single Tax Exposed 
 
 
 By 
 
 
 Charles H, Shields 
 
 

 
 SINGLE TAX 
 EXPOSED 
 
 BY 
 
 CHARLES H. SHIELDS 
 
 Secretary Oregon Equal Taxation Lea[ue 
 
 DD 
 D 
 
 Shall Oregon Be the Vidtim on Which 
 
 Joseph Fels Would Try Out the 
 
 Fallacies of Single Tax 
 
 ? 
 
 Oregon Awaken
 
 SINGLE TAX 
 EXPOSED 
 
 AN INQUIRY INTO THE OPERATION OF THE SIN- 
 GLE TAX SYSTEM AS PROPOSED BY HENRY 
 GEORGE IN "PROGRESS AND POVERTY," 
 THE BOOK FROM WHICH ALL SINGLE TAX 
 ADVOCATES DRAW THEIR INSPIRATION. RE- 
 VEALING THE TRUE AND REAL MEANING 
 OF SINGLE TAX, WHICH IS LAND COMMUNISM 
 
 BY 
 CHARLES H. SHIELDS 
 
 Secretary Oregon Equal Taxation League 
 
 and 
 
 Head of the Anti-Single Tax League 
 
 of Washington 
 
 19 12
 
 5f.^^ 
 
 en 
 
 SINGLE TAX EXPOSED 
 
 THIRD EDITION 
 
 37076!
 
 
 Wr AN is a social as well as a 
 land animal. Land there- 
 fore is no greater factor for the 
 good of man than the com- 
 bined elements which consti- 
 tute the social structure in 
 which he has his being. ^ ^ 

 
 Contents 
 
 Chapter Page 
 I. Progress and Poverty by Henry George 9 
 
 II. Single Tax and How It Wilt. Operate 19 
 
 III. Confiscation of Private Property in Land. . .31 
 
 IV. Repidiation of Private CoxNtracts 35 
 
 V. Prinate Appropriation of the Soil 41 
 
 \I. All Property of Exchang.eable Value 
 
 Should Be Taxed 53 
 
 \1I. The Dog-in-the-]Manger Cry of the Single 
 Tax Advocates 61 
 
 \TII. Single Tax Unjlst, Unreasonable and In- 
 consistent 67 
 
 IX. The Single Taxers Cry "Land Monopoly". . . .77 
 
 X. How Single Tax Would Bar Public Lmprom:- 
 
 MENTS !^ 1 
 
 XI. \^\NcouvER, B. C, Has Xot Single Tax 85
 
 SINGLE TAX EXPOSED 
 
 CHAPTER I. 
 
 PROGRESS AND POVERTY BY HENRY GEORGE 
 OBJECTS OF THE AUTHOR 
 
 About forty years ago Henry George, then a news 
 correspondent, conceived the idea that the unequal dis- 
 tribution of wealth could be traced to no other cause than 
 that of private ownership of land. Being of a benevolent 
 nature and having a burning desire to extirpate pauperism 
 and poverty, which indeed is a noble spirit, he began his 
 study and Avritings on economic and social conditions, rea- 
 soning always that the source of all the ills so apparent in 
 society was that of private ownership of land. He wrote 
 many books dealing with this subject which received 
 more or less attention from the reading public, and espe- 
 cially from the laboring class of people. The climax of 
 his efforts along this line of thought was reached when he 
 wrote "Progress and Poverty." Perhaps no other book 
 on social or political economy received so much attention 
 throughout the world as "Progress and Poverty." In 
 this book was culminated his s.ystem known as Single Tax, 
 meaning that all other forms of taxes direct or indirect, 
 shall be abolished save that of a tax on land. By this 
 system of Single or Land Tax, he reasoned, and Ave will 
 concede that he reasoned Avell, that the burden of taxes 
 when resting entirely upon land, would be too great for 
 individuals to own the land and that it would eventually 
 revert to the Government or society from which it had 
 been wrongfully taken; that under such conditions, i.e. 
 the Government owning the land, and the people the 
 tenants, the present ills of society would disappear, inas- 
 much as the cause had V)eeii destroved. He further rea- 
 
 Extlrpation of pau- 
 persism his ob- 
 ject 
 
 Cause of pauper- 
 ism private own- 
 ership of land 
 
 Burden of taxes 
 too great for 
 land 
 
 Land reverts to 
 Government
 
 10 
 
 SIXfiLE TAX EXPOSED 
 
 Bead by all classes 
 
 Idea novel 
 
 His system to reg- 
 ulate mental in- 
 equalities 
 
 Condemned by 
 economists 
 
 Appealed to emo- 
 tion 
 
 Reasoning unsound 
 
 soned that poverty and wealth would blend, even want, 
 misery and crime would be no more. 
 
 The book in a few years after its publication caused 
 a great stir throughout both the new and old worlds. 
 There was a great demand for it. People in all walks of 
 life read with much interest this most novel and peculiar 
 scheme for relieving society of the many irregularities that 
 then existed. 3Ir. George even goes so far as to figure 
 that the abolition of the private ownership of land will 
 regulate the physical ills of the human race, that it would 
 make all men and women equally mental, and that it 
 would even be a bar to improvidence. In other words, 
 the abolition of private property in land w^ould bring 
 about a Millennium. 
 
 ]\Ien of science and political economists, however, did 
 not regard the reasoning of Mr. George as sound or 
 honest. As the latter is one of the cornerstones on which 
 good government must rest, the book therefore did not 
 receive the support of the reasoning and logical thinking 
 people of any country. It did, however, appeal very 
 strongly to the emotional and sympathetic side of life, 
 and on this account found many ardent supporters who 
 appreciated the work for the object and purposes at which 
 it aimed. One thing was certain in Mr. George, tlie poor 
 man, the laboring man, had at least found a friend ; one 
 who was trying to relieve their condition; whether his 
 juethod was good and his logic sound was not a serious 
 (juestion for their consideration; it was the intent of the 
 man. As before stated, the object of ^Mr. George was the 
 extermination of pauperism. Logic and reason here gave 
 way to emotion. 
 
 I want to warn my readers that this is a failing too 
 often indulged in one which often leads to confusion 
 and disorder. Reason is the highest attainment of organic 
 evolution and should always be on the throne. Emotions 
 are dangerous and should always be held in subjection to 
 that of reason. 
 
 The following of j\Ir. George and his peculiar doctrine 
 f'rew until a1)out 1886 when the fever began to snliside.
 
 I'ROGUESS AM) POVERTY BY HENRY GEORGE 
 
 11 
 
 In this year Mr. George ran for mayor of the City of New 
 York and was defeated presumably on account of his 
 Single Tax theories. 
 
 For many years after his defeat for mayor of New 
 York but little was heard of the Single Tax doctrine. It 
 had been so universally condemned as unsound, unjust 
 and so revolutionary iii its character, that only a few 
 fanatics heid to the doctrine. 
 
 Some five or six years ago one Joseph Fels, a multi- 
 millionaire soap manufacturer of Philadelphia, became in- 
 fatuated with the Henry George doctrine of Single Tax. 
 In fact, IMr. Fels holds it as a religion, and became so 
 wrapped up in this peculiar system of taxation that he 
 decided to spend a few of his accumulated millions in 
 promoting this system (and at the same time advertising 
 his soap). He therefore organized a commission known 
 as the Joseph Fels Fund Commission of America. This 
 Commission was to handle his contributions (which were 
 to duplicate the contributions of others) and to direct a 
 campaign in such states as in the judgment of the Com- 
 mission would be most likely to experiment with Single 
 Tax idea^, and where the statutes and constitutions could 
 most easily be changed to suit the situation. 
 
 Defeat of Henry 
 George 
 
 Single Tax fever 
 subsides 
 
 Fels infatuated 
 
 Fels spends his 
 millions 
 
 To change Statutes 
 for Single Tax 
 
 BEST OF MEN HIRED. 
 
 This Commission employed the most able men that 
 money could secure, men versed in the art of politics, 
 men who as the Commission say, "were on to their job," 
 men who could be trusted to cunningly devise and work 
 out plans for Single Tax which could be disguised and 
 which would cause the least resistance in the community 
 or state in wdiich such work was undertaken. 
 
 OREGON SELECTED AS THE VICTIM. 
 
 For reasons which have not yet been made known, 
 Oregon was selected as the victim on which Joseph Fels, 
 through his Commission, was to try out the fallacies of 
 the Single Tax theory, the Henry George scheme of so- 
 called tax reform which the author claimed when once in
 
 12 
 
 SI-NGLh' TAX EXPOSED 
 
 To regulate ills of 
 society 
 
 Blend millionaire 
 and pauper 
 
 Single Tax a theo- 
 ry only 
 
 operation, would do away with poverty and pauperism, at 
 the same time making it impossible for millionaires to 
 exist. In other words, that the abolition of private prop- 
 erty in land would blend poverty and immense riches, 
 thereby lifting the pauper and lowering the millionaire, 
 until the two would meet on a common plane ; that under 
 such a system all men and women would enjoy equal pos- 
 session of worldly goods ; that crime, want and misery 
 would forever disappear. This indeed would be a happy 
 condition. It must be apparent to the reader that such a 
 condition could exist in a dream only. 
 
 It would indeed be a credit to the State of Oregon or 
 any state in the Union to be the first to adopt such a 
 righteous system of taxation as Henry George and his fol- 
 lowers would have us believe Single Tax is. We will dis- 
 cuss, however, in the Chapters following the merits of this 
 Single Tax theory for a theory it is as compared with 
 the present system of taxation. 
 
 Some smooth work 
 
 Defeat of two 
 amendments 
 
 OREGON FOR SINGLE TAX IN 1912. 
 HOW IT WAS DONE. 
 
 I wish first, howc^'er, l)efore entering upon the eco- 
 nomic question of Single Tax to call the attention of the 
 reader to some of the details in connection with the last 
 state election in Oregon, at which time there were sul)- 
 mitted to the voters three constitutional amendments, two 
 of which were defeated, the third Ijeing adopted, that of 
 County Home Rule on Taxation, and whero the work oP 
 these hired emissaries of the Joseph Fels Fund Commis- 
 sion entered so clearly and cunningly into the campaign. 
 
 At the last State election in Oregon held on the Sth 
 of November, 1910, the people voted down a proposal to 
 change tlie constitution, whicl: amendment would have 
 omitted from that instrument the words ''And all taxa- 
 tion sliall be (M|ual and uniform." The vote was 37,619 
 foi' and 40.172 against the change. From the beginning 
 of the Kepublic the provision that taxes shall be equal and 
 uniform has been deemed a fundamental principle of our 
 written constitution. It is not surprising therefore that
 
 PK0GRKS8 AND POVERTY BY HFNRY GKORCiK 
 
 the voters declined to relinquisli -what has so long been 
 and deemed one of the mainstays of onr Government. 
 
 At the same election another amendment of similar 
 purport was voted upon and likewise defeated. This also 
 was a proposal to change the uniform rule of taxation. 
 The vote was -SI, 629 for, and 41.692 against. 
 
 Both of these proposed constitutional changes were 
 fairly and honestly submitted to the intelligent judgment 
 of the voters by printing upon the ballot the titles of the 
 proposed acts in such a manner as to clearly indicate that 
 the proposed alterations were directed against the rule of 
 uniformity and equality in taxation. 
 
 Rule of uniformity 
 
 Honestly- 
 submitted 
 
 ABOLISHING THE POLL TAX. 
 
 But at the same election the people were called upon 
 to vote upon a third constitutional cliange which also had 
 the effect of abolishing the rule of equality and uniformity 
 in taxation. The title of the act on the official ballot was 
 "For a constitutional amendment pi-oviding for tlie peo- 
 ple of each county to regulate taxation and exemptions 
 within the county regardless of constitutional restrictions 
 of state statutes and abolishing poll or head tax." 
 
 This measure was carried by a vote of 44.171 for. and 
 42.127 against. 
 
 Now the curious fact is that the state poll or head 
 tax in Oregon had already been abolished. I understand 
 that in Clackamas County there was still in some form a 
 road poll tax. The title of the act as printed on the ballot, 
 especially that portion of it relating to the abolishment of 
 poll tax, gained votes for the measure among those who 
 opposed such a tax on principle but who did not know 
 that there was no poll or head tax to abolish. 
 
 Moreover, the title did not in words propose to strike 
 out from the constitution the words "eciual or uniform" 
 as applied to taxation. If it had. it must be presumed 
 that the amendment would have met the fate at the 
 hands of an intelligent and discriminating electorate, that 
 attended the other two. The amendment was adopted 
 without a single argument having been printed against 
 
 No poll 
 abolish 
 
 tax to 
 
 Objects disguised 
 
 Title misleading
 
 14 
 
 SINGLE TAX EXPOSED 
 
 No argument 
 against 
 
 Attack on poll tax 
 
 Counties to experi- 
 ment 
 
 Voters did not un- 
 derstand 
 
 it. It was proposed by the Oregon State Federation of 
 Labor and by the Central Labor Council of Portland and 
 vicinity, who jointly signed a combination argument cov- 
 ering and advocating the adoption of this measure and 
 two others. Their argument was published in the State 
 pamphlet issued to voters by the Secretary of State. 
 No one seems to have been sufficiently interested against 
 this radical change in the law to pay for a counter 
 argument, for none appeared in the State publication. 
 The argument that Avas printed in the State pamphlet 
 in favor of the measure was largely devoted to an attack 
 upon the poll tax. They claimed the County Home Rule 
 provision in the amendment was very valuable, that every 
 county would be obliged to pay its fair share of the 
 state taxes, but that the people of the county may decide 
 for themselves how they will raise the money and that 
 it would make no difference whatever to the people of 
 other counties; different methods and systems of taxa- 
 tion and exemption they reasoned could thus be tried on 
 a small scale just as other inventions and experiments 
 are first tried out on a small scale. AVith the people of 
 every county studying and experimenting on this ques- 
 tion of just laws for taxation and exemptions, it is cer- 
 tain that in a very few years Oregon will develop a fair 
 system of taxation that will bear equally and justly on 
 every citizen. It should be obvious to the reader that 
 an ordinary voter at least would not detect in this pro- 
 posed amendment or in the arguments for it. as appeared 
 in the state campaign book, anything that would suggest 
 Single Tax. However this was the real object and pur- 
 pose of the measure, as will be clearly proven a little 
 further on. 
 
 Single Tax 
 phlet 
 
 pam- 
 
 In another pamphlet published at the expense of 
 the Joseph Fels Fund by ^Messrs. Cridge. Eggleston and 
 U'Een. and circulated before the election, a strong argu- 
 ment in favor of all three of these amendments was made. 
 
 It was under these circumstances that this amend- 
 ment to the constitution of Oregon was adopted that is
 
 PROGRESS AND POVERTY BY HENRY GEORGE 
 
 15 
 
 now relied upon by the advocates of the Single Tax 
 
 system. 
 
 CONCEALING THE SINGLE TAX IDEA. 
 
 It will be apparent that the ballot did not use the 
 words ''Single Tax." Nothing in the body of the amend- 
 ment refers to Single Tax, and this is true of the other 
 two amendments that w^ere voted down, yet the adoption 
 of any one of the three would have brought the same 
 result, for all three were shrewdly designed to let in 
 Single Tax, and it made little difference to the Single 
 Tax advocate if two of the amendments were voted down, 
 if the third were carried. The measure adopted reads as 
 follows : 
 
 "Section la. No poll or head tax shall be 
 levied or collected in Oregon. No bill regulating 
 taxation or exemption throughout the state shall 
 become a law" until approved by the people of the 
 state at a regular general election. None of the 
 restrictions of the constitution shall apply to 
 measures approved by the people declaring what 
 shall be subject to taxation or exemption and 
 how it shall be taxed or exempted, whether pro- 
 posed by the legislative assembly or by initiative 
 petition, but the people of the several counties 
 are hereby empowered and authorized to regulate 
 taxation and exemptions within their several 
 counties, subject to any general law" which may 
 be hereinafter enacted." 
 
 Under the amendment none of the restrictions of the 
 constitution shall apply to tax measures approved by 
 the people, and counties are empow^ered to regulate taxa- 
 tion and exemptions. The provisions requiring equality 
 and uniformity have therefore no force though still in 
 the constitution, and each county is to be at liberty to 
 make a tax law" to suit itself and to change it at every 
 election. 
 
 Now I venture to say that the people of Oregon are 
 not in favor of Single Tax, and they were not in favor 
 of adopting an amendment that would allow inequality 
 in taxation, thereby making their investments uncertain 
 
 One of the three 
 would do 
 
 The bill 
 
 Rule of uniformity- 
 destroyed
 
 Ifi 
 
 SIXGLE TAX KXPOSFD 
 
 Not the wiU 
 the people 
 
 of 
 
 Single Taxers re- 
 joice 
 
 Renewed activity 
 
 Appeal for help 
 
 and unstable l^y the menace of frequent and experimental 
 local changes in the tax system, and I feel justified in 
 saying that the 2,000 majority for this measure would 
 have utterly disappeared if there liad Ijeen any apprecia- 
 tion of what the amendment stood foi'. 
 
 The total vote on the measure, pro and con, amounted 
 to 86,298. Tlie highest total vote at the election was 
 120,248. Thus it will be seen tliat some 40,000 voters did 
 not express themselves upon this important question 
 Certainly had the people of Oregon known that they 
 were voting upon a question that stood for Single Tax, 
 that stood for a system which had for its ultimate end 
 the confiscation of private property in land, a greatei 
 percentage of voters would have expressed themselves on 
 this important subject. 
 
 Doubtless there was great rejoicing among the Sin- 
 gle Tax advocates, for the way seemed open for the next 
 step, that of imposing the burden of tax upon land. 
 Renewed activity among them was at om-e manifest. 
 Supplied with ample resources through the Joseph Fels 
 Fund, a vigorous campaign to capture Oregon for Single 
 Tax ^^as at once opened. The United States was flooded 
 with circulars calling for money on the ground that 
 Joseph Fels had agreed to duplicate all contributions 
 ]nade by others for the purpose of securing the adoption 
 of Single Tax some^^hele in the Ignited States within five 
 Acars. 
 
 Report of Fels 
 Commission 
 
 VICTORY FOR SINGLE TAX. 
 
 These circulars are vibrant with the triumph of the 
 Oregon victory achieved, and they forecast the consum- 
 mation of the plans two years before the time limit set, 
 but let us quote from the circulai's: 
 
 ''The P^els Fund Commission began its work 
 in 1909. Two of the five years have now passed 
 which were allowed to it to secure the Single 
 Tax. Reports of progi'ess have been sent from 
 time to time to all supposed to be iutel'ested. AV('
 
 PROGRESS AND POVERTY BY HENRY GEORGE 17 
 
 give herein a statement of the same kind brought 
 up to date. 
 
