een a
Lºlºlºllidſ.
ºn tº lº ºr Sinºle
ºn tº cºlº tº coºle lº
--- -
- -
Dºnºr lº lºº. Nº ºn.
SPENCE:-
-
-
º Cºss ºr
new weekly by the
sºil E TAXER
nº Tract Department.
º ºs. M. º. º. ºOT-














GEM EconoMIC LIBRARY.
No. 1. The sin of the Church-Bºy Rev. S. S.
Craig One copy ºf 15 copies, 25c.
* * Swedish Catechisºn-By Rev. August
Dellºren. One copy lºcº 12 copies, 10-
* 8. The Way Out--A Single Tax drama
by L. E. Willmarth, One copy ºc. 15
copies, 25c.
* 4. Taxing Land Values-Editorials of
Henry George reprinted from the
Standard. One copy ºc. 15 copies ºc.
* 5. Right to the Use of the Earth-Bºy. Her
bert Spencer. One copy icº tº copies
10 cent-
EIGHT PAGE LEAFLET SERIES.
No. 6 object Lesson for Farmers-Illinois
Labor Bureau Tax Report.
Henry George's works.
Progress and Poverty. Cloth, sº paper 35c.
Social Problems. Cloth, sº paper, ºc.
A Perplexed Philosopher. Cloth, sº paper
ºn cent- -
-
Protection or Free Trade? Cloth, sº paper
º cºnt-
The Condition of Labor. cious Tº paper 15c.
2 copies 25 cents.
The Land Question. Paper, 20 cents.
Property in Land, Paper, 20 cents.
order the above from the publishers of
--i-tract.
WEAR A BUTTON.
anº
CREATEs Discussion.
-
one button scº dozen ascº toº -
-
Every single taxer should -
carry some extra ones in his
ºr give away. National Sin
Edison Budº, Minneapolis.







Java. *Oax 0.8%.

RIGHT TO THE USE OF THE EARTH.
BY HERBERT SPENCER.
The following was Chapter. IX of Her-
bert º “Social Statics” in the
original edition published in 1850, and in
all subsequent editions up to May, 1892,
when an expurgated edition was printed
with this chapter and other references to
the land question cut out. The matter is
fully discussed by Henry George in “A
Perplexed Philosopher,” an advertisement
of which will be found elsewhere.
1. Given a race of human beings
having like claims to pursue the ob-
jects of their desires—given a world
adapted to the gratification of those
desires—a world into which such be-
ings are similarly born, and it una-
voidably follows - that they have
equal rights to the use of this world.
For if each of them “has freedom to
do all that he wills, provided he in-
fringes not the equal freedom of any
other,” then each of them is free to
use the earth for the satisfaction of
his wants, provided he allows all
others the same liberty. And con-
versely, it is manifest that no one, or
part of them, may use the earth in
such a way as to prevent the rest
from similarly using it, seeing that
to do this is to assume greater free-
dom than the rest, and consequently
to break the law.

->
-
2. Equity, therefore, does not per-
mit property in land. For if one
portion of the earth's surface may
justly become the possession of an
individual, and may be held by him
for his sole use and benefit, as a
thing to which he has an exclusive
right, then other portions of the earth's
surface may be so held; and event-
ually the whole of the earth's surface
may be so held; and our planet may
thus lapse altogether into private
hands. Observe now the dilemma to
which this leads. Supposing the en-
tire habitable globe to be so enclosed,
it follows that if the land owners
have a valid right to its surface, all
who are not land owners have no
right at all to its surface. Hence,
such can exist on the earth by suf-
ferance only. - They are all trespass-
ers. Save by the permission of the
lords of the soil, they can have no
room for the soles of their feet.
Nay, should the others think fit to
deny them a resting place, these
landless men might equitably be ex-
pelled from the earth altogether. If,
then, the assumption that land can
be held as property, involves that the
whole globe may become the private
domain of a part of its inhabitants:
and if, by consequence, the rest of its
inhabitants can then exercise their
faculties—can then exist even—only
by consent of the land owners, it is
manifest that an exclusive possession
of the soil necessitates an infring-
ment of the law of equal freedom.
For men who cannot “live and move
-

