbors know the relative value of each farm.
Whatever inequalities might remain, it is certain that they
would be vastly less than those which are now common.
§ 8. Assessment of farm lands. It has been asked:
How can the unimproved value of farm lands be ascer
tained, after they have been cleared, ploughed, drained,
and fertilized for many years? The answer is simple.
The whole of a farm is to be assessed at the same value,
per acre, which attaches to the unimproved land, remain-
ing on the farm and having substantially the same natural
advantages or disadvantages. It is next asked: How
shall such an estimate be made, if the whole farm has been
fully cultivated? There is no such farm, except a few
very small ones, selected from larger farms; and in those
cases the valuation can be made upon the basis of unim-
proved land on adj ining farms. It has been pretended
that there are cases, in which there is no unimproved land
near by. But this is almost absurd. Yet if such a mar-
vellous farm could be found, it is certain to be close to a
highway. The price which could be obtained for the land
covered by the highway, if closed and sold, would afford
a perfect test of the value of all adjoining land.
;
But the best reply to all such objections is to be found
in the practical experience of California, where this very
method of assessment is carried out in agricultural dis-
tricts, without difficulty, having been required by law,
ever since 1879, and by the experience of Massachusetts,
where the value of farm lands has been ascertained by the
THE NATURAL TAX.
123
decennial census, for many years, carefully separating the
value of improved lands from unimproved and unimprov-
able lands.
§ 9. Judicial correction of assessments. Under the
present systems of taxation, it has been found necessary
to allow appeals to the courts from some unjust assess-
ments: while State boards of equalization in New York,
Illinois, California, and other States put county valuations.
up or down, in order to remedy the evils caused by local
carelessness or evasion. These remedies should be ex-
tended and placed upon a foundation of complete justice.
The courts should be given full power to make local assess-
ments uniform, reducing every assessment to the basis of
the lowest in the county. The county would lose no
revenue; for the tax rate would be increased to corre-
spond with the general reduction. But citizens would be
relieved from the gross injustice which many now suffer.
At present, in New York, if not everywhere, a taxpayer
can obtain no relief, unless his own property is overvalued.
But an undervaluation of his neighbors is just as effectual
an increase of his share of the general burden as would be
an overvaluation of his own property. It would cast an
offensive responsibility upon him, to give him relief only
through a judgment increasing his neighbors assessments;
and such a course would produce no better result for the
county than would a general reduction to one common
basis. The State at large would take care of its interest
in the matter, through the board of equalization.
§ 10. Correction by sales. If all other remedies
failed, one would remain, which is far too dangerous for
use under existing methods, but which would be quite
safe under the new system. The owner of any real estate
which was assessed for more than the real value of the
bare land, could refuse to nay the tax. Then his
124
NATURAL TAXATION,
land would be offered for sale to the highest bidder,
subject to the obligation of paying to the owner the
appraised value of all improvements thereon, upon the
principles already stated. The value could never be more
than the cost of replacing the improvements, and it would
often be much less; because costly buildings are frequently
erected in situations where they are or become useless, and
therefore of no value. To the full extent of their actual
market value, however, the purchaser at a tax sale would
be required to indemnify the owner. Such a sale would
determine the precise value of the land, for the purposes.
of taxation.
Nor would such sales, however frequent they might be,
work any hardship to the landowner. He would have a
right to bid; and he would have great advantages over
any other bidder. All the money paid in excess of the
tax and the penalty would go directly into his pocket;
and, therefore, he would be the only bidder not required
to pay more than that sum. If the tax were really exces-
sive no one would bid up to it; because the purchaser
would be compelled to pay annually thereafter as large a
tax as he was willing to bid at the sale. The tax sale, in
short, would fix the valuation upon which future assess-
ments would be made. Thus the ground rent (which,
capitalized, constitutes the only value of any land) would
be fully taxed; while the land-owner would have absolute
security for the possession of the value of all his improve-
ments, free of tax. But no such experiment would ever
become really necessary.
§ II. Taxation of franchises and monopolies. It has
been already mentioned that the professed defenders of
farmers and other owners of sinall homesteads oppose the
concentration of taxation upon ground rents, on the plea
that this would exempt all franchises and monopolies,
THE NATURAL TAX.
125
Including railways, express companies, telegraphs, tel
ephones, gasworks, electric lighting works, oil-pipe lines,
and the like. If this were the fact we may be sure that
the shrewd managers of such monopolies, assisted as they
are by the most sagacious and experienced advisers in the
country, would have discovered it by this time. We may
also be sure that the legislatures of two thirds of the
States, owned as they are, body and soul, by corporations
of this precise class, would hasten to avow their con-
version to the principle of taxing ground rents and to
embody it in their statutes. The Senate of the United
- States would before now have passed any necessary
amendment to the Constitution, by a two-third vote.
But do we see the slightest tendency in this direction?
Is the proposal received with favor by the managers of a
single great railway or telegraph or of any great monop
oly? On the contrary, is it not notorious that they are
unanimously and bitterly opposed to it?
These gentlemen are not deceived. They know well
enough that their valuable franchises represent exclusive
rights to the use of land, and that they neither have nor
can have any exclusive rights to anything else, except to
patent rights, which are very costly, and which last only
for a few years.
§ 12. Railway franchises. Take one of our great rail-
way lines, for example. Add up either the market valué
or the cost of replacing its rails, equipment, building
improvements and chattels of every kind, whether mova-
ble or immovable, and at a most liberal valuation. The
total will not come within millions of its nominal debt,
and will never touch its capital stock. What gives value
to the enormous amount of stock? The exclusive privk
lege of using a narrow strip of barren land, five hundred,
a thousand, or two thousand miles long, unbroken by
126
NATURAL TAXATION.
highways or any other rights over land, whether public
or private. Under the present system railway managers-
persuade local assessors that this land should be valued
no higher than equally barren land in adjoining farms;
and the farmers' especial advocates insist that this is the
true basis of valuation. But it is absurd.
The value of all land depends upon the value of the
use which can be made of it. No farmer can use his land
for the carriage of goods or passengers, beyond the limits
of his own farm. If all the farmers between New York
and San Francisco agreed to build a railway, without
forming a railway corporation, they would be compelled
to break their line at every highway, to dismount their
passengers and to unload their freight. Therefore, no-
body outside of a railway company can use his land for``
this most valuable purpose. And this privilege of using
an unbroken strip of land, with locomotives running
forty miles an hour, is all which gives to the stock of any
American railway company its market value; while it
generally covers from one third to one half of its bonds,
in addition.
--
The notion that such privileges on land are to be
appraised by the acre, like farm lands, can be readily
tested by applying the same principle to any other land.
In great cities land is often sold at a price estimated by
the square foot. Some lots, containing 2000 square feet,
are salable for $200,000, or $100 per foot. But if a
single foot of this land were sold by itself, with the knowl
edge that no more could be had, who would give even
one dollar for it, except as a means of blackmailing the
owner of the rest? Just so, the value of a strip of land
unbroken for a thousand miles, for use as a railway, is
something immense; while the same land cut up in a
thousand sections. never to be united, would be almost
THE NATURAL TAX.
127
valueless. For purposes of transportation it would have
no value whatever.
Again, the value of land depends upon the variety of
usęs to which it may lawfully be put. Steam railways,
although very useful, are to some extent a nuisance. The
government cannot permit them to be operated upon
every tract of land. Consequently land owned by indi-
viduals is generally restricted to other uses; and it is
therefore worth less than land owned by railway com-
panies.
§ 13. Other franchises. The franchise of a telegraph
company is of the same nature. It is absolutely nothing
but an exclusive privilege to extend its wires over land.
But this is a privilege of enormous value. The founders
of the Western Union Telegraph Company have man-
aged to sell this privilege to investors in its stock, for at
least $50,000,000.
The franchises of gas companies, electric light com-
panies, steam heating companies, water works, and the
like, consist so obviously of mere privileges to use unim-
proved land as to need no explanation. Street railroads,
also, so palpably own no privileges, other than the mere
right to run over bare land, that it seems almost an insult
to the understanding of any reader to explain the case.