 "Oregon has secured county option in taxa- 
 tion. This is the furthest step in advance that 
 any state in the Union has yet succeeded in tak- 
 ing. It was obtained after a hard-fought cam- 
 paign which required a very large share of the 
 resources at the command of the Commission. 
 Now the Single Taxers of Oregon are preparing 
 to take advantage of the power thus gained by 
 submitting the question of adopting the Single 
 Tax to the voters of every county. They will 
 furthermore submit an amendment to the State 
 Constitution providing for state-wide application 
 of the principle. 
 
 "These questions will be decided at the elec- 
 tion to be held in November, 1912. Oregon is 
 getting close to the goal, and if the workers re- 
 ceive proper assistance and encouragement, will 
 surely get there two years before the time limit 
 set for the Commission's work has expired." 
 
 These circulars say : 
 
 "The commission has spent and is spending 
 considerable sums in Oregon in preparation for 
 and in prosecution of the Single Tax battle of 
 1912. The same activity on a lower financial 
 scale is taking place in Missouri." 
 
 They very emphatically say that the fight is on, and 
 that the November election will decide whether all public 
 revenues shall be raised from land values exclusively. Fight is on for 
 
 So here is the plain issue. It cannot be palliated or 1912 
 denied. This time the voters must know the effect of 
 their yea and nay. The generals to an aggressive or- 
 ganization (the Fels Fund Commission) have selected 
 Oregon as a battlefield, and the 5th of November as the 
 fatal day. Enthusiastic in their cause, they are sup- 
 ported by the vast sums of money which will be used to 
 supply the state with literature full of specious argument 
 appealing to prejudice, jealousy and envy, stirring up the Oregon the battle- 
 spirit of unrest and dissatisfaction, inflaming passions, field 
 and appealing to the selfish.
 
 18 
 
 SINGLE TAX EXPOSED 
 
 U'Ren speaks 
 
 Would have been 
 defeated 
 
 Way cleared 
 
 HOW W. S. U'REN DISGUISED SINGLE TAX. 
 
 To further prove that this campaign was carried on 
 under cover and that the true and real purpose of the 
 promoters was at all times hidden and disguised as much 
 as possible from the voters and taxpayers of Oregon, I 
 want to quote the words of Mr. U'Ren before the Com- 
 mission at the Single Tax Conference held in New York, 
 November 19 and 20, 1910, or at least this language from 
 Mr. U'Ren appears in the report of the Commission 
 dated November 19 and 20, 1910. He says : 
 
 "We have cleared the waj^ for a straight 
 Single Tax fight in Oregon. All the work we 
 have done for direct legislation has been done 
 with the Single Tax in view. But we have not 
 talked Single Tax because that was not the ques- 
 tion before the house. Now that question is be- 
 fore the house in Oregon and we will discuss it in 
 that state. Since we first began our work with 
 Single Tax as the goal in view we have confined 
 ourselves to the questions to be voted on at the 
 next election. To do otherwise is to confuse the 
 voters." 
 
 Mr. U'Ren might have said: "To do otherwise would 
 have exposed the true purpose of the proposed amend- 
 ments and that they would have been overwhelmingly 
 defeated," as the people would have fully understood what 
 the}' were doing, which was not the case at the last election. 
 >\Iany paragraphs from speeches that were made by differ- 
 ent adherents of the single tax at this convention could 
 be cited which would give further evidence of the design 
 to put Oregon on the Single Tax basis by not allowing 
 people to know that they were preparing the way for 
 straight Single Tax in 1912. Under the direction of Mr. 
 U'Ren, according to the Commissioner's Report of 1910, 
 there was expended in the State of Oregon for the year 
 ending 1910, $16,775. Enough has been said to put at 
 rest any question in the mind of the reader, that Oregon 
 has been the victim of the designing men hired by the 
 Joseph Fels Fund Commission to sliape conditions in the 
 State of Oregon for straight Single Tax, before the end 
 of 1912. It has been one of the smoothest pieces of politi- 
 cal work in the United States of which we have a record.
 
 CHAPTER II. 
 
 SINGLE TAX AND HOW IT WILL OPERATE. A TRUE 
 AND REAL ANALYSIS OF WHAT IT MEANS. 
 
 IT MEANS 
 
 The confiscation of private property in land. 
 
 IT MEANS 
 
 Talcing, by process of taxation, all the rental value 
 of land. 
 
 IT MEANS 
 
 The annihilation of the selling value of land. 
 
 IT MEANS 
 
 The destruction of the foundation on which a very 
 large proportion of our business rests. 
 
 It is a great step towards the end of our present 
 social and fiscal system. 
 
 That you may not be deceived of its true meaning, 
 we quote below extracts from "Progress and Poverty" 
 by Henry George, from which the Single Tax movement 
 and all of the Single Tax advocates draw their inspira- 
 tion. 
 
 Speaking of private ownership of land, on page 856. 
 Henry George says : 
 
 "The truth is and from this truth there can be 
 no escape, that there is and can be no JUST 
 TITLE to an exclusive possession of the soil, 
 and that private property in land is a bold, bare 
 enormous wrong, like that of chattel slavery." 
 
 Again, he says, on page H63 : 
 
 "If the land belongs to the people, why con- 
 tinue to permit LAND OWNERS to take the 
 RENT, or COMPENSATE them in ANY ]\IAN- 
 XER for the loss of rent?"
 
 20 
 
 SINGLE TAX EXPOSED 
 
 AJJ land to ivert 
 to the state 
 
 The section above referred to is directed against 
 every land owner. It is directed against YOU. It makes 
 no difference whether you have 25 feet frontage on Stark 
 street in Portland, or whether you have 160 acres in the 
 Willamette Valley, or whether you own unlimited acres 
 of timber land in Coos County. There is no discrimina- 
 tion between land owners. The intention is that all land- 
 owners must be treated alike and that their lands must 
 revert back to society by the process of the Single Tax 
 System. 
 
 Again on Page 395, Title to Chapter 1 : 
 
 "Private Property in Land is INCONSISTF.NT 
 with the Best Use of LAND." 
 
 Again, on Page 401, Chapter 2. 
 
 "How equal rights to the land may be asserted 
 and secured. ' ' 
 
 Land values to fall 
 
 On Page 434, in speaking of the decline or fall in 
 land values, he says: 
 
 "The selling price of land would fall; land 
 speculation would receive its death blow. ' ' 
 
 Price of city lots 
 
 to fall 
 
 That means you, home owners, you widows, who per- 
 haps have struggled hard to make payments on your lots 
 or your homestead, and have now just about completed 
 them so that you feel that you have a real value in your 
 home, or your farm; under the operation of Single Tax 
 this is swept away, given back to society by the process 
 of this innocent cure-all tax reform Single Tax. 
 
 Again, on Page 446, in speaking of land values, he 
 confirms positively that land values will be diminished 
 theoretically, that they will disappear. He says : 
 
 "The selling value of his lot will diminish 
 theoretically it will entirely disappear. But its 
 usefulness to him will not disappear. It will 
 serve his purpose as well as ever. While, as 
 the value of all other lots will diminish or 
 disappear in the same ratio he retains the same 
 security of always having a lot that he had be-
 
 SINGLE TAX AND HOW IT WILL OPEBATK 
 
 21 
 
 fore. . . . His only loss will be if he wants 
 to sell his lot without getting another. ' ' 
 
 Do you home owners want such a condition as above 
 named, i. e., that the selling value of your lots will entirely 
 disappear, as it certainly will under this Single Tax Sys- 
 tem? You may want to move to some other city, or to 
 some other part of the city or to convert your lot into a 
 homestead or to convert your homestead or perhaps your 
 farm into city lots. Henry George says the selling value 
 of your land will have disappeared under Single Tax. 
 
 Mr. George certainly is right and his reasoning is 
 good when he says that under full application of Single 
 Tax the selling value of your land- will disappear. It is 
 very apparent that when the rental value of land is all 
 taken by the state, which is the meaning of Single Tax, 
 that there could be no value to the owner or individual 
 w^hose money is only invested in articles and things which 
 bear a return for the money so invested; hence, it is per- 
 fectly natural that when all the burden of taxes is placed 
 upon land, its selling value will gradually decline until 
 there is no value left in it because of the returns going to 
 rhe state instead of to the individual. 
 
 Again, on Page 326, in speaking of conditions, he 
 
 savs : 
 
 "We have examined all the remedies, short of 
 the abolition of private property in land, which 
 are currently relied on or proposed for the relief 
 of poverty and the better distribution of wealth, 
 and have found them all INEFFICACIOUS and 
 IMPRACTICABLE. There is but ONE way to 
 remove an evil and that is, to remove its cause. 
 . . . This, then, is the remedy for the unjust 
 and unequal distribution of wealth apparent in 
 modem civilization, and for all the evils which 
 flow from it. ' ' 
 
 Home - owners do 
 you want it? 
 
 Investments 
 for profit 
 
 made 
 
 "WE MUST MAKE LAND COMMON PROPERTY." 
 
 On Page 360 he shows, without any question, how far 
 the single tax movement would go to take from indi- 
 viduals their land without compensation.
 
 22 
 
 SINGLE TAX EXPOSED 
 
 To what extent he 
 would go 
 
 A bold statement 
 
 A moral question 
 
 "By the time the people of any such country 
 ~ as England or the United States are sufficiently 
 aroused to the injustice and disadvantages of in- 
 dividual ownership of land to induce them to at- 
 tempt its nationalization, they will be sufficiently 
 aroused to nationalize it in a much more direct 
 and easy way than by purchase. They will not 
 trouble themselves about compensating the pro- 
 prietors of land. . . . Nor is it right that 
 there should be any concern about the proprietors 
 of land." 
 
 I want to call the attention of the reader to the last 
 portion of the above quotation, "nor is it right that there 
 should be any concern about the proprietors of land." 
 
 This is certainly a very bold statement to be made by a 
 man, a political economist, who pretends to have the best 
 interests of the people and nation at heart. I do not 
 question his intentions, however. I simply call your at- 
 tention to the fact that he reasons from false premises; 
 that he ignores the fundamental principle of government ; 
 that he disregards the moral obligation that the people 
 have with the government and the government with the 
 people. He seems to have not yet discovered that moral- 
 ity, justice, stability in laws and institutions are abso- 
 lutely necessary, in fact, are the cornerstones on which 
 good government must rest. It is often said by the single 
 taxers that this is a moral question. I heartily agree with 
 them in this respect. Certainly it is a moral question, 
 and we consider it very immoral indeed to take from an 
 individual property of any kind whatsoever without giv- 
 ing compensation therefor. We shall consider at some 
 length the right of the government to confiscate land 
 values without compensation, in chapters following. 
 
 On page 401, Mr. George further gives vent to his 
 ff^elings as regards private ownership of land. He says : 
 
 "We have weighed every objection and seen 
 that neither on the ground of equity or expe- 
 diency is there anything to deter from making 
 land common property by confiscating rent. 
 
 "But a question of method remains. How shall 
 we do it ? We should satisfy the law of justice.
 
 SINGLE TAX ANU HOW IT WILL OPEBATE 
 
 23 
 
 "We should meet all economic requirements by at 
 one stroke abolishing all private titles, declaring 
 all land public property and letting it out to the 
 highest bidders in lots to suit, under such condi- 
 tions as would sacredly guard the private right 
 to improvements." 
 
 Again, on Page 404, in speaking of the appropriation 
 of rent by taxation, he says : 
 
 "In this way the state may become the uni- 
 versal landlord without calling herself so, and 
 without assuming a single new function. In 
 form, the ownership of land would remain just 
 as now. No owner of land need be dispossessed, 
 and no restriction need be placed upon the 
 amount of land any one could hold. For, rent 
 being taken by the state in taxes, land, no mat- 
 ter in whose name it stood, or in what parcels it 
 was held, would be really common property, and 
 every member of the community would partici- 
 pate in the advantages of its ownership. 
 
 "Now, inasmuch as the taxation of rent or 
 land values, must necessarily be increased just as 
 we abolish other taxes, we may put the proposi- 
 tion into practical form by proposing 
 
 How it could be 
 done? 
 
 "TO ABOLISH ALL TAXATION SAVE THAT UPON 
 LAND VALUES." 
 
 The above quotation certainly conveys to the reader 
 the exact meaning of Single Tax. It certainly makes 
 clear the fact that this so-called tax reform, or Single Tax, 
 is not a tax reform. In fact, it is not a system of taxa- 
 tion. It is a method by which land values are to be con- 
 fiscated. It is a method of deliberately robbing the right- 
 ful owners of the land value. It is a system of repudia- 
 tion. It is dishonest and destructive. It means contrac- 
 tion instead of expansion. It is visionary in the extreme. 
 It contemplates the placing of a tax on values of land 
 which have been created under the present system, but 
 which will be destroyed under its own operation. There- 
 fore, the reasoning is extremely unsound and illogical. It 
 would destroy all incentive for public improvements which 
 
 A method of rob- 
 bing land own- 
 ers
 
 24 
 
 SINGLE TAX EXPOSED 
 
 Land values 
 crashed 
 
 Where rent ex- 
 ceeds revenue, 
 take it all 
 
 has been one of the great elements in the upbuilding of 
 our country. 
 
 As a further evidence that the operation of Single 
 Tax will destroy all land values and that all owners of 
 land at the present time will lose their land under the 
 application of Single Tax, I offer you the words of Henry 
 George. On Page 404, in speaking further on this land 
 question, he says : 
 
 "In every civilized country, even the newest, 
 the value of the land taken as a Avhole is suf- 
 ficient to bear the entire expenses of government. 
 In the better developed countries it is much more 
 than sufficient. Hence it will not be enough mere- 
 ly to place all taxes upon the value of land. It 
 will be necessary, where rent exceeds the present 
 governmental revenues, commensurately to in- 
 crease the amount demanded in taxation, and to 
 continue this increase as society progresses and 
 rent advances. But this is so natural and easy 
 a matter, that it may be considered as involved, 
 or at least understood, in the proposition to put 
 all taxes on the value of land. That is the first 
 step, upon which the practical struggle must be 
 made. When the hare is once caught and killed, 
 cooking him will follow as a matter of course. 
 When the common right to land is so far appre- 
 ciated that all taxes are abolished save those 
 which fall upon rent, there is no danger of much 
 more than is necessary to induce them to collect 
 the public revenues being left to individual land 
 holders." 
 
 No escape from 
 state ownership 
 
 Thus, you see. there is no escape. The land must, 
 under the application of Single Tax. revert to the Gov- 
 ernment. During the years necessary to make this process 
 complete, land values will decline and with the decline of 
 land values, business will be demoralized, industry crip- 
 pled, and an era of hard times and financial depression 
 will be the inevitable result. 
 
 A reversion to the old system of course will follow, 
 but in the meantime the harm has been done, and those 
 who will be able to withstand the crash, who. of course,
 
 SINGLE TAX AND HOW IT WLLL OPERATE 
 
 25 
 
 would be the rich, would come out greatly benefitted. The 
 poor would be poorer and the rich richer. 
 
 I now want to call your attention to the final consum- 
 mation, to the milk in the cocoanut of Single Tax. In 
 this quotation is centered the very essence and process of 
 this destructive so-called system of taxation or Single 
 Tax, In speaking of the method, he says : 
 
 "I do not propose either to purchase or to con- 
 fiscate private property in land. The first would 
 be unjust; the second, needless. Let the indi- 
 viduals who now hold it still retain, if they want 
 to, possession of what they are pleased to call 
 THEIR land. Let them continue to call it 
 THEIR land. Let them buy and sell, and be- 
 queath and devise it. We may safely leave them 
 the shell, if we take the kernel. 'iT IS NOT 
 NECESSARY TO CONFISCATE LAND ; IT IS 
 ONLY NECESSARY TO CONFISCATE RENT." 
 
 The milk in the 
 cocoanut 
 
 I think enough has been quoted from "Progress and 
 Poverty," which as before stated, is the book from which 
 all single tax advocates draw their inspiration. In fact. 
 it is the fountainhead of the Single Tax scheme. All other 
 books written on Single Tax take Henry George as the-ir 
 guide. 
 
 I have offered the quotations from "Progress and 
 Poverty" to set at rest any doubt as to the ultimate end 
 of the Single Tax system. The logical analysis of its 
 operation, however, would bring you to the same conclu- 
 sion, namely, the reversion of private property in land to 
 the state, or, in other words, that the state would be the 
 landlord and the present owners the tenants. 
 
 It would require too much space to enter into a com- 
 plete analysis of the system. 
 
 Inasmuch as "Progress and Poverty" was written 
 some thirty-three years ago and that during this lapse of 
 time there might possibly have been some change in the 
 sentiment among the Single Taxers, I want to call your 
 attention to the language of Henry George. Jr., who de- 
 livered an address in Vancouver. B. C, some time in 
 
 Logical analysis 
 
 The same today
 
 26 
 
 SINGLE TAX EXPOSED 
 
 Henry George, Jr., 
 speaks 
 
 Time makes 
 change 
 
 Peculiar reasoning 
 
 January, 1911. In speaking of conditions in Vancouver, 
 he says: 
 
 "What was required in the case of Vancouver was 
 that the full market value of the land should be made, 
 that as taxation now existed it applied to 75 per cent of 
 the true value. This assessment should be increased, prac- 
 tically to 100 per cent. Then that 100 per cent should b 
 taxed so as to absorb into the public coffer practically the 
 whole of the annual potential rent. This is taking the ker- 
 nel of the nut. 
 
 "If that were done, not only would all the present 
 needs for revenue be supplied, but a great surplus revenue 
 would be furnished. In addition to this revenue result, 
 land speculation would be destroyed, for no man would 
 hold valuable land vacant for a rise in the value if that 
 value was to be taxed out of his land into the public 
 treasury." 
 
 Hence, you see that the old Henry George theory of 
 Single Tax, as written in "Progress and Poverty," has 
 not been changed one iota. The advocates of Single Tax 
 are just as keen today to tax land values out of the pos- 
 session of the individuals as was Henry George at the 
 time he wrote his book. "Progress and Poverty," thirty- 
 three years ago. 
 
