HEi 
 
 
 ^TJNDAMENTAL KaLLAC^' 
 
 ) 
 
 
 
 
 OF SociAii^iiii: 
 
 
 ..m'^mimmmm. 
 
 
 
 
 AlXTHUI^ 
 
 
 m; 
 
 
 
 
 
 i 
 
 
 
 
 ''k9 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 i 
 
 
 JaBI
 
 s^' 
 
 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA 
 AT LOS ANGELES 
 
 THE GIFT OF 
 
 MAY TREAT MORRISON 
 
 IN MEMORY OF 
 
 ALEXANDER F MORRISON
 
 THE FUNDAMEMi ' 
 FALLACY OF SOCIALISM 
 
 AN EXPOSITION OP THE QUESTION 
 ^ tOF LANDOWNERSHIP 
 
 ] COMPRISING AN AUTHENTIC ACCOUNT 
 OF THE FAMOUS McGLYNN CASE 
 
 EDITED BY 
 
 ARTHUR PREUSS 
 
 EDITOR OF THE CATHOLIC FORTNIGHTLY REVIEW 
 
 ST. LOUIS, MO., AND FREIBURG (BADEN) 
 Published by B. Herder 
 
 1908 

 
 NIHIL OBSTAT. 
 
 F. G. HOLWECK, 
 
 St. Louis, Dec. 27, 1907. 
 
 Censor, 
 
 St. Louis, Dec, 28, 1907. 
 
 IMPRIMATUR. 
 
 *J Joannes J. Glknnon, 
 
 Archiepiscopus Sti. Ludovici. 
 
 Copyright, 1908, by Joseph Gummersbach. 
 
 BECKTOLD 
 
 PRINTING AND BOOK MFG. CO. 
 ST. LOUIS, MO.
 
 K 
 
 
 INTRODUCTORY NOTICE 
 
 The question of landownership lies at the 
 bottom of the whole social problem. So 
 many wrong notions are current on owner- 
 ship in general, and landownership in partic- 
 ular, that I believe I shall render the cause 
 of truth and justice a real service by re-issu- 
 ing in book-form, revised and enlarged, the 
 following papers, originally contributed to 
 tt the Catholic Fortnightly Review. They 
 * contain the only detailed presentation of the 
 subject in English, together with the first 
 % documentary account ever published of the 
 2 famous "McGlynn case." 
 ^ The reader will find upon perusal that, in 
 3f answering the question *'Who owns the 
 "" land!" this little volume refutes not only 
 Agrarian Socialism, or the Single Tax theory 
 of Henry George, which is of late enlisting 
 so many new recruits I regret to say even 
 among Catholics but likewise the fundamen- 
 3 tal fallacy underlying Socialistic Commu- 
 nism, which in the opinion of so many far- 
 sighted observers constitutes the g;reatest so- 
 cial menace of the future. 
 
 ^*^f^f^{i Arthur Preuss.
 
 TABLE OF CONTENTS 
 
 I. Two Rival Theories 1 
 
 II. Common Landownership a Fiction . . 9 
 
 III. Private Landownership a Natural Right 29 
 
 IV. Leo XIII. on Private Property in Land . 41 
 
 V. Henry George's Vain Attempt to Refute 
 
 THE Pope's Arguments 53 
 
 VI. The Single Tax, or the " Natural " 
 
 System op Taxation . . . . . .96 
 
 VII. Dr. Edward McGlynn and Henry George 113 
 
 VIII. The Truth About Dr. McGlynn's Resto- 
 ration 138 
 
 IX. Whose is the Unearned Land Value"? . 155 
 
 X. The Fundamental Fallacy of Agrarian- 
 ism, Socialism, and Communism ., . 178
 
 TWO RIVAL. THEOEIES 
 
 Who owns the land? To this question two 
 answers are given : The land is the common 
 property of all men, or the land of each coun- 
 try belongs to the whole people of that coun- 
 try as their common property. This is the 
 answer of Communists, Socialists and Agra- 
 rians. The rest of mankind deny this com- 
 mon landownership and maintain that the 
 land is owned in severalty, either by individ- 
 uals or by corporations. The best known 
 and most enthusiastic advocate of common 
 landownership is Henry George; the most 
 prominent defender of private ownership in 
 land is Pope Leo XIII. 
 
 The teachings of Henry George are chiefly 
 comprised in his Progress and Poverty and 
 in his Open Letter to Pope Leo XIII.; those 
 of Leo XIIL in his Encyclical **Rerum No- 
 varum," of May 15th, 1891.
 
 2 TWO RIVAL THEORIES 
 
 Henry George considers private property 
 in land to be the ultimate root and source of 
 the social evils which are so keenly felt and 
 so bitterly deplored by all. The real cause 
 of the evil being ascertained, the true remedy 
 is obvious : we must abolish private property 
 in land and substitute common ownership. 
 But is the abolition of private landownership 
 in harmony with natural justice? It is, be- 
 cause private ownership of land is essentially 
 and irremediably wrong and unjust. 
 
 How can private property in land be done 
 away with? Will its abolition not cause a 
 disturbance in all social conditions, which 
 would be worse than the misery of which we 
 now complain? We need not fear: no vio- 
 lent measure is required to bring about the 
 desired change. We will leave every land- 
 owner in the quiet ''possession" of all he has ; 
 but for the privilege of possessing land and 
 of enjoying the blessings of such ''posses- 
 sion, ' ' we will make him pay the State or the 
 community a "land tax," equal to the profit 
 which accrues from land as such, regardless 
 of labor and improvement ("land rent," 
 "land value"). In this manner we shall 
 really make all land common property. For, 
 the individual "possessor" of a particular 
 piece or tract of land, who pays the State
 
 TWO RIVAL THEORIES 3 
 
 for the use of such land, is in reality nothing 
 more than a tenant of the State or the com- 
 munity. 
 
 This is, in substance, the reasoning of 
 Henry George. Leo XIIL, on the other 
 hand, makes the lawfulness and justice of pri- 
 vate landownership the thesis which he pro- 
 poses to demonstrate in the first part of his 
 Encyclical and, at the end of his argumenta- 
 tion, lays it down as an essential basis for all 
 true social reform, that private property in 
 land must be kept inviolate. Hence it is clear 
 that the teachings of Henry George and those 
 of Leo XIIL are diametrically opposed. 
 Nevertheless, it will be interesting and in- 
 structive to see this opposition more in detail. 
 Let us, therefore, review some striking asser- 
 tions which occur in the VII. book of Prog- 
 ress and Poverty, headed: ''The Justice of 
 the Remedy," and contrast them with the 
 corresponding utterances of the Pontiff.^ 
 
 Henry George writes: ''To affirm the 
 rightfulness of property in land, is to affirm 
 a claim which has no warrant in nature 
 . . ." (p. 242). "Whatever may be said 
 for the institution of private property in 
 land, it is plain that it cannot be defended on 
 
 1 Our quotations from Progress and Poverty are taken 
 from the 4th edition^, 1880, " Lovell's Library."
 
 4 TWO RIVAL THEORIES 
 
 the score of justice" (p. 243). ''The recog- 
 nition of individual proprietorship of land 
 is the denial of the natural rights of other 
 individuals it is a wrong which must show 
 itself in the inequitable division of wealth" 
 (p. 245). 
 
 The Pope writes: *'The remedy which 
 (Agrarian Socialists) propose, is manifestly 
 repugnant to justice, because the right of 
 having private property (in land as well as 
 in chattels) is a right granted to man by 
 nature." Again, *'It must be possible for 
 man to acquire as property not only the fruits 
 of the earth, but the very soil itself. . . . 
 Nature must have given to man a stable and 
 never-failing store-house, from which he may 
 expect never-ending supplies. But such 
 never-ending supplies nothing can afford ex- 
 cept the earth with its abundance and fer- 
 tility." 
 
 Henry George says : " The Almighty, who 
 created the earth for man and man for the 
 earth, has entailed it upon all generations of 
 the children of men by a decree written upon 
 the constitution of all things a decree which 
 no human action can bar and no prescription 
 determine: Let the parchments be ever so 
 many, or possession ever so long, natural 
 justice can recognize no right in one man to
 
 TWO RIVAL THEORIES 5 
 
 the possession and enjoyment of land that is 
 not equally the right of all his fellows" (p. 
 244). 
 
 The Pope declares: **The fact that Grod 
 has given the earth for the use and enjoyment 
 of the whole human race, does not in the least 
 prevent the existence of private possessions. 
 For, if it is said that God gave the earth to 
 mankind in common, this is not to be under- 
 stood as if he wanted the common ownership 
 of the earth vested in all men (non quod ejus 
 promiscuum apud omnes dominatum volu- 
 erit), but because he did not assign to any 
 one the possession of any particular portion 
 of the earth, leaving the actual distribution 
 of private possessions to men's industry and 
 to the laws of peoples." According to the 
 Pontiff, therefore, the earth or the soil, 
 though destined for the benefit of all, is by 
 nature and originally neither owned by man- 
 kind nor by any individual, but is ownerless, 
 * ' res nullius ' ' ; being originally ownerless, yet 
 destined to become the property of somebody 
 for man, generally speaking, needs private 
 property, it may be appropriated or ac- 
 quired in portions as property by any one. 
 
 Henry George thus forestalls an objection : 
 **But it will be said: There are improvements 
 which in time become indistinguishable from
 
 6 TWO RIVAL THEORIES 
 
 the land itself. Very well; then the title to 
 the improvements becomes blended with the 
 title to the land; the individual right is lost 
 in the common right. It is the greater that 
 swallows up the less, not the less that swal- 
 lows up the greater. Nature does not pro- 
 ceed from man, but man from nature, and it 
 is into the bosom of nature that he and all 
 his works must return again. ... As 
 for the deduction of a complete and exclusive 
 individual right to land from priority of oc- 
 cupation, that is, if possible, the most absurd 
 ground on which landownership can be de- 
 fended" (pp. 246 sq.). 
 
 Leo XIII. teaches: "If a man (cultivat- 
 ing a piece of ownerless land) exerts both his 
 mental faculties and his physical strength 
 in procuring the fruits of nature, by so doing 
 he makes his own that portion of the earth 
 which he cultivates and on which he leaves, 
 as it were, the impress, of his personality." 
 The same would hold in the case of one who 
 would build on ownerless ground; "the 
 ground on which one has built solum in quo 
 aedificavit " has thereby become his own 
 no less than ' ^ the estate which he has brought 
 under cultivation praedium quod excoluit." 
 
 Henry George affirms : ' * The truth is, and 
 from this truth there can be no escape, that
 
 TWO RIVAL THEORIES 7 
 
 there is and can be no just title to an exclu- 
 sive possession of the soil, and that private 
 property in land is a bold, bare, enormous 
 wrong, like that of chattel slavery." " It 
 is impossible for any one to study political 
 economy, even as at present taught, or to 
 think at all upon the production and distri- 
 bution of wealth, without seeing that prop- 
 erty in land differs essentially from property 
 in things of human production, and that it 
 has no warrant in abstract justice" (pp. 
 257 sq.). 
 
 Leo XIII. denies an essential difference 
 between property in land and things of hu- 
 man production. He declares the one as well 
 as the other to be derived from nature and 
 warranted by justice. The arguments, more- 
 over, for the rightfulness and necessity of 
 individual landownership are, as he explicitly 
 states, so clear that he is amazed to find 
 Agrarian Socialists and others granting to ^/ 
 individuals the ownership of the fruits of the 
 earth, but not that of the land itself. He ap- 
 provingly quotes in favor of individual land- 
 ownership not only the conviction of all ages 
 and the just laws of commonwealths, but 
 also the authority of the divine law. He con- 
 cludes with the emphatic sentence: "The 
 first and most fundamental principle, accord- 
 
 y
 
 8 TWO RIVAL THEORIES 
 
 ingly, if we wish to alleviate the miserable 
 condition of the masses, must be the inviola- 
 bility of private property. Maneat ergo, 
 cum plebi sublevatio quaeritur, hoc imprimis 
 haberi fundamenti instar oportere, privatas 
 possessiones inviolate servandas."
 
 II 
 
 COMMON LANDOWNERSHIP A FICTION 
 
 At the time when Henry George was most 
 active in bringing his views before the peo- 
 ple, at home and abroad, there appeared 
 many able essays and printed lectures refut- 
 ing his assertions and meeting his objections 
 against private ownership in land. In the 
 New York Freeman's Journal, from Febru- 
 ary 18th to April 28th, 1888, two series of 
 articles by Rev. Victor Cathrein, S.J., were 
 published which disproved the tenets of 
 Agrarian Socialists from an historical, eco- 
 nomical, and ethical standpoint. About a 
 year later they were blended together in a 
 little volume entitled: The Champions of 
 Agrarian Socialism. A Refutation of Emile 
 de Laveleye and Henry George, by Rev. Vic- 
 tor Cathrevn, S.J. (Buffalo, N. Y., Peter 
 Paul and Bro., 1889.) The late Mr. Charles 
 Stanton Devas called this treatise of Fr. 
 Cathrein 's ''the classic against Henry 
 George. ' ' ^ 
 
 1 See Mr. Devas' article on " Agrarianism " in The Cath- 
 olic Encyclopedia, vol. I. 
 
 9
 
 10 COMMON LANDOWNERSHIP 
 
 In his Primitive Property (Paris, 1877, 
 English edition, 1878) Emile de Laveleye, 
 professor of political economy in the Univer- 
 sity of Liege, had attacked private landown- 
 ership particularly from the historic point of 
 view. He endeavored ''to prove that every- 
 where and in all nations only collective pos- 
 session of land (communal property) existed 
 in primitive times, and that individual owner- 
 ship was developed rather late and only by 
 degrees. This development, he says, was 
 brought about mostly through cunning and 
 deceit, till at length collective possession was 
 almost entirely done away with" (Cathrein, 
 p. 11). 
 
 Henry George makes the views of M. de 
 Laveleye his own. "Historically, as eth- 
 ically," he writes, "private property in land 
 is robbery. It nowhere springs from con- 
 tract ; it can nowhere be traced to perceptions 
 of justice or expediency; it has everywhere 
 had its birth in war and conquest, and in the 
 selfish use which the cunning have made of 
 superstition and law." . . . " 'In all 
 primitive societies, ' says M. de Laveleye, as 
 the result of an investigation which leaves no 
 part of the world unexplored 'in all primi- 
 tive societies, the soil was the joint property 
 of the tribes and was subject to periodical
 
 COMMON LANDOWNERSHIP 11 
 
 distribution among the families, so that all 
 might live by their labor as nature has or- 
 dained' . . . If M. de Laveleye be right 
 in this conclusion, and that he is right there 
 can be no doubt, how, it will be asked, has the 
 reduction of land to private ownership be- 
 come so general?" {Progress and Poverty, 
 bk. vii, ch. iv, pp. 266-268.) 
 