None of these corporations have any other franchises,
than these rights over land. For these franchises, most
of them have paid enormous bribes to legislators and
aldermen. Upon these franchises they have issued vast
amounts of stock and bonds. One such corporation, after
purchasing all the rails, equipment, and other produc-
tions of human labor connected with the road, for about
$200,000, proceeded to issue $8,000,000 of stock and
bonds, upon its land privileges.
It will be said that there are general railway laws, so
128
NATURAL TAXATION.
that anybody can construct a new rival line, and thus
destroy the land values of an existing line. Whenever
that can really be done, the truth of this theory is
promptly proved, by the destruction of stock values in
both corporations, as in the desperate struggle between
the New York Central and the West Shore lines, in 1884.
But this is only partially true. A rival line must run
through towns and very near cities; or it can get little
business. The aldermen of every city must be bought
up; and as the old corporation will pay liberal bribes to
induce the aldermen to do nothing, the new one must
bring far more liberal considerations to bear upon our
patriotic rulers. Nor is it merely a question of money.
Bribery must be conducted decently and in order. Pub-
lic sentiment must be judiciously worked up to support
the scheme. It requires an immense amount of ingenious
and well directed effort to carry any such project into effect.
In the case of street railroads, telegraphic subways,
gasworks, and other privileges in cities, it is obvious that
the limit is soon reached; and even the liberality of a
legislature or a board of aldermen cannot make room for
many rival schemes of this kind. The streets cannot be
torn up forever; although, in New York and Brooklyn,
they do not fall much short of this. The limits imposed
by nature are such that more than three fourths of the
whole market values of the stock and bonds of corpora-
tions, having these municipal privileges, consist of pure
land values.
Under the present system, in most cases, all these enor-
mous values go untaxed. The law of New York distinctly
exempts franchises from taxation; although it is well
settled that they would be taxable as "land" but for this
legislative interference. Under the system here proposed
all these values would be fairly taxed.
2
THE NATURAL TAX.
129
14. Can the rent tax be shifted? While the Duke
of Argyll and all his landlord allies rend the air with their
denunciations of the proposed tax on rent, as confiscation
and robbery, other opponents of the tax, appreciating
the fact that tenants far out-number landlords at the
polls, devote their energy to proving that this tax would
all be shifted upon tenants, by an increase of rent, so that
landlords would finally pay none of it. If this were true,
then no relief from the unequal distribution of wealth
can be had; for all direct taxes would ultimately fall upon
consumption, just as surely as do indirect taxes. In short,
no tax would be really direct. The greatest benefit thus
far held out, as the result of adopting an exclusive tax
upon ground rent, would be unattainable under that or
any other system.
On the other hand, if this doctrine is true, the indigna-
tion of the Duke of Argyll and all the great landlords of
Great Britain and Ireland is absurdly misdirected. If
they can recover this tax from their tenants, precisely as
the importer of foreign goods recovers customs taxes
from the purchasers of those goods, they will lose nothing
by the change, and may even profit by it. It is very
clear that the landlords do not believe a word of this doc-
trine of shifting taxation; for if they did they would look
with indifference, if not with positive favor, upon the
taxation of ground rents. So far from doing this, dukes,
earls, and marquises are eagerly struggling in England for
election as councilmen and aldermen, for the sole pur
pose of preventing the taxation of ground rents.
The weight of authority upon such a question is wor
thy of attention, although by no means decisive. Now,
while a few respectable and sincere students of economic
science hold to the doctrine of the transferability of the
ground-rent tax to the tenants, no one will dispute that
130
NATURAL TAXATION.
an overwhelming weight of authority, both in numbers
and in reputation, scout that doctrine as absurd. Not
only the entire school of Ricardo and Mill, but also
nine tenths or more of other economic writers make it
a fundamental doctrine of their science that such a tax
never can be transferred to tenants.
§ 15. The question illustrated. Let us, however, con-
sider the question for ourselves, as if it were entirely new.
The simplest way of testing it is to imagine that the tax
was made heavy enough to absorb the whole rent. For,
although this is impossible, it really makes no difference
whether half or the whole of rent is taken by taxation,
so long as the state is determined to take some fixed pro-
portion of rent. Any good accountant can satisfy him-
self that the result would be the same under either plan.
But persons unaccustomed to figures could not follow
any other calculation so easily as they can follow one
based upon a tax equal to the whole rent.
Let us then suppose the "single tax unlimited" to be
in operation. Let us suppose the total ground rent of the
United States to be $1,000,000,000. The total production
of the nation does not exceed $13,000,000,000 per annum.
Out of this, 65,000,000 people have to draw their living
expenses. Even if they had no ground rent and no
taxes to pay they could not possibly save $5,000,000,000
a year. But suppose they could. The landlords collect
in rent $1,000,000,000. The government takes the whole
of this in taxes. The landlords then shift the tax upon
the tenants, and insist upon collecting $2,000,000,000 in
rent. But the government next year taxes the whole of
this increased sum out of the landlords. The landlords
then raise their, rent to $3,000,000,000. But the govern-
ment immediately takes the whole of that in taxes. The
landlords raise their rent to $4,000,000,000. The govern
THE NATURAL TAX.
131
ment again takes it all. They raise rent once more to
$5,000,000,000. Again it is all swallowed up in taxes.
Will the landlords raise their rent again? How can they?
They would by that time have taken every dollar that
tenants earned, over the barest living; and if they at-
tempted to extort another dollar, some tenant would die
of starvation; and rents would fall, from lack of tenants.
And as the government would have extracted the whole
of their rent, they would have gained noť a dollar by their
persistent oppression of their tenants.
§ 16. Distinction between land and houses. It will
be said that nothing of this kind could really be done
by any government. Quite true; but that is simply
because nothing of the kind could be done by landlords.
Landlords know, to their cost, that it takes three or four
years to enable them to recover from tenants even in-
creased taxation upon houses; although they will recover
it in the end. But, since it is difficult to recover a tax
which tends to diminish the number of houses, how vastly
more difficult must it be to recover a tax upon the value
of land, which has no tendency whatever to diminish the
amount of available land.
And here the reader can see the reason for the dis-
tinction. If owners of houses cannot recover from ten-
ants the tax upon houses, nobody will build any more
houses for renting. But the owner of land cannot create
any more land, no matter how liberally he may be paid
for it; and he cannot diminish the area of land, no matter
how little he may receive for it. Every increase of taxa-
tion upon ground rents makes it more difficult to keep land
out of use; and therefore it increases the competition
between landlords to get tenants. Under a light tax
upon ground rents, two tenants pursue one landlord. But
under a heavy tax, two landlords pursue one tenant. If
132
NATURĂL TAXATION.
ground rents should be taxed even to half their amount,
landlords without tenants would be compelled to sell at
any price to other landlords who could get tenants. The
tendency of all taxes upon ground rents, therefore, is to
reduce rent, rather than to increase it; and this makes the
very idea of a transfer of such taxes to the tenant utterly
absurd.
A moment's reflection will satisfy every one that land-
lords charge just as much for their land as they can possi-
bly get, except in special cases of good nature, charity, or
ignorance. In all ordinary cases the only reason why they
do not charge more is that they cannot find anybody able
and willing to pay more. How can this condition be
changed by taxes upon rent? It is not and it cannot be.
The average landlord will charge the highest rent which
he can get, tax or no tax. And, as no man will ever get
more than he can get, no amount of tax upon ground
rents will ever be shifted over to tenants by an increase of
rents.
§ 17. Amount of the tax on rent. It does not follow
that the state should compel the landlord to pay over all
that he receives. If the state could and should do this,
the landlord would cease to do his work; because he would
receive no compensation for it. Natural laws again settle
this question, by making such exact collection impossible.
Not all the power of all governments, concentrated upon
the landlords of a single town, could extract from them
¹ This is universally true in the United States. In many parts of Europe,
especially in England, agricultural rents are limited by custom and public
opinion. In Ireland, they are often limited by law. But all that results
from such restrictions is that rent is divided between two or more landlords.