 It is a most peculiar reasoning that the Single Taxers 
 indulge in. If you will notice, Henry George, Jr., speaks 
 of the vast sum of money that would be taken from the 
 present land holders of Vancouver, B. C, by land value 
 tax, that is when the full rental value of the land is taken. 
 In the next breath he says land speculation, under the 
 single tax system, would receive its death blow and land 
 values would therefore decline until the state took all of 
 the value out of it by process of Single Tax. In one minute 
 he would tax the present land values, thereby receiving a 
 handsome revenue, and in the next minute he would de- 
 stroy the present land values on which he was going to 
 receive these handsome revenues. Now as to just what he 
 really could do and would do, and how he would raise the 
 revenue is a mystery yet unsolved, or at least to be 
 explained.
 
 SINGLE TAX AND HOW IT WILL OPERATE 
 
 27 
 
 SINGLE TAX FIGURES A DECEPTION. 
 
 Single Tax advocates fail to recognize that the condi- 
 tions under which land values have been created and on 
 M^hich they base their reasoning and figures would not 
 exist under the application of their system. Therefore, 
 the figures they present in many cases, in fact, all cases, 
 are misleading. 
 
 As an illustration, they would take the value of a city 
 lot and the value of the house upon the lot. If the value 
 of the lot exceeded the value of the house under the appli- 
 cation of Single Tax, the taxes would be higher; if the 
 value of the house exceeded the value of the lot, the 
 taxes would be less. In this way they reason that taxes 
 in cities, especially in the outlying districts, would be less 
 for the owners to pay under Single Tax than under the 
 present general tax system. They do not take into con- 
 sideration that the many vacant lots, which, as a rule, 
 are three vacant to one improved, which under the pres- 
 ent system are revenue-payers, would, under Single Tax. 
 be the first to revert to the state. The product of the city 
 lot is the rental of the house upon it, and when there are 
 houses enough to supply the demand, the further building 
 of houses would be a loss because there would be no rent- 
 ers. Even though rents came down, that would not multi- 
 ply the number of tenants. Therefore, these vacant lots 
 could not stand the burden of taxation, and as revenue- 
 payers they would disappear. The burden of taxation 
 would then fall more heavily upon those who occupy the 
 land. This the Single Taxers fail to recognize, or if they 
 do, they fail to mention it in their literature or in their 
 public speeches. It is very apparent why they do not 
 mention it, conceding they recognize it, because it would 
 destroy the force of their argument. 
 
 Figures 
 tion 
 
 a decep- 
 
 Values How 
 
 fected? 
 
 af- 
 
 Vacant lots of no 
 value for rev- 
 enue 
 
 SELLING VALUE GONE. 
 
 Furthermore, when the lot adjoining yours has been 
 confiscated through the process of Single Tax, the selling 
 value thereby having been destroyed, your lot, even
 
 28 
 
 SINGLE TAX EXPOSED 
 
 rigures of U'Ren 
 misleading 
 
 Sell or improT* 
 
 Law of 
 ment 
 
 develop- 
 
 though you are living upon it, is worth no more than the 
 lot adjoining yours. 
 
 Suppose your house should burn down ; your lot be- 
 comes a vacant lot. This is true of every lot in the city 
 on which there is a house. The small consideration that 
 ma}^ be pointed out in figures as a saving under the Single 
 Tax system, even though final confiscation would not be 
 the result, the reduction in the value of your lot would 
 far exceed the small sum you would save in the taxes as 
 figured in Dr. Eggleston's Campaign Book of 1910, and 
 other figures that the Single Taxers present to the tax 
 payers of Oregon. 
 
 What is true of a city lot is true of a farm, of the 
 five-acre tract that the gardner operates. 
 
 Single Taxers says: "We will make you improve 
 your lot or sell it." Suppose you do sell it, the lot still 
 remains there, and will not be improved unless there is a 
 demand for the improvements. It is worse than folly to 
 advocate the theory that you can continue improving city 
 lots, build houses, office buildings and store buildings, un- 
 less there is a demand for them. 
 
 In other words, a city can grow no faster than the 
 country and commerce from which it draws its support. 
 It would be irrational and illogical to attempt or to think 
 of attempting to improve and bring to a state of perfec- 
 tion the entire resources of the country at once. The law 
 of supply and demand, competition, of compensation and 
 the various other elements that enter into trade and de- 
 velopment must regulate the rapidity with which a coun- 
 try or city is developed. An act of legislation cannot 
 develop a country. Legislation may, however, stimulate 
 development, thrift and industry, by affording encourage- 
 ment to individual possession, enterprise and all the un- 
 earned increment in such industry and enterprise as may 
 accrue to it as society grows and population becomes 
 greater. Such a guaranty is best given by the perma- 
 nency and stability of the laws under which and by which 
 the people are governed. It is the stability and perma- 
 nence of laws that inspire confidence, and the very mo-
 
 SINGLE TAX AND HOW IT WILL OPERATE 29 
 
 ment that a community or state shows a disposition to 
 continually experiment and change their laws, especially 
 such Laws as would materially affect the fiscal system, 
 confidence, thrift and enterprise will surely g^ve way to 
 fear, indifference and financial disorder. It is therefore 
 necessary that people be extremely conservative in intro- 
 ducing and passing acts of legislation. It must be remem. stability of our 
 bered that our present system is the outgrowth of hun- \^J^ *" inspira- 
 dreds of years of experience, and that while many changes 
 have been made in our laws, one principle has always 
 been maintained, that is that no individual shall be de- 
 prived of his holdings without due process of law and 
 compensation therefor.
 
 Ui 
 
 2 
 
 O 
 
 Q 
 2 
 
 < 
 
 X 
 H 
 
 2 
 
 O 
 
 Q 
 
 Q 
 < 
 
 CD 
 
 Q 
 
 D 
 O 
 
 X 
 
 <: 
 
 H 
 
 O 
 2 
 
 CO 
 
 Ul 
 DC 
 
 H
 
 CHAPTER III. 
 
 CONFISCATION OF PRIVATE PROPERTY IN LAND 
 BY THE PROCESS OF SINGLE TAX. 
 
 I hold that such a process is immoral, unjust and 
 decidedly unethical. It is contrary to the judgment of 
 the great thinkers of the age, contrary to the judgment of 
 men who have given their lives to the study of social and 
 economic questions. Single Tax is the dream of a vision- 
 aire a man who allowed his emotion and sympathy to 
 suppress logic and reason. So far as the analysis of his 
 system is concerned, it may be said that his deductions 
 from the premises taken are good. The trouble lies in 
 the false premises on which his whole system rests, 
 namely, that "private property in land is a bold, bare, 
 enormous wrong like that of chattel slavery." In order 
 to show you to what extent the Single Taxers would go 
 and be justified, reasoning from their viewpoint, I want 
 to quote you the words of Henry George as found in 
 "Progress and Poverty" on page 362. In speaking of the 
 condition of society and the injustice of private ownership 
 of land, he says : 
 
 Confiscation 
 moral 
 
 "For this robbery is not like the robbery of a 
 horse or a sum of money, that ceases with the act. 
 It is a fresh and continuous robbery, that goes on 
 every day and every hour. It is not from the 
 produce of the past that rent is drawn ; it is from 
 the produce of the present. It is a toll levied 
 upon labor constantly and continuously. Every 
 blow of the hammer, every stroke of the pick, 
 every thrust of the shuttle, every throb of the 
 steam engine, pay it tribute. It levies upon the 
 earnings of the men who, deep under ground, 
 risk their lives, and of those who over white 
 surges hang to reeling masts ; it claims the just 
 reward of the capitalist and the fruits of the in- 
 
 All the ills of so- 
 ciety due to pri- 
 vate ownership 
 of land
 
 SINGLE TAX EXPOSED 
 
 Emotion subdues 
 reason 
 
 ventor's patient effort; it takes little children 
 from play and from school, and compels them to 
 work before their bones are hard or their muscles 
 are firm ; it robs the shivering of warmth ; the hun- 
 gry, of food ; the sick, of medicine ; the anxious, 
 of peace. It debases, and embrutes, and embit- 
 ters. It crowds families of eight and ten into a 
 single squalid room ; it herds like swine agricul- 
 tural gangs of boys and girls ; it fills the gin 
 palace and groggery with those who have no 
 comfort in their homes ; it makes lads who might 
 be useful men candidates for prisons and peniten- 
 tiaries; it fills brothels with girls who might have 
 known the pure joy of motherhood; it sends 
 greed and all evil passions prowling through so- 
 ciety as a hard winter drives the wolves to the 
 abodes of men; it darkens faith in the human 
 soul, and across the reflection of a just and mer- 
 ciful Creator draws the veil of a hard, and blind, 
 and cruel fate I" 
 
 PriTate property 
 in land to perish 
 
 From the above quotation it must be apparent to the 
 reader that Henry George Avas an extremist and that he 
 really believed that all of the ills of society, as before 
 mentioned, are traceable and due to private ownership 
 of land. It must also be appaxent that nothing short of 
 the abolishment of private property in land will ever 
 satisfy the demands of the Single Tax advocates. While 
 I do not think for a moment that any intelligent man or 
 woman or any community of people would ever adopt 
 such a system when they are advised of its true meaning 
 and purpose, yet it is necessary to review the fallacies of 
 such an argument as is offered by Henry George and his 
 followers. 
 
 Herbert Spencer, perhaps one of the greatest scien- 
 tists and political economists of the age, in speaking of 
 the above quotation from Henry George, in the Edinburgh 
 Review of 1883, says : 
 
 "It cannot fail to surprise sober persons on 
 reading such rant as we have just quoted, that a 
 person of so much intelligence as the reader evi- 
 dently is, however misguided his views of the 
 economic results of land ownership, should be
 
 CONFISCATION OF PRIVATE PBOPERTY 
 
 33 
 
 able to persuade himself thus summarily to as- 
 cribe all of the derangements and diseases, physi- 
 cal and moral of society, to one single cause. Is 
 it possible for any person who casts an observant 
 eye on the sad condition of the indigent classes in 
 our crowded towns, to believe that the greed of 
 the landed proprietors and that alone is the 
 source of all the evils that he sees there. The true 
 causes of that manifold mass of suffering are not 
 easily enumerated. Intemperance with all the 
 painful consequences which it entails, not on the 
 individual onh'. but on his children and posterity, 
 heads the list. Indolence, improvidence, physical 
 disease, inherited weaknesses of mind, vicious 
 dispositions, and all manner of evil passions are 
 the chief factors of this conglomeration of mis- 
 ery. Mere indigence indeed is to be met with in 
 the country as well as in the city, but by a natu- 
 ral gravitation, the refuse of the community, the 
 great multitude of the feeble and the helpless, 
 those who cannot and those who will not work 
 for their own living, the tramp, the criminal, the 
 profligate and the outcast, flock together and 
 concentrate themselves in large towns. These 
 are the camp followers of the great industrial 
 army whose headquarters are in crowded centers 
 of trade and manufacture ; nor is the plague of 
 the squalid pauperism peculiar to the populous 
 centers of the old world. 
 
 "According to ^Ir. George's own statement. 
 New York is no less burdened than ^lanchester 
 or Lyons with a degraded and indolent popula- 
 tion. How it should be dealt with, how to rescue 
 from the mass those whom it may be possible to 
 reclaim, to succor such as may be helped to ex- 
 tricate themselves, to restrain those who were 
 abandoned to evil habits from preying on their 
 fellows, such are the problems which task to the 
 utmost the wisdom of the statesmen and the phil- 
 anthropist. Happily we may say that in this age 
 and in our own country the efforts to cope with 
 such difficulties are more energetic and better 
 directed perhaps than at any former period. Yet 
 the attempt to raise the stone of Sisyphus to the 
 summit is still baffled. According to our Ameri- 
 can philosopher however, all the miseries of so- 
 cietv have but one neck which mav be severed bv 
 
 Herbert Spencer's 
 reasons for Ills 
 of society 
 
 Camp followers 
 
 Is it possible to 
 regulate?
 
 34 
 
 SINGLE TAX EXPOSED 
 
 Taxation 
 change 
 nature 
 
 can't 
 human 
 
 Element of chance 
 
 Judgment distorted 
 
 a single blow, 
 confiscation." 
 
 The neck is rent, the remedy is 
 
 It appears to me that Herbert Spencer has pointed 
 out cjuite clearly that Mr. George is entirely wrong when 
 he reasons that all of the ills of society enumerated in his 
 book are traceable to the private ownership of land. 
 Certainly no system of taxation or the enactment of land 
 laws of any description can change human nature. ^Ir. 
 George fails to recognize the inherent inequalities of the 
 human race. He fails to recognize the great element of 
 chance with which humanity must battle and which is 
 very largely responsible for the unequal distribution of 
 wealth. Such would be the case if all men were equal in 
 intellect, disposition and thrift. Chance would not treat 
 all alike. We must leave the reader to follow this thought 
 to greater extent than we are here able to enter into. 
 The conclusion after a careful analysis of the condition 
 must be that Mr. George allowed his sympathies and 
 emotion to distort his judgment.
 
 CHAPTER IV. 
 
 REPUDIATION OF PRIVATE CONTRACTS. 
 
 In the early history of the Republic it became neces- 
 sary to enact certain laws for the disposition of the pub- 
 lic domain. The founders and early law-makers of our 
 country, guided by the wisdom and experience of older 
 and advanced civilized nations, enacted laws that in their 
 judgment would offer the greatest security and the great- 
 est encouragement for settlers to take up the then ap- 
 parently unlimited public domain. Our early law-makers 
 though not versed in political and social science as we are 
 today, seemed to have been inspired with the fundamental 
 principles of civilized and organized society. They recog- 
 nized that the private appropriation of land was the 
 foundation, the bed-rock on which a stable and progres- 
 sive government must rest. They recognized that a na- 
 tion of home-owners, be their homes ever so humble, 
 would l)e a nation far superior to that of a nation whose 
 inhabitants were merely tenants to the government. They 
 recognized that great inducements must be offered to the 
 {People of the old world to persuade them to cross the 
 ocean to a far-away and unknown land. They recognized 
 tliat there must be a great reward in store for people to 
 take such a risk and such a chance. Therefore they of- 
 fered by the enactment of their land-laws. 160 acres of 
 good agricultural land as a homestead which should ever 
 belong to the homesteader. This indeed was a great re- 
 ward to the poor and homeless people of all nations, and 
 they accepted the invitation. The conditions under which 
 our public domain has been settled were that any citizen 
 of the United States, native-born or otlierwise. could take 
 up 160 acres of our public lands under the conditions that 
 when a certain amount of improvements had been made 
 upon the land and a continual residence of a certain 
 
 Early history of 
 land laws 
 
 Understood princi- 
 ples of govern- 
 ment 
 
 Nation of home- 
 owners 
 
 Incentive to en- 
 dure hardships 
 
 Land Laws
 
 3G 
 
 SINGLE TAX EXPOSED 
 
 Title in fee simple 
 
 To Have and to 
 Hold 
 
 Bights of domain 
 
 Encouraged home- 
 fauilding 
 
 Work of Transfor- 
 mation Legion 
 
 Good citizenship 
 
 Transfer m a t i o n 
 step by step 
 
 Clearing the way 
 
 leugth of time had been made by the elaimant, final proof 
 might be made. The government would then give to the 
 claimant a title in fee simple, which means that the land 
 and all of the appurtenances thereunto should forever 
 afterwards belong to the one who legally held this title; 
 that the land might be divided into as many parts as were 
 desirable ; tliat title could be passed to any one of the 
 subdivisions ; that there would be no interference from 
 society or the state ; that all values attached to this land 
 from any cause whatsoever should become a part of it 
 and belong to the legal owner; that it should ahvajs bo 
 theirs; that in case for any reason, society needed any 
 portion of the land under this title, for the public good, 
 it might be condemned and a just and equitable compen- 
 sation allowed the holder of the land. 
 
 Such a guarantee from the government had a very 
 stimulating influence for the people to take up public 
 domain. Such an invitation to the people of the old 
 world was readily responded to. We needed the pres- 
 ence of the foreigner ; we needed their brawn and muscle ; 
 we needed their numbers to assist in converting this great 
 primitive continent from a state of savagery and waste 
 into one of civilization and productiveness. Under the 
 stimulating influence of the land laws above described, 
 the work of transforming a wilderness into fields of wav- 
 ing grain and pastures on which grazed the lowing herds, 
 wliere savage life clothed in skins and housed in wig- 
 wams, gave way to rude but happy homes of civilized, 
 honest, law-abiding and patriotic citizens, was undertaken. 
 Step by step, and section by section, this work of trans- 
 formation was carried on. Again and again people wouhl 
 leave the more developed sections and push on into tlie 
 wilderness and plains to carve out new settlements, 
 thereby clearing the way for their more etfeminate fol- 
 lowers, beating back the red Indians, battling with hard- 
 ships, suffering untold agonies and privations, all for the 
 purpose of getting possession of a homestead a farm, a 
 parcel of ground of 160 acres which they could call their 
 own, and which, the}' reasoned, in the course of time
 
 KEI'UUIATION OV PRIVATE CONTRACTS 
 
 37 
 
 would become possibly very valuable There seems to be 
 an inherent desire in the individual to secure a plot of 
 ground that he may call his own; that he may there feel 
 secure; that organized society will defend him in the 
 possession of this plot of ground; that as population in- 
 creases this land will become more valuable. These ad- 
 vance guards of civilization reasoned, and correctly so. 
 that emigration would follow their footsteps and that 
 with the coming of more people there w^ould be the mer- 
 chant, the blacksmith, the cobbler; then would come 
 manufacturing plants, transportation, and finally, all of 
 the necessary divisions of labor and industry which go 
 to make up a modem civilization. The reader may call to 
 mind instances where the original homesteader and the 
 early settlers have waited patiently for years and years 
 for this period to come, for the time to come when they 
 could convert their homestead into a few thousand dollars 
 and enjoy some of the privileges of modern society. Not 
 coming as soon as expected, and becoming discouraged, 
 these homesteaders have sold their land, because the till- 
 ing of the soil was not as profitable as other pursuits. It 
 was not as profitable as merchandizing or many lines of 
 manufacturing that was going on about them. They took 
 their compensation for the land and embarked in some 
 industry that perhaps proved a failure for the lack of 
 judgment or experience. Conditions change and the land 
 they sold becomes valuable. They are discouraged, and com- 
 plain that they have not received their just reward. They 
 have been their own free moral agent and acted to the 
 best of their judgment. Here the element of chance has 
 played its part. One has reaped where another has sown. 
 And so this process goes on from day to day, year to year. 
 Yet while many have made mistakes and others have 
 profited thereby, it has been the stability and permanency 
 of our law^s and institutions that has converted the North 
 American continent from the Atlantic to the Pacific, from 
 the Gulf of Mexico to the frozen regions of the North, 
 into one vast field of agriculture. Thrift, enterprise and 
 progress are visible on every hand. Homesteads have 
 
 Security in posses- 
 sion an element 
 of progress 
 
 D e V e lopment 
 Follow 
 
 to 
 
 Instances of pa- 
 tience 
 
 Tilling of the soil 
 not profitable 
 
 Element of chance 
 plays its part 
 
 Thrift and indus- 
 try replace wil- 
 derness 
 
 ;57()7r> 1
 
 38 
 
 SINGLE TAX EXPOSED 
 
 Trade centers val- 
 uable 
 
 Repudiation not to 
 be tolerated 
 
 Great stimulant 
 
 been converted into village sites, villages have grown 
 into cities, and land has become very valuable in these 
 cities. Those who were fortunate enough to be the posses- 
 sors of these lands at the time it became apparent that 
 that particular locality \vas going to be a center of trade, 
 traffic and commerce, have become very wealth}'. This is a 
 natural consequence, and is the result of the very principle 
 that has stimulated the people of our country to such ac- 
 tivity, thrift and enterprise. There has been permanency 
 to our institutions. Investors have felt secure in their 
 investments, believing, and in fact knowing that our 
 citizens Avere honest and honorable; that repudiation of 
 contracts would not be tolerated; that what was theirs 
 toda^- would be theirs tomorrow, and would continue to 
 be theirs so long as they so desired ; or if they passed 
 title, that it would belong to the one to whom title was 
 passed, whether it was land or any other thing of value ; 
 that the laws under which they were governed were 
 secure ; and that the rights of the individuals to their pos- 
 sessions would always be recognized. It has been the 
 stability of our laws and institutions that has caused the 
 development, growth and prosperity of our country to far 
 exceed that of any other nation. 
 