 Father Cathrein refutes M. de Laveleye 's 
 assertions in two chapters, one of which 
 treats of property-holding among the Rus- 
 sians and Teutons, the other among the 
 most ancient Oriental nations. (Cathrein, 
 pp. 21-76.) In another chapter he exposes 
 the fallacies contained in the arguments 
 which Henry George has taken from politi- 
 cal economy ' ' to show that private property 
 in land necessarily leads to the impoverish- 
 ment of the great bulk of mankind." {Ibid. 
 pp. 84-96.) It would lead us too far to 
 enter upon the field of history or of politi- 
 cal economy, and we must, accordingly, refer 
 the reader to the respective chapters in 
 Cathrein 's volume or to similar treatises. 
 
 In his Open Letter Mr. George says that 
 the reform he proposes, **like all true re- 
 forms, has both an ethical and an economic 
 side," and he thinks that 'Hhe ethical is the 
 more important side." In Progress and
 
 12 COMMON LANDOWNERSHIP 
 
 Poverty he likewise lays greater stress on the 
 justice than on the expediency of his pro- 
 posals. ''When it is proposed," he writes, 
 ' ' to abolish private property in land, the first 
 question that will arise is that of justice. 
 . . . That alone is wise which is just ; that 
 alone is enduring which is right. In the nar- 
 row scale of individual actions and individ- 
 ual life this truth may be often obscured, but 
 in the wider field of national life it every- 
 where stands out. I bow to this arbitrament, 
 and accept this text. ... If private 
 property in land be just, then is the remedy 
 I propose a false one; if, on the contrary, 
 private property in land be unjust, then is 
 this remedy the true one." (Book viii, eh. 
 i,p. 239.) 
 
 Why, therefore, does Henry George, from 
 the standpoint of ethics, reject individual 
 landownership as unjust? His chief, or 
 rather only, argument is thus proposed in 
 Progress and Poverty: 
 
 ''What constitutes the right basis of prop- 
 erty? What is it that enables a man to justly 
 say of a thing, 'It is mine!' From what 
 springs the sentiment which acknowledges his 
 exclusive right as against all the world? Is 
 it not, primarily, the right of a man to him-
 
 COMMON LANDOWNERSHIP 13 
 
 self, to the use of his own powers, to the en- 
 joyment of the fruits of his own exertions? 
 . . . As a man belongs to himself, so his 
 labor when put in concrete form belongs to 
 him. 
 
 *'And for this reason, that which a man 
 makes or produces is his own, as against all 
 the world to enjoy or to destroy, to use, to 
 exchange, or to give. No one else can right- 
 fully claim it, and his exclusive right to it 
 involves no wrong to any one else. Thus 
 there is to everything produced by human 
 exertion a clear and indisputable title to ex- 
 clusive possession and enjoyment, which is 
 perfectly consistent with justice, as it de- 
 scends from the original producer, in whom 
 it is vested by natural law. The pen with 
 which I am writing is justly mine. No other 
 human being can rightfully lay claim to it, 
 for in me is the title of the producers who 
 made it. It has become mine, because trans- 
 ferred to me by the stationer, to whom it was 
 transferred by the importer, who obtained the 
 exclusive right to it by transfer from the 
 manufacturer, in whom, by the same process 
 of purchase, vested the rights of those who 
 dug the material out of the ground and 
 shaped it into a pen. Thus my exclusive
 
 14 COMMON LANDOWNEESHIP 
 
 right of ownership in the pen springs from 
 the natural right of the individual to the use 
 of his own faculties. 
 
 ''Now, this is not only the original source 
 from which all ideas of exclusive ownership 
 arise . . . but it is necessarily the only 
 source. There can be to the ownership of 
 anything no rightful title which is not derived 
 from the title of the producer and does not 
 rest upon the natural right of the man to him- 
 self. There can be no other rightful title, 
 because (1st) there is no other natural right 
 from which any other title can be derived, 
 and (2nd) because the recognition of any 
 other title is inconsistent with and destruc- 
 tive of this. . . ." {Progress and Pov- 
 erty, bk. vii, ch. i, p. 240.) 
 
 In this form the argument is ably and com- 
 pletely answered by Father Cathrein. He 
 first sums it up in the following syllogism: 
 **A single individual can call only that his 
 own which is the produce of his labor ; now, 
 the soil is not the produce of his labor ; hence 
 he can not call the soil his own." He denies 
 the major proposition and proves that ''labor 
 is neither the original nor the exclusive source 
 of proprietorship" (Cathrein, pp. 100 sqq.). 
 
 Mr. George advances the same argument 
 in his Open Letter to the Pope as follows :
 
 COMMON LANDOWNERSHIP 15 
 
 "As to the right of ownership we hold: 
 That 
 
 "Being created individuals, with individ- 
 ual wants and powers, men are individually 
 entitled (subject of course to the moral obli- 
 gations that arise from such relations as that 
 of the family) to the use of their own pow- 
 ers and the enjoyment of the results. 
 
 ' ' There thus arises, anterior to human law, 
 and deriving its validity from the law of God, 
 a right of private ownership in things pro- 
 duced by labor ^a right that the possessor 
 may transfer, but of which to deprive him 
 without his will would be theft. 
 
 "This right of property, originating in the 
 right of the individual to himself, is the only 
 full and complete right of property. It at- 
 taches to things produced by labor, but can 
 not attach to things created by God. 
 
 * * Thus, if a man takes a fish from the ocean 
 he acquires a right of property in that fish, 
 which exclusive right he may transfer by sale 
 or by gift. But he can not obtain a similar 
 right of property in the ocean, so that he may 
 sell it or give it or forbid others to use it." 
 
 The reader will have noticed that this rea- 
 soning is the same as that quoted above from 
 Progress and Poverty. The answer to the 
 argument is obvious and is suggested by the
 
 16 COMMON LANDOWNERSHIP 
 
 very examples with which Henry George illus- 
 trates his theory. Of course, no sane man 
 who admits individual landownership, claims 
 or defends right of property in the ocean 
 or the atmosphere or the sun, although **to 
 men," i. e., to Mr. George and his followers, 
 ocean, air, sunshine, and soil, are all 'in- 
 volved in the single term land"! Need we 
 remind our readers of the fact that the ocean, 
 the atmosphere, and the sun, just as the moon 
 and the milky way and the whole firmament, 
 are physically insusceptible of being taken 
 possession of or appropriated either by an 
 individual man or even by the whole of man- 
 kind? 
 
 Our answer, then, to Mr. George's argu- 
 ment is obvious and brief : his theory is self- 
 contradictory and does away with all prop- 
 erty, not only in the soil, but in everything 
 else. 
 
 If a Henry George man rows out into the 
 ocean and is so lucky as to ''take from the 
 ocean" a fine fish, he can not call it "his," 
 he does not "acquire a right of property in 
 that fish," for the simple reason that he did 
 not produce it ! All fishes, whether living in 
 the ocean, or in rivers or lakes, belong to 
 the "things created by God," not to the 
 "things produced by labor"; but the right
 
 COMMON LANDOWNERSHIP 17 
 
 of property, Mr. George has just assured us, 
 *'ean not attach to things created by God." 
 Again, if he would go hunting, and kill a hare 
 or a duck or a grizzly bear, he could not 
 own it, for the same simple reason that he 
 did not produce it. And if the whole popula- 
 tion of the United States, individually or in 
 a body, would go fishing or hunting, the same 
 would hold as to what they would catch; for 
 *'the right of property can not attach to 
 things created by God." Nor can a Henry 
 George man own the pen with which he writes^ 
 just as Mr. George himself did not and could 
 not own the pen he was writing with. How 
 so? Because the title by which he held it, 
 was essentially vitiated. Mr. George says, 
 he bought the pen from the stationer. True, 
 but the stationer could not sell it, since he did 
 not own it! He had purchased it from an- 
 other who could not sell it, viz., the importer. 
 The importer, indeed, had got it from the 
 manufacturer; but the manufacturer himself 
 could not dispose of it, since he did not own 
 it; for he in his turn had got it from men 
 who had no right to give it to him, viz., ''those 
 who dug the material out of the ground and 
 shaped it into a pen". Here lies the radical 
 fault that invalidates all further transactions. 
 It is not to be overlooked that, according 
 
 2
 
 18 COMMON LANDOWNERSHIP 
 
 to the common ownership theory, all raw ma- 
 terial is the common property of mankind at 
 large. Now, in what way can something that 
 belongs to all men become the property of 
 one or several individuals, to the exclusion 
 of all others ? Only in this way that the pre- 
 vious ownership vested in all men ceases or 
 is destroyed, and that in its stead a new own- 
 ership arises, vested in one or several in- 
 dividuals and based on a new title. But how 
 shall the common ownership in a certain raw 
 material cease when one or several dig it 
 out of the ground? Does, perhaps, mankind 
 by common consent transfer it to those in- 
 dividual men? Such consent does not exist 
 and therefore can not transfer property. Or 
 does, perhaps, the digging and handling of 
 the material by some individual or individ- 
 uals destroy the proprietorship vested in all 
 men and change the common property, with- 
 out the consent of its natural owners, i. e., 
 mankind, into private property? Such an 
 assumption would be absurd. As well might 
 a pickpocket be entitled to call his own what 
 he cleverly filches from the pocket of his un- 
 wary fellow-man? As an occupation or in- 
 dustry pocket-picking does not differ essen- 
 tially from digging raw material out of the
 
 COMMON LANDOWNERSHIP 19 
 
 ground or taking fish from the ocean. But 
 as to the judicial effect to be produced, there 
 is a great difference between the two cases: 
 in the former only an acquired proprietor- 
 ship of an individual, in the latter the natural 
 proprietorship vested in all men is to 
 be destroyed. Can reason approve the ap- 
 propriation of raw material by those who dig 
 it out of the ground and condemn the appro- 
 priation of his neighbor's purse by the pick- 
 pocket ? 
 
 It is evident, therefore, that none of those 
 through whose hands the pens passed until 
 they reached the author of Progress and 
 Poverty did really own them, and conse- 
 quently Henry George did not own them 
 either; he accordingly, wrote that famous 
 work and all his other books with pens that 
 did not belong to him! But the ink and 
 paper, too, which he used, and the chairs on 
 which he sat, and the clothes he had on and 
 all other things which he called his own, were 
 in reality not his own. For what we have 
 said of the pen, holds equally of all other 
 material objects. Each and every one of 
 them consists of some material which comes 
 ultimately from nature, is created by God, 
 and therefore belongs to mankind as the com-
 
 20 COMMON LANDOWNERSHIP 
 
 mon property of all, that can never be ap- 
 propriated by any individual to the exclusion 
 of all others. 
 
 The theory of common ownership, there- 
 fore, is destructive of all private proprietor- 
 ship in movables. But its destructive force 
 reaches still farther: it makes the common 
 ownership of land itself impossible I 
 
 All actual ownership must rest on a clear, 
 valid title by which the object in question is 
 understood to belong rightfully to such or 
 such a person or collection of persons. There 
 are various titles by which property is trans- 
 ferred from one owner to another, such as 
 donation, purchase, and the like. These 
 titles suppose an object already belonging to 
 some owner; hence they necessarily presup- 
 pose another title. Among all the valid titles 
 of ownership there must manifestly be one 
 which does not presuppose any other, but is 
 rather presupposed by all others. This ab- 
 solutely first title is called the primitive or 
 original title of ownership. 
 
 Henry George insists that "productive la- 
 bor" is the original title of ownership. 
 ' * That which a man makes or produces is his 
 own, as against all the world"; and ** there 
 can be to the ownership of anything no right- 
 ful title which is not derived from the title
 
 COMMON LANDOWNERSHIP 21 
 
 of the producer"; ''this right of property" 
 is ''the only full and complete right of prop- 
 erty. It attaches to things produced by la- 
 bor, but can not attach to things created by 
 God." 
 
 By what title, then, we ask, do the entire 
 population of the State of New York own the 
 land of the Empire State I Have they pro- 
 duced it? No more than a farmer produces 
 the land which he cultivates. Hence they do 
 not and can not own the territory of their 
 State. For the same reason the entire na- 
 tion does not and can not own the territory 
 of the United States. 
 
 But, one might say, the people of that 
 State live there and have been living there 
 for many, many years. We answer: mere 
 living in a place or district is no title of 
 ownership to that place or district. Besides, 
 by what right can the people of the Empire 
 State exclude another people or nation from 
 living there, if they choose? Suppose 10,- 
 000,000 Chinese would leave their native 
 country in order to settle in the State of New 
 York. Could they be excluded on the com- 
 mon ownership principle? Could they not 
 rightly say: ''This fair land belongs to us 
 as well as to you; you have lived here long 
 enough, we want a chance to try our fortune
 
 22 COMMON LANDOWNERSHIP 
 
 in this part of the western hemisphere. In 
 making this demand we only claim what is 
 ours. If you wish, you may migrate to 
 the regions we have vacated. The great 
 improvements we made there will, at least 
 in part, compensate you for the improve- 
 ments you have made here; what is wanting 
 we shall make good in the course of time, for 
 we are sure of our prosperity in this beautiful 
 and fertile country. But we insist on our 
 right which nature gave us. ' ' What answer, 
 we ask, could a Henry George man, as gov- 
 ernor of New York, for instance, give to 
 these ten million Chinese immigrants? None 
 but this : * ' You are right, my friends. I am 
 the last to check or discourage your efforts 
 towards greater prosperity. You show that 
 you are an energetic, enterprising, progres- 
 sive people. Whosoever hinders you from 
 possessing and enjoying your lawful prop- 
 erty wrongs you grievously ! " 
 
 The reasoning of these fictitious Chinamen 
 on the common ownership principle is evi- 
 dently correct. But that principle itself, viz., 
 that the whole earth is the common property 
 of all men, is false, because there is no valid 
 title for such ownership. As little as an in- 
 dividual or a particular nation, has mankind 
 at large produced the earth. The title of
 
 COMMON LANDOWNERSHIP 23 
 
 production, accordingly, cannot be appealed 
 to, and this settles the matter against the 
 Henry George system. 
 
 But, perhaps, some other title can be found, 
 which proves said ownership to be vested in 
 all men, perchance even that which Henry 
 George denounces as *Hhe most absurd" of 
 all titles, occupation or occupancy. This 
 title, however, which is admitted by all who 
 defend private landownership, does not exist 
 as applied to the earth or to mankind at 
 large. Neither has the whole earth ever 
 been taken by occupancy, nor has the whole 
 of mankind ever appropriated anything by 
 primitive occupation. All appropriations by 
 occupancy do and can only take place as to 
 particular and limited portions of the earth 
 and by individual men or particular families 
 or groups of men or, at the utmost, by partic- 
 ular tribes or nations. Occupancy is out of 
 question when we speak of the ownership of 
 the whole earth being vested in all men. 
 