3
and have their being” without the
leave of others, cannot be equally
free with those others.
3. Passing from the consideration
of the possible to that of the actual.
we find yet further reason to deny
the rectitude of property in land. It
can never be pretended that the ex-
isting titles to such property are
legitimate. Should anyonethink so,
let him look in the chronicles. Vio-
lence, fraud, the prerogative of force,
the claims of superior cunning—
these are the sources to which those
titles may be traced. The original
deeds were written with the sword
rather than with the pen; not law-
yers but soldiers, were the convey-
ancers; blows were the current coin
º in payment; and for seals,
lood was used in preference to wax.
Could valid claims be thus constitu-
ted? Hardly. And if not, what be-
comes of the pretention of all subse-
uent holders of estates so obtained?
oes sale or bequest generate a right
where it did not previously exist?
Would the original claimants be non-
suited at the bar of reason, because
the º stolen from them had
changed hands? Certainly not. And
if one act of transfer can give no title,
can many? No. Though nothing be
multiplied forever it will not produce
one. ven the law recognizes this
principle. An existing holder must,
if called upon, substantiate the
claims of those from whom he pur-
chased or inherited his property; and
any flaw in the original parchment,

-
even though the property should
have had a score of intermediate
owners, quashes his right.
*But time,” say some, “is a great
legalizer. Immemorial possession
must be taken to constitute a legiti-
mate claim. That which has been
held from age to age as º Top-
erty, and has been bought and sold as
such, must now be considered as ir-
revocably belonging to individuals.”
To which proposition a willing assent
shall be given when its propounders
can assign it a definite meaning. To
do this, however, they must find sat-
isfactory answers to such questions
as, How long does it take for what
was originally wrong to grow into a
right? At what rate per annum do
invalid claims become valid? If a
title gets perfect in a thousand years,
how much more than perfect will it
be in two thousand years?—and so
forth. For the solution of which
they will require a new calculus.
Whether it may be expedient to
admit claims of a certain standing,
is not the point. We have here noth-
ing to do with considerations of con-
ventional privilege or legislative
convenience. We have simply to in-
quire what is the verdict given by
pure equity in the matter. And this
verdict enjoins a protest against
every existing pretention to the in-
dividual possession of the soil and
dictates the assertion, that the right
of mankind at large to the earth’s
surface is still valid; all deeds, cus-
toms and laws notwithstanding.

b
4. Not only have present land ten-
ures an indefensible origin but it is
impossible to discover any mode by
which land can become private prop-
erty. Cultivation is commonly con-
sidered to give a legitimate title.
He who has reclaimed a tract of
ground from its primitive wildness
is supposed to have thereby made it
his own. But if his right is disputed,
by what º of logic can he windi-
cate it? Let us listen a moment to
his pleadings.
“Hallo, you, sir,” cries the cosmop-
olite to somebackwoodsman smoking
at the door of his shanty, “by what
authority do yon take possession of
these acres that you have cleared,
round which you have put up a snake
fence and on which you have built
this log house?”
“By what authority? I squatted
here because there was no one to say
nay—because I was as much at liber-
ty to do so as any other man. Be-
sides, now that I have cut down the
wood, and plowed and cropped
the ground, this farm is more mine
than yours, or anybody's, and I mean
to keep it.”
“Ay, so you all say. But I do not
see how you have substantiated your
claim. When 3". came here you
found the land producing trees–
sugar maples, perhaps; or maybe it
was covered with prairie grass and
wild strawberries. Well, instead of
these you made it yield wheat or
maize or tobacco. Now I want to
understand how, by exterminating

6
one set of plants and making the
soil bear another set in their place,
you have constituted yourself lord of
this soil for all succeding time.”
“Oh, those natural products which
I destroyed were of little or no use:
whereas I caused the earth to bring
forth things good for food—things
that help to flºº life and happiness.”
“Still you have not shown why such
a process makes the portion of earth
you have so modified yours. What is
it that you have done? You have
turned over the soil to a few inches
in depth with a spade or a plow: you
have scattered over this prepared
surface a few seeds; and you have
gathered the fruits which the sun,
rain and air helped the soil to pro-
duce. Just tell me, if you please, by
what magic have these acts made
you sole owner of that vast mass of
matter, having for its base the sur-
face of your estate, and for its apex
the center of the globe? all of which
it appears, you would monopolize to
yourself and your descendants for-
ever.”
“Well, if it isn’t mine, whose is it?
I have dispossessed nobody. When I
crossed the Mississippi yonder, I
found nothing but the silent woods.
If some one else had settled here and
made this clearing he would have
had as good a right to the location as
I have. I have done nothing but
what any other person was at liberty
to do had he come before me. While
they were unreclaimed these lands
belonged to all men—as much to one