 Is it honest? 
 
 To give nothing in 
 return 
 
 SINGLE TAX WOULD DESTROY. 
 
 Now comes Henry George and his theory of taxation 
 whereby he would place all of the burden of supporting 
 the government on one class of property land. By this 
 process, he reasons that it will be necessary, just and 
 honest to take in taxes all of the earning value of the 
 land, whether it be a farm or a city lot. it makes no dif- 
 ference. By this process he would take from the indi- 
 viduals who now hold the land, all of the selling value 
 represented therein ; and in return, give them nothing. 
 This I hold to be repudiation, pure and simple. It can 
 1)0 nothing else. Our Single Tax friends will say "Does 
 not the government now take from individuals lands 
 whei-c it is necessary for tlie public good?'' This we have
 
 REPUDIATION OF PRIVATE CONTRACTS 39 
 
 already answered. Certainly the government reserves 
 the right to condemn under the laws of public domain, 
 but in such cases the owners receive a fair and equitable 
 compensation for the value represented in the land. It 
 appears to me that any intelligent individual can at once ^^/"^ ^ ^'^^*' 
 see that the adoption of such a system as would take from 
 an individual, land values, or values of any kind with- 
 out compensation, would be detrimental to the best inter- 
 ests of society; that it would create disturbance; that it 
 would destroy confidence and undermine the whole politi- 
 cal and social system on which the business and commerce 
 of our country is constructed.
 
 CHAPTER V. 
 
 PRIVATE APPROPRIATION OF THE SOIL, 
 FIRST MILE-POST ON THE HIGHWAY 
 OF NATIONAL PROGRESS. 
 
 THE 
 
 I have attempted to make clear to the reader thai 
 the object of Single Tax is that the state should own the 
 entire land of the country on the ground that it is the 
 legitimate property of the whole community, that 
 it ought never to have been alienated to private owners 
 whose rights are usurped and must be brought to an end, 
 either by compulsory methods or simple confiscation by 
 the Single Tax process. IMr. George goes so far as to 
 advocate the latter method, on the ground that private 
 property in land is as immoral as slavery, and he extends 
 his anathema not only to agricultural land but to build- 
 ing land in towns, and argues that even a free-hold on 
 which the owner has built a house is as much a robber of 
 the public domain as the largest estate of a Highland 
 laird. He condemns not only the great estates of the 
 aristocracy of the old world, but the small properties of 
 the American homesteader and all of the French peas- 
 antry even the poor widow with her two small lots. In 
 his eyes the possession of any portion of the earth's sur- 
 face by private owner is theft, and the stolen goods ought 
 to be restored to the public that has been defrauded. 
 
 The phrase "nationalization of land" has a fine 
 grandiose sound about it, like other w^ell-known catch- 
 words which take captive, minds that have not analyzed 
 the question or grappled with the real difficulties of the 
 case. It has a delightful vagueness which covers many 
 shades of meaning and makes it no easy task to analyze 
 or refute it. 
 
 We have explained quite thoroughly in the previous 
 
 The first step 
 
 Holds property in 
 land immoral 
 
 Even the widow's 
 lots 
 
 Would lull to sleep
 
 42 
 
 SINGLE TAX EXPOSED 
 
 People the tenants 
 
 In the tribal state 
 
 When agriculture 
 began 
 
 Ownership of land 
 coincident to ag- 
 ricultural devel- 
 opment 
 
 Civilization and 
 land ownership 
 
 chapters and have quoted from "Progress and Poverty" 
 sufficient evidence to show that it is Mr. George's inten- 
 tion for the state to become the landlord, and that those 
 who occupy the land must therefore be tenants, paying 
 the rental to the state. While he has not in so many 
 words advocated land socialism and land communism, he 
 has advocated it under another title. 
 
 Now the main ground on which Mr. George makes 
 this startling proposal is that the land originally be- 
 longed to the state or community and that it was wrong- 
 fully granted away to favored individuals. He compiles 
 a brief history of ancient civilization to prove his point. 
 I will go with, him so far as to allow that before the earth 
 was peopled, land was not appropriated and that while 
 population was very sparse, it was not worth the while 
 of individuals to claim special plots of ground. Therefore 
 there were no special plots of ground cultivated. The origin 
 of all communities that we know anything of was the 
 tribal state ; when a tribe or a clan, under a chieftain of 
 their choice, roamed over a wide tract of country, sup- 
 ported by their flocks and herds or by the produce of the 
 chase. Agriculture in our sense of the word did not exist 
 in tlie infancy of the race. Our ancestors lived as savage 
 tribes now do, by hunting and fishing and afterwards by 
 pastoral pursuits. Therefore there was no motive for the 
 private appropriation of land, for the tilling of the soil 
 was not necessary for the maintenance of the inhabitants 
 who were then in a state of savagery. But the point I 
 wish to bring out is, that usually private ownership of 
 land arose when agriculture commenced. It should be ap- 
 parent to the reader that, thus far in the history of our 
 early institutions, private appropriation of the soil was 
 necessary for the very reason that one would scarcely im- 
 prove a piece of land which would be necessary under 
 agricultural conditions, and not be protected in such im- 
 provements. Even in our primitive state of agriculture 
 private appropriation of the soil was necessary; no one 
 would toil to raise crops which he could not enjoy. In- 
 deed so invariable has been this rule that we may almost
 
 PKIVATE APPROPRIATION OF THE SOIL 
 
 43 
 
 say with certainty that civilization has never made a 
 commencement, or at least has never advanced beyond a 
 rudimentary stage until private ownership in land, or at 
 
 least individual occupancy was recognized by common 
 consent of the tribe or clan, or by the law of the state. 
 The necessary stimulus for cultivating and improving soil 
 was wanting until security was given, that he who la- 
 bored should enjoy the fruits of his labor. 
 
 I want to impress upon the minds of the reader this 
 ])oint, that the necessary stimulus for cultivating and im- 
 })roving the soil was wanting until security was given that 
 lie who labored should enjoy the fruits of his labor. 
 
 But without going back to the dim and dusty records 
 of antiquity, we have only to take a survey of the condi- 
 tion of the globe today to prove the truth of my asser- 
 tions. We still have in active existence nearly every form 
 of human society from the most barbarous to the most 
 refined. We still see a large part of the earth tenanted 
 by races as primitive in their habits as our forefathers 
 Avere when they were clothed in skins of beasts and pos- 
 sessed the soil of the old world in common. Nearly all 
 Africa, considerable portions of North and South America, 
 a large portion of Central Asia, the interior of Australia. 
 New Guinea, and many of the islands of Polynesia are all 
 in that state of primitive simplicity. In these regions the 
 land is not appropriated. It is either the common pos- 
 session of the tribe, or the battleground of contending 
 tribes. Now Mr. George gravely assumes that all our 
 modern poverty and degradation are the result of private 
 land ownership. He would have you believe that all of 
 the ills that now exist in society would disappear if we 
 would but revert to the happy Arcadian times when land 
 communism prevailed. It is but natural for us to ask 
 whether we find an absence of poverty and degradation 
 among those portions of mankind who have preserved the 
 primitive traditions unimpaired, as is in the case of the 
 countries above mentioned. 
 
 Let us in our imagination travel through Africa with 
 Stanley or Livingstone. Let us accompany the expedi- 
 
 Necessary 
 lus 
 
 stimu- 
 
 Primitive methods 
 yet found 
 
 Uncivilized 
 tries 
 
 Where p overty is 
 greatest 
 
 Follow Stanley and 
 Livingstone
 
 44 
 
 SINGLE TAX EXPOSED 
 
 Human want and 
 misery and dis- 
 regard of life 
 
 Lived by the chase 
 
 Degradation great- 
 est 
 
 The opposite the 
 rule 
 
 Happiness greatest 
 under private 
 ownership 
 
 Ignores 
 causes 
 
 moral 
 
 tions that went to Ashantee or Abyssinia or Zululand in 
 quest of the golden age of plenty. Do we find anywhere 
 even a trace of such social well-being as to be worthy of 
 comparison with the worst of Europe, and most especial- 
 ly of the United States? Do we not find slavery, polyg- 
 amy, the most hard oppression and barbarous cruelty, 
 the invariable accompaniment of this primitive state of 
 existence? Do not famines and pestilences desolate those 
 tribes, while human life is scarcely valued more than that 
 of the brute? The Indians who once roamed over our 
 own country, and who still hold reserves especially in the 
 West and IMiddle West, were all land communists. There 
 was never private appropriation, nor was there any agri- 
 culture worthy of the name. These rude tribes lived by 
 the chase, and a section of country that Avould now sup- 
 port in plenty a million of our people could scarcely sus- 
 tain a thousand of these roaming savages. Wherever we 
 find the land unappropriated, whether among Zulus, In- 
 dians, or the roving Tartars in Central Asia, we find a 
 savage and degrading condition of mankind, and we find 
 almost invariably that the first step in civilization is co- 
 incident with the private appropriation and careful culti 
 vation of the soil. 
 
 So far from the sweeping generalization of Mr. 
 George being true that human misery and degradation 
 have sprung from private ownership of land, we find from 
 actual survey of the earth at the present time that pre- 
 cisely the opposite is true, that human misery is deepest 
 where the land is not appropriated, and human happiness 
 and civilization most advanced where the land is held by 
 private owners. 
 
 I am aware that it will be ob.jected that other than 
 agrarian causes account for the progress of the advanced 
 races. Christianity, science and trade have elevated 
 Europe and America, while Africa remains in primitive 
 darkness. This is self-evident to an ordinary person, but 
 ^Ir. George ignores all moral causes for social progress, 
 or treats them so lightly as to leave the reader to infer 
 that the possession of the soil is the only vital question
 
 PBIVATE APPROPRIATION OF THE SOIL 
 
 45 
 
 for a nation's welfare; that if this be secured to the state, 
 all other things will right themselves, and social perfec- 
 tion be speedily reached. The retort to Mr. George is 
 obvious. Why have those communities that have acted 
 on this principle (land communism) for thousands of 
 years remained in primitive barbarism, while all advance- 
 ment has been made by nations that have discarded them? 
 The reason is plain, because the}' are not suited for man- 
 kind in a civilized state. Whenever progress has attaineu 
 a certain stage, the land becomes appropriated while at 
 the same time arts and literature rise, cities are built and 
 laws are formed. At that state of human progress where 
 slavery and polygamy prevail, where private rights are at 
 the mercy of the chief or despot, where agriculture is un- 
 known and population is kept down by incessant wars 
 and famines, we find that the land is unappropriated. 
 Here, no doubt, the advocates of Single Tax would offer 
 some excuse for such a state of affairs other than that of 
 the soil being unappropriated. Perhaps they would say 
 that it is on account of the lack of intelligence of these 
 people; that they are barbarians are uncivilized. Cer- 
 tainly this is true. The question is: Why are they un- 
 civilized, and why have they not advanced as other once 
 uncivilized nations have advanced? It is because they 
 have not adopted methods which would allow advance- 
 ment. I want to call the attention of the reader to a 
 quotation from Henry George found in "Progress and 
 Poverty," on pages 479 and 480, in speaking of the sav- 
 ages and civilization, he says: 
 
 Remained in prim- 
 itive state 
 
 Slavery and polyg- 
 amy prevail 
 
 Why this state? 
 
 "The difference between the savage and civi- 
 lized man may be explained on the theory that 
 the former is as yet so imperfectly developed that 
 his progress is hardly apparent, but how upon the 
 theory that human progress is the result of gen- 
 eral and continuous causes shall we account for 
 the civilizations that have progressed so far and 
 then stopped? It cannot be said of the Hindoo 
 and of the Chinaman as it may be said of the 
 savage, that our superiority is the result of a 
 longer education, that we are, as it were, the
 
 46 
 
 SINGLE TAX EXPOSED 
 
 Result of environ- 
 ment 
 
 Individuality rec- 
 ognized 
 
 Cause of social 
 progress 
 
 Primitive methods 
 disappear 
 
 grown men of nature, while they are the children. 
 The Hindoos and the Chinese were civilized when 
 we were savages. They had great cities, highly 
 organized and powerful governments, literatures, 
 philosophies, polished manners, considerable di- 
 vision of labor, large commerce, and elaborate 
 arts: when our ancestors were wandering bar- 
 barians, living in huts and skin tents, not a whit 
 further advanced than the American Indians. 
 While we have progressed from this savage state 
 to Nineteenth Century civilization, they have 
 stood still. If progress be the result of fixed 
 laws, inevitable and eternal, w^hich impel men 
 forward, how shall we account for this?" 
 
 Evidently Mr. George believes that progress is the 
 result of fixed laws inevitable and eternal which impel 
 men forward. It is upon this point that I want to be 
 clearly understood. I hold that progress is not the result 
 of fixed and designed laws ; that it is the result of en- 
 vironment ; it is the result of the phj'sical conditions under 
 which w^e exist; that where individuality is recognized, 
 where there is an incentive for individuality, for individual 
 progress, where that individual progress is in some manner 
 compensated, where the incentive is greatest for progress ; 
 there we find that progress is made. Competition intel- 
 lectual competition, is absolutely necessary for the ad- 
 vancement of the human race. It is upon this theory that 
 I hold that civilization has not and cannot advance, as we 
 have advanced, where the inducements necessary for 
 mental competition have not been held out by the system, 
 habits or laws of the country. Private appropriation of 
 the soil is one among, and perhaps the greatest of all 
 inducements that may be offered by society to the indi- 
 vidual members that will promote social advancement. 
 
 AVherever the abuses which we find in a state of sav- 
 agery, of which land communism is the greatest, are dis- 
 carded, and tlie garments of civilization are put on. 
 we find that private ownership of land appears; that the 
 pastoral or nomadic state is exchanged for the agricul- 
 tural, and dense population takes the place of thinly 
 scattered tribes.
 
 PRIVATE APPROPRIATION OF THE SOIL 
 
 47 
 
 I am aware that some exception may be taken to this 
 large generalization. I cannot go into minute details in 
 such a booklet as this. The case of India will present 
 itself as an exception to some of my readers, regarding 
 which I will only say that the state from time immemorial 
 has owned the soil of India and leased it to cultivating 
 tenants. But so far has this system been from abolishing 
 poverty, that India has always been one of the poorest 
 countries in the world. Speaking broadly, I contend that 
 the theory of human progress which I have sketched 
 comes nearer the mark than that of Mr. George. I hold 
 that in place of private appropriation of land causing the 
 deterioration of mankind, it usually accompanies their 
 upward progress, and marks the first great advance from 
 barbarism to civilization. Hence the title of this Chap- 
 ter "The First Mile-post on the Public Highway of Na- 
 tional Progress." If this be true, the main plank of the 
 communist platform disappears, and the ground is clear 
 for looking at some other side of the question. 
 
 India and poverty 
 
 First milepost 
 highway 
 
 SINGLE TAXER DISLIKES THE TERM 
 "COMMUNIST." 
 
 I am aware that my Single Tax friends will object 
 to the use of the term "communist." They dislike very 
 much to have Single Tax called its real name, and at- 
 tempt to disguise the purpose of Single Tax. The reader 
 certainly has discovered that Single Tax means nothing 
 else but land socialism, and we are going to call it by the 
 right name. 
 
 But it will now be objected, granted that private 
 ownership of land is the law of civilization, that the 
 methods by w4iich it was brought about were unjust ; that 
 large grants of land were made by kings to courtiers and 
 favorites ; great estates were gained by conquest and con- 
 fiscation ; might took the place of right, and the descend- 
 ants of those land-robbers today should receive no mercy. 
 That means you. That means every individual who has 
 land, or who has the hope or desire to have land. This 
 
 Disguise its mean- 
 ing 
 
 Methods unjust
 
 48 
 
 SINGLE TAX EXPOSED 
 
 Ancient times 
 
 North American 
 Indian 
 
 Titles questioned 
 
 It is well for hu- 
 manity 
 
 is an argument we constantly hear. What is the practi- 
 cal worth of it? No student of history will deny that 
 there have been many cruel conquests, many displace- 
 ments of population, as weaker races were subdued by 
 stronger, and one incident that usually accompanied those 
 conquests was the allotment of the soil to the conquer- 
 ors. In this way the old Koman Empire was transferred 
 to the chieftains and warriors of the rude tribes that over- 
 ran it. The feudal system of modern Europe arose out of 
 these conquests, and the land was conveyed by the chiefs 
 to their vassals upon a military tenure. In this way the 
 soil of England changed hands, first upon the Saxon, 
 then upon the Danish, and lastly upon the Norman con- 
 quests. The white race is gradually dispossessing the col- 
 ored race of their land. In South Africa, in New Zea- 
 land, in Polynesia, and the citizens of our own land have 
 nearly completed the spoilation of the red Indian who 
 was once the sole possessor of the North American con- 
 tinent. 
 