The mass of the people, who are the real, final tenants, gain nothing what-
The farm-tenant either sublets the farm, at a higher rent, or he makes
a larger profit out of the farm, without selling his produce any cheaper or
paying å penny more wages to his laborers,
ever.
the natural tAX.
133
precisely one hundred per cent. of the rent received by
them.
Nor does it follow that even ninety per cent. of rent ought
to be taken. Where rents are large the retention of ten
or even five per cent. might be sufficient to induce land-
lords to follow up tenants and extract from them that just
rent which every one ought to pay. Where rents are small
a commission of ten or even fifteen per cent: may be in-
sufficient for this purpose. An iron rule is not a natural
rule; and it will not work well.
What would Nature or Science dictate upon this point?
Is it not that the state should collect from the natural tax
collectors whatever amount the state really needs, for the
effective but economical administration of government?
Is it not better, in case there should remain any considera-
ble excess over this, that it should remain in private hands,
rather than it should be taken by the state, before the
state officers know how to use it for the real benefit of the
people at large? Grant, if you please, that there would
be such surplus of rent as to breed wasteful luxury among
landlords, is not this less injurious to the community than
wholesale waste and embezzlement of public funds? Our
whole national history illustrates the truth that surplus
public revenues first corrupt public officers and then de-
bauch the nation itself.
But in fact, in the long run, there will be no such ques
tion to decide. The honest needs of public government
grow faster than population and fully as fast as wealth
itself. Local taxation will increase rapidly; and it ought
to do so. Such taxation increased in Ohio, for example,
1400 per cent. in forty years, between 1846 and 1886; while
population increased only 100 per cent. and wealth 1000
per cent. It is more likely that vigilance will be needed
to prevent the taxation of rent from rising too fast, than
134.
NATURAL TAXATION.
that it would be required to keep landlords from retaining
too much. This does not imply that ground rent will not
be sufficient to supply many, possibly all, of those addi-
tions to human happiness which Henry George has pic-
tured in such glowing words. But such extensions of the
sphere of government must take place gradually; or they
will be ruinous failures, simply because the state cannot
at once furnish the necessary machinery for their success-
ful operation.
This natural tax might be adopted in one day, not only
without injury to the nation, but with positive benefit to
more than nine tenths of all the people. But this would
be strictly upon condition that the amount collected for
public use should not at first exceed that which was pre-
viously collected. Indeed, it would be essential to the
permanence of such taxation that public revenues should
be at the beginning of the new system even smaller than
they were immediately before. And we may be perfectly
sure that they would be. A body of 4,000,000 taxpayers
will take care of that.
§ 18. New benefits shared with landlords. There is,
nevertheless, a certain element of truth underlying the
idea that a rent-tax can be shifted. While it is not true
that one dollar of the tax can be transferred to the
tenant, in any case where rent is fixed upon strictly busi-
ness principles, it is true that, in many places, and espe-
cially in rural districts of England, the owners of farm
lands do not charge the full market value of the land to
their tenants. Personal considerations, kindness of feeling,
custom, long-continued relations between the families of
the landlord and the tenant, public opinion, tradition, the
desire to control votes, and many similar influences keep
rents below their market value. Under a system of tax-
ation,.concentrated upon rents, these influences would lose
THE NATURAL TAX:
135
much of their power. Under a tax, deliberately raised to
the highest practicable point, these influences would lose
all of their power. Tenants would, therefore, find their
rents if creased to the full value of the land. Here would
seen to be a real shifting of the tax.
But this would be only a seeming, not a reality. The
lenants, who now receive the benefit of those influences,
are in reality themselves landlords, to that extent. They
divide economic rent with their landlords. They do not
divide the rent, thus left in their pockets, with the com-
munity at large. They do not reduce the prices of their
products or charge any less for their services. Many of
them sublet a part of the land to others, to whom they
charge the full market price. The community, as a whole,
pays just as much rent, when the duke allows the farmer
to occupy land at 20 per cent. below its full value, as it
does when the duke's creditors seize his land and make
the farmer pay the last penny that the land is worth.
The farmer sells wheat at the same price and pays to his
laborers the same wages, in either case. But there is a
good deal of difference in the style of his daughters'
dresses and the length of his annual vacation.
There is another result which must follow, if the com-
munity gains in wealth and happiness, through this change
in methods of taxation. Every advance in prosperity-
every widespread increase in wealth, tends to increase rent.
If it is true, as will be presently maintained, that this re-
form in taxation will stimulate production, increase wages,
promote the development of industry, add to the profits
of capital and reward the efforts of skill, then there will be.
a greatly increased demand for the locations which offer
the best natural opportunities for the use of capital, labor
and skill; and ground rents will rise. But this is not the
shifting of an old burden; it is the sharing of a new benefit.
1:
3
{
!
ļ
SOCIAL EFFECTS OF NATURAL TAXATION.
§1. The effect in general. The adoption of a natu-
ral, intelligent, and scientific system of taxation would
bring about a just distribution of wealth, would give a
perpetual stimulus to industry and production, would
greatly increase wages, would increase the profits of
capital, would give a security to property now un-
known, would encourage manufactures, commerce, and
agriculture, and would incidentally solve many social
problems which under present conditions seem almost
insoluble.
It is hoped that as each branch of the inquiry has been
discussed, it has appeared that each step towards this
great but simple reform has been attended with the solu-
tion of some difficult problem. But others have been
reserved for this final review.
1
§ 2. Stimulus to production. It must surely be evi-
dent, without argument, that when all taxes are concen-
trated upon ground rents alone, and when every piece of
land is estimated for assessment at the amount for which
it could be rented for present use, the tax constantly in-
creasing, in exact proportion to any increase in the rental
value of the land, it would generally be impossible to
hold any land out of use for the purpose of speculation.
The only exception would be cases in which it was so
clearly desirable that the land should be preserved for
199
NATURAL TAXATION.
future use, that its possessor could better afford to pay
the tax out of his capital than to allow the land to be put
to any present use which would spoil it for a more desira-
ble future use. The pressure put upon the land-owner to
make immediate and beneficial use of the land would, in
most cases, be irresistible. The result, in all but a few
exceptional cases, would be that all land, which any one
cared to claim as owner, would be put into immediate
use for productive purposes; while a vast amount of land
which is now held for pure speculation, would be aban-
doned to the use of any one who was willing to pay the
annual tax.
Under such a system all land would be made useful, up
to its full capacity. The possession of land would neces-
sitate the constant employment of labor in its use and
development; and all who were unable or unwilling to usé
land to the best advantage of the community would
abandon it to those who were both able and willing.
But this is only one of the many stimulants to produc-
tion which are involved in reformed taxation. Think of
the many other encouragements which industry would
receive. Money and credit, free from all taxes, would
crowd into the industrial field. Factories, mills, furnacés,
foundries, workshops, stores, offices, machinery, tools, in-
struments of production in every conceivable form, would
all be free from taxes. The farmers' barns, crops, plows,
tools and implements, his horses, cattle, sheep, materials
and products of every kind, would be free of tax. His
land could be drained, stubbed, subsoiled and improved
to the highest point, without adding a dollar to his taxes.
Commerce would be free as air. The farmer would buy
in the cheapest market, and sell in the dearest. Monopoly
could no longer hinder production. The only limit of
production would be the limit of demand.
SOCIAL EFFECTS OF NATURAL TAXATION.
20
"as.
§ 3. Effect on wages. Using the term "wages
including all forms of compensation for personal labor, it
should seem clear that the great increase in production
which would thus be brought about must greatly increase
the demand for labor, and would therefore produce a
general and permanent advance in wages.
Nominal wages, expressed in terms of money, must ad-
vance, because there would be an anxious demand for
labor on the part of all land-owners. For without a con-
stant supply of efficient labor, the annual tax could not ¯.
be paid; and then the land would fall into the hands of
those who would extract from the land, either by their
own labor or by the labor of others, a revenue sufficient
to pay the tax, with a profit. The increased demand for
labor thus arising would, in any country large enough to
make a rate of its own, largely increase the general rate
of wages. That this is the invariable result, in all similar
cases, has been abundantly proved by past experience.