 There is only one possibility left: a grant 
 of the Almighty by which He gave the whole 
 earth to the whole human race as their com- 
 mon property. Such a grant, indeed, would 
 be a valid title. It seems that Henry George 
 believed in such a grant. For in his Open 
 Letter he quotes approvingly the following
 
 24 COMMON LANDOWNERSHIP 
 
 passage from a pastoral letter of Dr. Thomas 
 Nulty, late Bishop of Meath, Ireland : ^ 
 ''God was perfectly free in the act by which 
 He created us; but having created us He 
 bound himself by that act to provide us 
 with the means necessary for our subsistence. 
 The land is the only source of this kind now 
 known to us. The land, therefore, of every 
 country is the common property of the peo- 
 ple of that country, because its real owner, 
 the Creator who made it, has transferred it 
 as a voluntary gift to them. ' Terram autem 
 dedit filiis hominum.' " [" The earth he has 
 given to the children of men." Ps. 113, In 
 exitu Israel, v. 16.] Again Mr. George 
 writes: ''Everywhere [in the Scriptures] 
 land is treated as the free bounty of God, 
 'the land which the Lord thy God gave 
 thee.' " He might have added in confirma- 
 tion the following passages from Genesis : 
 
 "And God blessed them, saying: Increase 
 and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue 
 it, and rule over the fishes of the sea, and the 
 fowls of the air, and all living creatures that 
 move upon the earth. And God said: Be- 
 hold I have given you every herb bearing 
 seed upon the earth, and all trees that have 
 
 1 Letter Addressed to the Clergy and Laity of the Diocese 
 of Meath, Ireland, April 2, 1881.
 
 COMMON LANDOWNERSHIP 25 
 
 in themselves seed of their own kind, to be 
 your meat: and to all beasts of the earth, 
 and to every fowl of the air, and to all that 
 move upon the earth, and wherein there is 
 life, that they may have to feed upon. And 
 it was so done." (Gen. i, 28-30.) 
 
 ''And God blessed Noe and his sons. And 
 he said to them: Increase and multiply, and 
 fill the earth. And let the fear and dread of 
 you be upon all the beasts of the earth, and 
 upon all the fowls of the air, and all that 
 move upon the earth: all the fishes of the 
 sea are delivered into your hand. And 
 every thing that moveth and liveth shall be 
 meat for you: even as the green herbs have 
 I delivered them all to you." (Gen. ix, 1-3.) 
 
 Leaving aside the Israelites, to whom *'the 
 land of Canaan" was given by the Lord in a 
 special manner, not with common, but with 
 private and inheritable landed property 
 (Num. xxxiii, 51-54; xxxvi, 7-10), it is easily 
 seen that the texts we have adduced contain 
 indeed a general grant of the whole earth to 
 mankind. The earth is assigned to man as 
 his dwelling place and the storehouse whence 
 he is to draw what he needs : * ' Fill the earth 
 and subdue it," ''rule" over the irrational 
 creatures, all are at your disposal; animals 
 as well as vegetables shall be " your meat."
 
 26 COMMON LANDOWNERSHIP 
 
 But does the grant also specify in detail the 
 rule or dominion it bestows on man? Does 
 it convey actual ownership in the objects men- 
 tioned or only the power or authority of ac- 
 quiring property ; again, in either of the two 
 alternatives is common ownership meant or 
 private? Evidently the sacred text does not 
 indicate in which of these various meanings 
 the original grant is to be understood. It is 
 as if God had said: The whole earth is for 
 you, that you may be provided for ; as to the 
 manner how to use it, you have the light of 
 reason; follow it, it is a sure guide. This 
 and nothing else is the meaning of the pas- 
 sages quoted. It is the truth, which we also 
 understand by the mere light of reason, that 
 the earth is made for man to enable him to 
 live and perfect himself according to the will 
 of God and thus to attain his ultimate end in 
 the life to come. 
 
 What, then, does reason tell us about the 
 use of the great storehouse of nature whence 
 we are to be provided for suitably and se- 
 curely in this mortal life of hardship and toil ? 
 It tells us that each man has his individual 
 needs which cannot be satisfied except by in- 
 dividual objects ; the same individual objects, 
 however, cannot satisfy, as a rule, the needs 
 of several ; hence man must have the right to
 
 COMMON LANDOWNERSHIP 27 
 
 acquire what he needs, so that he can exclude 
 others from the selfsame objects, and that 
 permanently, because man's needs are per- 
 manent; in other words, he must have the 
 right to acquire what he needs as his private 
 and exclusive property. The things, how- 
 ever, which man needs not only for his bare 
 existence, but for a suitable development and 
 advancement also of his higher, intellectual 
 and moral, nature, are very many and among 
 them some real estate is for most men an in- 
 dispensable condition of having a decent 
 home, raising a prosperous and happy family, 
 and enjoying a stable position in the vicissi- 
 tudes of life. To acquire private property 
 in land, therefore, must be no less in his 
 power than to acquire movable property; 
 else he would not be provided for suitably 
 and securely. We say 'Ho acquire private 
 property." For it is evident that no par- 
 ticular object and no particular portion 
 of land is by nature in any particular 
 manner connected with a particular indi- 
 vidual, as is necessarily the case when 
 one can say: This is mine! Hence God has 
 not directly given to the individual man any 
 actual property. But, on the other hand, 
 man needs private property, in movables and 
 immovables. God must, therefore, have in-
 
 28 COMMON LANDOWNERSHIP 
 
 vested him with the right of appropriating 
 by occupancy whatever he deems fit to sat- 
 isfy his various wants, out of the things of- 
 fered by nature and not yet appropriated by 
 others. Whosoever exercises his general 
 right of acquiring property becomes thereby 
 an actual owner. Where there is no oppor- 
 tunity for appropriation by occupancy this 
 supposes ownerless objects reason points to 
 other ways of acquiring property, viz., labor 
 and the various transactions by which prop- 
 erty is transferred from one owner to an- 
 other. 
 
 This, then, is what natural reason teaches 
 concerning property. It demands and sanc- 
 tions private property in land as well as in 
 chattels, and thereby disproves the common 
 ownership advocated by Agrarians, Social- 
 ists, and Communists. Accordingly, not 
 common actual ownership vested in all men, 
 but the establishment of private ownership 
 through man's activity, under the guidance 
 of practical reason, was the purpose for 
 which the Creator made that general grant 
 of the earth to mankind ; this we know by the 
 light of reason and the word of God in Holy 
 Scripture. The common ownership of the 
 earth is, and remains, a mere fiction.
 
 Ill 
 
 PRIVATE LANDOWNEESHIP A NATUBAL BIGHT 
 
 Before the year in which he had ascended 
 the papal throne came to a close, Leo XIII. 
 raised his voice in his Encyclical Letter 
 ''Quod Apostolici Muneris," December 28, 
 1878, to denounce the errors and pernicious 
 schemes of Socialists, Communists and Nihi- 
 lists. He pointed out, in particular, that 
 these enemies of human society, ''enticed by 
 the greed of temporal goods . . . attack 
 the right of property sanctioned by the natu- 
 ral law ^jus proprietatis naturali lege 
 sancitum impugnant." To their vagaries he 
 opposed the teaching of the Church in the 
 following words: 
 
 "Catholic wisdom, resting on the precepts 
 of the natural and divine law, has wonder- 
 fully provided for public and domestic tran- 
 quillity by her teachings on the right of 
 property and the division of those goods 
 which are suited to the necessities and con- 
 veniences of life. Socialists decry the right 
 of property as a human invention opposed to 
 
 29
 
 30 PRIVATE LANDOWNERSHIP 
 
 the natural equality of men. . . . The 
 Church, on the contrary, acting more wisely 
 and profitably by far, acknowledges among 
 men who are naturally so different from one 
 another in their powers of body and mind, an 
 inequality of temporal possessions also, and 
 ordains that the right of (private) property 
 and dominion springing from nature itself be 
 kept inviolate and intact. Ecclesia . . . 
 inaequalitatem . . . etiam in bonis possi- 
 dendis agnoscit et jus proprietatis ac dominii, 
 ab ipsa natura profectum, intactum cuilibet 
 et inviolatum esse jubet." 
 
 According to the Encyclical, therefore, the 
 right of holding private property, in land as 
 well as in chattels, is *'a right sanctioned 
 (i. e., established) by the natural law," a 
 right ''which springs from nature itself," in 
 one word, it is a natural right. 
 
 Still more explicit is the Pope's teaching 
 concerning property in his Encyclical "Re- 
 rum No varum," of May 15th, 1891. In the 
 first part he treats explicitly of landowner- 
 ship and in the second of the remedy for so- 
 cial evils. He speaks not merely as a pri- 
 vate teacher or a philosopher, but as the 
 teacher of the Universal Church. **In the 
 present letter," he writes, ''the responsibility 
 of the Apostolic office urges Us to treat the
 
 PEIVATE LANDOWNERSHIP 31 
 
 whole question [the condition of the work- 
 ing classes] of set purpose and in detail, in 
 order that no misapprehension may exist as 
 to the principles which truth and justice dic- 
 tate for its settlement." And again in the 
 beginning of the second part: "We ap- 
 proach the subject with confidence and in the 
 exercise of the rights which manifestly be- 
 long to Us, for no practical solution of this 
 question will be found apart from the inter- 
 vention of religion and of the Church. It is 
 We who are the chief guardian of religion 
 and the chief dispenser of what pertains to 
 the Church, and We must not by silence neg- 
 lect the duty incumbent on Us." Leo's 
 teaching, therefore, is the teaching of the 
 Church, and consequently the subject of land- 
 ownership can for a Catholic no longer be an 
 open question. 
 
 But we are at present chiefly concerned 
 with the philosophical arguments on which 
 the institution of private landownership 
 rests. These arguments are masterfully de- 
 veloped in the first part of the papal letter. 
 We shall first review them, with some explan- 
 ations, in order to bring out their full mean- 
 ing; afterwards we shall give the complete 
 text of this part of the Encyclical in a faith- 
 ful translation.
 
 32 PRIVATE LANDOWNERSHIP 
 
 The Pope begins by making four distinct 
 charges against the Socialist scheme of sub- 
 stituting common for private landownership : 
 first, ''it harms the working classes them- 
 selves; moreover, it is most unjust, since it 
 does violence to lawful proprietors; besides, 
 it perverts the functions of the State, and, 
 finally, it produces universal confusion." 
 Then he develops these four charges, one 
 after the other, but especially the second, the 
 most important of all. 
 
 The first charge is an obvious, common- 
 sense argument argumentum ad hominem 
 which ought to silence all Socialist reform- 
 ers who so loudly and incessantly parade as 
 the saviors of the working classes and the 
 improvers of their condition. "Why," a la- 
 borer might truly say, "you promise to bet- 
 ter my condition and deprive me with one 
 stroke of the very possibility of acquiring a 
 home of my own ! What do I wish for more 
 than to have my own home, a substantial 
 house on my own ground, with my own gar- 
 den and lawn, where, after a day's work, I 
 can rest and enjoy myself with my wife and 
 children?" "What happier life," another 
 might say, "than that of a farmer on his own 
 estate, who raises his family in the healthful 
 occupations of country life? He can improve
 
 PRIVATE LANDOWNEESHIP 33 
 
 and extend his property with his children's 
 aid and give them, when they once settle 
 down for themselves, similar homes, where 
 they may continue the same life of peace and 
 contentment. Such has been for years my 
 highest ambition." 
 
 To both these men our modern reformers 
 would say: **Give up your plans; they are 
 idle dreams. Private property in land is 
 to be abolished. You may have a house 
 somewhere, you may have a dwelling and 
 stables and cattle on some farm but all the 
 land will belong to all. This is the new or- 
 der I ' * * * Thus we should in fact be only ten- 
 ants of the commonwealth," the men would 
 answer, *'and this you call happiness and in- 
 dependence? We want to dispose of our 
 earnings as we please, investing them in 
 land, which is the surest means for an inde- 
 pendent and happy life here below. We pre- 
 fer the old order. Let well enough alone ! " ^ 
 
 The Pontiff passes to the principal and 
 " graver charge, the manifest injustice of 
 the scheme, since the right of having prop- 
 
 1 Cf. Socialism: Its Theoretical Basis and Practical Ap- 
 plication. By Victor Cathrein, 8.J. Revised and Enlarged 
 by V. F. Gettelmann, 8.J. (New York, Benziger Brothers, 
 1904), Conclusion I. Pp. 361-363, where we read: "But 
 to one point we must call attention. Even if Socialism 
 were practicable, the great mass of farmers and artisans 
 who are at present the objects of the most tender solicitude 
 3
 
 34 PRIVATE LANDOWNERSHIP 
 
 erty [in land] is a right granted to man by 
 nature.'^ This argument is exposed at great 
 length in the papal document. It contains 
 two distinct proofs for the lawfulness of pri- 
 vate landownership. For in two ways it can 
 be shown that the right of having private 
 property in land is ''granted to man by na- 
 ture": first, from man's rational nature, 
 and, secondly, from the nature of the soil. 
 
 To sketch the first proof, it is evident that 
 man has the duty to preserve and perfect 
 himself in this life in order to attain his ulti- 
 mate end. For this he needs many material 
 things exclusively for his own use, since the 
 same things for the most part cannot serve 
 the purposes of several. He must, therefore, 
 have the right to acquire material goods in 
 such a manner that in their use he is inde- 
 pendent of all others and can exclude all 
 others from using them; and that not only 
 for the present or for a short time, but per- 
 manently. 
 
 For man is endowed with reason by which 
 
 on the part of Socialists would have nothing to gain, but 
 everything to lose. Independent farmers, artisans, busi- 
 ness men are out of question in the Socialist system. Every 
 man would but be a member of an immense State ma- 
 chinery, enjoying indeed equal rights with all the others, 
 but utterly bereft of independence in the matter of gaining 
 his livelihood. It were well for the independent farmer 
 and artisan to bear this in mind."
 
 PRIVATE LANDOWNERSHIP 35 
 
 he also foresees his future needs and is en- 
 abled to provide for them in advance and in 
 a secure and more abundant manner. More- 
 over, his natural prudence urges him actually 
 to take these precautions against the uncer- 
 tainties of life and to procure the means for 
 greater comfort and advancement. Hence 
 he must have the right to acquire exterior 
 things permanently as his own, i. e., to have 
 stable private property. But where is that 
 exterior object which affords man in the most 
 secure manner what he needs for his suitable 
 subsistence and improvement? It is the 
 earth, which by its abundance and fertility is 
 a never-failing storehouse of supplies. 
 Hence he must have the right to acquire as 
 his own also land, i. e., a suitable portion of 
 the soil, and can make use of this right, i. e., 
 acquire actual landed property, whenever an 
 opportunity is offered and no other right is 
 violated. 
 