 These processes have usually been cruel and unjust. 
 It would be the work of an archeologist rather than a 
 statesman, to investigate the original titles by which most 
 of the earth's surface passed to our ancestors. None but 
 a dreamer, however, could seriously think that modern 
 titles should be questioned on the ground that some time 
 in the dim and distant past, title was unjustly obtained 
 to some of our possessions. Modern civilization is the 
 web, woven of the warp and woof of conqueror and con- 
 quered, and it is well for humanity that time which wears 
 away all things, covers with the mantle of oblivion the 
 rough processes by which they were knit together. Nations 
 that are wise, seek to bury the hatchet. It is only worthy 
 of children or visionaries to be ever seeking to keep alive 
 race injuries that are irreparable and hoary with an- 
 tiquity. 
 
 Indeed, those very processes by which the land of 
 most countries have been transferred have been the pre- 
 lude to a higher civilization. 
 
 I dismiss as the dream of Utopia the idea that mod-
 
 PRIVATE APPROPRIATION OF THE SOIL 
 
 49 
 
 ern laud tenures can be upset, because ages ago they 
 originated in conquest. In England forty years of undis- 
 puted possession is adequate to give a valid title, and 
 surely two or three centuries should be enough to satisfy 
 even a legal purist. Were states to act on the principle 
 that because several hundrd years ago a grant was given 
 illegally and that therefore these illegal titles have fol- 
 lowed the land down to the present owner, the world 
 would be convulsed with strife. Feuds between nations, 
 races and individuals would be endless. No settlement 
 could ever be regarded as final, and modern civilization 
 would perish as ancient civilization did in the smoke of in- 
 ternecine strife. Mr. George points to the fact that na- 
 tions appear to advance about so far and then stop and 
 recede ; that the barbarians of today will be the advanced 
 nations in several hundred years from now. This state- 
 ment from Mr. George seems to be borne out by history. 
 The writer is inclined to believe that it is just such acts 
 and the result of such acts as Mr. George would have the 
 civilization of today indulge in, namely, that of land com- 
 munism, that bars further progress, and tends to deter- 
 iorate social achievement. In our primitive state we were 
 land communists. In our present state of civilization we 
 have private ownership in land. To revert to the land 
 communist system again would very likely lead us back 
 to the primitive state from whence we came. Certainly it 
 would have such a tendency. 
 
 It is an undisputed fact that the first conditions of 
 all national progress are security for life and property. 
 Till these are attained no wealth can be accumulated nor 
 any material prosperity enjoyed by the mass of the peo- 
 ple. The wretched condition of the people of Egypt and 
 Turkey today arise from the circumstances that no man 
 feels secure in the possession of his property, and conse- 
 quently few will take the trouble to produce wealth of 
 which they may any day be robbed. In all countries that 
 enjoy settled government, the first property to claim pro- 
 tection of the laws is that in land (the very thing that 
 the Single Taxer would abolish). All other industries 
 
 Civilization would 
 perish 
 
 Deterioration b y 
 Single Tax pro- 
 cess 
 
 Security of life 
 and property 
 
 Egypt and Turkey 
 
 Land to be pro- 
 tected
 
 50 
 
 SINGLE TAX EXPOSED 
 
 French Revolution 
 
 Carnival of Blood 
 
 Land and labor 
 
 hang upon it and so long as it is liable to violent seizure 
 or disturbance through acts of legislature, there will be 
 no industry and no trade of any moment. I defy any of 
 the Single Tax advocates to point to any country where 
 the title of the soil is violently attacked, where any trade 
 or industry flourishes to any extent. I cannot conceive 
 anything more destructive to the social welfare of any 
 peaceful country than to tear up the foundation of all 
 property by disputing the rights of individuals to the title 
 of the soil. There may have been times in past history 
 when long continued and cruel wrongs have furnished a 
 partial justification for dispossessing a ruling caste of its 
 property and privileges. Such a time was the first French 
 Revolution. The old French nobles had shockingly abused 
 their power for ages. The ancient regime was rotten to 
 the core. The dowai-trodden people tore the rotten fabric 
 to pieces, and shocked the world with their frightful ex- 
 cesses. The land system of France was remodeled as a 
 consequence of that revolution, and no doubt a healthier 
 system arose from the ashes. But no one save a madman 
 would wish to see a repetition of that carnival of blood. 
 Nothing but the most desperate agony of a nation could 
 justify or even palliate such a convulsion, and it would 
 be absurd to suppose that there is any analogy between 
 the just constitutional government of the United States 
 and the grinding tyranny of the ancient regime in France. 
 I now pass to consider another argument by which 
 the nationalization of the soil is advocated. The Single 
 Tax advocate says that land differs from all other forms 
 of wealth, because it is limited in quantity, and not the 
 product of human labor. It should, therefore, not be the 
 monopoly of the few,- but the property of the many. There 
 are many elements that go to make up the value of the 
 land, and the productiveness of the soil, and the subdu-' 
 ing and surmounting of the many difficulties that man 
 has had to contend with is the result of ages of physical 
 energy in its many forms. In ancient times most of this 
 country, as of the continent of Europe, was covered witli 
 dense forests, and it has been transformed by untold ex-
 
 PRIVATE APPROPRIATION OF THK SOIL 
 
 51 
 
 penditure of labor into the smiling gardens it now ap- 
 pears. 
 
 I can conceive of no equitable reason why this form 
 of wealth should not have the protection of the law like 
 all other forms of wealth. All wealth may be called stored- 
 up labor, and none is more valuable to the community 
 than that which makes two blades of grass grow where 
 one grew before. Under a system of tenantry, the two 
 blades of grass where one grew before, would not 
 exist. It is the interest in the home ; it is the 
 interest in your own land, that causes you to work 
 early and late to figure out how you will make this 
 or that little portion of your field more productive ; 
 how you will reclaim that low piece of ground that it may 
 be productive. When adversity overtakes the man with 
 the home, or the crop fails for one year he does not be- 
 come discouraged and pull up and leave the place, as 
 would a tenant. He hangs on, keeps up his courage, hopes 
 that another year conditions will be better, keeps the 
 farm in a state of cultivation, repairs the fences, and con- 
 tinues his work, because it is his home. 
 
 What was it that induced the hardy emigrant to 
 settle in the wilds of this country, to hew down the 
 primeval forests, and with intense labor and privation to 
 turn the wilderness into a fruitful field? What, but the 
 hope that he or his family after him would own a com- 
 fortable homestead? Had no private property in 
 land ever been permitted, could we conceive how the con- 
 tinent of North America would have been settled ? How 
 would the Anglo-Saxon race been spread over the globe? 
 What would have drawn the emigrant-ship to the deso- 
 late shores of Australia and New Zealand? No magnet 
 would have charmed the hardy pioneer of civilization but 
 the hope of bequeathing a freehold to his posterity. And 
 now after vast regions have been settled on the faith of 
 the solemn sanction of the state, it is coolly proposed by 
 the advocates of Single Tax to rob these people or their 
 descendants of the land on which they have spent their 
 life-blood, on the ground that it should never have been 
 
 All wealth stored 
 up labor 
 
 Interest 
 home 
 
 the 
 
 Works because 
 is his home 
 
 Desire to own a 
 home 
 
 Rob the people of 
 their homsteads
 
 52 
 
 SINGLE TAX EXPOSED 
 
 Same process by 
 which other 
 countries were 
 settled 
 
 Land rises in value 
 in all settled 
 countries 
 
 Hope of improving 
 condition great- 
 est safeguard of 
 progress 
 
 granted to them. Could human folly go further? Can 
 you think of any process that could be adopted by any 
 state or nation that would have a more destructive tend- 
 ency for the deterioration of society than to make our 
 present land-owners tenants of the state instead of home- 
 owners? The process by which the wilds of America 
 were reclaimed within the past two and a half centuries 
 is the same process by which other countries were settled 
 at a still earlier period. You will always reach a point 
 at which human labor gave its first value to land, and 
 without that labor, it would have been as worthless as 
 portions of the soil of South Africa are today. 
 
 I grant that in old and settled countries land rises 
 in value just as the community prospers, but so do most 
 other kinds of property. There is increment in profes- 
 sional, educational, and industrial lines as well as in land. 
 I cannot see in justice why one form of property should 
 be singled out for attack, and especially that property on 
 which all other lines of industry, thrift and progress hang 
 land. The motive that lead the settler to clear the 
 primeval forests was partly the expectation that popula- 
 tion would follow in his track and raise the value of the 
 investment. As stated in a previous chapter, but for that 
 hope, he would hardly have forfeited all the comforts of 
 civilized life. Would it be fair, after he has cleared the 
 pathway through the jungles for the more timid follow- 
 ers, to deny him the legitimate fruit of his enterprise? 
 Surely one of the greatest stimulants to material progress 
 is the knowledge that good orderly government will in- 
 crease the value of property. It affords the strongest in- 
 ducements to all the propertied classes in a community to 
 avoid warfare and civil strife. Take away from the own- 
 ers of property all hope of improving their position, and 
 you abolish one of the greatest safeguards of peaceful 
 progress.
 
 CHAPTER VI. 
 
 ALL PROPERTY OF EXCHANGEABLE VALUE 
 SHOULD BE TAXED. 
 
 Under our present system and present land laws, land 
 is property, and I hold that private property in land is 
 consistent with and necessary to man in a state of civili- 
 zation. Under our present system of exchange which is 
 the product of civilization and the outgrowth of the di- 
 vision of labor, we have several classes of property. Land 
 owned by individuals may be considered first, as it is 
 upon land and land values,home values, that all other in- 
 dustries rest. Cattle and other animals that are bought 
 and sold on account of their usefulness for food or other- 
 wise, may be classed as another kind of property". Stocks, 
 bonds and obligations to pay may be classed as another 
 kind. The products of the soil coupled with labor, form 
 another class. Goods, wares and merchandise, manufac- 
 tured articles of all kinds, whether manufactured by 
 machinery or by hand constitute another class. Books 
 containing the mental efforts and energy of individuals 
 may be classed as another kind of property. All the 
 property coming under the various classifications are es- 
 sential to man in a state of society. One is exchangeable 
 for another by and through the process of our system of 
 exchange. If an individual desires a manufactured ar- 
 ticle of any description, he may sell the product of his 
 labor, or may exchange an article of value that he has 
 for money which is the blood of commerce, and with that 
 money purchase any other article he may desire that is 
 obtainable. The various articles which may be consid- 
 ered the product of man are the result of the require- 
 ments of society. Consequently they are in demand. 
 Therefore are exchangeable for other commodities that 
 are in demand, according to the tastes and desires of the 
 
 All property of 
 exchau g e a 1} 1 e 
 value should be 
 taxed
 
 54 
 
 SINGLE TAX EXPOSED 
 
 By discrimination 
 force lands back 
 into hands of 
 Government 
 
 various individuals of society which are extremely numer- 
 ous. When an article is no more desired by society, the 
 manufacture of it ceases, and in its place a more import- 
 art article is manufactured. Thus the process of the 
 growth and demand of the hundreds of thousands of 
 various manufactured articles desired, and even neces- 
 sary, for man in a state of society. If a man owns cattle 
 and is desirous of owning some other kind of property, 
 he may sell his stock for money, and take the money and 
 purchase other kinds of property which he desires. If he 
 has land and w^ants to convert that land into money and 
 with that money travel abroad, he can do so. Or if he 
 has goods, wares and merchandise of any description that 
 is desired by society, he can convert his goods, wares and 
 merchandise into money, and with that money purchase 
 land, automobiles, jewelry, or airships if he so desires. 
 He will have no difficulty in finding those who have the 
 articles he desires and w^ho are willing and anxious to 
 part with them for a certain stipulated value. If an in- 
 dividual has money, he will have no difficulty whatever 
 in finding others w^ho own land, to part with that land for 
 a certain amount of his money. Hence it should be 
 obvious to the reader that all kinds of property which 
 are desired by society and which can be exchanged, one 
 for another, should be treated alike in the eyes of the 
 law. Any discrimination against one kind of property 
 would have a tendency to injure that particular class. It 
 would be perfectly natural for an individual to desire 
 and hold that class of property that was favored by law. 
 Mr. George reasoned this out. Therefore he schemed to 
 discriminate against land, and by the process of this dis- 
 crimination force land back into the hands of the govern- 
 ment. It is a question for the people to determine 
 whether or not society w^ould be better off under 
 a system of land tenure where the government would be 
 the owner and the occupants the tenants; or whether it 
 would be best for society to continue under the present 
 system, allowing the individuals to have private property 
 in land, or to put it very plain, own the land for them-
 
 PHOPERTY OF EXCHANGEABLE VALUE 
 
 55 
 
 selves and not for another. As long as we treat land as 
 property, there should be no discrimination against it. 
 There is no justice in placing the burden of taxation upon 
 land. There could be but one reason for it, namely, that 
 of discriminating against it and finally confiscating the 
 present values of it. 
 
 Henry George claims that man is a land animal and 
 therefore cannot live without the use of the land, and 
 that the land should belong to all of the people because 
 of man being a land animal; that man can no more live 
 without the use of the land than he can live without air 
 and water. Therefore land should be free as air and 
 water. Of course we agree with Mr. George that man is 
 a land animal, and that he cannot subsist without the 
 products of the soil any more than he could live without 
 free access of air and the use of water. That is no argu- 
 ment against the private ownership of land. Mr. George 
 says that the man who owns the land under our present 
 system virtually owns those who must occupy the land. 
 He fails to recognize that man is a social as well as a 
 land animal, and that social conditions are as necessary 
 for man in a state of society as the use of the land or the 
 air and the water. In order to get this thought more 
 clearly before the reader it will be necessary to go back 
 into the early history, in fact, beyond the period when 
 there was history, to show the progress and growth of 
 society. 
 
 To illustrate this thought we will concede that 
 land is the hub of the wheel of society. Man must draw 
 his support from the land ; that in his undeveloped state 
 in his tribal state, land was practically the only essential 
 to his well-being ; but when the division of labor was first 
 adopted, social progress then commenced. When man 
 evoluted to that state of intelligence where he saw that 
 a division of labor was better for his well-being, the fish- 
 erman said to the rude boat-builder, "You build the boats 
 and I will fish;" and these two said to a third. "You till 
 the soil while one builds the boat and another fishes;" 
 and to the fourth, "You make the bows and arrows while 
 
 No justice in plac- 
 ing burden of 
 taxation on land 
 
 No argument 
 against private 
 w n e rship of 
 land 
 
 Division of labor 
 advisable
 
 66 
 
 SINGLE TAX EXPOSED 
 
 Division of labor 
 grew with pro- 
 gress of man 
 
 Is land, designated 
 as the hub of the 
 wheel of society, 
 of greater im- 
 portance than 
 other factors 
 enumerated 
 which go to 
 make the com- 
 plete wheel? 
 
 the fifth will do the hunting;" and to the sixth, "You 
 make the crude implements necessary to till the soil." 
 Thus the division of labor was started, and as the 
 wants of the colony grew, the greater became the division 
 of labor. The land was no more important to this crude 
 state of society than the individual who made the boat 
 for the fisherman to use in fishing. It was no more im- 
 portant than the man who made the bows and arrows 
 with which to shoot the game, nor was it of any more 
 importance than the man who made the crude plow with 
 which to till the soil, or the man who made the yoke to 
 put on the ox, or the harness to put on the horse with 
 which to pull the plow. Neither were all of these of more 
 importance to that primitive state of society than the 
 medicine-man who had given his time to the study, even 
 though very imperfect, of the herbs necessary for the 
 betterment of the physical condition of man. And so this 
 division of labor grew, as man progressed intellectually 
 and socially. It has been a long continuous growth, and 
 each and every new invention has added to the wants of 
 man and have therefore become a necessity in the state 
 of society that he then or now exists in. This process 
 has gone on and on. The greater the wants of society, 
 the greater the division of labor; and the greater the di 
 vision of labor, the greater were the warts of society. 
 
 Now, the various lines of industry, the various ar- 
 ticles of wearing apparel, the many thousand articles ^f 
 value that are desired by the individuals of society, form 
 the other portions of the wheel. Machinery of all de- 
 scription that is today used, transportation facilities, great 
 manufacturing plants, banks, telephone and telegraph sys- 
 tems, in fact, the whole superstructure of society are the 
 spokes, the felloes, and tire of the wheel. Now I submit 
 TO you : Is the land which we have designated the hub of 
 any greater importance to man in a state of society, than 
 the numerous other factors which we have just enume- 
 rated, and which we may call the spokes the felloes and 
 tire of the wheel? The hub, or the land, would supply 
 the wants of man in a state of savagery, but not in a
 
 PKOPEBTY OF EXCHANGEABLE VALUE 
 
 57 
 
 state of development. For this reason I hold that there 
 may be many thousand lines of pursuits of trade and 
 combination of various interests that may be promoted by 
 individuals, that could be of more harm to society than 
 any possible monopoly of land. 
 
 In the growth and development of our commerce, 
 men and women have had their choice to till the soil or 
 to fit themselves for the various positions necessary for 
 the carrying on of commerce ; and as a matter of fact, 
 during the past two hundred years the United States, 
 England, Germany and France, and I think I may be 
 safe in saying, in all nations, that the industrial and pro- 
 fessional pursuits have offered a greater field for intel- 
 lect, enterprise and thrift, than has the tilling of the soil. 
 The movement has been from the country to the city ; 
 men and women have preferred to take their chances for 
 accumulation, or if not for the accumulation of wealth, 
 for the greater pleasures that city life affords, for the 
 pleasure of the theatre, of excitement and society. It is 
 not all of life to be the possessor of any great amount of 
 worldly goods of any nature. There are many other 
 phases to life than possession. Farms have been neg- 
 lected because they have not been as profitable, all things 
 considered, as many other lines in which individuals may 
 become interested. The compensation for the operation 
 of the farm has not been inviting. Hence, and perfectly 
 natural, the young man and the young woman have sought 
 such environment as seemed most profitable and pleasant 
 to them. 
 