The opening of new land to labor has always tended to in-
crease wages; and under the proposed system of taxation
there would be an enormous increase in the new land thus
opened to labor, and therefore a corresponding increase
in the reward of labor. The effect upon wages would be
precisely that which would be produced by the discovery
of a new continent of fertile and healthy land.
Real wages (in other words, the real reward of labor)
would be increased to a much greater extent than nominal
wages. For while wages, expressed in forms of money,
must rise, as already shown, prices of the good things
which wages buy would fall, on account of the much
greater production of such things, which would result
from the immensely greater application of labor and
capital to land. More than this, it having been already
shown that the bulk of taxation is now borne by the wage-
202
NATURAL TAXATION.
earners, and that the whole of this taxation would be
taken off their shoulders by the new system, their real
income would be practically increased by the full amount
of this reduction of taxation; the effect of which they
would feel in a general reduction of the cost of living.
§ 4. Effect on money wages. The advance in money
wages must, of necessity, be rather vaguely estimated.
But long experience has furnished abundant means for
trustworthy calculations. It is not at all necessary that
there should be a demand for double the number of
laborers, to double the rate of wages. A much smaller
increase in the demand will suffice, so long as the supply
of labor does not meet the demand.
It having been shown that the taxation of ground rents
would compel their owners to employ labor in producing
something, out of which taxes could be paid, while the
release of the great purchasing class from heavy tax-
ation would enlarge their purchasing power, it follows that
an immediate demand for labor would arise, in excess of
the local supply. The degree to which wages would rise, in
consequence of this demand, would largely depend upon
the extent of the field over which the new system of taxa--
tion was in force. The adoption of just taxation in a single
county, or even in an entire State, would cause a great in-
crease of production there; but wages would be kept
down, to a considerable degree, by the incoming of labor-
ers from outside.
§ 5. Immigration and wages. But the adoption of
just taxation, throughout the United States, would cause
a rise in wages far too great to be repressed by foreign
immigration. Laborers of all kinds have never yet come
to America, in any one year, to the extent of even one
twentieth part of the home supply. As the new arrivals
furnish a market for nearly all that they earn, they do not,
SOCIAL EFFECTS OF NATURAL TAXATION.
!
at the utmost, furnish an element of competition with
native laborers in excess of one half of their earnings.' If,
therefore, the average rate of American wages could be
doubled, by causes having a permanent operation, immi-
gration might continue at full tide, for many years, before
it could seriously affect wages. The truth of this theory
may be illustrated by the case of domestic servants. From
various causes their average wages in the United States
have much more than doubled since 1860. Those who
then received $6 a month could now readily earn $14, while
living in much greater comfort and having much easier
work. The immigration of women of this class has been
enormous; but it has never reduced wages. It may well
be doubted whether it has even had any material influence
in preventing a further advance. All the great advance
in the wages of domestic servants has occurred since they
began to arrive in great numbers.
We may safely assume that any rise in wages which
would result from a reform in taxation, extending over the
whole or the larger portion of the United States, would be
permanent, notwithstanding any probable amount of
immigration.
As the purchasing
§ 6. Amount of rise in wages.
power of laborers would be increased at least 15 per cent.
from the instant at which taxes were taken off their pur-
chases, an increase of demand to that extent may be as-
sumed as certain, subject to such reduction of demand
as might be caused by the reduced profits of the not more
than 50,000 families, who would suffer any loss of in-
1 Thus, suppose 800,000 immigrants to arrive in one year, less than half of
them would be competitors for wages. Suppose the 400,000 competing
laborers to earn $400 each. They would spend $350 of this. Half of this
would be paid in wages to other laborers, producing what the new-comers
wanted. Even if the other half injuriously affected resident laborers, it
would amount to less than one cent in each dollar of their annual wages.
204
NATURAL FAXATION.
come through the new taxation. As their losses would
not trench upon their usual fund for expenditure, their pur-
chases would fall off only to a very moderate degree. An
allowance of $3000 for each of these families would be ample.
This would amount in all to $150,000,000, or not more than
one tenth of the increase in the purchasing power of the
other classes. After making large allowance fora saving dis-
position among the poorer classes, under their new pros-
perity, it is impossible to estimate the increase in purchases
at less than ten per cent., or 1,000,000,000 per annum.
It would probably be much more.
On the other hand, the anxiety of land-owners to put
their land to profitable use, the absolute release of all pro-
ductive industry from burdens, shackles, and restrictions,
the untaxed money, untaxed manufactures, untaxed com-
merce, untaxed agriculture and untaxed credit would all
combine to give a sudden and tremendous stimulus to
industry. Production, for these reasons alone, could not
fail to increase immensely. Adding this consideration to
the other, the effective demand for labor could not fail to
increase by more than one third; and this would cause a
rise in wages of fully 100 per cent.
§ 7. Effect on capital. The owners of capital will natu-
rally desire to know how their interests will be affected.
Will not the doubling of wages diminish the profit of cap-
ital? No. On the contrary it will greatly increase that
profit.
:
In the first place, it must be remembered that ground
rents are not capital. Correctly speaking, they are not
even true wealth. They are mere taxes upon wealth-in-
struments by which tribute can be exacted from wealth.
We are now considering only genuine capital-true wealth,
employed in the reproduction of wealth.
In the next place, capital necessarily depends for its
SOCIAL EFFECTS OF NATURAL TAXATION. 205
profit upon a large demand for its productions. Modern
capitalists are fully aware that great gains can never come
from small transactions, no matter how large the profit on
each transaction may be. Sales of $1,000,000 at a profit
of 50 per cent. are of small account, compared with sales of
$100,000,000 at a profit of 5 per cent. The number of
those who live without their own labor is and must be al-
ways and everywhere so small, compared with the vast
mass of mankind, as to afford an insignificant market for
the enormous production of modern industry. The
vast majority, who labor with their own hands, furnish
the only market worthy of consideration for modern
capital.
This great majority always spend the larger part of their
earnings; and they would continue to do so, even if their
earnings were doubled or trebled. The doubling of their
wages means, therefore, the doubling of the market for
the joint production of labor and capital. It means
the doubling of the gross profit of capital. This would
not be true of a similar increase of income to any other
class. The owners of rent would not double their pur-
chases, if rent were doubled. They would put much of
their surplus into capital, competing with capital already
invested. This might be good for others than capitalists.
Yet, unless it brought about an increase of wages, it would
not increase the demand for goods; and so it would not
increase the profit of capital. An increase of wealth, in
the hands of the few, leads to increased wastefulness in
the nature of their expenditures. Their outlay does not
reproduce capital. The outlay of the working classes
does. Not only does their food renew their vigor, but
even their amusements, when intelligently directed, greatly
increase their productive power and energy. High wages
lead not only to cheap production, but also to a vast in-
1
206
3
NATURAL TAXATION.
crease of production. They also lead immediately to a
corresponding increase of the market for such produc-
tions.
There is no conflict of interest between labor and capi-
tal; although there are many conflicts of interest between
individual laborers and individual capitalists. The lifting
of all taxation from labor and capital will benefit both.
§ 8. Absolute security of property. When taxation is
levied exclusively upon ground rent every man will have,
for the first time in human history, an absolute and inde-
feasible title to all of his property which is the produc-
tion of human skill and industry, subject only to the right
of the state to take it, upon making full compensation for
its value. Such compensation would enable the owner to
replace the property thus taken with other property of
the same description and value. This general right of the
state is practically no limitation upon the absolute right
to individual property.
It is perfectly plain that no one has any such right at
present, and that no one can have it, under any existing
system of taxation. For, so long as the state assumes the
right to tax any thing besides rent, it is impossible for any
man to retain the entire fruits of his own industry. Every
year the state will deduct something from those fruits,
under the name of taxation; and no one can ever foresee
precisely how much will be taken in this manner. The
fluctuations, both in the amounts and methods of such
taxes, are so great and incalculable, that no one can have
any reasonable certainty as to the extent to which his
earnings will be secure against the demands of the state.