7
as to another—and they are now
mine simply because I was the first
to discover and improve them.
“You say truly when you say that
‘while they were unreclaimed these
lands belonged to all me.’ And it
is my duty to tell you that they be-
long to all men still; and that your
“improvements,’ as you call them,
cannot vitiate the claim of all men.
You may plow and harrow, and sow
and reap, you may turn over the soil
as often as you like, but all your
manipulations will fail to make that
soil yours, which was not yours to
begin with. Let me put a case. Sup-
pose that in the course of your wan-
derings you come upon an empty
house, which in spite of its dilapidat-
ed state takes your fancy; suppose
that with the intention of making it
your abode you expend much time
and trouble in repairing it—that you
paint and paper and whitewash, and
at considerable cost bring it into a
habitable state. Suppose, further-
that on some fatal day a stranger is
announced, who turns out to be the
heir to whom this house has been be-
queathed, and that this professed
heir is prepared with all the neces-
sary proofs of his identity: what be-
comes of your improvements? Do
they give you a valid title to the
house? Do they quash the title of
the original claimant?”
“No.”
“Neither then do your pioneering
operations give you a valid title to
this land. Neither do they quash

the title of its original claimants—
the human race. The world is God's
bequest to mankind. All men are
joint heirs to it; you are among the
number. And because you have
taken up your residence on a certain
part of it and have subdued, culti-
wated, beautified that part-improved
it as you say—you are not, therefore,
warranted in appropriating it as en-
tirely private property. At least, if
you do so, you may at any moment be
justly expelled by the lawful own-
er—Society.
“Well, but surely you would not
eject me without making some
tºº. for the great additional
value I have given to this tract by
reducing what was a wilderness into
fertile fields. You would not turn
me adrift and deprive me of all the
benefits of those years of toil it has
cost me to bring this spot into its
present state.”
“Of course not: just as in the case
of the house, you would have an
equitable title to compensation from
the proprietor for repairs and new
fitings, so the community cannot
justly take possession of this estate
without paying for all you have done
to it. This extra worth which your
labor has imparted to it is fairly
yours, and although you have, with-
out leave, busied yourself in better-
ing what belongs to the community,
yet no doubt the community will
duly discharge your claim. But ad-
mitting this is quite a different thing
from recognizing your right to the

9
land itself. It may be true that you
are entitled to compensation for the
improvements this enclosure has re-
ceived at your hands; and at the
same time it may be equally true
that no act, form, proceeding or cer-
emony can make this enclosure your
private property.”
5. It does indeed at first sight seem
possible for the earth to become the
exclusive possession of individuals
by some process of equitable distri-
bution. “Why,” it may be asked,
“should not men agree to a fair sub-
division? If all are co-heirs, why may
not the estate be equally apportioned,
and each be afterward perfect mas-
ter of his own share?”
To this question it may in the first
place be replied that such a division
is vetoed by the difficulty of fixing
the values of respective tracts of
land. Variations in productiveness.
different degrees of accessibility,
advantages of climate, proximity to
the centers of civilization—these,
and other such considerations, re-
move the problem out of the sphere
of mere mensuration into the region
of impossibility.
But, waiving this, let us inquire,
who are to be the allottees. Shall
adult males, and all who have reach-
ed twenty-one on a specified day be
the fortunate individuals? If so,
what is to be done with those who
come of age on the morrow? Is it
proposed that each man, woman and
child shall have a section? If so,
what becomes of all who are to be born

10
next year? And what will be the
fate of those whose fathers sell their
estates and squander the proceeds?
These portionless ones must consti-
tute a class already described as
having no right to a resting place on
earth—as living by the sufferance of
their fellow men—as being practical-
ly serfs. And the existence of such a
class is wholly at variance with the
law of equal freedom.
Until, therefore, we can produce a
valid commission authorizing us to
make this distribution—until it can
be proved that God has given one
charter of privilege to one generation
and another to the next—until we
can demonstrate that men born after
a certain date are doomed to slavery,
we must consider that no such allot-
ment is permissible.
6. Probably some will regard the
difficulties inseparable from individ-
ual ownership of the soil, as caused
by pushing to excess a doctrine
applicable only within rational lim-
its. This is a very favorite style of
thinking with some. There are peo-
ple who hate anything in the shape of
exact conclusions: and these are of
them. According to such, the right is
never in either extreme, but always
half way between the extremes. They
arecontinually trying to reconcile yes
and no. Ifs and buts and excepts
are their delight. They have so
great a faith in the "judicious mean”
that they would scarcely believe an
oracle if it uttered a full length prin-
ciple. Were you to inquire of them