 Under our system of exchange, as before stated, 
 if one accumulated goods or money, they could at any 
 time convert it into land. There is no monopoly of land. 
 The majority of people who own land are perfectly will- 
 ing to let it go for a fair consideration. They can take 
 the meney and engage in other pursuits that are equally 
 as profitable as that of tilling the soil, and much more 
 pleasant. As a matter of fact, if you would today divide 
 the land in the United States and give each individual 
 their portion, it would not be twenty-five years until con- 
 
 Other p u r s u its 
 have offered 
 greater field 
 than tilling of 
 the soil 
 
 Many other phases 
 to life than pos- 
 session 
 
 No monopoly of 
 land
 
 58 
 
 SINGLE TAX EXPOSED 
 
 Those not satisfied 
 would sell their 
 land and engage 
 in other pursuits 
 
 Folly to argue that 
 all the evils of 
 life could be 
 remedied by an 
 act of legisla- 
 tion 
 
 ditions would be about the same as they are today. Those 
 who wanted to experiment and were not satisfied with the 
 tilling of the soil would sell their land. One would want 
 to go into a grocery store, or perhaps he would want to 
 go into the automobile business. Another would want to 
 sell his land and go into the city where he could have the 
 greater pleasures of society; where he could wear fine 
 clothes and make a good appearance, at least while his 
 money would last. Others would want to convert their 
 land into money and travel, the}^ w^ould want to see the 
 sights of the cities and perhaps of foreign countries ; and 
 so on, until each and every one satisfied to the extent of 
 their ability so to do, their curiosity, their peculiar de- 
 sires, their peculiar ideas, etc. A majority of them would 
 prove a failure in the enterprise in which they embarked. 
 Ninety per cent of the business enterprises undertaken 
 prove failures. These people then w^ould not be the pos- 
 sessors of soil. They would have spent their money. 
 Ninety per cent of their undertakings have failed there- 
 fore they Avould be in what we call the w'orking classes. 
 This w^ould be the process of w^orking back to the present 
 state of affairs. 
 
 It is folly to argue as the Single Taxer does 
 that improvidence, bad judgment, ill health, intem- 
 perance, insobriety, stupidity, vicious temperament, 
 ignorance, laziness, dishonestj^, bad management, diseased 
 brains, physical and intellectual delinquency, lack of fore- 
 sight, and other imperfections of mind and body that 
 could be mentioned, can be overcome and righted by an 
 act of legislation. All the physicial and mental ailments 
 above recited play their part in the unequal distribution 
 of wealth ; they play their part and are responsible for 
 the many sad conditions that we see in society. ^Ir. George 
 would have you believe that all of these ills are traceable 
 to and have their being in the private ownership of land. 
 
 As long as we have the various stages of intellectual- 
 ity we may expect to have a like variation in the posses- 
 sion of property. Any legislation seeking to restrict the 
 advancement of one because others are unfortunate and
 
 PROPERTY OF EXCHANGEABLK VALUE 
 
 59 
 
 cannot keep up with those who are in tlie advance, woukl 
 have a tendency to hold all down alike, therefore would 
 destroy all ambition to advance. This may best be seen 
 in a state of savagery, or the primitive state from which 
 we have progressed. The lower down in the scale of 
 humanity you go, the nearer you come to an equality. 
 I should like very much to see the ills of society abolished 
 were it possible. We must not, however, allow our emo- 
 tion and sympathy to distort and warp our judgment. 
 The law of the survival of the fittest seems to hold good 
 in all mineral, vegetable and animal creation. 
 
 Henry George tried to figure out a system that would 
 make all men equal. In doing so he failed to recognize 
 that the great inequalities, both social and financial are 
 very largely due to the differences between individuals. 
 not that the possessor of vast wealth is wiser or has more 
 brains than those who have no possession whatever, for 
 such is not the case. The philosopher is seldom a rich 
 man. The professors of our universities are seldom rich 
 men. The great thinkers of our age are not rich men. 
 They have used their talents for the acquisition of knowl- 
 edge. The same is true of musicians, physicians and sur- 
 geons. They have used their time and energy in becom- 
 ing skilled in the arts of music and human anatomy. The 
 same may be said of great sculptors and painters and of 
 clergymen, scientists and political economists. They liavc 
 given their time and energy to the acquisition of knowl- 
 edge. Therefore, they have but little of the worldly pos- 
 sessions. 
 
 I believe enough has been said along this line to 
 give the reader a clear insight into social conditions; 
 that enough has been said to clearly show that no process 
 of taxation, and especially that of Single Tax which would 
 confiscate all private property in land thereby destroying 
 the very foundation upon which civilization has advanced. 
 can ever bring about the extirpation of pauperism and 
 the equalization of the distribution of wealth. Society 
 will always have its troubles as long as there is such a 
 vast difference in human nature. The great readers along 
 
 Must not allow 
 emotion to dis- 
 place judgment 
 
 Great thinkers are 
 not rich men; 
 men are not bom 
 equally endowed 
 with different 
 faculties 
 
 No process of tax- 
 ation can abolish 
 pauperism and 
 equalize distri- 
 bution of wealth
 
 60 SINGLE TAX EXPOSED 
 
 the line of political economy have recognized this fact. 
 Herbert Spencer when a young man, reasoning without 
 experience, attempted to write a purely ethical work on 
 political economy. The title of the work was "Social 
 Statics." He advocated the nationalization of land by 
 compensating the owners for their land. After forty 
 Nationalization of years of experience, when his judgment was tempered by 
 the cold stubborn facts and realities of life, he came to 
 the conclusion that his early writings were wrong, and 
 in speaking of the nationalization of land, he says : 
 
 "Until there is a great change in human na- 
 ture, the nationalization of land would be imprac- 
 ticable." 
 
 land
 
 CHAPTER VII. 
 
 THE DOG-IN-THE-MANGER CRY OF THE SINGLE 
 TAX ADVOCATES. 
 
 The advocates of Single Tax try to work upon the 
 prejudice of the people and arouse their envy, on the 
 ground that there is a monopoly in land; that land- 
 holders are reaping an unjust reward ; that they are tak- 
 ing from society what they are pleased to call the un- 
 earned increment or the increase in the value of the land, 
 which does not belong to them. They especially cite to 
 you conditions in the city. They point out that certain 
 lots in the city have increased greatly in value ; that this 
 value should not go to the owners but should be taken 
 by society; that the taxes should be raised upon these 
 lots and not upon the buildings as is the case at the 
 present time. They tell you that the vacant lots in the 
 city should be improved; that the present owners should 
 be made to improve them or sell them ; that the unplatted 
 section of a city such as maj' be found in Portland 
 and other cities in the State of Oregon should be 
 made to pay a heavy tax thereby forcing the owners 
 to sell the ground or to subdivide it and sell it out in lots 
 so that improvements may be made thereon ; they tell 
 you that all the vacant lots or plots of ground in city or 
 country should be forced to improvement ; that those 
 owning the timber lands should be made to pay excessive 
 taxes on their holding's. They thus continue enumerating 
 all of the undeveloped sections of your country which 
 should be at once brought into a state of cultivation and 
 perfection. 
 
 Let us analyze such a system in a city such as Port- 
 land. While T am not so well versed in Portland as I should 
 like to be. I am safe in saying that there are three vacant 
 
 Monopoly in land, 
 What is it? 
 
 Forcing 
 ments 
 
 improve-
 
 62 
 
 SINGLE TAX EXPOSED 
 
 Single Tax fright- 
 ens 
 
 More houses than 
 tenants 
 
 Unprofitable 
 buUd 
 
 to 
 
 Hasten to sell 
 
 Development to be 
 gradual 
 
 lots to one that is improved by buildings. Now, suppose that 
 the owners of these lots Avere confronted with this con- 
 dition: From and after this date all of the taxes neces- 
 sary to operate the city government of Portland are going 
 to be raised from land values only. This would practi- 
 cally double the assessment upon the vacant lots. Your 
 first thought would be to improve the lots. Upon investi- 
 gation, however, you tind there are already sufficient 
 houses in Portland to accommodate the demand for ten- 
 ants. You find the same to be true not only of residences 
 but of all other kinds of buildings. You decide that even 
 if your buildings will not be taxed under the new sys- 
 tem, it will still be unprofitable for you to put up a 
 building and have it unoccupied. Now you must either 
 build under such conditions, or you must pay the in- 
 creased tax upon your land. 
 
 As a logical business man your first thought would 
 be, "I will pay the increased taxes rather than to build 
 where there is no demand for the building." Your 
 second thought will be, "I cannot afford to con- 
 tinue paying the high rate of taxes on those lots 
 under such a system, knowing that the ultimate end 
 and purpose of the Single Tax System is the confiscation 
 of the value in the land." So you hasten to sell your 
 lots, and offer them at a greatly reduced price, thinking 
 you will unload this burden on to some one who is not 
 familiar with the condition. The man to whom you make 
 the offer is considering the matter in the same light that 
 you have, and he too refuses to buy, knowing as you do. 
 that the ultimate end and purpose of Single Tax was 
 that the state would take all the rental value, therefore 
 leaving no individual value in the property. He reasons. 
 and justly so, that buildings can only come and be profit- 
 able as the city grows, and that the growth of the city 
 can be no greater than the growth of the country, and 
 that the growth of the country must be consistent with 
 all other things and follow the natural law of develop- 
 ment, the law of supply and demand. He reasons that all 
 such development must come gradually, that you may
 
 THE DOG-IN-THE-MANGER CRY 
 
 63 
 
 judge the future by the past; that it would be entirely 
 unreasonable to think of forcing all undeveloped sections 
 of the country to a state of perfection in a few years; 
 and he says to you, "No, I don't want your property." 
 And again you reduce the value, and so on goes the 
 process of declining land values, until the vacant lots 
 first revert to the state ; then, of course the taxes must 
 fall more heavily upon the occupied land, and as the 
 tax falls more heavily upon the occupied lots, they, too, 
 decline in value. It should be apparent to the reader 
 that this process will continue until Single Tax has done 
 the work laid out for it to do, namely, that of abolish- 
 ing all values in land, the land therefore reverting to the 
 government. 
 
 FARM LANDS. 
 When we apply the theory of Single Tax to agricul- 
 tural lands, it works in the same manner. It would 
 either force all of the undeveloped portions of the coun- 
 try into a state of productiveness at once, or the vacant 
 lot would be the first to revert to the government. If 
 it should have the effect of forcing the undeveloped por- 
 tions of the country into productiveness, the result would 
 be an over-production, because there has been an ample 
 production under the present condition, and if there 
 should be a forced production, there must of necessity be 
 an over-production, thus lessening the value of the prod- 
 ucts of the farm, therefore reducing the price of the land 
 in proportion as it reduces the products of the land. In 
 addition to this process, however, is the fact that the 
 object of the process and the purpose of the system is 
 the final destruction of land values. This hastens the end 
 by reason of the discouragement to those who now own 
 the land. 
 
 TIMBER LANDS OF OREGON. 
 I am aware that a great prejudice exists towards the 
 man or men who hold large sections of timber lands in 
 the State of Oregon ; that there is a desire on the part of 
 some individuals to call this land monopoly; that they 
 want these timber lands to bear a very large proportion 
 
 Forced 
 ment 
 
 develop- 
 
 Single Tax com- 
 pletes Its work 
 
 Over - productive 
 farm lands
 
 64 
 
 SINGLE TAX EXPOSED 
 
 Timber lands 
 
 Over - stimulation 
 causes reaction 
 
 Preservation 
 timber in 
 states 
 
 of 
 other 
 
 of the taxes ; that they want to make owners of these 
 timber lands put in sawmills, logging camps, logging 
 railways, and all of the other necessary expenditures that 
 go with the logging industry. They want these great 
 resources of the country fully developed immediately 
 developed; that is, they think they want them developed. 
 It is entirely illogical and unreasonable to expect that 
 the great forests of timber in Oregon can or should be 
 logged off and the logs cut into lumber other than by 
 process of the law of supply and demand and the natural 
 growth of the country. But suppose that the owners of 
 these vast acres of timberland should attempt to do what 
 the Single Tax advocates would have them do, i. e., to 
 at once proceed to cut down the timber, log it off, and 
 saw it up into lumber, it would not require a great deal 
 of business experience to at once see that there would be 
 an over-production of lumber ; that the price of lumber 
 would fall ; that the industry would be paralyzed, and 
 that the attempt would be a failure. But suppose that 
 it would not be a failure, and that there was a foreign 
 market for all of the timber sawed into lumber. The re- 
 sult would be that in the course of a few years the tim- 
 ber of the State of Oregon would be destroj^ed; that in 
 the meantime there would have been a false stimulant 
 given to the influx of population on account of such an 
 unnatural condition, and when the timber was exhausted 
 a reaction would take place which would be a compensa- 
 tion for the unnatural acts. The industry that would 
 have been an asset for perhaps many decades would, un- 
 der the operation of the Single Tax ideas, have in a few 
 3'ears perished. 
 
 In the states of Wisconsin and Michigan it is 
 not a question of forcing the timber owners to get rid 
 of their timber hurriedly. It is now a question before 
 the legislature and has caused a great deal of concern, 
 what method they may employ to preserve the forests 
 and use them no faster than is necessary. They therefore 
 have advocated that a tax on the stumpage shall replace 
 a tax on the standing timber and land values, thereby
 
 THE DOG-IN-THE-MANGER CRY 
 
 65 
 
 relieving the land-owner from excessive taxes which has 
 a tendency to force the owner to get rid of his timber. 
 They want to discourage the gigantic destruction of their 
 forests rather than to encourage it as the Single Taxer 
 would do in the State of Oregon. The people of Oregon 
 should not entertain the prejudice there seems to be re- 
 garding the timberland owners. This land was all taken 
 up first by individuals. Most all of it was taken for the 
 express purpose of converting it into money, selling it 
 out to firms and corporations whom they knew were buy- 
 ing timberlands, and receiving the compensation for it in 
 proportion to the amount of timber on the land. So your 
 citizens and the citizens of other states have come to Ore- 
 gon and located these lands receiving their patents from 
 the Government, and have sold it to the companies and 
 corporations, receiving the agreed price. This money has 
 come into your state by reason of your citizens taking up 
 and selling this land. The money has gone into the va- 
 rious industries throughout your country. It has been a 
 great factor in developing many lines of industry in your 
 state. It has played its part, and it is not consistent to 
 ask now that the people who bought these timber lands 
 in good faith, expecting to hold them perhaps for many 
 years until they were warranted in logging the land off 
 as fast as there was a demand for the timber, to place 
 upon them an extra burden of taxation which was not 
 contemplated at the time the purchase was made. It 
 would not be so bad if it was simply an extra tax, but 
 when the purpose is final confiscation, it becomes dis- 
 honest and a breach of the fundamental principles of a 
 stable and reliable government, namely, that of repudia- 
 tion of contracts. 
 
 The law of competition, the law of supply and de- 
 mand, must govern the development of industries. It is 
 impossible to legislate against the interests of the people 
 who own these timberlands and not legislate against the 
 interests of the whole state. Society is so closely linked to- 
 gether that when you enact a law^ that destroys the prop- 
 erty rights of one. it will undoubtedlv do the same to all. 
 
 Preserve 
 ests 
 
 the for- 
 
 Timber lands sold 
 
 Purchased in good 
 faith 
 
 Law of competi- 
 tion 
 
 Injury to one in- 
 jury to all
 
 CHAPTER VIII. 
 
 SINGLE TAX UNJUST, UNREASONABLE AND 
 INCONSISTENT. 
 
 I want to call the attention of the reader to the un- 
 reasonable, unjust and illogical method of Single Tax. 
 I want to point out just how the operation of Single Tax 
 does harm and works a hardship upon the poor rather 
 than upon the rich. It has been quite clearly shown that 
 all property is equal, or should be equal in the eyes of 
 the law, because one class of property can be quickly 
 converted into another class. Under the application of 
 Single Tax the man who owns money escapes taxation. 
 Inasmuch as money is absolutely necessary for the trans- 
 action of business, for the carrying on of commerce and 
 all lines of industry, it is therefore a very important 
 factor. Consequently the tendency would be for an in- 
 dividual who had lands, merchandise or any other class 
 of property, to convert it into money ; especially land, as 
 land under Single Tax would have to bear all of the 
 burden, and money and other classes of property would 
 escape. Now, when one converts his property into money, 
 he could in turn, and perhaps would, loan his money to 
 the various individuals who must have its use and serv- 
 ice, receiving a compensation for it. His returns for the 
 loan of this money would possibly net him many thou- 
 sands of dollars. This individual owns two lots on the 
 comer of A and B streets on which he has a $25,000 
 residence. The residence is built from the returns of his 
 loaned money. The house is elegantly furnished, pos- 
 sibly the furniture cost $10,000. He has two automobiles 
 which were purchased by the revenue from his loaned 
 money. He has his servants and chauffeur. He enjoys 
 the city police protection ; he enjoys the parks, boulevards 
 
 Equality in eys of 
 law 
 
 Money the blood of 
 commerce 
 
 The loan shark 
 
 Comparison
 
 68 
 
 SIKQLE TAX EXPOSED 
 
 Enjoys the privil- 
 eges and pays 
 no more 
 
 Is this just? 
 
 A soliloquy 
 
 Needs no protec- 
 tion 
 
 Consistency, thou 
 art a jewel! 
 
 Should he escape 
 taxes 
 
 and the driveways; he is a gentleman of leisure and has 
 all of the comforts of life that money can buy. He pays 
 a small rental for his office which is located in a forty- 
 two story skyscraper. 
 
 Across the street from the residence of this money- 
 loan shark lives a night watchman who receives for his 
 pay $60 a month and who has two lots of the same 
 dimensions as the loan shark's, on which he has a 
 modest cottage valued at $900. Under the applica- 
 tion of Single Tax the tax-collector comes around and 
 calls on the man that has the elegant home, for the 
 taxes. The taxes on his two lots amount to $35, which 
 is a mere trifle. He goes across the street to the night 
 watchman and says to him, "Your taxes are thirty-five 
 dollars." It is a hard struggle for him to pay that 
 amount, for it is a little more than half a month's salary. 
 He makes inquiry of the tax-collector what taxes the man 
 across the street pays on his two lots. "Thirty-five dol- 
 lars," is the answer. "And mine thirty-five dollars, just 
 the same as his?" The tax collector replies, "That is 
 the system we are now working under." The night 
 watchman then says, "I have no benefit of the parks and 
 the boulevards and the driveways; I have no automobiles; 
 my house is scantily furnished ; I need none of the police 
 protection that the man across the street requires ; I have 
 no diamonds, no jewelry, no silverware, no five hundred 
 thousand dollar necklace, or anything of that descrip- 
 tion which needs police protection ; I do not require the 
 fire protection that the man across the way does. Must 
 I contribute as much to the support of the government of 
 the City of Portland (or any other city) as the man 
 across the way?" I appeal to the good judgment of the 
 reader. Is there any justice, is there any consistency in 
 such a sj'stem? Certainly not. 
 