 The right, therefore, of having private 
 property in land as well as in chattels, fol- 
 lows from man's rational nature, and con- 
 sequently is granted to him by the natural 
 order or law. Of course, this does not mean 
 that every man is horn an actual landowner; 
 but every one has by nature the right to be- 
 come a landowner. The actual appropria-
 
 36 PRIVATE LANDOWNERSHIP 
 
 tion of land as of chattels proceeds from 
 man's activity, and is naturally very mani- 
 fold, according to individual choice, ability, 
 and opportunity; and, we must add, accord- 
 ing to the dispositions of the civil law. For 
 although the right of having private prop- 
 erty in land and chattels is a natural right, 
 proceeding directly from man's rational na- 
 ture and not from the State, in fact, man is 
 older than the State, it is nevertheless true 
 that in civilized society the natural rights of 
 property must not only be protected by the 
 civil law, but are frequently also determined 
 or regulated as to their actual application. 
 Nor is it necessary that all men should be 
 actual proprietors of land; but there should 
 be many, very many ; thus all men will be well 
 provided for, either directly or indirectly, 
 from God's large storehouse, '^the earth with 
 its abundance and fertility." 
 
 The same truth, that the natural law au- 
 thorizes man to acquire private property in 
 land, can also be proved from the nature of 
 the soil. The earth is indeed productive; 
 yet to provide man suflSciently and perma- 
 nently, it needs constant care and cultivation. 
 Now if a man cultivates a piece of ground 
 which has no owner, or builds on such ground, 
 natural reason tells us that he thereby makes
 
 PRIVATE LANDOWNERSHIP 37 
 
 that land his own, and no one can advance or 
 urge any claim to it without injustice. It is 
 the same as if a traveller in a primeval for- 
 est would shape a suitable piece of wood into 
 a staff or weapon; that staff or weapon 
 would undoubtedly be his own. 
 
 The deeper reason of such appropriation 
 lies in this that, whenever a man works inde- 
 pendently of all others and entirely for him- 
 self, being neither helped by others nor bound 
 by any title to work for others, the whole re- 
 sult of his labor is entirely his; he can, ac- 
 cordingly, enjoy it fully and dispose of it 
 completely and independently; for this is 
 meant by having something as one's own. 
 Now such exactly is the case of a man who 
 cultivates an ownerless field or builds a 
 house with his own or with ownerless ma- 
 terial on ownerless ground. He works inde- 
 pendently and entirely for himself. The di- 
 rect and immediate effect, therefore, of his 
 labor, i. e., the physical improvements made 
 in the soil and the actual form given to the 
 building material, are entirely his own. But 
 what would his ownership or the right to the 
 full enjoyment and free disposal of the ef- 
 fects of his labor avail him, if he could not 
 likewise freely dispose of the soil and the ma- 
 terial in which those effects are inseparably 
 
 433036
 
 38 PEIVATE LANDOWNERSHIP 
 
 embodied? The free disposal of the former 
 without the free disposal of the latter is im- 
 possible. Hence it follows that the owner of 
 the improvements must also be the owner of 
 the soil. Whosoever denies him the owner- 
 ship of the soil, practically destroys his own- 
 ership in the improvements and thus, for- 
 sooth, ' ' robs him of the very fruits of his la- 
 bor." Cultivation and improvement, there- 
 fore, of ownerless land actually imply the ap- 
 propriation of that land. 
 
 For the rest, actual cultivation or improve- 
 ment is not absolutely necessary for actual 
 ownership. A piece of ownerless land could 
 be set apart and marked as appropriated by 
 some one before any cultivation or improve- 
 ment took place, e. g., by a fence or some visi- 
 ble landmarks. The ensuing cultivation, 
 however, and the improvements, mark it still 
 more clearly as appropriated and furnish, as 
 we have just seen, a special argument for the 
 lawfulness of private property in land. 
 
 After proving the justice of private prop- 
 erty in land from the nature of man and the 
 nature of the soil, the Pope adds a threefold 
 confirmation: from the conviction of man- 
 kind, the civil laws of nations, and the au- 
 thority of divine revelation. 
 
 Having thus substantiated his second
 
 PRIVATE LANDOWNERSHIP 39 
 
 charge against the socialization of the soil, 
 he passes to the third, viz., that this scheme 
 ** perverts the functions of the State." 
 
 Thus far man has been considered merely 
 as an individual person. Now, if we take 
 into account his family relation, his right of 
 having private property in land will appear 
 in still clearer light. For in his capacity as 
 head of a family his right of having private 
 property must be the stronger as in the do- 
 mestic circle his charge extends over more per- 
 sons. The welfare and security of the family 
 for the present and the future, require the 
 ownership of productive property, which by 
 inheritance can be transmitted to the chil- 
 dren. It is, therefore, a demand of nature 
 that such right be vested in the head of the 
 family independently of the State, since the 
 family is naturally prior to the State, and 
 that such right should be protected rather 
 than destroyed or curtailed in the common- 
 wealth. The scheme, therefore, of socializ- 
 ing the land and having the community or 
 the State administer the landed property 
 needed by, and belonging in justice to, the 
 single families, transfers to the State the nat- 
 ural right of the parent and thus attacks and 
 invades the sacred precincts of the home. 
 From the foregoing considerations follows.
 
 40 PRIVATE LANDOWNERSHIP 
 
 finally, the truth of the last charge, that so- 
 cializing the soil would "create universal 
 confusion." The peace and prosperity of 
 society at large demand most emphatically 
 the existence of private property not only in 
 chattels, but also in land; without it the way 
 would be paved to a slavish dependence of 
 the citizens upon the State, and a wide door 
 would be thrown open to mutual discord, to 
 universal misery and degradation. These 
 are the arguments advanced by Leo XIII. to 
 show the necessity and lawfulness of private 
 property in land. "We subjoin the exact 
 words of the Pope.
 
 IV 
 
 LEO XIII. ON PKIVATE PEOPERTY IN LAND * 
 
 *'To remedy this evil [the miserable condi- 
 tion of the masses] the Socialists, working on 
 the poor man's envy of the rich, maintain 
 that private ownership of [landed] property 
 must be overthrown and in its stead property 
 common to all be introduced, to be adminis- 
 tered by those who are at the head of munic- 
 ipal bodies or of the entire commonwealth. 
 By thus transferring property from private 
 persons to the community, the present evil 
 state of things, they believe, will be cured and 
 temporal goods and comforts be equitably 
 distributed among the citizens. But this 
 scheme is so manifestly unsuited to solve the 
 social question, that [in the first place] it 
 would harm the working classes themselves ; 
 moreover, it is unjust, since it does violence 
 to lawful proprietors ; besides, it perverts the 
 functions of the State, and, finally, produces 
 universal confusion. 
 
 1 From the Encyclical " Rerum Novarum " of May 15, 
 1891. (Acta Leonis, Ed. Descl4e, de Brouwer et Soc, Vol. 
 IV, pp. 178 sqq.) Our translation was made with the view 
 of rendering the sense as faithfully as possible. 
 
 41
 
 42 LEO XIII. ON 
 
 ''(I.) It IS easy to see that, when a work- 
 ingman engages in remunerative labor, the 
 immediate motive and direct purpose of his 
 work is, to obtain property and to hold and 
 enjoy it as his own. For if a man hires out 
 his strength and his industry to another, he 
 does this with the intention of receiving in 
 return what is necessary for food and living ; 
 he, therefore, expressly means to acquire a 
 real and perfect right not only to the wages 
 but also to the free disposal of them accord- 
 ing to his own good pleasure. Hence, if he 
 by living sparingly saves some money and, 
 for greater security, invests his savings in 
 real estate, that real estate is in fact noth- 
 ing else than his wages in another form ; con- 
 sequently the land which the workingman has 
 thus bought will be in his power just as were 
 the wages he had gained by his labor. But, 
 as will be readily understood, it is precisely 
 in this power of free disposal that the right 
 of property consists, whether in land or chat- 
 tels. The Socialists, therefore, in endeavor- 
 ing to transfer all [landed] property from 
 individuals to the community, strike at the in- 
 terests of every wage-earner; for they de- 
 stroy his power of disposing of his wages at 
 will and thereby deprive him of the hope and
 
 PEIVATE PROPERTY IN LAND 43 
 
 possibility of increasing his stock and of bet- 
 tering his condition in life. 
 
 " (II.) What is of still greater importance, 
 however, is that the remedy they propose is 
 manifestly against justice, since the right of 
 having property [in land] is a right granted 
 to man by nature. 
 
 '' (a.) Indeed in this regard, too, there is a 
 sharp distinction between man and the animal 
 creation. For the brute has no power of 
 self-direction, but is governed by two chief 
 instincts, which not only preserve and prop- 
 erly develop its powers, but also arouse and 
 determine all its particular actions. These 
 instincts are self-preservation and the propa- 
 gation of the species. Both can conveniently 
 attain their purpose by the use of things 
 which are close at hand; beyond these the 
 brute cannot go, because it is moved to action 
 by sensibility alone and by particular objects 
 perceived by the senses. 
 
 ' ' It is far different, however, in the case of 
 man. He possesses, on the one hand, the full 
 perfection of animal nature, and therefore en- 
 joys, at least as much as the brute animals, 
 the fruition of what corporal things offer. 
 But animality, however perfect, is far from 
 being the whole of human nature; it is hu-
 
 44 LEO Xni. ON 
 
 manity's humble handmaid, made to serve 
 and obey. The mind, or reason, is the chief 
 thing in us ; it is this which makes a human 
 being human, and distinguishes him essen- 
 tially and completely from the brute. And 
 on this account viz., because man alone 
 among animals possesses reason it must be 
 within his right to have things not merely for 
 actual and temporary use, as other living 
 creatures have them, but to hold them in 
 stable and permanent possession; and not 
 only things which in being used are con- 
 sumed, but also such as, though used, re- 
 main unimpaired. 
 
 ''This becomes still more evident if we 
 consider man's nature a little more deeply. 
 For man, comprehending by the power of his 
 reason things innumerable, and joining the 
 future with the present ; being, moreover, the 
 master of his own actions, governs himself 
 by the foresight of his counsel, under the 
 eternal law and the power of God Whose 
 Providence rules all things. Wherefore it 
 is in his power to exercise his choice not 
 only on things which regard his present wel- 
 fare, but also on those which will be for his 
 advantage in time to come. Hence it must be 
 possible for him to acquire as property not 
 only the fruits of the earth, but the very soil
 
 PRIVATE PROPERTY IN LAND 45 
 
 itself; for it is in the produce of the latter that 
 he finds the necessaries of life for the future. 
 Man's needs do not pass away, but return 
 unceasingly; though satisfied to-day, they 
 demand new supplies for the morrow. Na- 
 ture, therefore, must have given to man a 
 stable and never-failing storehouse from 
 which he may draw never-ending supplies. 
 But such never-ending supplies nothing can 
 afford except the earth with its abundance 
 and fertility. 
 
 *'Nor need we for this right apply to the 
 State. Man is older than the State and con- 
 sequently must have possessed, prior to the 
 formation of any State, the right of provid- 
 ing for his subsistence. The fact, further- 
 more, that God has given the earth for the 
 use and enjoyment of the whole human race, 
 does not in the least prevent the existence of 
 private possessions. For if it is said that 
 God gave the earth to mankind in common, 
 this is not to be understood as if He wanted 
 the common ownership of the earth vested in 
 all men, but because He did not assign to 
 any one the possession of any particular por- 
 tion of the earth, leaving the actual distribu- 
 tion of private possessions to men's industry 
 and to the laws of peoples. 
 
 **Por the rest, in whatever manner the
 
 46 LEO XIII. ON 
 
 earth may be divided among private owners, 
 it never ceases to minister to the needs of 
 all; for there is no one who does not derive 
 his subsistence from the produce of the soil. 
 Those who have no landed property make up 
 for this by their labor. Hence it may truly 
 be said that all human subsistence is derived 
 either from the labor expended on one's own 
 land, or from some other laborious industry, 
 the reward of which consists in some product 
 of the soil, or at any rate is exchanged for 
 what the land brings forth. 
 
 ** (b.) Hence there arises a new proof that 
 private property in land is in perfect har- 
 mony with the natural law. For the things 
 which man needs for the preservation of his 
 life, and especially for his well-being and im- 
 provement, the earth furnishes indeed in 
 great abundance, but not without cultivation 
 and care expended on the soil. Now if a 
 man exerts both his mental faculties and his 
 physical strength in procuring the fruits of 
 nature, by so doing he makes his own that 
 portion of the earth which he cultivates and 
 on which he leaves, as it were, the impress 
 of his personality. Wherefore it can not but 
 be just that he should possess that same por- 
 tion of the earth as his very own, and it
 
 PRIVATE PROPERTY IN LAND 47 
 
 cannot be lawful for any one to violate such 
 right. 
 
 **The force of these arguments is so evi- 
 dent that it seems amazing that some should 
 be setting up certain obsolete opinions in op- 
 position to what has here been maintained. 
 They grant to the individual man the use of 
 the soil and the various products of landed 
 possessions, but declare it absolutely wrong 
 that one should consider himself the real 
 owner of the land on which he has built or 
 of the estate which he has brought under cul- 
 tivation. Forsooth, the opponents of indi- 
 vidual landownership do not see that they 
 are robbing man of the very fruits of his la- 
 bor. For the soil which is cultivated with 
 labor and skill utterly changes its condition : 
 from being wild it becomes productive, from 
 being barren, fruitful. That which has thus 
 altered and improved the land is so closely 
 connected and so perfectly identified with the 
 same that for the greatest part it can in no 
 wise be separated from it any more. Now 
 would it not be a violation of justice if any 
 one would appropriate for himself and enjoy 
 that which another has gained in the sweat 
 of his brow? As effects follow the cause by 
 which they have been produced, so it is but
 
 48 LEO XIII. ON 
 
 just and right that the fruits of labor should 
 belong to those who have bestowed the 
 labor. 
 
 " (c.) With good reason, therefore, has the 
 whole of mankind, not minding the dissenting 
 opinions of a few, but rather carefully study- 
 ing the demands of nature, seen in the nat- 
 ural law itself the foundation for the division 
 of earthly goods; and with good reason has 
 it by the practice of all ages consecrated the 
 existence of private possessions as being pre- 
 eminently in harmony with human nature 
 and conducive to the peace and tranquillity 
 of society. The civil laws, moreover, which, 
 so long as they are just, derive their binding 
 force from the natural law, likewise confirm 
 and protect, even by coercion, the right of 
 property of which we are speaking. The 
 same has, finally, been sanctioned by the au- 
 thority of the divine law, which most severely 
 forbids us even to covet that which belongs to 
 another. 'Thou shalt not covet thy neigh- 
 bor's wife, nor his house, nor his field, nor his 
 man-servant, nor his maid-servant, nor his 
 ox, nor his ass, nor anything that is his.' 
 (Deut. V, 21.) 
 