11
whether the earth turns on its axis
from east to west or from west to
east, you might almost expect the
reply: “A little of both,” or “Not
exactly either.” It is doubtful
whether they would assent to the
axiom that the whole is greater than
its part, without making some qual-
ification. They have a passion for
compromises. To meet their taste,
truth must always be spiced with a
little error. They cannot conceive of
a pure, definitive, entire and unlimit-
edlaw. And hence, in discussions like
the present, they are constantly
petitioning for limitations—always
wishing to abate, and modify, and
moderate-ever protesting against
doctrines being pursued to their ulti-
unate consequences.
But it behooves such to recollect
that ethical truth is as exact and as
peremptory as physical truth; and
that in this matter of land tenure the
verdict of morality must be distinct-
ly yea or nay. Either men have a right
to make the soil private property
or they have not. There is no medium.
We must choose one of the two
positions. There can be no half-and-
half opinion. In the nature of
things the fact must be either one
way or the other.
If men have not such a right, we are
at once delivered from the severe
Fº already pointed out.
f they have such a right, then is
that right absolutely sacred, not
on any pretense to be violated. If
they have such a right then is his

12
grace of Leeds justified in warning
off tourists from Ben Muich-Dhui,
the duke of Athol in closing Glen
Tilt, the duke of Buccleugh in deny-
ing sites to the Free Church and the
duke of Sutherland in banishing the
Highlanders to make room for sheep
walks. If they have such a right,
then it would be proper for the sole
proprietor of any kingdom—a Jersey
or Guernsey, for example—to impose
just what regulations he might
choose on its inhabitants—to tell
them that they should not live on
his property unless they professed a
certain religion, spoke a particular
language, paid him a specified rever-
ence, adopted an authorized dress and
conformed to all other conditions he
might see fit to make. If they have
such a right then is there truth in
that tenet of the ultra tory school,
that the land owners are the only
legitimate rulers of the country-
that the people at large remain in it
only by the land owners’ permission,
and ought consequently to submit to
the land owners' rule, and respect
whatever institutions the land own-
ers set up. There is no escape from
these inferences. They are necessary
corollaries to the theory that the
earth can become individual proper-
ty. And they can only be repudiated
by denying that theory.
7. After all, nobody does implicitly
believe in landlordism. We hear of
estates being held under the king–
that is, the state; or of their being
kept in trust for the public benefit;

13
and not that they are the inalienable
ssessions of their nominal owners.
oreover, we daily deny landlordism
by our legislation. Is a canal, a rail-
road or a turnpike road to be made,
we do not scruple to seize just as many
acres as may be requisite, allowing
the holders compensation for the
capital invested. We do not wait for
consent. An act of parliament sup-
ersedes the authority of title deeds,
and serves proprietors with notices
to quit whether they will or not.
Either this is equitable or it is not.
Either the public are free to re-
sume as much of the earth’s surface
as they think fit, or the titles of the
land owners must be considered ab-
solute, and all national works must
be postponed until lords and squires
please to part with the requisite
slices of their estates... If we decide
that the claims of individual owner-
ship must give way, then we imply
that the right of the nation at large
to the soil is supreme—that the right
of private possession only exists by
general consent—that general con-
sent being withdrawn it ceases—or,
in other words, that it is no right at
all.
8. “But to what does this doctrine,
that men are º entitled to the
use of the earth, lead? Must we
return to the times of uninclosed
wilds, and subsist on roots, berries
and game? Or are we to be left to the
management of Messrs. Fourier,
Owen, Louis Blanc & Co.”

14
Neither. Such a doctrine is con-
sistent with the highest state of civ-
ilization, may be carried out with-
out involving a community of goods,
and need cause no very serious revo-
lution in existing arrangements. The
change required would be simply a
change of landlords. Separate own-
erships would merge into the joint
stock ownership of the public. In-
stead of being in the possession of
individuals, the country would be
held by the great corporate body—
Society. Instead of leasing his acres
from an isolated proprietor, the far-
mer would lease them from the
nation. Instead of paying his rent
to the agent of Sir John or his grace,
he would pay it to an agent or deputy
agent of the community. Stewards
would be public officials instead of
rivate ones, and tenancy the only
and tenure.
A state of things so ordered would
be in perfect harmony with the mor-
al law. Under it all men would be
equally landlords; all men would be
alike free to become tenants. A, B,
C and the rest might compete for a
vacant farm, as now, and one of
them might take that farm, without
in any way violating the principies
of pure equity. All would be equally
free to bid; all would be equally free
to refrain. And when the farm had
been let to A, B, or C, all parties
would have done that which they
willed—the one in choosing to pay a
given sum to his fellow men for the
use of certain lands—the others in