-But if taxes were once confined strictly to ground rent,
all this would be changed. Chattels of every description
would of course be absolutely secure; since the only rem-
edy which would be allowed to the state for the collec
SOCIAL EFFECTS OF NATURAL TAXATION.
207
tion of taxes would be a sale of some exclusive privilege
on land. But buildings and all other improvements on
land would be equally secure against all taking without
compensation. This is not at first sight so clear; and it
needs, therefore, fuller explanation.
§ 9. Improvements paid for on tax sales. The
exclusive tax upon ground rent would lose its entire
character if the state were allowed, under any pretence,
to collect it from personal property or improvements.
It is a fundamental condition of such a tax that it
be collected only out of rent. It must, therefore, when
payment is refused, be collected only by selling the
control of the taxed land to some person, who will not
only pay the tax, but will also pay to the landholder, thus
sold out, the full value of all his improvements. If no
one will pay the tax, subject to those conditions, that is
conclusive proof that the tax is too high, and that it is in
reality based upon an assessment including other values
than the mere value of the land. The purchaser in such
case would, of course, take the land, subject to the annual
liability for taxes; but he would also acquire the same
absolute title to improvements which the previous pos
sessor had; so that he, in turn, could not be sold out for
taxes without full compensation for improvements. Thus
no one would ever pay taxes upon the value of any other
property than the bare land.
Universal experience has demonstrated that there would
not be the slightest difficulty in carrying such a system
into practical operation. This system has long been in
operation, upon a great scale, both in public and private
affairs. Wherever ferry franchises belong to a munici-
pality, as in the city of New York, such franchises are
sold at auction, at intervals of five or ten years, always
subject to two conditions: first, the payment of rent te
308
A
NATURAL TAXATION.
the municipality; and second, the payment of full com-
pensation to the former holder of the franchises, for boats,
piers, houses, and all other structures and materials used
in operating the ferry. Street railroad franchises are sold
in the same manner, for terms of years, by every honest
municipal body having control of the subject.' So land-
lords constantly lease their land for terms of years, to men
who erect expensive buildings thereon; the landlords
covenanting to pay the value of such improvements upon
the expiration of the lease. There is no more difficulty
in providing for an annual sale of land, if necessary, sub-
ject to these conditions, than there is in providing for a
sale in every five, ten, or twenty years. A ferry franchise
is just as much a title to "land," within the meaning of
law, science and common sense, as is any other land-title
whatever."
Of course the valuation of improvements would be
made upon a common-sense basis. The land-owner, upon
making default in taxes, would be entitled to just as much
compensation for his buildings as those buildings really
added to the market value of the land on which they were
built, but no more. If, as often happens, an expensive
building had been put up in a district where it could
never be of any use, nothing should be allowed for it be
yond the value of its materials, after it had been pulled
down. But for any really useful building, compensation
would be allowed, sufficient to enable the owner to put up
a similar building, in similar condition, upon an adjoining
tract of land. In short, whatever loss the owner of the
1 The conception of a really incorruptible city council will seem, to most
American readers, too wildly improbable for the basis of even a theory.
But effete Europe is so far behind us, in the grand march of civilization,
that such Utopian bodies are quite common there; and the method of the
text is common also.
• Benson v. New York, 10 Barbour, 223. 233.
SOCIAL EFFECTS OF NATURAL TAXATION. 200
building incurred, by reason of his own mistakes or ex-
travagance, he would be left to bear; but whatever value
belonged to the building, exclusive of the land under-
neath it, he would invariably be allowed to retain.
§ 10. The railway problem. This is no place for even
a full statement of the great railway problem, with its
almost endless branches. Much less will an attempt be
here made to give it a complete solution. All that will
be attempted is to suggest the close connection between
this complicated problem and the simple one of taxation.
It is by no means so clear as it seems to those who
suffer from them, that high railway rates are actually
unjust. That which is unjust in such cases is generally
the fact that the large profits made upon such transac-
tions are in the nature of rent, and equitably belong to
the whole community. All attempts to correct this
apparent injustice have thus far failed; and it may be
worthy of inquiry whether this failure is not caused by
some unrecognized justice in the system complained of.
May it not be, that the wrong consists, not in the differen-
tial rates, but in the failure of the government to collect
any part of these differences for public use?
Are not many of the evils complained of due to inflated
nominal values and fictitious securities? That such is
the general opinion, is strongly indicated by the stringent
prohibition of fictitious stocks and bonds, in the new
constitutions of Illinois, Pennsylvania, and other States,
as well as in the statutes of still more. But if this opin-
ion is well founded, the concentration of taxes upon land
privileges, including railway franchises, will practically
settle that question, by taking a very large part of such
inflated values for public use.
The complete separation between the ownership of the
road and_the_ownership of moving stock, proposed by
14
NATURAL TAXATION.
Mr. Hudson,' would seem to cover all the remaining
ground. Under the one natural tax, the owners of the
road would be taxed in proportion to the value of its
franchise; but the owners of rolling stock would not be
taxed at all. All persons and corporations could operate
trains upon the road, subject to general rules. If the
people of any place were charged too much for the car-
riage of their persons or property, they could put their own
trains upon the road, on equal terms with all others.
This was the original railway idea; and it has been aban-
doned, not because it is really impracticable, as railway
managers pretend, but because it is less profitable to
railway companies than the monopoly which is created
by the present system.
§11. Just taxation the remedy for unjust appropria-
tion. The proposal of a method of just scientific, and
natural taxation is so simple and unpretending, that eager
social reformers cannot believe it possible that it can carry
with it any cure for the evils of our time. They point to
the unequal distribution of wealth, the growth and powers
of monopolies, the watered stocks and bonds, the bribe-
bought franchises, the usurped privileges, the stolen lands,
the wholesale appropriation of public property to private
use; and they ask how it can be possible that "a mere fis-
cal reform" can bring relief from any of these evils. Yet
it can. No great upheaval of society is needed. No social
re-organization is required. No general state assumption
of the machinery of production is either necessary or
desirable.
It is continually but erroneously denied that the enor
mous fortunes of the present day are due to land monop-
oly or to methods of taxation. Fortunes of considerable
15 low & The Railways and the Republic. ·
:!
-
SOCIAL EFFECTS OF NATURAL TAXATION.
extent are gained by skill and genius; and there is no
good reason why such fortunes should not be encouraged.
Bessemer, Edison, Bell and other inventors have deserved
wealth; and the capitalists, who made their inventions
possible and forced them upon public attention, deserve
it too. But all the unwieldy fortunes, and all which have
had an undesirable origin, owe their existence to some
form of monopoly, which could not have existed under
the natural system of taxation.
The enormous wealth of British dukes and of our own
-or lately our own-Astors, is of course due entirely to
the comparative exemption of ground rents from taxa-
tion. But all the excess of wealth gained by railway
kings, above a liberal compensation for shrewdness,
sagacity, and foresight, is due to precisely the same cause.
It has been shown that the, chief value of railways con--
sists in exclusive and peculiar privileges upon land; and
the greatest part of this value arises from its compar-
ative exemption from taxation.
The great monopolies, which have grown with such
startling rapidity, into such overshadowing power, owę
all their wealth and power to their manipulation of rail-
ways and of duties on imports. Under natural taxation
there would be no import duties to manipulate; and rail-
ways could not afford to be manipulated.
§ 12. "Watered stocks." Let us pass to the_consid
eration of the inflated stocks and bonds, which are made
the excuse for extortion. What can taxation do with
them? The answer is so plain that one wonders at the
question. Even without the adoption of the full reform
here proposed, the change of a few lines in the tax laws
would put a speedy end to these abuses. If all corporate
securities were made subject to the general tax rate, at
their full nominal value, the "water" would be let out of
NATURAL TAXATION.
them within three months. "Yet show I unto you á
more excellent way."
Stock inflation does not really enable railways to charge
high rates. The Erie line cannot charge more on through
traffic than the Central. And, upon the whole, those who
use railways do not pay more than the service is worth.