 *'(III.) The rights here spoken of, belong- 
 ing to each individual man, are seen in a 
 much stronger light, if they are considered in
 
 PRIVATE PROPERTY IN LAND 49 
 
 connection with man's obligations in the do- 
 mestic circle. 
 
 *'In choosing a state of life, it is indisputa- 
 ble that all are at full liberty either to fol- 
 low the counsel of Jesus Christ as to virginity 
 or to enter into the bonds of marriage. No 
 human law can take from man the natural 
 and primitive right to marry, or in any 
 way limit the principal purpose of marriage, 
 ordained by God's authority from the begin- 
 ning: 'Increase and multiply.' (Gen. i, 28.) 
 Thus we have the family or domestic society, 
 small, indeed, in numbers, but a true society 
 and one which is older than any civil so- 
 ciety and therefore must have rights and 
 duties of its own, totally independent of the 
 commonwealth. The right of private prop- 
 erty, then, which has been proved to belong 
 naturally to man as an individual person, 
 must likewise belong to him as the head of a 
 family; nay, this right must be the stronger 
 as in the domestic circle his charge extends 
 over more persons. 
 
 "For it is a most sacred natural law that 
 the father of a family must provide food and 
 all necessaries for those whom he has begot- 
 ten ; besides, nature herself instills in him also 
 the desire to provide for the future of his 
 children who carry on, as it were, and con-
 
 50 LEO XIII. ON 
 
 tinue his own personality, so as to enable 
 them honorably to keep themselves from want 
 and misery in the uncertainties of this mortal 
 life. Now in no other way can a father ef- 
 fect this, except by the ownership of produc- 
 tive property which he can transmit to his 
 children by inheritance. 
 
 *'The family, no less than the State, is, as 
 "We have said, a true society, governed by a 
 power within itself, that is, by the father. 
 Wherefore, provided the limits prescribed 
 by the immediate purpose of its existence be 
 not transgressed, the family has, at least, 
 equal rights with the State in the choice and 
 pursuit of those things which are needful to 
 its preservation and its just liberty. We 
 say, at least equal rights; for since the do- 
 mestic household is anterior both in idea and 
 in fact to the union of men in the common- 
 wealth, its rights and duties must likewise 
 be prior and more immediately based on na- 
 ture than are those of the State. If the citi- 
 zens or the families on entering into associa- 
 tion and fellowship experienced at the hands 
 of the State hindrance instead of help and 
 found their rights curtailed instead of pro- 
 tected, such association were rather to be re- 
 pudiated than sought after. 
 
 **The notion, then, that the civil govern-
 
 PRIVATE PROPEETY IN LAND 51 
 
 ment should, at its own discretion, penetrate 
 and pervade the family and the household, is 
 a great and pernicious error. -True, if a 
 family finds itself in very great stress, ut- 
 terly friendless, and without prospect of as- 
 sistance, it is right that extreme necessity be 
 met by public aid; for each family is a part 
 of the commonwealth. In like manner, if 
 within the walls of a household there occur 
 grave disturbances of mutual rights, the pub- 
 lic power must interfere to force each party 
 to give the other his due; for this is not to 
 rob citizens of their rights, but justly and 
 properly to safeguard and strengthen them. 
 But here the rulers of the State must stop; 
 nature bids them go no farther. Fraternal 
 authority can neither be abolished by the 
 State, nor absorbed by it ; for it has the very 
 same source as human life itself. ' The child 
 belongs to the father,' and is, as it were, the 
 continuation of the father 's personality ; and, 
 to speak accurately, the child takes its place 
 in civil society not in its own right, but in 
 its quality as a member of the family in 
 which it is begotten. And it is for this very 
 reason that ' the child belongs naturally to the 
 father,' that, as St. Thomas Aquinas says, 
 'Before it attains the use of free will, it is in 
 the power and care of its parents.' (S. Th.
 
 52 PRIVATE PROPERTY IN LAND 
 
 II. II. qu. 10. art. 12.) The Socialists, there- 
 fore, in setting aside the solicitude of the 
 parents and introducing the providence of 
 the State, act against natural justice, and 
 threaten the very existence of family life. 
 
 *'(IV.) And such interference is not only 
 unjust, but is quite certain to harass and dis- 
 turb all classes of citizens, and to subject 
 them to odious and intolerable slavery. It 
 would open the door to envy, to evil-speaking 
 and to quarrelling ; the very sources of wealth 
 would necessarily run dry, for no one would 
 have any interest in exerting his talents or 
 his industry; and that universal equality 
 which they imagine, would, in reality, be the 
 levelling of all to the same condition of mis- 
 ery and dishonor. 
 
 ''From all We have said it is clear that 
 the main tenet of Socialists, viz., the substi- 
 tution of common for private ownership, 
 must be utterly rejected. It works harm to 
 those who are to be assisted; it is contrary 
 to the natural rights of individuals; it per- 
 verts the functions of the State; it destroys 
 the peace and harmony of society. The first 
 and most fundamental principle, therefore, 
 if we wish to alleviate the miserable condi- 
 tion of the masses, must be the inviolability 
 of private property.'*
 
 HENBY George's vain attempt to refute the 
 pope's arguments 
 
 Henry George's The Condition of Labor: 
 An Open Letter to Pope Leo XIIL, is in more 
 than one respect a curious literary produc- 
 tion. It shows, among other things, how a 
 gifted and well-meaning man may eventually 
 be so completely taken up by one false notion 
 as to lose sight even of the most elementary 
 truths and the most obvious facts. It shows, 
 above all, that this Agrarian Socialist had 
 perfectly well understood the import of the 
 papal document. ''I have read with care," 
 he begins, *'your Encyclical Letter On the 
 Condition of Labor, addressed, through the 
 Patriarchs, Primates, Archbishops, and 
 Bishops of your faith, to the Christian 
 World. Since its most strikingly pronounced 
 condemnations are directed against a theory 
 that we who hold it know to be deserving of 
 your support, I ask permission to lay before 
 your Holiness the grounds of our belief, and 
 to set forth some considerations that you 
 
 53
 
 54 HENRY GEORGE VS. LEO XIII. 
 
 have unfortunately overlooked. - The mo- 
 mentous seriousness of the facts you refer to, 
 the poverty, suffering and seething discon- 
 tent that pervade the Christian world, the 
 danger that passion may lead ignorance in a 
 blind struggle against social conditions rap- 
 idly becoming intolerable, are my justifica- 
 tion." 
 
 The author does not hesitate to remind the 
 Pontiff again and again of the serious error 
 into which his prejudices have caused him to 
 fall. Let us cull a few passages from the 
 Open Letter. 
 
 *'To your proposition that 'Our first and 
 most fundamental principle, when we under- 
 take to alleviate the condition of the masses, 
 must be the inviolability of private property, ' 
 we would joyfully agree if we could only un- 
 derstand you to have in mind the moral ele- 
 ment, and to mean rightful private property, 
 as when you speak of marriage as ordained 
 by God's authority we may understand an 
 implied exclusion of improper marriages. 
 Unfortunately, however, other expressions 
 show that you mean private property in gen- 
 eral and have expressly in mind private 
 property in land. This confusion of thought 
 [!1, this non-distribution of terms [!], runs 
 through your whole argument [!], leading
 
 HENRY GEORGE VS. LEO XIII. 55 
 
 you to conclusions so unwarranted by your 
 premises as to be utterly repugnant to them, 
 as when from the moral sanction of private 
 property in things produced by labor you 
 infer something entirely different and utterly 
 opposed, a similar right of property in the 
 land created by God." 
 
 ''Your use, in so many passages of your 
 Encyclical, of the inclusive term 'property' 
 or 'private property,' of which in morals 
 nothing can be either aflSrmed or denied, 
 makes your meaning, if we take isolated 
 sentences, in many places ambiguous [!]. 
 But reading it as a whole, there can be no 
 doubt of your intention that private property 
 in land shall be understood when you speak 
 merely of private property. With this in- 
 terpretation, I find that the reasons you urge 
 for private property in land are eight. Let 
 us consider them in order of presentation." 
 
 * ' But while we appreciate the many whole- 
 some truths you utter, . . . yet it is 
 painfully obvious to us that one fatal as- 
 sumption hides from you the cause of the 
 evils you see, and makes it impossible for 
 you to propose any adequate remedy. This 
 assumption is, that private property in land 
 is of the same nature and has the same sanc- 
 tions as private property in things produced
 
 56 HENRY GEORGE VS. LEO XIII. 
 
 by labor. In spite of its undeniable truths 
 and its benevolent spirit, your Encyclical 
 shows you to be involved in such difficulties 
 as a physician called to examine one suffer- 
 ing from disease of the stomach would meet 
 should he begin with the refusal to consider 
 the stomach." [Sid] 
 
 **One false assumption prevents you from 
 seeing the real cause and true significance of 
 the facts that have prompted your Ency- 
 clical. And it fatally fetters you when you 
 seek a remedy." 
 
 *'In the beginning of the Encyclical you 
 declare that the responsibility of the apos- 
 tolic office urges your Holiness to treat the 
 question of the condition of labor 'expressly 
 and at length in order that there may be no 
 mistake as to the principles which truth and 
 justice dictate for its settlement.' But, 
 blinded by one false assumption, you do not 
 see even fundamentals." [!!] 
 
 It is amusing to hear a man like Henry 
 George accuse Leo XIII. of confusion of 
 thought and ambiguity in terms. The entire 
 Encyclical ^'Rerum Novarum" is a master- 
 piece of precision, conciseness, and depth of 
 thought, which cannot adequately be ren- 
 dered by any translation. As to the term 
 "property," it is evident from his very first
 
 / 
 
 HENRY GEORGE VS. LEO XIII. 57 
 
 argument, that the Pontiff treats explicitly 
 of landed- property only ; speaking all along 
 of praedium, fundus, terra, possessiones, 
 ager, naturae corporeae pars, solum, he need 
 not add each time that this property is meant 
 to be property in land. Moreover, ''that 
 private property in land is of the same na- 
 ture and has the same sanctions as private 
 property in things produced by labor," the 
 Pope does not ''assume," but "demon- 
 strates" from various sources, in particular 
 from the nature, individual and social, of 
 man, and from the nature of the soil. 
 Thereby he disproves common landowner- 
 ship, the tenet so dear to all Communistic 
 systems, and thus refutes eflScaciously and 
 with one stroke Agrarians, Socialists, and ^ 
 Communists of whatever description. 
 
 From the seriousness and boldness of Mr. 
 George's pronouncements we should expect 
 that he had found some formidable objections 
 against the Pope's arguments; but when we 
 analyze his exceptions we are reminded of 
 the Latin saying, "Parturiunt montes, nas- 
 cetur ridiculus mus!" Nevertheless, we 
 shall review them "in order of presenta- 
 tion." They will offer us an opportunity of 
 elucidating all the details of the natural 
 right theory of ownership. Besides, they
 
 58 HENRY GEORGE VS. LEO XIH. 
 
 have never, as far as we are aware, been ex- 
 plicitly refuted in any English book or 
 treatise.^ 
 
 Mr. George begins: ''You urge: 1. 
 That what is bought with rightful property 
 is rightful property. Clearly, purchase and 
 sale cannot give, but can only transfer own- 
 ership. Property that in itself has no moral 
 sanction does not obtain moral sanction by 
 passing from seller to buyer. If right rea- 
 son does not make the slave the property of 
 the slave hunter, it does not make him the 
 property of the slave buyer. Yet your rea- 
 soning as to private property in land would 
 as well justify property in slaves. To show 
 this it is only needful to change in your argu- 
 ment the word land to the word slave. It 
 would then read: . . ." 
 
 This objection is directed against the first 
 argument or ''charge" of the Pope. The 
 answer is obvious. 
 
 (a) The sentence, apparently taken verba- 
 tim from the Encyclical, is not there at all. 
 
 (b) In his first argument Leo XIII. does 
 
 / 1 Mr. George's Open Letter was answered by the Civiltd, 
 
 "* Cattolica, 1892, I. pp. 194-203 and pp. 316-322. His objec- 
 
 tions are also ably refuted by Eev. Henry Pesch, S.J., in his 
 volume on Liheralismus, Socialismus und Christliche Oe- 
 sellschaftsordnung (pp. 278-330), which is the ninth 
 " Heft " of Die sociale Frage illustrated by the Stimmen aus 
 Maria-Laach (Herder, Freiburg, 1896).
 
 HENRY GEORGE VS. LEO XIII. 59 
 
 not pretend to prove the justice of private 
 property in land this is expressly reserved 
 for the second; he merely calls attention to 
 the obvious and palpable fact that the social- 
 ization of the soil would ''harm the working 
 classes themselves." 
 
 (c) The application of the alleged principle 
 to the purchasing of slaves, is altogether out 
 of place, since the Pope neither maintains 
 nor uses that absurd maxim in his ' ' argumen- 
 tum ad hominem." Those acquainted with 
 Henry George's writings know that identify- 
 ing private landownership with chattel slav- 
 ery is one of his hobbies. Here he wastes 
 four pages in an endeavor to inspire the 
 Pope and other readers with horror against 
 these two * ' forms of the same robbery. ' ' In 
 fact, the four pages must fill a candid and re- 
 flecting mind with horror because they teem 
 with absurd statements and wild exaggera- 
 tions. Just listen for a moment : 
 
 ** Private property in land, no less than 
 private property in slaves, is a violation of 
 the true rights of property. They are dif- 
 ferent forms of the same robbery; twin de- 
 vices by which the perverted ingenuity of 
 man has sought to enable the strong and the 
 cunning to escape God's requirement of la- 
 bor by forcing it on others.
 
 60 HENRY GEORGE VS. LEO XIII. 
 
 ''What difference does it make whether I 
 merely own the land on which another man 
 must [?] live or own the man himself? [A 
 very great difference.] Am I not in the one 
 case as much his master as in the other? 
 [No.] Can I not compel him to work 
 for me? [No.] Can I not take to myself as 
 much of the fruits of his labor; as fully dic- 
 tate his actions? [No.] Have I not over 
 him the power of life and death? [No.] 
 For to deprive a man of land is as certainly 
 to kill him [ !] as to deprive him of blood by 
 opening his veins, or of air by tightening a 
 halter around his neck."[!] "What a splen- 
 did array of arguments! Mr. George may 
 rest easy; in the natural system of private 
 landownership no landowner **can," i. e., 
 is empowered to deprive another man of 
 land. For the same natural law that 
 grants him the right to own land, limits this 
 right by essential conditions and imposes 
 upon him duties towards his f ellowmen which 
 he is in justice bound to observe; besides, if 
 the civil authority, in the interest of the pub- 
 lic welfare, has made special enactments con- 
 cerning landed property, the landowner is 
 by the natural law obliged to observe also 
 these ''positive" laws. Among the numer-
 
 HENRY GEORGE VS. LEO XIII. 61 
 
 ous wrong notions of Henry George we find 
 also these: That according to the theory of 
 private landownership one or half a dozen 
 men could appropriate by occupation the 
 whole earth; that, private property in land 
 once admitted, there is no restraint put on 
 landowners as to the use of their property: 
 not by the natural law, which grants them an 
 ''absolute" right; nor by the civil law, be- 
 cause to admit any such State interference 
 would be ''Socialistic." These two absurd 
 notions are the basis of his tirades ^not 
 against those landowners only who abuse 
 their rights of ownership, but against land- 
 ownership as such, as if the abuses of proprie- 
 torship were an essential feature, a part and 
 parcel of the system. Is there any right that 
 cannot be abused? Are the rights of prop- 
 erty in movables not abused too, perhaps to 
 an equal if not to a far greater extent than 
 the rights of landownership? Yet landown- 
 ers alone are held responsible by our Agra- 
 rian economist for all the miseries of society I 
 
 "^. That private property in land proceeds 
 from man's gift of reason. 
 