15
refusing to pay that sum. Clearly,
therefore, on such a system, the earth
may be enclosed, occupied and culti-
wated in entire subordination to the
law of equal freedom. -
9. No doubt great difficulty must
attend the resumption, by mankind
at large, of their rights to the soil.
The question of compensation to ex-
isting proprietors is a complicated
one—one that perhaps cannot be set-
in a strictly equitable manner. Had
we to deal with the parties who
originally robbed the human race of
its heritage, we might make short
work of the matter. But unfortun-
ately, most of our present land own-
ers are men who have either mediate-
ly or immediately—either by their
own acts, or by the acts of their an-
cesters—given for their estates equiv-
alents of honestly earned wealth,
believing that they were investing
their savings in a legitimate man-
ner. To justly estimate and liqui-
date the claims of such is one of the
most intricate problems society will
one day have to solve. But with
this perplexity and our extrication
from it, abstract morality has no
concern. Men having got themselves
into the dilemma by disobedience to
the law, must get out of it as well as
they can: and with as little injury to
the landed class as may be.
Meanwhile we shall do well to
recollect that there are others be-
sides the landed class to be consid-
ered. "In our tender regard for the
vested interest of the few, let us not

16
forget that the rights of the many are
in abeyance and must remain so as
long as the earth is monopolized by in-
dividuals. Let us remember, too, that
the injustice thus inflicted on the
mass of mankind is an injustice of
the gravest nature. The fact that
it is not so regarded proves nothing.
In early phases of civilization even
homicide is thought lightly of. The
suttees of India, together with the
practice elsewhere followed of sacri-
ficing a hecatomb of human victims
at the burial of a chief show this,
and probably cannibals consider the
slaughter of those whom “the for-
tunes of war” have made their prison-
ers perfectly justifiable. It was once
also universally supposed that slav-
ery was a natural and quite legiti-
mate institution—a condition into
which some were born, and to which
they ought to submit as to a divine
ordination; nay, indeed a great pro-
portion of mankind hold this opinion
still. A higher social development,
however, has generated in us a bet-
terfaith, and we now to a consider-
able extent recognize the claims of
humanity. But our civilization is
only partial. It may by and by be
perceived, that equity utters dictates
to which we have not yet listened:
and men may then learn that to de-
prive others of their rights to the use
of the earth, is to commit a crime
inferior only in wickedness to the
crime of taking away their lives or
personal liberties.

ºf the perusal of this booklet has given YOU
the satisfaction of having gained new thoughts,
hand it to a friend to read.
The following can be obtained at BREN-
TANO's, zoº Wabash Ave., or TLACDONALD’s,
69 Washington St., or will be sent by mail,
postage prepaid, upon receipt of price.
Cloth. Paper.
Condition of Labor, Henry George, $1.00 $0.30
Land Question, -- -- -20
Property in Land, -- - -20
Social Problems, -- -- 1.00 --
Progress and Poverty,’” -- 1.00 -35
Perplexed Philosopher," -- 1.00 .50
Protection or Free Trade, -- 1.00 -25
Story of My Dictatorship, (Narrative
.30
You are cordially invited to attend the
meetings of the
CHICAGO SINGLE TAX CLUB
held every Friday evening, at Orpheus Hall,
Schiller. Theater Building. Good speakers
and free discussions. No charge for admis-
sion. Large audiences at every meeting.


Earth's . A story ºf
the Single Tax
Center. MA
most heartily commend "From Earth's
Center.” It contains in entertaining form
an explanation of the practical workings
of the Single Tax, and is on many other
matters of social concern suggestive to a
high degree. HENRY GEORGI,
“From Earth's Center,” by S.
Byron Welcome, is a deeply inter-
esting story, picturing a society
living under the single tax, and
thus answering just the questions
most often asked about this re-
form. It is now in its second edi.
Lion. Illustrated, 274 pages. Price,
25 cents, postage paid.
NATIONAL SINGLE TAxER Co.,
Edison Building, Minneapolis, Minn.