The real evil is that a very great part of the value of such
service consists in the use of the land over which the rail-
way runs, that this portion belongs to the public, and that
hardly any of it is taken, as it ought to be, for public use.
The proper remedy is not to give service to those who
use the railways, for less than it is worth, but to use thé -
same share of the value of railway land for public pur-
poses, as in the case of other lands. When this is done,
the entire people will receive through relief from other
taxation their share of the value which they have given
to the railways. And, at the same time, it will become
impossible for railway companies to maintain inflated
stocks and bonds; because to do so would be to invitė
greater taxation than they could bear.
§ 13. Corrupt grants. So as to bribe-bought fran-
chises. It would be quite unnecessary to rescind them.
It would only be necessary to tax them on the basis-
of their true value, which is pure ground rent. Thus
American street railroads, which generally owe their
franchises to the grossest corruption, and which charge
fares of five or ten cents for a service which costs less
than half that sum, need not be interfered with. Under
a proper system of taxation, it would make little differ-
ence whether the fares were reduced or not. If the fares
were reduced to three cents, ground rents would be in-
creased, and the city would derive greater revenue from
its taxes on those rents. If the fares remain unchanged,
the value of the railroad franchise would be so much
SOCIAL EFFfects of NATURAL-TAXATION.
211
:
greater, and the tax upon that would be greater in pro
portion. It would make little difference, even to those
who travelled in the cars. If the fares were reduced, the
travellers would have to pay more rent for their homes.
Thus they would contribute as much to the public funds
in one way as in the other.
At first sight it would seem that the redress thus ob-
tained would be very inadequate. But it would not. Of
course, no past wrong can be entirely obliterated. No
scheme of social reform seriously proposes to secure com-
pensation for all the past. The world does not contain
wealth enough to pay damages for all past injuries. But
the taxation of all franchises, on the basis of their present
fair market value, with the concentration of all taxes upon
ground rents, of which these are a part, would take for
the public benefit all that the public could have secured,
under the most honest and impartial sale of such fran-
chises. It will also tax those corporations which obtained
their grants for nothing, just so much more than it will
tax those which paid a fair price.
•
§ 14. Taxation the best remedy for past corruption.
For these franchises could not, upon the average, have
been originally sold for more than they would now pay
under such taxation. If they had been sold at auction,
for a sum in cash, free of taxation, they would never have
brought a sum which, however well invested, would pro-
duce an income equal to the average annual tax. If new
franchises should be sold, free of taxation, to the highest
bidder for an annual payment, that payment, in the long
run, would rarely, if ever, equal the taxes which would-
be paid under this system. Therefore it would be better,
in the long run, to give these franchises to the corpora-
tions which will give the best security for the best and
cheapest public service, than to sell them to the highest
214
NATURAL ·TÄXATION.
bidder, either for a single or an annual payment. Indeed,
to sell them for a single present payment is obviously a
bad method. It confines competition to a very few men
of great wealth, depriving the municipality of the better
service, which less wealthy but more energetic men would
probably render; it cripples the operation of the fran-
chise by impairing the capital of the managers; and it
pours into the public treasury a large sum, which cannot
be well invested, and which is an almost irresistible
temptation to extravagance and waste.
:
And those corporations which have obtained valuable
franchises for nothing, except bribes, will necessarily be
taxed more heavily than those which are already subject
to an annual payment. Thus the Broadway Railroad, in
New York city, is subject to an annual payment of $40,-
ooo. The real annual value of its franchise (obtained by
paying aldermen $20,000 each) is so much more than
$400,000, that this figure may be taken, as an extremely
moderate one. Assuming that to be correct, the taxable
value of this franchise would be reduced to $360,000,
by this liability to an annual payment. If another
charter, equally valuable, should be granted in a parallel
street, for nothing, its taxable value would be the fall
$400,000. Supposing half of such values to be taken by
taxation, half the amount gained by bribery would be
recovered. Under the present system, every conceivable
method for recovering the loss sustained by the commu-
nity through such schemes of corruption has been tried,
without the slightest success. Even if the adoption of
just taxation should only recover half of a just compensa
tion for the franchises corruptly given away, that is a
thousand times more than has ever yet been recovered,
and ten times more than ever can be recovered in any
- other way.
SOCIAL EFFECTS OF NATURAL TAXATION.
215
§ 15. Usurped lands. Take the case of usurped or
stolen lands. In Great Britain, the lords of the manor,
having had control of Parliament for centuries, have
stolen vast quantities of land from the people, under the
forms of law. In the United States, vast tracts of land
have been taken up, under forged grants or under per-
jured testimony. Spanish grants are a by-word; and the
homestead law has been perverted into the most success-
ful scheme for buying government land at a fourth of its
value, which could have been devised. It ought to be
entitled: "An Act to prohibit the purchase of land by
honest men, and to encourage monopoly and perjury."
Railroad lands, to the amount of hundreds of millions of
acres, have been obtained for nothing, except a few beg-
garly bribes to Congressmen and State legislators, amount-
ing in all to less than a ten thousandth part of the market
value. What then? Shall we sue in the courts for relief?
None could be had, without, laying down rules of law,
which would be ruinous to innocent purchasers, all over the
land. Shall we pass confiscatory laws? The Constitution
forbids; and if it did not, our own consciences would revolt
at the idea. There is no possible relief in that direction.
Great Britain has no written constitution; and her Par-
liament has unlimited power. Shall Parliament direct the
confiscation of the old common lands? Shall it under-
take to reclaim literal possession of "the land for the
people"? Let us not waste time in discussing the ques-
tion on moral grounds. Rightly or wrongly, the moral
sense of the people would revolt at such à proposition.
And if it did not, yet the immense complications involved
in awarding compensation for improvements would break
down the whole project. It is not worth while to in-
quire into the abstract morality of an utterly impractica-
ble scheme.
1
$
216
NATURAL TAXATION.
!
But, in Great Britain and America alike, the adoption
of a just, natural, and uniform method of taxation would
give an immediate remedy. Without confiscation, with-
out violence, without any social upheaval, it would take
for public use about half of the revenue thus misappro-
priated, which is no more than ought to be taken, in any
case; while it is far more than can ever be obtained in
any other way.
"The best remedy for injustice is simple justice."
§ 16. Reform in government. By this time, it is
hoped, the attentive reader will have begun to see that
the adoption of natural taxation leads, by an easy course,
to reform in all methods of government and the abolition
of corruption in public office, by removing most induce-
ments to corruption. It would nearly extirpate the bribery
of legislatures and councils, by leaving nothing for any one
to gain by offering bribes. Not absolutely, of course. It
cannot be too often repeated, that nothing in this world
is or ever will be perfect. But this reform in taxation
would remove most of the present inducements to brib-
ery, falsehood and fraud in public affairs.
17. Abolition of fraud and bribery in tax matters.
The most prolific sources of these evils are directly
connected with bad methods of taxation. Every change
in laws imposing taxes upon commodities, either by a
tariff or by excises, affects so many private interests
that all parties agree in charging wholesale bribery and
corruption upon each other, and none seriously claim to
be innocent. This branch of the subject has already been
sufficiently treated. The innumerable frauds and perju-
-ries which arise out of the taxation of personal property :
have also been referred to. All these abominations would
disappear, with the acceptance of natural taxation. No-
body would be required to make any return of his wealth
Social EffecTS OF NATURAL TAXATION.
217
and no attention would be paid to it, if he made any.
There would be but one thing to be taxed; and its value
would be ascertained by independent investigation. Valu-
ations of land might be compared with the rents actually
paid; but those rents would be learned by inquiry among
tenants, not among landlords. Large land-owners might
attempt to bribe assessors, as they do now. But the
value of land is so easily determined, that other land-
owners could be provided with an ample remedy, in an
application to the courts to make assessments just and™
uniform.
§ 18. Special local assessments dispensed with.