 "In the second place your Holiness argues 
 that man possessing reason and forethought 
 may not only acquire ownership of the fruits
 
 62 HENRY GEORGE VS. LEO XIII. 
 
 of the earth, but also of the earth itself, so 
 that out of its products he may make pro- 
 vision for the future. 
 
 ''Reason, with its attendant forethought, 
 is indeed the distinguishing attribute of man 
 . . . and labor involves the use of reason. 
 . . . It is mind, the intelligent reason, that 
 is the prime movei* in labor, the essential 
 agent in production. The right of private 
 ownership does therefore indisputably attach 
 to things provided by man's reason and fore- 
 thought. But it cannot attach to things pro- 
 vided by the reason and forethought of God ! ' ' 
 
 This is no refutation of the Pope's argu- 
 ment taken from man's rational nature. The 
 last sentence quoted is a mere assertion and 
 is obviously false. Why should I not be al- 
 lowed to appropriate for my exclusive use a 
 share of those numberless necessary or use- 
 ful things which the Almighty has provided 
 for all his children? Would I thereby rob 
 others or prevent them from likewise acquir- 
 ing a share f 
 
 Henry George insists on his demand that 
 you must first produce something by labor, 
 then only can you own it. But in order to 
 produce something, you must have some ma- 
 terial to work upon and to make something 
 of, say a walking cane, a club, an arrow.
 
 HENRY GEORGE VS. LEO XIII. 63 
 
 Now suppose just when you are ready to 
 begin your work, I snatch the particular 
 piece of wood which you intended to shape 
 into an arrow, out of your hand, run away, 
 and make myself an arrow out of it. Whose 
 is this arrow? I say with Henry George, it 
 is mine, because I produced it. And I hear 
 you at once indignantly protest and exclaim : 
 *'You had no right to snatch that piece of 
 wood out of my hand; you took away from 
 me what was mine; you did me a wrong!" 
 My answer is ready: ''So you claim that 
 piece of wood was yours before you had made 
 or begun to make something out of it by your 
 labor and you are right. First you must 
 have or acquire some material as your own; 
 then only can you begin to work on it to the 
 exclusion of all others, and what you then 
 make of it by your labor, is undoubtedly 
 yours 'as against all the world.* " 
 
 Production, accordingly, can not be the 
 first, nor consequently the only, title of pro- 
 prietorship. Before you can proceed to 
 produce, you must acquire as your own some 
 one object from among the numberless things 
 provided by God's providence and not yet ap- 
 propriated by others. The acquisition of an 
 ownerless object takes place by apprehension 
 or "occupation."
 
 64 HENRY GEORGE VS. LEO XIII. 
 
 To support liis view, Henry George uses 
 an illustration: ''Let us suppose a company 
 travelling through the desert. . . . Such 
 of them as had the forethought to provide 
 themselves with vessels of water would ac- 
 quire a just right of property in the water 
 so carried. . . . For while water itself 
 is of the providence of God, the presence of 
 this water in such vessels, at such place, re- 
 sults from the providence of the men who 
 carried it. Thus they have to it an exclusive 
 right. But suppose others use their fore- 
 thought in pushing ahead and appropriating 
 the springs, refusing when their fellows come 
 up to let them drink of the water save as they 
 buy it from them. Would such forethought 
 give any right!" Why not, if in that place 
 there were many springs and that thoughtful 
 party would seize one of them? Mr. George 
 evidently has in his mind one or a few men 
 seizing, i. e., occupying, a whole continent 
 or the whole earth. 
 
 ' ' Let me show this more fully, since it may 
 be worth while to meet those who say that if 
 private property in land be not just, then pri- 
 vate property in the products of labor is not 
 just, as the material of these products is 
 taken from land. It will be seen on consider- 
 ation that all of man's production is anal-
 
 HENRY GEORGE VS. LEO XIII. 65 
 
 ogous to such transportation of water as we 
 have supposed. In growing grain, or smelt- 
 ing metals, or building houses, or weaving 
 cloth, or doing any of the things that consti- 
 tute producing, all that man does is to change 
 in place or form pre-existing matter. As a 
 producer, man is merely a changer, not a 
 creator; God alone creates. And since the 
 changes in which man's production consists 
 inhere in matter so long as they persist, the 
 right of private ownership attaches the acci- 
 dent to the essence, and gives the right of 
 ownership in that natural material in which 
 the labor of production is embodied. Thus 
 water, which in its original form and 
 place is the common gift of God to all 
 men, when drawn from its natural reservoir 
 and brought into the desert, passes right- 
 fully into the ownership of the individual 
 who by changing its place has produced it 
 there." 
 
 Here we have a fair specimen of Henry 
 George's accuracy of thought and expression. 
 What he tries to prove is that water which 
 is brought into the desert becomes thereby 
 the private property of him who carries it 
 there and, in general, that the producer can 
 claim the product of his labor as his private 
 property, although the material of the prod- 
 
 6
 
 66 HENRY GEORGE VS. LEO XIII. 
 
 net is taken from land, the common property 
 of all. Does he prove anything? Let ns 
 first take the case of those carrying water 
 into the desert. 
 
 We trust Mr. George will not compel us 
 to carry the water into a desert in order to 
 own it ; but that he will grant it to us as our 
 own as soon as we have drawn it from its 
 *' original place" where it is ''the common 
 gift of God to all men." Why do we own it 
 then? Because ''the presence of this water 
 in such vessels, in this place, results from the 
 providence" of those who brought it there, 
 who ' ' by changing its former place produced 
 it there" ! In a word: the water in the river 
 or well is God's common gift to all, belonging 
 to all ; the water in your cup is your produc- 
 tion. ^Who in the world calls moving a thing 
 from one place to another producing that 
 thing? Do customers who try on hats in a 
 store produce them on their head when they 
 put them on? If so, they could keep them 
 without paying for them, because "they pro- 
 duced them there. ' ' This is sheer nonsense ! 
 By changing its place you in no wise produce 
 an object ; it remains what it was before ; but 
 you give it, or produce, its new position, that 
 is all. Hence the title of "production" can-
 
 HENRY GEOHGE VS. LEO XIII. 67 
 
 not be applied to the water taken from its 
 natural reservoir. 
 
 But can, perhaps, the change in place as 
 such effect ownership? Certainly not. 
 Otherwise what could hinder me from cov- 
 ertly pouring the water from your cup into 
 mine and thus making it my private prop- 
 erty? By filling your cup with water you 
 destroyed the common ownership of all man- 
 kind in that water; why should the pouring 
 of the same water from your cup into mine 
 not destroy your ownership in that water? 
 Is the natural and common ownership of 
 mankind not a far stronger title than the ac- 
 quired ownership of one individual? Hence 
 the same action change of place should 
 be able to destroy the former, stronger, but 
 not the second, weaker, title? According to 
 Henry George, therefore, water or any other 
 creature of God can no more be the private 
 property of any one when taken from its 
 original place, than it was before. 
 
 Production properly signifies, bringing 
 something into existence or causing it to exist. 
 If the production takes place without pre-ex- 
 isting matter, we have creation, in the proper 
 sense; otherwise we have ordinary produc- 
 tion, i. e., a change of something into some-
 
 68 HENRY GEOEGE VS. LEO XIII. 
 
 thing else. ' ' As a producer, man is merely a 
 changer, not a creator; God alone creates." 
 But a producer man is not by merely changing 
 things in place ; he must cause in them some 
 new form by which they are now what they 
 were not before; thus only he causes a new 
 being to exist, thus only is he "a producer." 
 How, then, does Henry George prove that 
 ' ' a producer, ' ' in the strict and proper sense, 
 acquires private ownership in the ''product" 
 of his labor, as commonly understood, i. e., 
 not only in the new form, but also in the ma- 
 terial or substance, of which it consists? 
 
 ''Since the changes in which man's pro- 
 duction consists, inhere in matter so long as 
 they persist, the right of private ownership 
 attaches the accident to the essence, and gives 
 the right of ownership in that natural mate- 
 rial in which the labor of production is em- 
 bodied." This looks very much like a phil- 
 osophical proof. One might even suspect 
 it to have been copied from an argument of 
 the Encyclical itself. The Pope writes: 
 "The soil when cultivated with labor and 
 skill, utterly changes its condition: from be- 
 ing wild it becomes productive; from being 
 barren, fruitful. That which has thus al- 
 tered and improved the land is so closely 
 connected and so perfectly identified with
 
 HENRY GEORGE VS. LEO XIIL 69 
 
 the same, that for the greatest part it can in 
 no wise be separated from it. Now would it 
 not be a violation of justice for any one to 
 appropriate to himself and enjoy that which 
 another has gained in the sweat of his 
 brow!" 
 
 Such is the Pope's argument from the na- 
 ture of the soil. Put in the short form of 
 Mr. Henry George it runs thus: Since the 
 changes in which man's production consists, 
 e. g., the physical alterations and improve- 
 ments of land, inhere in matter, in our case 
 in the cultivated land, so long as they persist 
 the right of private ownership attaches the 
 accidents, the alterations and improvements, 
 to the essence, the land, and gives the right 
 of ownership in that natural material, the 
 soil, in which the labor of production is em- 
 bodied. ^We must thank Mr. .George for 
 placing the Pope's argument so clearly and 
 convincingly before us; thus no one can es- 
 cape its cogency. Physical changes in the 
 soil that are the result of my labor, are mine, 
 and I can claim all the benefit accruing from 
 them. But those same changes inseparably 
 inhere in the soil and cannot be used without 
 using the soil, and no one can use the soil 
 without using them. Hence my ownership 
 in the changes cannot subsist without owner-
 
 70 HENRY GEORGE VS. LEO XIII. 
 
 ship in the soil. Accordingly, to deny me 
 the latter is to deny me also the former is 
 to rob me of the fruits of my labor. 
 
 But notwithstanding its simplicity and 
 cogency Henry George is bold enough to re- 
 ject this argument. He rejects his own proof 
 when applied to land, and upholds it when 
 applied to water which you carry into the 
 desert and so produce it there [!], and to 
 ordinary productions in which natural ma- 
 terial is used. 
 
 It is evident that this discrimination is 
 quite arbitrary and against all logic. Either 
 he has to admit the validity of the argument 
 in all cases of labor embodied in pre-existing 
 matter, or to deny it in all. All things of 
 nature are equally the common gift of God 
 to all men. There is no difference whatever 
 in this respect. But now comes the decisive 
 question : how is the original grant of natural 
 things by God to all men to be understood? 
 Are all things thereby made the common 
 property of all men, or are they Only objects 
 without an actual owner, res nullius, but ap- 
 propriable by any one who fulfills the condi- 
 tions of appropriation? Henry George 
 chooses the first alternative and in this sup- 
 position the said argument is invalid in all 
 cases of labor embodied in pre-existing mat-
 
 HENRY GEORGE VS. LEO XIII. 71 
 
 ter; for the exclusive ownership of an indi- 
 vidual in the material would rob all other men 
 of their natural ownership in the same. 
 Hence in his theory there can be no private 
 property in any product of labor, which is ab- 
 surd. The Pope chooses the other alternative, 
 the only reasonable and true one, and in this 
 supposition the argument is valid in all cases 
 of labor embodied in pre-existing matter, 
 whether land or other natural material. 
 
 It seems that Henry George himself had 
 some misgivings about his proof of private 
 ownership in the products of labor. For 
 in the very next paragraph who would 
 deem such a thing possible? he explicitly 
 denies that the private ownership proved by 
 him is real ownership! Here are his words: 
 '*But such right of ownership is in reality a 
 mere right of temporary possession. For 
 though man may take material from the store- 
 house of nature and change it in place [ !] or 
 form to suit his desires, yet from the moment 
 he takes it, it tends back to that storehouse 
 again. Wood decays, iron rusts, stone dis- 
 integrates and is displaced, while of more 
 perishable products, some will last for only a 
 few months, others for only a few days, and 
 some disappear immediately on use." This 
 passage shows anew the woeful lack of clear
 
 72 HENRY GEORGE VS. LEO XIII. 
 
 ideas and sound principles in the author of 
 the Open Letter. 
 
 The fact or right of my full ownership in 
 some exterior property is one thing, the du- 
 ration of my ownership or my property, an- 
 other. The second in no way affects the first. 
 When I give the object away, when it per- 
 ishes, or when I die, I cease to be the owner, 
 and the property ceases to be my property; 
 before that I am the owner, after that the 
 property passes to another owner or returns 
 to the storehouse of nature. Henry George 
 explicitly grants private ownership in ''such 
 things as buildings, which with repair will 
 last for generations;" he will undoubtedly 
 also grant it in such as will last so long with- 
 out repair ; likewise in the products of labor 
 and art which last for thousands of years, 
 like the Roman triumphal arches or the pyr- 
 amids of Egypt ; but he will not grant the pri- 
 vate ownership of the ground on which such 
 buildings or monuments are erected. Is 
 this not inconsistent? 
 
 ''3. That private property in land deprives 
 no one of the use of land. . . . You say 
 in substance, that even though divided among 
 private owners the earth does not cease to 
 minister to the needs of all, since those who 
 do not possess the soil can by selling their
 
 HENRY GEORGE VS. LEO XIII. 73 
 
 labor obtain in payment the produce of the 
 land." 
 
 Nothing is truer and more clearly evident 
 than what the Pope says. How does Henry 
 George ''refute" it? By two illustrations 
 which would be to the point only if the earth 
 were the common property of mankind or if 
 one man or a few men could appropriate a 
 whole country by occupancy. Next he calls 
 the Pope's attention to the miserable condi- 
 tion of various countries with large agricul- 
 tural districts, Italy, Roman Britain, the once 
 flourishing provinces of the East, Scotland, 
 Ireland, the United States, Australia, and 
 finally cries out: "To the mere materialist 
 this is sin and shame. Shall we to whom this 
 world is God's world ^we who hold that man 
 is called to this life only as a prelude to a 
 higher life shall we defend it?" As if the 
 writer in his Open Letter or elsewhere had 
 made it, we would not say certain, but in the 
 least probable, that all this universal misery 
 is due to the institution of landed property as 
 such, and not rather to the iniquities of indi- 
 vidual landowners, of speculators in land, of 
 possessors of movable capital, and the per- 
 verse or deficient legislation of many coun- 
 tries where the laws do not check the gravest 
 commercial and industrial abuses, by which
 
 74 HENRY GEORGE VS. LEO XIII. 
 
 the needy suffer most and the enormously 
 rich become richer still ! 
 