 Now let us consider another illustration. Suppose 
 that A owns a line of steamboats, sailing vessels, or any 
 other transportation line. He has a large income from 
 his business. Under the application of Single Tax, he 
 too will escape. He will pay no taxes on three, four, five
 
 FATAL DEFECTS OF SINGLE TAX 
 
 69 
 
 or six hundred thousand dollars' worth of appliances 
 which bring him a great revenue and to which the public 
 must pay tribute. He occupies the same position as the 
 man who loans the money. He pays no more for the 
 maintenance of the city government or the state govern- 
 ment, possibly not as much, as the man who works in 
 the switch-yards of the Northern Pacific Railway in Port- 
 land, or the widow who works in a laundry or may do 
 washing to support her children. 
 
 Take for a further illustration j'our department 
 stores, your manufacturing plants, your transfer com- 
 panies, the owners of your magnificent buildings which 
 bring to them a great income through their rentals. We 
 could multiply the illustrations already made by many 
 different lines of industry that offer the same compari- 
 son. Time and space will not permit, however, to do this. 
 I only desire for the reader to get the idea of the fallacy 
 of such a system. 
 
 To further illustrate the inconsistency of the opera- 
 tion of Single Tax and how it will work a hardship upon 
 both producer and consumer the very classes that Mr. 
 George intended to relieve under Single Tax the prod- 
 ucts of the soil and of labor will not be taxed. The De- 
 partment of Agriculture reports that the farmer receives 
 but 50 per cent of the price which consumers pay for 
 farm products. This shows that from the time the prod- 
 ucts leave the farm until they reach the consumer, 100 
 per cent is added to the ralue by reason of carrying 
 charges and handling charges of every nature, together 
 with the profits that the middlemen receive. Inasmuch 
 as the price the consumer has to pay is twice that which 
 the farmer receives, it must be apparent that there is 
 room for manipulation and excessive profits after the 
 goods leave the farm and before they reach the consumer. 
 Under our present system, personal property is subject 
 to taxation. Under the application of Single Tax it 
 will be exempt. This will offer a still greater inducement 
 for those who manipulate the distribution of the various 
 
 The laboring man 
 or woman 
 
 Multiply these il- 
 lustrations 
 
 Department of Ag- 
 riculture report 
 
 Would be exempt 
 under Single Tax
 
 70 
 
 SINGLE TAX EXPOSED 
 
 Commodities cor- 
 nered 
 
 Controlling 
 market 
 
 the 
 
 Advance the price 
 
 Would go scot-free 
 
 Millions made in 
 soap busineBS 
 
 staple commodities or products of the farm and products 
 of manufacture. 
 
 As an illustration, only in the latter part of 1911, 
 sugar was manipulated, and advanced to an exorbitant 
 high figure. It was not due to the fact that there was 
 a scarcity of sugar. It was simply a manipulation of 
 the market, the controlling of the product of the soil. 
 The consumers paid the bill. Again, wheat, oats, corn, 
 cotton, flour, and many staple articles are thus con- 
 trolled by combinations made between various individuals 
 together with their vast accumulations of wealth, money, 
 etc. The prices of these commodities may possibly be 
 lowered for a time what is known as "bearing the mar- 
 ket." When the market is low enough, or as low as 
 they can force it, they begin buying and get control to 
 a great extent of these commodities, then advance the 
 price, thereby reaping enormous profits. The consumer 
 pays the penalty. So with manufactured articles ; so with 
 rubber, rubber clothing, coffee and tea, and many other 
 lines too numerous to mention, that the genius and intrigue 
 of man could get hold of and manipulate to the detri- 
 ment of society. Yet under the application of Single Tax 
 their holdings and their profits would go scot-free. They 
 would pay no part of the running expenses of the gov- 
 ernment, yet enjoying greater privileges than those who 
 were paying the operating expenses. The field is so 
 broad that it would require a book on this particular 
 phase of the Single Tax question to thoroughly present 
 the many unjust and illogical features in the application 
 of the System. 
 
 In connection with this phase of the question I must 
 not fail to call your attention to the fact that Mr. Fels, 
 the man who has spent his millions to promote this sys- 
 tem, has made his money from the manufacture of soap. 
 He has not made it from the increased value of land. 
 Please bear in mind that Mr. Fels has made a good many 
 millions of dollars out of a manufacturing plant an in- 
 dustry that under Single Tax would pay no revenue to 
 the government. I would not accuse Mr. Fels of pro-
 
 FATAL DEFECTS OF SINGLE TAX 
 
 71 
 
 moting this system for the express purpose of exempt- 
 ing his manufacturing plant from taxation, because he 
 is spending more money than he would gain thereby. It 
 is a good illustration, however, to show you that there 
 may be, and no doubt are, many thousand different lines 
 of manufacture that are equally as profitable as the 
 manufacture of soap. Under the application of Single 
 Tax these profitable enterprises would pay no taxes. Land 
 would have to bear all of the burden. 
 
 Would not- accuse 
 Mr. Fels 
 
 THE CONSUMER PAYS THE BILL. 
 
 The Single Taxers appeal to the working classes and 
 those who are unfortunate, and say to them: "You cre- 
 ate these many million dollars' worth of value in land, 
 why not take it? Why give it to another?" Such a 
 statement upon first thought appeals to the individual. 
 Who pays the bills now? Who pays the tax that is col- 
 lected on the various commodities? The consumer does. 
 It cannot be otherwise. When an article is manufactured, 
 the cost of the raw material is first taken into considera- 
 tion, then the cost of the transportation of the raw mate- 
 rial to the place of manufacture, then the cost of manu- 
 facturing, rent, interest, insurance, labor, deterioration of 
 plant and all of the incidental expenses are figured and 
 become a part of the expenses that attach to the manu- 
 factured article ; then a certain profit is added to the 
 price of the article ; then cartage to the railway or trans- 
 portation line is added ; then follows the freight and the 
 cartage at its destination together with the wholesalers' 
 expenses and their charges ; then the expenses follow to 
 the retailer, with his profits and expenses added ; finally 
 to the consumer. He pays the final total charge that has 
 attached to the article so purchased. 
 
 The individual who hires an attorney pays the office 
 rent, pays all of his office expenses. Those unfortunate 
 enough to require the services of a physician, pay the 
 expenses. And so you might single out each item which 
 goes to make up the volume of business of the country, 
 and the burden finally falls upon the consumer. Now 
 
 Who pays the final 
 blU? 
 
 Costs attach to ar- 
 ticles 
 
 There is no escape; 
 the expense fol- 
 lows the article
 
 72 
 
 SINGLE TAX EXPOSED 
 
 Consumer also a 
 producsr 
 
 Producer also a 
 consumer 
 
 Change in form 
 only 
 
 these consumers are producers as well. We must ever 
 keep this in mind. I consume the products of another 
 one's labor; he consumes the products of my labor. This 
 is the result of the division of labor, the result of com- 
 merce which follows the division of labor. Under the 
 application of Single Tax we will have the same process. 
 The consumer must and will pay the final bill. Under 
 either system the consumer and the producer 
 pay the bill. Now, what difference would there be in 
 the cost of the manufactured article, whether the owner 
 of the plant in which a certain article was manufactured 
 paid $2000 taxes, $1000 of which was on the ground so 
 occupied and $1000 on the building, machinery and con- 
 tents. The same $2000 in either event would attach to 
 the total amount of goods manufactured and sold from 
 that plant during that year. So the consumer who pur- 
 chased these articles would neither profit nor lose in this 
 transaction. The cost of transportation would be no 
 more or less on account of the application of Single Tax 
 as far as taxes were concerned and the relative portion of 
 expense attached to the article the consumer purchases. 
 
 How it worked in 
 1911 
 
 In 1912 the same 
 
 No difference to 
 consumer 
 
 Let us follow these manufactured articles still 
 further. They reach the wholesale house. In 1911 this 
 particular wholesale house paid $3000 total taxes on 
 goods, building and ground. This year, 1912, under the 
 application of Single Tax the taxes will be relatively the 
 same amount, but on the ground only. There is still no 
 difference in the price of the article and the expenses 
 that attach to it. He may follow these articles on until 
 they reach the consumer, and they are practically the 
 same as under the old system. That being true, there has 
 been no relief to the consumer whatever. The advocates 
 of Single Tax howl and rant and clamor about taxing 
 industry taxing the products of labor. Isn't it clear to 
 the reader that the product of labor has been taxed just 
 as much under the Single Tax System as under the old 
 system? It makes no difference whether you tax the 
 article itself or whether you tax to a greater extent the
 
 FATAL DEFECTS OF SINGLE TAX 
 
 73 
 
 ground that the man, machinery, or manufacturing plant 
 must occupy while he is manufacturing the article. 
 
 To carry this illustration further let us take the 
 farm. The Single Taxers tell the farmers he is punished 
 penalized every time he puts an addition on his house 
 or adds a new piece of furniture for his convenience, or 
 when he builds a barn, even a henhouse that he is 
 punished each year for it, and it therefore discourages 
 him rather than encourages him. Now let us see. In 
 
 1911 the taxes on Mr. Johnson's farm were $200. In 
 
 1912 we will admit that the taxes may be slightly less 
 under the application of Single Tax, say $175. In 1911 
 there was a tax on horses, the cows and all of the live- 
 stock, on the buildings and all of the improvements on 
 the farm. In that year, as the Single Taxers say, there 
 was a penalty placed upon improvements. In 1912 the 
 penalty has been abolished. Personal property has been 
 exempted from taxation, but the extra amount less a 
 small percentage has been placed upon the land. The 
 burden has only been shifted. 
 
 Let us follow one article from the farm to the con- 
 sumer and see if it has made any difference to him. In 
 1911 the cow was taxed; the food that she ate was taxed; 
 the barn that she was housed in was taxed ; the milk- 
 buckets that were used in the dairy and all of the dairy 
 appliances were taxed; the wagon and the horse that 
 pulled the wagon to the market were taxed ; and milk 
 sold for 20c a gallon. In 1912 the cow, the food that she 
 ate, the barn, the dairy and its supplies, the wagon, and 
 the horse that conveyed the milk to the market are ex- 
 empt from taxation, but still the milk sells for 20c a 
 gallon. The farmer gets no more profit from his coav 
 than in 1911. Industry has not been encouraged at all 
 the consumer has not profited one cent. "We have only 
 changed the percentage in form. The practical results 
 are the same. This illustration may be applied to any 
 commodity or product of the farm. 
 
 Now the application of Single Tax has done the 
 consumer no good, and it has done the farmer no good. 
 
 All the same 
 groand or labor 
 
 Taxes in 1911 
 
 Exemption has not 
 changed results 
 
 Following the cow 
 
 Industry not en 
 couraged
 
 74 
 
 SINGLE TAX EXPOSED 
 
 Who has been 
 helped? Nobody 
 
 Who has been in- 
 jured? Every- 
 body 
 
 Land as a reserve 
 fund 
 
 Security all gone 
 
 Would do It slow 
 
 A poor exens* 
 
 It has not helped the manufacturer ; it has not helped the 
 producer. Then what has it done? It has lowered the 
 price of farm lands, village and city lots throughout the 
 land. It has created unrest; destroyed confidence, and 
 paralyzed industry. Whenever land values decline, all 
 lines of inustry and trade decline with it. According to 
 the Government report, there are in the United States 
 land values to the extent of $65,000,000,000. Land values 
 have always been recognized as the most staple of all 
 values, therefore have become the basis of a volume of 
 business perhaps three times greater than its value. Land 
 acts as a reserve on which credit money is issued. It oc- 
 cupies the same place in commerce as the gold bullion in 
 the bank on which the gold certificates are issued. As a 
 matter of fact, land values are and should be more re- 
 liable than gold reserves, because land canot be de- 
 stroyed. Under the process of Single Tax, the $65,000,- 
 000,000 of land values would finally vanish, and with it 
 the great volume of business which has been transacted 
 on securities. As land values would decline mortgages 
 would be foreclosed unless payment was made when due. 
 New mortgages could not be secured. Why should an 
 individual be willing to loan money upon land when 
 there was a system in operation that had for its final 
 purpose the confiscation of land values by the process of 
 all the potential rent being taken by the government? 
 
 I am aware that the Single Tax theorists will claim 
 that they do not intend to carry their system thus far ; that 
 it will take many years to reach the final goal. I reply 
 that in my judgment, that makes the system so much 
 the worse. It would be much better, if we are to finally 
 reach that point w^here land values are to be abolished, 
 to reach it at once and adjust the affairs of the govern- 
 ment and the people to the new conditions, rather than to 
 start in on an era of declining land values and declining 
 industries which would necessarily follow. It would be 
 a poor excuse for a criminal to say that he had adminis- 
 tered a dose of poison, but that it would take a long 
 time to kill the individual. The crime would be just as
 
 same 
 
 FATAL DEFECTS OF SINGLE TAX 75 
 
 great as though tlie dose administered would produce Result to be the 
 death at once. The crime would be just as great in the 
 eyes of the law, and so I believe that the crime of intro- 
 ducing a system which will destroy land values gradually 
 but certainly, is just as immoral and unjust as though it 
 produced the same result in a shorter space of time.
 
 CHAPTER IX. 
 
 THE SINGLE TAXERS CRY "LAND MONOPOLY." 
 
 Within the past ten years, according to the state- 
 ment of Mr. Fels which appeared in the ]\[arch number of 
 ''Everybody's Magazine," he purchased in Essex, Eng- 
 land, fifty miles from London, 700 acres of a deserted 
 farm at $50 an acre. He purchased another deserted 
 farm within 24 miles from London for $35 an acre. I 
 cannot imagine that there is very much of a land mo- 
 nopoly even in England, which of all countries there 
 would be a monopoly of land, if in any, when land is to 
 be purchased at $35 an acre. In fact, Mr. George cites 
 England in "Progress and Poverty" as a country owned 
 and controlled by landlords and great landed estates. I 
 imagine that the farmers of Oregon would ask more for 
 their land than $35 an acre, especially within 24 miles of 
 Portland, or Salem, Eugene, or many other cities of 
 Oregon. 
 
 As a matter of fact there is no land monopoly any- 
 where in the world, unless it is in such countries 
 where the land is owned by the state, which our Single 
 Tax friends would have us do in Oregon. In order for 
 there to be a land monopoly which will work an injury 
 to the citizens generally, the conditions must be such 
 that the products of the soil are unreasonably high ; that 
 the consumer must pay too much in proportion to other 
 things and commodities for the products of the soil and 
 the privilege of occupying certain portions of the soil. 
 In other words, when the operation and the tilling of 
 the land bring no greater reward or compensation for the 
 labor thus expended in producing, cultivating and har- 
 vesting the products of the soil than other industries and 
 lines of liuman energy, there can be no land monopoly 
 
 Fels buys land 
 
 Land monopoly at 
 $36 per acre 
 
 Oregon farmer 
 laughs 
 
 C m p e t i tion In 
 farm products 
 
 Comparison of re- 
 turns of labor
 
 78 SINGLE TAX EXPOSED 
 
 where there are no greater returns to the land owner or 
 the land operator than other lines of industry requiring 
 the same amount of effort and energy. To show that the 
 advocates of Single Tax, and especially the teachings of 
 Mr. George in his book "Progress and Poverty" are in- 
 correct, that instead of land or the products of land in- 
 creasing and operating against the interests of the poor, I 
 want to quote you statistics showing the opposite to be 
 the fact. 
 
 Geo. Gunton in "The Forum" of 1887 quotes figures 
 
 Rentals declined from Tookes' History of Prices, v. 1, and of Barton and 
 50 per cent ' 
 
 Wade and Wade's History of the English Middle and 
 
 Working Classes and in speaking of the proportion of 
 
 the products of the soil that was retained by the owner, 
 
 he says : 
 
 "Just before the close of the Seventeenth Cen- 
 tury, according to Davenport, the total agricul- 
 tural produce including pasture and forest land, 
 was estimated at 21,790,000, and the total rent 
 9,480,000, or a little over 45 per cent of the 
 produce. About a century later, 1779, according 
 to Arthur Young, the produce w^as estimated at 
 72,826,827, and the gross rental 19,200,000, or 
 about 26 per cent. Sixty-three years later, 1842 
 and 1843, McCulloch's Statistical Account of the 
 British Empire, page 553, estimated the gross 
 agricultural product at 141,606.857 and the total 
 rental 37,795,905, or 26.69 per cent of the total 
 produce ; and in 1882, forty years later, accord- 
 ing to Mulhall, the total produce was 270,000,- 
 000, and the total rental 58,000,000, or I21/2 per 
 cent of the produce. Thus the actual rent roll 
 from agricultural land has increased over 600 per 
 cent. The total produce of the land during tlin 
 same period has increased 1250 per cent. In 
 other words, the proportion of the total product 
 of agriculture paid in rent has fallen from 45 per 
 cent to 211/2 per cent, or more than one-half. He 
 continues, if we include land used for manufac- 
 turing and commercial purposes, we shall find the 
 same result to be no less striking. According to 
 the authorities already referred to at the close of 
 the Revolution, 1688, the annual total produce of 
 all kinds was in round numbers 43,000,000. and
 
 SINGLE TAXEBS CRT "LAND MONOPOLY" 
 
 79 
 
 the total rents 10,000,000, or a little over 23 per 
 cent of the produce, and in 1882 the aggregate 
 annual produce was estimated at 1,200,000 and 
 the total rent roll at 131,468,288, or only 10.9 
 per cent of the total produce. In other words, 
 while the aggregate produce has increased nearly 
 2800 per cent, the aggregate rent has arisen only 
 about 100 per cent. Thus instead of rent swal- 
 lowing the whole gain during the last 200 years, 
 relatively to the total wealth produced, it has 
 fallen over 55 per cent." 
 
 This same line of reasoning justified by the facts 
 may be continued through all lines of industry in the 
 United States. The production of cotton, the production 
 of the goods manufactured from cotton, and many other 
 lines have shown the same relative reduction in the cost 
 of production and distribution. The Single Tax theorists 
 point to the fact that a greater portion of the citizens of 
 the United States are not land owners, therefore a land 
 monopoly; that the majority are tenants, and the minor- 
 ity the landlords. This is no argument against the sys- 
 tem of private ownership of land. Many of our Avealthiest 
 people have no land. It is not because they cannot get 
 it. It is because they don't w^ant it. There are other 
 lines more profitable to them. The Jews as a class are 
 the shrewdest business man we have. As a rule they are 
 tenants, and not land owners. They can get greater re- 
 turns for the money invested in commercial pursuits than 
 they can to have it invested in city lots, houses or farm 
 lands. Like Mr. Fels, they can make more out of the 
 soap business than they can in the land. This cry of 
 land monopoly; this cry that the poor people are being 
 strangled to death by the land-grabber and the landlord 
 is not justified by the facts when the question is thor- 
 oughly analyzed and the true cause of poverty is dis- 
 covered. It will not be found in the private ownership 
 of the land, but from causes very largely inherent in the 
 human race and which will ever be with society and be 
 a source of pain and discomfort. 
 