The complex system of special assessments for local
improvements, which is indispensable under all existing
methods of taxation, with its allowance for "better-
ments," to use a current English term, would become
unnecessary. All improvements could be made at the
common expense; because whatever improvement might
thus be made in the value of adjoining property would
all be an increase in the value of the mere land; and this
addition would lead at once to a permanent increase in
the tax upon that land, to a proportionate amount. Such
assessments have always been a fertile source of injustice,
inequality, and fraud. They are, inevitably, largely based
upon guesswork; whereas the subsequent taxation would
be measured by actual, known values.
§ 19. Bribery made unprofitable. The most appalling
developments of crime in American government, how-
ever, have taken place with regard to the grants of special
privileges on land, especially to railway, gas, electric light,
and similar companies. The notorious robbery of the
United States by the Union Pacific and Central Pacific
companies, to an amount exceeding $100,000,000, is only
one of many instances, although the most prominent one.
218
NATURAL TAXATION.
The repeated purchase of the Broadway Railroad fran-
chise from corrupt aldermen and legislators, repeatedly
set aside by the courts, has attracted more attention
than hundreds of similar crimes. But every street railroad
franchise in New York has certainly been procured in
precisely the same way; and probably every such railroad
in the country, the franchise of which was worth anything,
was chartered upon similar terms. Gas companies, elec-
tric light companies and steam heating companies, all pay
heavy bribes for permission to lay their pipes or wires in
city streets.
The taxation of all these franchises, at their full value,
on the same basis with other privileges over land, would
make it impossible to obtain them for nothing. No bar-
gains with aldermen could relieve them from paying hand-
somely for their annual value. There would no longer
be an eager crowd of bribe-offerers; and therefore the crowd
of bribe-takers would cease to buy their way into munici--
pal government. The bribes offered to aldermen would
be too small to repay the aldermen's bribes to their
electors. Such franchises would be generally given to
those who would accept them on terms most favorable to
the public, with respect to low charges, good accommoda-
tion, and faithful service. No money would be paid,
either to the municipality or to the aldermen; for taxes
would have to be paid; and they would automatically
increase, as the value of the franchises increased.
§ 20. The tenement house problem. The rapid
increase of low-class tenement houses in large American
cities, especially in New York, has excited the just anxiety
and alarm of our most thoughtful citizens. Many plans
of restriction and regulation are urged. They all aim at
results which are eminently desirable. But they all in
volve large expenses, which must be finally borne, under
SOCIAL EFFECTS OF NATURAL`TAXATIOŇ.
219
our present methods of taxation, by the very tenants
whose extreme and degrading poverty is the very cause
of the difficulty. It is perfectly true that such houses do
not afford sufficient space and air to sustain health. It is
often true that they do not furnish accommodations neces-
sary to maintain decency; although much has been done
of late years to improve them and to keep them under
careful inspection. But every good thing is costly; and
who is to pay the cost? If the landlord is forced by law
to provide better accommodations, he must charge more
rent for the house; and it has been already shown that
he can, in the long run, compel the payment of such addi-
tional rent; because, if he could not, no more tenement
houses would be built until tenants were able and willing
to pay a fair rate of interest upon all the cost of building
such houses, including all compulsory improvements.
Or suppose that the cost of such improvements is
paid by the government. The expense would be paid
out of taxes. Who would pay the taxes? A full share
would fall upon these very houses; and, as the cost of
such improvements when made by the city would be far
greater than it would be if they were made by the land-
lord, the probability is that the tax upon the class
of houses thus State-repaired would be nearly as great as
the cost of private repair would be. Be it more or less,
this tax must be finally paid by the tenants. And in this
event, a large share of the tax would fall upon other
buildings, occupied by a class but little less poor than the
occupants of tenement houses; and thus they would be
dragged down into actual poverty.
The next result would be that the tenement dwellers
would be so impoverished by the increase of their rents,
as to deprive them of some portion of the food or cloth-
ing, which they had with difficulty managed to provide
220
NATURAL TAXATION.
፡
under the original rent. All of them would suffer
inconvenience; -most of them would suffer actual priva-
tion; their earning power would be reduced; and many
of them would be driven out altogether, by the bidding
of other tenants, who had previously occupied houses or
parts of houses of a slightly higher grade, which they had
been compelled to give up by the pressure of taxation,
which, while they were much better than the tenements
had been before tenements were reformed, were no better
than the reformed and improved tenements.
Any compulsory improvements of this kind must in-
evitably make the lot of the lower class-the " residuum,"
as it is called-harder than ever.
}
As usual, it will be said that "this is all theory." Un-
fortunately it is a theory which was never much thought
of, until practical experience called attention to it. The
dwellings of the poor have been torn down and rebuilt
with improvements, upon a large scale, in Paris, London,
Berlin and other cities, and always with precisely these
results. Those who occupied the old, condemned build-
ings did not return to the new ones. They simply could
not afford it. Their places were taken by others, who
had always occupied rather better homes, and who were
driven by increased taxation to descend a step in the
social scale, finding in the new dwellings, homes not quite
equal to their old abodes, but much better and more ex-
pensive than the buildings which had been destroyed as
unhabitable. The "residuum" were driven into more de-
graded conditions than those under which they previously
lived.
§ 21. Its solution. Must we then abandon all hope of
improvement in the homes of the poor? Not at all.
While insisting upon renovations and necessary improve-
ments, let us remove all taxes from houses. This will
از
SOCIAL EFFECTS OF NATURAL TAXATION.
221
1
make houses more abundant; this will make house rents
cheaper; this will enable house owners to furnish necessary
improvements, without increasing rents or losing interest
on their investments.
Let us work out an illustration. Twenty thousand
dollars is a reasonable estimate for the price of many
tenement houses in New York; half for the house and
half for the land. Houses being usually assessed for 70
per cent. of their full value, the house, as distinguished
from the land, would be assessed at $7000, and taxed,
at present rates, $133. If this tax were taken off, repre-
senting, as it does, a capital of about $2600, the owner
could afford to spend $2000 on improvements without
raising the rent, and yet make a profit. Competition with
other house owners would eventually compel him either
to spend about as much or else to reduce his charge for
the house by more than $100 a year. Legislation might
hasten his action or require him to make the improve-
ments, instead of lowering his rent. In either case the
tenants' condition would be greatly improved.
Without deciding that no other reform is necessary or
desirable, it is at least demonstrated by long and wide.
experience that no permanent and complete reform of the
tenement house is possible, without first abolishing all
taxes on buildings.
1
§ 22. Summary of conclusions. The adoption of
natural taxation would obviously relieve the great mass
of the people from all taxes and tax-burdens whatever,
except rent; which they now pay, in addition to taxes.
It would put an end to that artificial concentration of
wealth in the hands of a few, which is now making such
rapid progress.
While leaving natural inequalities in human skill, in-
telligence, industry, and productive power to produce their
1
222
NATURAL TAXATION.
་
natural effects, in moderate inequalities of wealth, it would
gradually remove those unnatural and monstrous inequali-
ties which now exist, with no benefit to any one and with
vast injury to society as a whole.
It would put a premium upon improvement and in-
dustry, by relieving them from double taxation; while
it would lay such burdens upon mere dogs in the
manger," as would drive them into productive industry.
"C
It would secure to the owner of every product of human
industry and skill an absolute and indefeasible title to
such property; so that it could not be taken from him,
even for taxes, without full compensation for its market
value; a title, therefore, far superior to any which can now
be held by any human being.
It would increase the demand for human labor in the
production of good things for human use, to the utmost
possible limit; thus causing a general rise in wages of at
least 50 per cent. and more probably 100 per cent.
It would relieve wages from all present forms of taxa-
tion; thus increasing the net income of laborers, at once
and forever, by at least 15 per cent. more. Whether
"times" were good or bad, wages high or low, the net
income of every laborer would always be at least 15 per
cent. higher than it could possibly be under the present
system, at similar periods.
It would encourage capital to free investment, by re-
lieving it from all fear of punishment for enterprise, under
the name of taxation.