 '^4. That industry/ expended on land gives 
 ownership in the land itself." This is the 
 Pope's argument taken from the nature of 
 the soil and refers to ownerless land, as all 
 land originally was. Since the five pages 
 which Mr. George devotes to this head con- 
 tain absolutely nothing new, we may at once 
 pass to the next. 
 
 '^5^ That private property in land has the 
 support of the common opinion of mankind, 
 and has conduced to peace and tranquillity, 
 and that it is sanctioned by Divine Law. 
 
 *'Even were it true that the common opin- 
 ion of mankind has sanctioned private prop- 
 erty in land, this would no more prove its 
 justice, than the once universal practice of 
 the known world would have proved the jus- 
 tice of slavery." 
 
 In ethics a twofold kind of slavery is dis- 
 tinguished; one in which the essential rights 
 of man as a person and moral being are safe- 
 guarded, and the slave is merely bound to 
 perpetual service for perpetual support 
 Cfamulatus perpetuus pro perpetuis alimen- 
 tis") ; the other in which the slave is consid- 
 ered and treated as a chattel without rights. 
 Although even the former, or mitigated, kind
 
 HENRY GEORGE VS. LEO XIII. 75 
 
 of slavery is little in harmony with man's 
 natural dignity, yet it is not intrinsically and 
 absolutely opposed to the natural law. It 
 was allowed among the Jews (Levit. xxv, 44- 
 46) ; among the heathen nations of the ancient 
 world it had gradually become a social neces- 
 sity and was lawful; hence St. Paul ordered 
 Christian slaves 'Ho obey in all things [their] 
 masters according to the flesh" (Col. iii, 22). 
 The second kind, or absolute slavery, is in- 
 trinsically and essentially against the natural 
 law and was never licit, although it was wide- 
 ly practiced among heathen nations and even 
 sanctioned by their laws. But neither kind 
 of slavery can claim that universality in time 
 and space which the system of private land- 
 ownership can. Historically, the latter can 
 be traced back to the cradle of the human 
 race; it is found as a lasting institution 
 among all civilized nations; now and then 
 there occurs an instance of collective prop- 
 erty in land; it is always with peoples who 
 have no fixed habitation or with tribes still 
 on a low stage of culture; but as soon as 
 they give up their roving mode of life or when 
 they advance to a higher stage of civilization, 
 the system of common ownership is gradually 
 supplanted by the introduction of private 
 property in land.* 
 
 1 Cf. H. Pesch, 1. c, pp. 225-236.
 
 76 HENEY GEORGE VS. LEO XIII. 
 
 ''As to private property in land having 
 conduced to the peace and tranquillity of hu- 
 man life, it is not necessary more than to al- 
 lude to the notorious fact that the struggle 
 for land has been the prolific source of wars 
 and of lawsuits, while it is the poverty engen- 
 dered by private property in land [?] that 
 makes the prison and the workhouse the un- 
 failing attributes of what we call Christian 
 civilization. ' ' 
 
 Could we not ''allude" likewise to the no- 
 torious fact that the struggle for political 
 dominion or sovereignty has been the 
 "source" of numberless wars, and private 
 property in objects different from land the 
 "source" of countless lawsuits? In reality, 
 however, it is not political sovereignty, or 
 private property in land or chattels, that is 
 the source of so much strife among nations 
 or individuals, but the wickedness and greed 
 of men who do not respect the rights of 
 others, nations or individuals. Honest men 
 will respect the rights of their fellow-men, 
 and where the rights of individuals or pri- 
 vate societies are not respected, the higher 
 power of authority must step in to procure 
 for each his dues. Were there no rights of 
 private property, there would be no viola- 
 tions or wrongs either. Every one, there-
 
 HENRY GEORGE VS. LEO XIII. 77 
 
 fore, could without injustice deal with his 
 neighbor's so-called '' possessions" as he 
 pleased. The weaker would be at the mercy 
 of the stronger and no one could complain 
 or protest that he was wronged. Where 
 there are no rights, there are no wrongs! 
 The rights of property, however, being done 
 away with, man's greediness is not done away 
 with, but remains and is the more excited 
 as there are, in that supposition, no opposing 
 claims of justice to check its excesses. 
 
 ''Your Holiness intimates that the Divine 
 Law gives its sanction to the private owner- 
 ship of land, quoting from Deuteronomy, 
 * Thou shalt not covet, etc. ' If, as your Holi- 
 -ness conveys, this inclusion of the words, 'nor 
 his field,' is to be taken as sanctioning pri- 
 vate property in land as it exists to-day, 
 [we suppose that Henry George does not 
 mean to include in this phrase, which he uses 
 repeatedly, the particular cases of fraud on 
 the part of individual proprietors] then, 
 but with far greater force, must the words, 
 'his man-servant, nor his maid-servant,' be 
 taken to sanction chattel slavery [mitigated 
 slavery, viz., where it lawfully existed and as 
 long as it was not abolished] ; for it is evident 
 from other provisions of the same code that 
 these terms referred both to bondsmen for
 
 78 HENRY GEORGE VS. LEO XIII. 
 
 a term of years or to perpetual slaves [mit- 
 igated slavery]. But the word 'field' in- 
 volves the idea of use and improvement, 
 to which the right of possession and owner- 
 ship does attach without recognition of prop- 
 erty in the land itself. And that this refer- 
 ence to the 'field' is not a sanction of private 
 property in land as it exists to-day [ !] is 
 proved by the fact that the Mosaic code ex- 
 pressly denied such unqualified ownership in 
 land, and with the declaration, 'the land also 
 shall not be sold for ever, because it is mine, 
 and you are strangers and sojourners with 
 me,' provided for its reversion every fiftieth 
 year ; thus, in a way adapted to the primitive 
 industrial conditions of the time, securing to 
 all of the chosen people a foothold in the 
 soil." 
 
 Here our Agrarian Socialist gives his Holi- 
 ness, Pope Leo XIIL, "the head of the larg- 
 est body of Christians," a practical lecture on 
 exegetics! And he is clever enough to find 
 in the text of Moses just what he wants. The 
 word "field," he says, involves the idea of 
 use and improvement. But, our learned ex- 
 egete forgets that the same word "field" in- 
 volves before and above everything else the 
 soil. Moreover, he forgets that the word 
 "his" involves and designates individual
 
 HENRY GEORGE VS. LEO XIII. 79 
 
 ownership and that, consequently, the com- 
 bination ''his field" designates nothing else 
 than the much dreaded private ownership of 
 the soil. In fact, only he who owns the land 
 or soil can call the field ' ' his ; ' ' one who has 
 merely rented a farm, can not call it ''his." 
 In the Henry George theory, however, "the 
 individual possessor of a particular piece 
 or tract of land is in reality nothing more 
 than a tenant of the State or the community." 
 Hence the words of Deuteronomy "nor his 
 field," denote not merely possession or usu- 
 fruct in opposition to property in land, but 
 real property or ownership in land, just as 
 the words "nor his house," "nor his ox, nor 
 his ass, nor anything else which is his," sig- 
 nify real property or ownership. 
 
 The declaration of the Mosaic law, "The 
 land also shall not be sold for ever: because 
 it is mine, and you are strangers and so- 
 journers with me" (Levit. xxv, 23), means 
 nothing but a prohibition of selling landed 
 property. An Israelite could lease his land 
 or sell the usufruct up to the next "year of 
 the jubilee, ' ' but he could never sell the prop- 
 erty in land itself. The land in each case 
 belonged always, not to the whole of "the 
 chosen people," but to the particular family 
 to which it had been given at the first distri-
 
 80 HENRY GEORGE VS. LEO XIII. 
 
 bution after the conquest of Palestine, 
 Whatever land had been ^ ' sold, " i. e. leased, 
 had to be returned every fiftieth year. ' * And 
 thou shalt sanctify the fiftieth year, and shalt 
 proclaim remission to all the inhabitants of 
 thy land; for it is the year of the jubilee. 
 Every man shall return to his possession, 
 and every one shall go back to his former 
 family. ... In the year of the jubilee 
 all shall return to their possessions. . . . 
 For in that year all that is sold shall return 
 to the owner and to the ancient possessor." 
 (Levit. XXV, 10, 13, 28.) 
 
 The landed property among the Israelites 
 was not common but private, though by spe- 
 cial provision of the law inalienable and 
 transferable only by inheritance. ** Com- 
 mand the children of Israel and say to them : 
 When you shall have passed over the Jordan, 
 entering into the land of Chanaan, destroy 
 all the inhabitants of that land. . . . And 
 you shall divide it among you by lot. . . . 
 To every one as the lot shall fall, so shall 
 the inheritance be given. The possession 
 shall be divided by the tribes and the fam- 
 ilies" (Num. xxxiii, 51-54). Special regula- 
 tions were enacted concerning marriage, * ' lest 
 the possessions of the children of Israel be 
 mingled from tribe to tribe . . . that the
 
 HENRY GEORGE VS. LEO XIII. 81 
 
 inheritance may remain in the families, and 
 that the tribes be not mingled one with an- 
 other, but remain so as they were separated 
 by the Lord" (Num. xxxvi, 7-10). 
 
 The Israelites were truly ''the chosen peo- 
 ple," the people of divine predilection, and 
 God was in a particular sense their Lord 
 and God. Of this He wished them to be al- 
 ways mindful; therefore He reminded them 
 frequently that the land which they should 
 possess was the land which was His own, 
 which He had promised to their fathers, 
 which He would give them, to each family, 
 as it were, in particular, by a special dis- 
 position of His, viz., "by lot." A positive 
 and explicit grant by God is certainly a law- 
 ful title of full and complete ownership. But 
 we must remember that God grants His gifts 
 differently than man. What God grants or 
 gives to man, remains His as before, whilst 
 what one man gives to another, does not re- 
 main his. God is and remains necessarily 
 the Lord of all things, of the earth and all 
 its treasures, as well as of man and all he 
 has or acquires in any manner whatsoever. 
 Nevertheless man really owns whatever he 
 owns; but what he owns, is his own, not as 
 against the Lord and Creator of all things, 
 but ''as against all the world." 
 
 6
 
 82 HENRY GEORGE VS. LEO XIII. 
 
 In connection with the Mosaic code, it is 
 to be noted that private property in land 
 existed long before the Jewish lawgiver. 
 The Israelites had met with it in Egypt, 
 where it can be traced back several cen- 
 turies before Abraham; later on they found 
 it in Assyria and Babylonia, where it can 
 likewise be shown to have existed from the 
 earliest times. True, the Decalogue, as pro- 
 mulgated by Moses, had the force of a 
 ''positive divine law" for the Jews only, 
 but they were bound to observe it towards 
 all nations with whom they came in contact. 
 Moreover, although the whole Mosaic code 
 ceased with the introduction of the new 
 law, the ten commandments, with the excep- 
 tion of some details evidently intended only 
 for ''the chosen people" as such, were re- 
 newed by Christ and form part of the new 
 law, which is to last to the end of time. Ac- 
 cordingly, what Leo XIII. maintains is per- 
 fectly true, viz., private property in land 
 "has been sanctioned by the authority of the 
 divine law." The doctrine, therefore, de- 
 claring individual landownership to be mor- 
 ally wrong and unjust, is not only opposed 
 to reason, but also to divine revelation. 
 
 After the passage quoted above from his 
 Open Letter, Henry George continues as fol-
 
 HENRY GEORGE VS. LEO XIII. 83 
 
 lows: "Nowhere in fact throughout the 
 Scriptures can the slightest justification be 
 found for the attaching to land of the same 
 right of property that justly attaches to the 
 things produced by labor. Everywhere is 
 it treated as the free bounty of God, 'the 
 land which the Lord thy God giveth thee.* " 
 The audacity of this assertion is amazing. 
 The following texts need no comment. Our 
 Lord said to St. Peter: ''Every one that 
 hath left house, or brethren, or sisters, or 
 father, or mother, or wife, or children, or 
 lands for my name's sake: shall receive an 
 hundred-fold, and shall possess life everlast- 
 ing." (Matth. xix, 29). In the Acts we read 
 of the first Christians: "As many as were 
 owners of lands or houses sold them, and 
 brought the price of the things they sold, and 
 laid it down before the feet of the Apostles. 
 . . . And Joseph, . . . having land, 
 sold it, and brought the price. . . . But 
 a certain man named Ananias, with Saphira, 
 his wife, sold a piece of land, and by fraud 
 kept back part of the price of the land. 
 . . . But Peter said : Ananias, why hath 
 Satan tempted thy heart, that thou shouldst 
 . . . by fraud keep part of the price of the 
 land? Whilst it [the land] remained [un- 
 sold], did it not remain to thee? and after
 
 84 HENRY GEORGE VS. LEO XIII. 
 
 it was sold, was it [the price] not in thy 
 power [at thy free disposal] 1 Why hast 
 thou conceived this thing in thy heart?" 
 (Acts iv, 34-37; v, 1-4). 
 
 In these passages private property in land 
 is represented and declared as lawful, though 
 divesting one's self of it for God's sake is 
 described as an act of superior virtue. 
 Hence the contrary doctrine has always been 
 considered heretical. 
 
 ^'6. That fathers should provide for their 
 children and that private property in land is 
 necessary to enable them to do so. 
 
 "With all that your Holiness has to say 
 of the sacredness of the family relation we 
 are in full accord. But how the obligation 
 of the father to the child can justify private 
 property in land we cannot see." 
 