 Tenants of United 
 States 
 
 Other pursuits 
 more profitable 
 
 Inherent in the hu- 
 man family
 
 D 
 en 
 
 X
 
 CHAPTER X. 
 
 HOW SINGLE TAX WOULD BAR PUBLIC 
 IMPROVEMENTS. 
 
 Under the stimulating influence of our present sys- 
 tem, individuals privately or collectively, for the sake of 
 profit and gain, undertake great enterprises great de- 
 velopment schemes. As an illustration, take the improve- 
 ment that is now going on in Portland by Lewis & Wiley. 
 They purchased a slough or low piece of ground covered 
 with water near the old exposition site. They also pur- 
 chased a portion of the hill lying west of Portland. They 
 have spent large sums of money in sluicing the dirt from 
 this hill to the valley below, filling up this low ground, 
 thus reclaiming a large tract of waste land, at the same 
 time reclaiming a large portion of the hill, making it a 
 very beautiful and attractive residence district. The pri- 
 vate fortunes of these individuals are risked in this en- 
 terprise. They had but one object, that was that the land 
 would increase in value and that all of this increase 
 would belong to them. They would not onlj' get paid for 
 the amount of labor and money thus expended and for 
 the interest on the money and the risk so taken, but they 
 would get even more. They expected at least a handsome 
 profit for their enterprise, and no doubt they will get it, 
 unless perchance ]\Iultnoiiiali County should adopt Sin- 
 gle Tax. In that event the}- would be cheated of the 
 reward that is justly due them for the enterprise thus 
 displayed. I hold that it is perfectly right and just that 
 these men should receive the full benefit of the increase 
 in the value of the land thus reclaimed. Tinder the ap- 
 plication of Single Tax the work never would have com- 
 menced. There would have been no incentive for such 
 improvements, and certainly it would be a very hard 
 
 Improvements i n 
 Portland exam- 
 ple 
 
 No inducements for 
 reclamation 
 
 Investments made 
 for gain 
 
 Have a Just claim 
 for the incre- 
 ment
 
 82 
 
 SIXGI-E TAX EXPOSED 
 
 Single Tax would 
 bar improve- 
 ments 
 
 Improvements ne- 
 cessary 
 
 Impediments 
 moved 
 
 Regrade districts 
 
 Improvements cre- 
 ate values 
 
 matter if the land belonged to the state, to persuade the 
 State Legislature to embark on such an undertaking. 
 Consequently the development of this particular tract of 
 ground would not be accomplished under the Single Tax 
 system. 
 
 To carry this illustration further to make it appli- 
 cable to any such an enterprise, let us suppose that a large 
 portion of the City of Portland (or any other city in the 
 State of Oregon) required certain streets to be regraded 
 and great cuts and fills to be made ; that certain hills or 
 high elevations were in the way of the progress of the city ; 
 that the grades on account of these high elevations were 
 too great to permit of traffic and that the regrading of 
 these hills was absolutely necessary for the further de- 
 velopment and growth of the city. Under the present 
 system of improvements in cities and towns, districts are 
 formed for the purpose of regulating the cost of such 
 improvements. Now, suppose we get together all of the 
 property owners in the district which comprise that sec- 
 tion of the city where these cuts and fills and high eleva- 
 tions are to be removed and the district made accessible 
 for city traffic and business, and we shall say to these 
 lot owners: "For the regrading of these streets and the 
 tearing down of the hills, the filling up of the low lands, 
 the entire cost to this district will be thirty million dol- 
 lars. This entire section has been formed into a district a 
 regraded district. All of the lots in this district will have 
 to bear their proportionate share of this expense. Now, 
 you lot owners will have this bill to pay, each lot paying 
 in proportion to its location. When this improvement is 
 made, however, great advantages will accrue to this lo- 
 cality, and your lots will improve greatly in value. Are 
 you willing to spend your accumulated wealth in a fur- 
 ther outlay for these improvements?" The question is 
 discussed by a number of the leading propert}' owmers 
 and finally they come to the conclusion that it will be a 
 profitable move, and upon motion, the lot owners agree 
 unanimously that they will undertake the work, the con- 
 sideration l)eing that the unearned increment, as the
 
 WOULD BAR PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS 
 
 83 
 
 Single Taxer calls it, will compensate them for the money 
 thus expended, the risk thus taken and the interest on 
 the money. They are satisfied to proceed. 
 
 Dr. Eggleston, W. S. U'Ren and Mr. Cridge ask per- 
 mission to address the meeting. They say to these lot 
 owners : "In the year 1912 at the November election they 
 are going to pass a Single Tax measure that all of the 
 taxes in Multnomah County (or in whatever county this 
 might happen to be) will be raised from land values only, 
 and that it is the intention and purpose, it is the object of 
 their peculiar system, to take the full rental value of the 
 lands in the course of a number of years; that the selling 
 value of their land will of necessity disappear under such 
 a system, inasmuch as the increment will be absorbed by 
 the rental so taken ; that the increment that they have 
 enjoyed under the old system will, under the new cease 
 to exist." And they further say to these lot owners: 
 "Now, if under the circumstances Avhich Ave have just 
 described to you, you desire to proceed with your im- 
 provement, go ahead, but remember, the increase in the 
 value of the lots, and the present value of the lots will 
 disappear under the application of our system Single 
 Tax." 
 
 At the conclusion of the remarks of the three gentle- 
 men just mentioned, after a few prominent lot owners 
 had expressed themselves, it was decided by an unani- 
 mous vote that the undertaking would not be started ; 
 that under such conditions they did not want to spend 
 any more of their money, but would rather sell, if such 
 a thing was possible, what little interest there might be 
 in the land. Such a conclusion would be perfectly natural 
 and logical. This illustration should be sufficient for the 
 reader to multiply its application in all lines of improve- 
 ments, in all lines of progress where the individual has 
 been enjoying a return for his money. You should be 
 able to see at a glance that such a system is destructive 
 of the very principles that have caused our nation and 
 country to grow beyond that of any other. Under our 
 laws we have offered all the encouragement possible to 
 
 Entitled to more 
 than interest 
 
 Single Taxers 
 throw cold water 
 
 No improvements 
 under new sys- 
 tem 
 
 Improvements not 
 undertaken 
 
 Such a system 
 would destroy, 
 not construct
 
 84 
 
 SINGLE TAX EXPOSED 
 
 Not attractive for 
 investors 
 
 Mortgages 
 closed 
 
 fore- 
 
 Less 
 pay 
 
 work, less 
 
 Industrial 
 sion 
 
 depres- 
 
 individual enterprise, thrift and enei-gy. Under the op- 
 eration of Single Tax, as stated in previous chapters, land 
 values will decline, and as land values decline, investors 
 pass by communities and localities where land values are 
 declining, and seek a place for investment where there 
 is a chance for profit. As before stated, mortgages would 
 be at once foreclosed, renewals would be refused, loans 
 on land for improvements would be entirely out of the 
 question. When land values begin to decline, confidence 
 is shaken, money is withdrawn, and as money is with- 
 drawn, industry ceases, labor becomes in less demand, 
 therefore the price of labor declines as the greater num- 
 ber of laborers apply for the limited number of positions ; 
 the price of commodities declines and the price of every- 
 thing declines with it. Under such a process commercial 
 conditions would become almost unbearable. It would be 
 a calamity for Oregon or the State of Washington or any 
 other state in the T^uion. and a national calamity for the 
 entire United States to adopt Single Tax.
 
 CHAPTER XL 
 
 VANCOUVER, B. C, HAS NOT SINGLE TAX. 
 
 Inasmuch as the Single Tax advocates point to the 
 British Columbia cities as having Single Tax, I feel that 
 it is necessary to give some facts regarding Victoria and 
 Vancouver, B. C, relative to their system of taxation. 
 The writer visited Vancouver in the month of January. 
 ]912, for the express purpose of investigating their fiscal 
 system. I found that the citizens of Vancouver were not 
 at all familiar with the theor}- of Single Tax. When 
 asked their idea of its application in Vancouver, they 
 knew but little about it. They said they knew the build- 
 ings were not taxed and that they were having prosper- 
 ity; that property, land, was increasing rapidly; that 
 rents were very exorbitant, and the prices of commodities 
 were extremely high. 
 
 Upon further investigation I learned that about six- 
 teen years ago Vancouver by a mere act of the City 
 Council, which the}' have the authority to do. eliminated 
 25 per cent of buildings from taxation. In 1906 they 
 made it 50 per cent, and in 1909 75 per cent. In 1910 all 
 of the buildings and improvements together with personal 
 property were exempted from taxation in the City of 
 purpose.s only, and that there were two distinct sets of 
 machinery for collecting taxes in Vancouver and other 
 British Columbia cities. If you should say to a citizen 
 of Vancouver. "Your prosperity is due to the system you 
 have of collecting your taxes." he would be highly in- 
 sulted. They claim their prosperity is due to their ex- 
 ceptional resources. In part this is true. British Co- 
 lumbia has vast resources, large areas of yet undeveloped 
 land, vast stretches of timber some of which is the best 
 in the world; great fishing industries and mineral wealth. 
 
 Just now a build- 
 ing boom is on 
 
 Buildings exempt- 
 ed 
 
 Prosperity due to 
 great resources
 
 86 
 
 SINGLE TAX EXPOSED 
 
 A homestead title 
 in fee simple 
 
 Are not Single 
 Taxers 
 
 Vast sums of R. 
 R. money 
 
 Just awakening 
 
 Limited Single Tax 
 
 Vancouver's high 
 valuation 
 
 Central Canada is a vast agricultural empire only par- 
 tially developed, and in the past few years there has been 
 an enormous emigration not only into Central Canada, 
 but into British Columbia, because of the great opportu- 
 nities for free land a homestead, if you please, with a 
 perfectly clear title such as was given to the homestead- 
 ers in the United States. It is to be their land they are 
 not to be tenants, as Single Tax advocates would have 
 them be. 
 
 The people of Canada are not Single Taxers by 
 any means. They Avould not consider for a moment the 
 repudiation of their contracts. They believe in pri- 
 vate property in land. In addition to the other great re- 
 sources of British Columbia which account materially for 
 their commercial activity at this time and the advance in 
 growth of their cities, the Grand Trunk Pacific, Canadian 
 Pacific and Canadian Northern Railways have spent in 
 the past three years over fifty millions of dollars in west- 
 ern Canada, and contemplate spending another fifty mil- 
 lions by the end of VJIH. With this vast amount of money 
 that has been spent in the past few years, and antici- 
 pating the additional expenditure of fifty millions, all 
 of western Canada has been stimulated to a very high 
 degree. It must also be remembered that Canada, espe- 
 cially British Columbia and the western provinces, have 
 not been developing while other western states of the 
 I'jiited States have been. While Seattle and Portland 
 have been making great strides in building and popula- 
 tion, British Columbia cities have stood still. It is now 
 their turn, and in spite of this Single Tax fallacy they 
 are active. 
 
 There is one more feature, however, in connection 
 with the growth of Vancouver that must not be passed 
 by without notice, for it is one of the great factors in 
 its exceptional activity. Vancouver has a population of 
 practically 100.000. The assessed valuation for 1912 is 
 estimated by Mv. Baldwin, Controller of the City of Van- 
 couver, at .$192,000,000. This is a per capita valuation 
 of .$1920. They have a l)onded indebtedness exclusive of
 
 VANCOUVER HAS NOT SINGLE TAX 
 
 87 
 
 local improvements of $21,000,000, or $210 for each man, 
 woman and child in the city. I was informed by men 
 well posted that Vancouver has seven people for each 
 lot in the city. This would make a bonded indebtedness 
 of something over $1400 for each lot in the City of Van- 
 couver. The Provincial Government allows cities of the 
 first class to bond for 20% of their assessed valuation. 
 Vancouver, being a city of the first class, has this priv- 
 ilege. They have borrowed their 20% up to the limit. 
 It must also be remembered that Vancouver assesses prac- 
 tically the full value of the real estate in the city. 
 
 In the past five years they have, perhaps, in addition to 
 other sums as above mentioned, spent $20,000,000 in im- 
 provements paid for by this bonded money. Or in other 
 words, they have borrowed on forty-year bonds at 4% 
 this vast sum of money for a city of 100,000 people. Sup- 
 pose that Portland should follow Vancouver's footsteps 
 in her fiscal system, namely, to go in debt as much as her 
 values would justify and the law allow, as Vancouver has 
 done. 
 
 Portland has a population of 230,000. Suppose 
 that her assessed valuation would follow the same pro- 
 portion as that of Vancouver, namely, $1920 per capita, 
 which so far as I can see, she would have a perfect right 
 to do, they would have a total valuation of $499,000,000. 
 The State of Oregon allows cities of the first class to 
 borrow 7% on their valuation for general bonded indebt- 
 edness. This would alloM' an indebtedness to Portland 
 of $34,000,000. But suppose the State of Oregon allowed 
 cities of the first class to borrow 20%, which is the case 
 in Vancouver, and suppose Portland faithfully followed 
 up her limit, as Vancouver has done, instead of having 
 a general bonded indebtedness of $14,000,000, your gen- 
 eral bonded indebtedness would reach a grand total of 
 $99,800,000. 
 
 I am of the opinion that Portland, Salem or 
 any other city on the Pacific Coast would far outstrip 
 Vancouver, B. C, if they would be so frightfully indif- 
 ferent to the consequences of indebtedness as to go in 
 
 Allowed by law to 
 borrow 20% 
 
 Up to the limit 
 
 $20,000,000 
 
 Vancouver vs. 
 Portland 
 
 What a cry would 
 be made
 
 low it 
 
 88 SIXGLK TAX EXPOSED 
 
 ilebt to the extent of $99,800,000, or on that proportion 
 to population, and spend that money on city improve- 
 ments, leaving the rising generation to pay the obliga- 
 You would not al- tion. This excessive indebtedness of Vancouver and other 
 Canadian cities, which is pointed out to us as a crite- 
 rion of the application of Single Tax, would not be tol- 
 erated in American cities of any note, and it will be the 
 ruination of those who have adopted such a reckless and 
 indifferent course. 
 
 TAX LAWS OF BRITISH COLUMBIA. 
 
 As a matter of fact, taxes are levied as follows in 
 the province of British Columbia, quoting from page 6. 
 chapter 53, "An act to assess, levy and collect taxes on 
 pi'operty and income." 
 
 "Property subject to taxation : (1) All land, 
 personal property and income of every person in 
 the province, including the land and personal 
 property within the province of non-residents in 
 the province, sliall l)e liable to taxation. 
 
 "(2) All mines and minerals shall be assessed 
 and taxed. 
 
 "(3) Every person shall be assessed and 
 taxed on real property, personal property and in- 
 come, subject to the exemptions of this act" 
 (which relates to cemeteries, etc). 
 
 "The taxes on all incomes up to $2000 is 1 per 
 cent; from $2000 to $3000. IVi per cent; from 
 $3000 to $4000. 11 2 per cent, and from $4000 to 
 $7000. 2 pel- cent: from $7000 and over. 2^0 per 
 cent." 
 
 "Every bank doing l>usiness in this province 
 shall be assessed and taxed in addition to the 
 foregoing sul)section $1000 per ann\im. and $125 
 for each additional branch." 
 
 "The owner of every salmon cannery in addi- 
 tion to the tax on real property, personal prop- 
 erty other than salmon and income, shall be 
 taxed at the rate of two cents on ca'/h case of 
 salmon packed by him during the year ending the 
 31st day of Deceml)er. and in addition to such 
 tax a tiix oF 1 per cent on tlie total price for
 
 VANCOUVER HAS NOT SlN(;i,E TAX 
 
 S!) 
 
 which salmon, other than canned salmon, has 
 been sold by him during said year." 
 
 "In addition to their real estate and income 
 tax. every insurance company every life insur- 
 ance company every guarantee company loan 
 company and trust company, every telegrapli. 
 telephone and express company, every gas com- 
 pany and every water works company and street 
 railway company is assessed and taxed upon its 
 gross revenue from all sources derived, arising or 
 accrued from business transacted in the prov- 
 ince." 
 
 "If personal property tax is greater tiian the 
 the income tax then they collect from the per- 
 sonal property, and if the income tax is greater, 
 the amount of tax on income shall be the only 
 tax payable in respect of both income and per- 
 sonal property." 
 
 The Provincial Government of British Columbia pays 
 a very large portion of Vancouver's school expenses. 
 which comes from revenue derived from the various kinds 
 of taxes other than that of land. 
 
 Do not allow Vancouver, B. C. to enter into your 
 consideration as a city trying out Single Tax. for such 
 is not the case; they are simply exempting, as a city, 
 buildings and personal property, and even that far only 
 by resolution of City Council; there is no such provision 
 in the city charter. 
 
 In conclusion, a word to the wise is sufficient. Let 
 Vancouver and other Canadian cities continue their ex- 
 periments, until they have passed through a period of 
 depression, which will surely follow, as has been the 
 experience of Seattle, Portland, San Francisco in fact 
 all cities and countries ; then is the time to observe the 
 effects. This much boasted reform is not like Halley's 
 comet passing by. never to return. ^Moderation is the 
 silver link in the pearly chain of virtue; therefore use 
 moderation in all vour acts. 
 
 Really no compar- 
 ison 
 
 Test yet to come
 
 ^ 
 
 D 
 

 
 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, LOS ANGELES 
 
 THE UNIVERSITY LIBRARY 
 
 This book is DUE on the last date stamped below 
 
 URi 
 
 University of California 
 
 SOUTHERN REGIONAL LIBRARY FACILITY 
 
 405 Hilgard Avenue, Los Angeles, CA 90024-1388 
 
 Return this material to the library 
 
 from which it was borrowed. 
 
 ? r^TM " 
 
 
 SEP '"^ 
 
 m 2 m mu 
 
 Mff RECEIVED 
 
 vCC'X05 
 
 KbC'D LD-UiiX 
 
 ^.. dd 
 
 BLE 
 
 1998 
 
 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA 
 
 AT 
 
 LOS ANGELES 
 
 UBRAEY
 
 ' " " *ros.. Inc. 
 
 Makers 
 Stockton, Calif 
 
 ''" WN 21. 1908 '
 
 
 Wt^ 
 
 f^gSi- 
 
 tTnivers 
 Soutl 
 Lib] 
 
 nJf^