It would solve the American currency problem, by
opening banks of deposit in every nook and corner, free
of taxation; thus giving to every farmer precisely the
same facilities for exchange as are enjoyed by the wealth-
iest merchant or manufacturer, and making a large supply
of either coin or notes superfluous,
Social Effects of NATURAL TAXATION:
223
1
It would largely reduce the share of taxes paid by
farmers, because their share of ground rent is smaller than
is that of other land owners; while it would not increase
the present burdens upon residents of towns and cities.
since they would pay nothing but rent; and that they pay
now, in addition to taxes.
It would remove all shackles from (commerce, trade,
manufactures, agriculture, and industry of every kind,
giving them a stimulus such as they have never known.
It would throw open to all men some land, upon which
they could make a living, without requiring them to in-
vest any capital in its purchase, and at no greater rent
than they could reasonably afford to pay.
It would, therefore, enormously increase the production
and wealth of the nation, while securing a fair, though not
literally equal, distribution of that wealth.
It would reform government, by lifting the masses out
of the degrading conditions which make them an easy
prey to corrupt influences, by removing all temptation to
fraud in matters of taxation, and by destroying the chief
inducements to the corruption of legislatures and councils.
It would not at once make men moral, industrious, or
intelligent; it would not give to any man a' dollar which
he did not earn for himself; it would not open any
"royal roads” to wealth; for "royal" ways are ways of
idleness.
But it would open fair and equal opportunities to men
of equal capacity and industry; and it would remove
nearly all artificial hindrances to the success of the honest,
intelligent, and industrious.
}
SINGLE TAX PLATFORM.
(Adopted at Chicago, August 30, 1893.)
We assert as our fundamental principle the self-evident truth
enunciated in the Declaration of Independence, that all men
are created equal and are endowed by their creator with cer-
tain inalienable rights.
We hold that all men are equally entitled to the use and
enjoyment of what God has created and of what is gained by
the general growth and improvement of the community of
which they are a part. Therefore no one should be permitted
to hold natural opportunities without a fair return to all for
any special privilege thus accorded to him, and that value
which the growth and improvement of the community attach
to land should be taken for the use of the community.
We hold that each man is entitled to all that his labor pro-
duces. Therefore no tax should be levied on the products of
labor:
To carry out these principles we are in favor of raising all
public revenues for national, state, county and municipal pur-
poses by a single tax on land values, irrespective of improve-
ments, and of the abolition of all forms of direct and indirect,
taxation.
Since in all our states we now levy some tax on the value of
land, the single tax can be instituted by the simple and easy
way of abolishing, one after another, all other taxes now
levied, and commensurately increasing the tax on land values,
until we draw upon that one source for all expenses of govern-
ment, the revenue being divided between local governments,
辈
​state governments and the general government, as the revenues
from direct taxes are divided between the local and state gov-
ernments; or, a direct assessment being made by the general
government upon the states and paid by them from the
revenues collected in this manner.
The single tax we propose is not a tax on land, and there-
fore would not fall on the use of land and become a tax on
labor.
It is a tax, not on land, but on the value of land. Thus it
would not fall on all' land, but only on valuable land, and on
that not in proportion to the use made of it, but in proportion
to its value-the premium which the user of land must pay to
the owner, either in purchase money or rent, for permission.
to use valuable land. It would thus be a tax, not on the use
and improvement of land, but on the ownership of land,
taking what would otherwise go to the owner as owner, and
not as user.
In assessments under the single tax all values created by
individual use or improvement would be excluded, and the
only value taken into consideration would be the value attach-
ing to the bare land by reason of neighborhood, etc., to be
determined by impartial periodical assessments. Thus the
farmer would have no more taxes to pay than the speculator
who held a similar piece of land idle, and the man who, on
a city lot, erected a valuable building would be taxed no more
than a man who held a similar lot vacant.
The single tax, in short, would call upon men to contribute
to the public revenues, not in proportion to what they pro-
duce or accumulate, but in proportion to the value of natural
opportunities they hold. It would compel them to pay just
as much for holding land idle as for putting it to its fullest use.
The single tax therefore would
1. Take the weight of taxation off the agricultural districts
where land has little or no value irrespective of improvements,
!
*
and put it on towns and cities, where bare land rises to a value
of millions of dollars per acre.
2. Dispense with a multiplicity of taxes and a horde of tax
gatherers, simplify government and greatly reduce its cost.
f
3. Do away with the fraud, corruption and gross inequality
inseparable from our present methods of taxation, which allow
the rich to escape while they grind the poor. Land cannot
be hid or carried off, and its value can be ascertained with
greater ease and certainty than any other.
4. Give us, with all the world, as perfect freedom of trade
as now exists between the states of the Union, thus enabling
our people to share, through free exchanges, in all the ad-
vantages which nature has given to other countries, or which
the peculiar skill of other peoples has enabled them to attain.
It would destroy the trusts, monopolies and corruptions which
are the outgrowths of the tariff. It would do away with the
fines and penalties now levied on anyone who improves a farm,
erects a house, builds a machine, or in any way adds to the
general stock of wealth. It would leave every one free to
apply labor or expend capital in production or exchange with-
out fine or restriction, and would leave to each the full product
of his exertion.
5. It would, on the other hand, by taking for public use
that value that attaches to land by reason of the growth and
improvement of the community, make the holding of land
unprofitable to the mere owner, and profitable only to the
user. It would thus make it impossible for speculators and
monopolists to hold natural opportunities unused or only half
used, and would throw open to labor the illimitable field of
employment which the earth offers to man. It would thus
solve the labor problem, do away with involuntary poverty,
raise wages in all occupations to the full earnings of labór,
make over-production impossible until all human wants are
satisfied, render labor-saving inventions a blessing to all, and
I
'cause such an enormous production and such an equitable
distribution of wealth as would give to all comfort, leisure,
and participation in the advantages of an advancing civilization.
In securing to each individual his equal right to the use of
the earth, it is also a proper function of society to maintain
and control all public ways for the transportation of persons
and property, and the transmission of intelligence; and also
to maintain and control all public ways in cities for furnishing
water, gas and all other things that necessarily require the use
of such common ways.
The "Shortest Road To The Single Tax
can be had in quantities at reduced rates, by
addressing the publisher, Geo. P. Hampton, 62-64
Trinity Place, New York City.
3
1
1
!
1
}
î
;

UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN
1904
3 9015 06384 4727
:
VAT - 50
"
ACE MAKE M
.1.

↓
7
1.
2
નવ
健康
​效益
​A
*
2
་
**
SAR
&
4
23.4
*
***LAXY -
Dark
KAN & He
きま
​•
- 、,,-,
滿
​精
​ลง 45
י
SI
ZA
↑
·
2
一​量
​A *
-
?
1
ad
16
ANY DOK
تاییه
» G+ 4
་་
&
RA
ED DINE 1018) M8 * MP CHHUSEN CEJARS ** ** *
RA
** **01*N #RILEMA ON M 22 ORKES MR20 19 69 4.9
# Å
*
TH
ht
*
1
T. x
18
傑​龍
​34
A
*
3
GJ S
0
*
સરક
་་
1 ་་་་
W
...આ કામ ક
ཏ་༌
←
QAYA
...
>
34 505
1.
ས
W. AC
IN 19
4
,
*
KEN VIVARGAS ADAMAK IR SDARFUR
Q
*
P 20
T
* * * * * O JA SOON AKSER BEA WA FARBETE VSADER 78 PAS BIRAKY
錢​暴
​}
RISI 62 D. IR TIEL AS B
جمالا
AT CATR
*
冻
​V 4
DOĐEM & Me 3 T
A
༄
a
.
་
藏寶
​:;
A
I
***** VE MY HRNEK PARCA
AZ EM 1. #7 UMN STONES DE M DE OMARI
R
NSING MYNDAIRYS DE M VE TEK2216
藏书
​影
​傻
​ས
.
7
✰
* * *
1
**
1
►
*
i.h
པ、,
- S
~ 3
3. &
{
睫
​»
བདུན་
جرة
A
༥:;
✩
FA
7.
อร
1
ין
・
ני
2 A
น
27
ព
T
1
+ a
19 寓
​*
>
4
2 3
་
ཝ
* י
K
1 s
N
麻
​*
•
二
​*