 We have here a sad case of color-blind- 
 ness. Henry George cannot see what the 
 Pontiff has made so clear by his argument ; 
 on the other hand, he sees things in the 
 papal text which are not there at all. To 
 begin with the former, the Pope starts from 
 the principle that the family, with its es- 
 sential duties and rights, is an institution 
 of nature, i. e., of God by the natural law. 
 Rights flow from duties. Now what is the 
 duty of a father? '*It is a most sacred
 
 HENEY GEORGE VS. LEO XIII. 85 
 
 natural law that a father must provide food 
 and all the necessaries for those whom he has 
 begotten." This is his strict duty. But his 
 natural love for his offspring urges him to 
 do more, to secure their welfare, so far as 
 in him lies, also in the future. '' And simi- 
 larly nature dictates that a man's children, 
 who carry on, as it were, and continue his 
 own personality, should be provided by him 
 with all that is needful to enable them honor- 
 ably to keep themselves from want and mis- 
 ery in the uncertainties of this mortal life." 
 This is the text of the translation which Mr. 
 George used. The original of the Encyclical 
 does not say: ''nature dictates," but: "be- 
 sides, nature herself instills in him also the 
 desire idemque (paterfamilias) illuc a 
 natura ipsa deducitur, ut velit liberis suis 
 . . . anquirere et parare, unde, etc. 
 to provide for the future of his children 
 . . . so as to enable them, etc." ''Now 
 in no other way can a father effect this ex- 
 cept by the ownership of profitable property, 
 which he can transmit to his children by in- 
 heritance. ' ' 
 
 What a pity that Henry George cannot 
 see the conclusiveness of this fine argument. 
 How could fathers of families provide the 
 necessaries of life if none could own even
 
 86 HENRY GEORGE VS. LEO XIII. 
 
 the least portion of the large storehouse 
 of nature, which alone, assisted indeed by 
 man's constant care and toil, can afford for 
 ever-recurring needs never-failing supplies? 
 And what would become of their authority 
 y and dignity as the God-appointed rulers and 
 chief managers of their households, if in 
 the necessaries of life all of which are 
 ultimately drawn from ''the earth with its 
 abundance and fertility" they would es- 
 sentially depend on the universal landowner, 
 the State, and the State's officials? As re- 
 gards the further desire, so natural in a 
 father, of providing for his offspring a se- 
 cure and honorable existence in the future 
 when he will have been taken from them, it 
 must certainly be right and lawful to satisfy 
 such a noble desire, and there must be means 
 to fulfill it. But which are these means ex- 
 cept ''profitable property [in land] which 
 one can transmit to his children by inherit- 
 ance"? An economic condition of society, 
 therefore, in which only a comparatively 
 small number of fathers are, or can be, 
 actual owners of landed property is far from 
 being the normal condition intended for man- 
 kind by the natural law; but a social ar- 
 rangement which precludes all heads of 
 families from becoming landed proprietors
 
 HENRY GEORGE VS. LEO XIII. 87 
 
 is directly ''against natural justice and 
 menaces the very existence of family life." 
 
 While alas ! Henry George can not perceive 
 the force in this argument of the Pope, he 
 sees on the other hand, several things in 
 it which no one else can find. He sees that 
 the teaching of Leo XIII. is against the 
 ''Our Father"! He writes: 
 
 "We do, for a few years, need the provi- 
 dence of our fathers after the flesh. But 
 how small, how transient, how narrow is 
 this need, as compared with our constant 
 need of the providence of Him in whom we 
 live, move and have our being Our Father 
 who art in Heaven ! It is to Him, ' the giver 
 of every good and perfect gift' and not to 
 our fathers after the flesh, that Christ taught 
 us to pray, 'Give us this day our daily 
 bread.' . . . What your Holiness is 
 actually, though of course inadvertently, 
 urging, is that earthly fathers should as- 
 sume the functions of the Heavenly Father. 
 It is not the business of one generation 
 to provide the succeeding generation with 
 'all that is needful to enable them honor- 
 ably to keep themselves from want and 
 misery.' That is God's business. We no 
 more create our children than we create our 
 fathers." [!!]
 
 88 HENRY GEORGE VS. LEO XIII. 
 
 He sees, besides, that the Pope, * ' of course 
 inadvertently," urges 'Uhe robbery of 
 others." ''The profitable property your 
 Holiness refers to, is private property in 
 land. Now profitable land, as all economists 
 will agree, is land superior to the land that 
 the ordinary man can get. [ !] It is land 
 that will yield an income to the owner as 
 owner, and therefore that will permit the 
 owner to appropriate the products of labor 
 without doing labor, its profitableness to the 
 individual involving the robbery of other 
 individuals. [ ! !] It is therefore possible 
 only for some fathers to leave their children 
 profitable land. What therefore your Holi- 
 ness practically declares is, that it is the 
 duty of all fathers to struggle to leave their 
 children what only the few peculiarly strong, 
 lucky or unscrupulous can leave; and that, 
 a something that involves the robbery of 
 others their deprivation of the material 
 gifts of God. This anti-Christian doctrine 
 has been long in practice throughout the 
 Christian world. What are its results? etc., 
 etc." [!!] 
 
 Towards the end of his letter Mr. George 
 even adds the charge of practical atheism. 
 "What is the prayer of Christendom the 
 universal prayer . . . that is repeated
 
 HENRY GEORGE VS. LEO XIII. 89 
 
 by the youngest child that the poorest Chris- 
 tian mother has taught to lisp a request to 
 her Father in Heaven? It is 'Give us this 
 day our daily bread!' Yet where this 
 prayer goes up, daily and hourly, men lack 
 bread. Is it not the business of religion to 
 say why? If it cannot do so, shall not 
 scoffers mock its ministers as Elias mocked 
 the prophets of Baal. . . . What answer 
 can those ministers give? . . . Here is 
 the answer, the only true answer: If men 
 lack bread it is not that God has not done 
 His part in providing it. . . . It is, that 
 impiously violating the benevolent intentions 
 of their Creator, men have made land pri- 
 vate property, and thus given into the ex- 
 clusive ownership of the few the provision 
 that a bountiful Father has made for all. 
 Any other answer than that, no matter how 
 it may be shrouded in the mere forms 
 of religion, is practically an atheistical 
 answer." [ !!] 
 
 ^'7. That the private ownership of land 
 stimulates industry, increases ivealth, and 
 attaches men to the soil and to their coun- 
 try." This sentence refers to a passage in 
 the second part of the Encyclical, where the 
 Pope says: '*We have seen that this great 
 labor question can not be solved except by
 
 90 HENRY GEORGE VS. LEO XIII. 
 
 assuming as a principle that private owner- 
 ship [in land] must be held sacred and in- 
 violate. The law, therefore, should favor 
 ownership, and its policy should be to in- 
 duce as many of the people as possible to 
 become owners. Many excellent results will 
 follow from this; and first of all, property 
 will certainly become more equally divided. 
 . . . Another consequence will be the 
 greater abundance of the fruits of the earth. 
 Men always work harder and more readily 
 when they work on that which is their own; 
 nay, they learn to love the very soil. . . . 
 And a third advantage would arise from 
 this ; men would cling to the country in which 
 they were born . . ." 
 
 Against the three points contained in the 
 heading Henry George has nothing to say. 
 But he thinks the advantages of the Single 
 Tax system would be far greater, in par- 
 ticular the security of the products of labor 
 and the permanence of landed possession. 
 In another chapter we shall demonstrate 
 the injustice of the single tax as a system of 
 taxation. Suffice it to remind our Agrarian 
 economist, that in his theory all holders of 
 land are mere tenants of the State ; they are, 
 therefore, at the mercy of this universal 
 landlord, who can change the tenants from
 
 HENRY GEORGE VS. LEO XIII. 91 
 
 one place to another by a simple decree of 
 the party in power, just as the holders of 
 State offices are now changed from time to 
 time. 
 
 ''8. That the right to possess private 
 property in land is from nature, not from 
 man; that the State has no right to abolish it, 
 and that to take the value of landoivnership 
 in taxation would he unjust and cruel to 
 landowners." 
 
 This chapter is nothing but a repetition of 
 former assertions plus a new encomium of the 
 Single Tax. We might call it a summary of 
 what has preceded. ' * That private property 
 in the products of labor is from nature, is 
 clear, for nature gives such things to labor 
 and to labor alone. Of every article of this 
 kind, we know that it came into being as 
 nature's response to the exertion of an indi- 
 vidual man or of individual men given by 
 nature directly and exclusively to him or to 
 them. . . . But who will dare trace the 
 individual ownership of land to any grant 
 from the Maker of land? What does nature 
 give to such ownership? How does she in 
 any way recognize * it ? Will anyone show 
 from difference of form or feature, of stature 
 or complexion, from dissection of their bodies 
 or analysis of their powers and needs, that
 
 92 HENRY GEORGE VS. LEO XIII. 
 
 one man was intended by nature to own land 
 and another to live on it as his tenant?" 
 This is a na'ive way of hiding one 's ignorance. 
 Let us recapitulate the true origin of 
 private property. The right of property 
 is the right of having an exterior object com- 
 pletely and exclusively for one's own use, 
 so as to be able to dispose of it fully and in- 
 dependently of others. It implies, there- 
 fore, a special connection between a partic- 
 ular object and an individual person or in- 
 dividual persons. Now by nature no such 
 special connection exists, all things being 
 per se and a priori ownerless. How, then, 
 does actual ownership arise? It arises in 
 each case from a concrete fact. In the case 
 of objects which are as yet without an owner, 
 this fact is occupancy or occupation. Occu- 
 pancy is the taking hold of an ownerless 
 object with the express intention of holding 
 it as one's own. This intention is expressed 
 by marking the object so as to distinguish 
 it from others not appropriated. Such ways 
 of ** marking" are manifold, according to 
 the nature of the objects, e. g., keeping some- 
 thing about one's person or in one's house; 
 with regard to land, fencing it in, but 
 especially physical changes by improvements 
 or cultivation. All appropriation by occu-
 
 HENRY GEORGE VS. LEO XIII. 93 
 
 pancy is by the very nature of this act limited 
 and may be further restricted by positive 
 laws. Transfers of property from one 
 owner to another take place by donation, 
 bequests, and various contracts. All these 
 methods and transactions imply the activity 
 of man and are dependent on various essen- 
 tial conditions and the just laws of civil 
 authority. Hence we can say with Leo XIII. 
 that, whilst by nature material goods are 
 neither owned by mankind at large nor by 
 individual men, "the actual distribution of 
 private possessions," in immovables as well 
 as movables, is effected ''by men's industry 
 and according to the laws of peoples." So 
 much for the objections of Henry George 
 against the arguments advanced in the En- 
 cyclical. 
 
 In his Open Letter Mr. George aims to 
 disabuse the Pope of his ''one false and 
 fatal assumption," the justice of individual 
 landownership. "If your Holiness will con- 
 sider these things we are confident that in- 
 stead of defending private property in land 
 you will condemn it with anathema I" "In 
 sending [this letter] to you personally and 
 in advance of publication, I trust that it may 
 be by you personally read and weighed. 
 . . . I trust that the considerations herein
 
 94 HENRY GEORGE VS. LEO XIII. 
 
 set forth may induce you [to question the 
 views hitherto held by you], and even if the 
 burdens and cares that beset you shall now 
 make impossible the careful consideration 
 that should precede expression by one in 
 your responsible position [!], I trust that 
 what I have written may not be without use 
 to others." Finally, "Wishing for your 
 Holiness the chiefest of all blessings, that 
 you may know the truth and be freed by 
 the truth, . . . and with the profound re- 
 spect due to your personal character and to 
 your exalted office, I am. Yours sincerely, 
 Heney George. New York, September 11, 
 1891." 
 
 Henry George believed that his letter made 
 a deep impression on Leo XIII. and that it 
 had attained its purpose. This we learn 
 from a communication approvingly quoted 
 by the New York Freeman's Journal, Janu- 
 ary 23, 1904. "In answering a correspond- 
 ent of the New York Sun, in January, 1893, 
 he [Mr. George] said: 'That the Encyclical 
 on the Condition of Labor seemed to me to 
 condemn the Single Tax theory is true. 
 But it made it clear that the Pope did not 
 rightly understand that theory. It was for 
 this reason that in the open letter to which 
 your correspondent refers, I asked permis-
 
 HENRY GEORGE VS. LEO XIII. 95 
 
 sion to lay before the Pope the grounds of 
 our belief and to show that 'our postulates 
 are all stated or implied in your Encyclical,' 
 and that 'they are the primary perceptions 
 of human reason, the fundamental teachings 
 of the Christian faith;' declaring that so 
 far from avoiding, 'we earnestly seek the 
 judgment of religion, the tribunal of which 
 your Holiness, as the head of the largest 
 body of Christians, is the most august repre- 
 sentative.' The answer has come. In the 
 reinstatement of Dr. McGlynn, on a correct 
 presentation of Single Tax doctrines, the 
 highest authority of the Catholic Church [ ! !] 
 has declared in the most emphatic manner 
 that there is nothing in them inconsistent 
 with Catholic faith." 
 
 Dr. Edward McGlynn 's case will be con- 
 sidered separately in the light of docu- 
 mentary evidence. Had Mr. George's Open 
 Letter, with its flimsy objections and numer- 
 ous absurdities, brought about a change in 
 the Pope's mind and made him renounce 
 the teaching of his magnificent Encyclical 
 "Rerum Novarum," verily this "conver- 
 sion" of Leo XIII. to the Single Tax theory 
 would have been one of the most sensational 
 events in the history of the papacy.
 
 VI. 
 
 THE "single tax," OR THE '' NATURAL" SYS- 
 TEM OF TAXATION 
 
 The Henry George theory of landowner- 
 ship has its practical application in the so- 
 called ** Single Tax." The former is the 
 necessary scientific basis of the latter. 
 Single Tax men take a particular pride not 
 only in having simplified, or rather sup- 
 planted, the complicated and expensive 
 methods of taxation hitherto in vogue, but 
 especially also in having discovered the only 
 method that is based on nature and that 
 therefore may rightly be called *' natural 
 taxation" or the <' natural tax." However, 
 since the scientific basis of this much vaunted 
 ''natural tax" has been shown, in a previous 
 chapter, to be philosophically false, the 
 ''natural tax" itself can not but be a mere 
 phantom of the imagination, like the theory 
 from which it springs. 
 
 The following extracts from Mr. George's 
 Open Letter to Pope Leo XIIL will give the 
 96
 
 THE SINGLE TAX 97 
 
 reader the gist of his luminous and eloquent 
 exposition of the subject: 
 
 "We propose, leaving land in the private 
 possession [without ownership] of indi- 
 viduals, with full liberty on their part to 
 give, sell or bequeath it, simply to levy on 
 it for public uses a tax that shall equal the 
 annual value of the land itself, irrespective 
 of the use made of it or the improvements 
 made upon it. And since this would provide 
 amply for the need of public revenues, we 
 would accompany this tax on land values 
 with the repeal of all taxes now levied on 
 the products and processes of industry 
 which taxes, since they take from the earn- 
 ings of labor, we hold to be infringements 
 of the right of property." . . . 
 
 *'No sooner does the State arise than, as 
 we all know, it needs revenues. . . . 
 With the growth of population and advance 
 of civilization the functions of the State in- 
 crease and larger and larger revenues are 
 needed. Now, He that made the world and 
 placed man in it, He that preordained civil- 
 ization as the means whereby man might rise 
 to higher powers and become more and more 
 conscious of the works of his Creator, must 
 have foreseen the increasing need for State 
 
 revenues and have made provision for it. 
 
 7
 
 98 THE SINGLE TAX 
 
 That is to say: the increasing need for pub- 
 lic revenues with social advance, being 
 a natural, God-ordained need, there must be 
 a right way of raising them some way that 
 we can truly say is the way intended by God. 
 It is clear that this right way of raising 
 public revenues must accord with the moral 
 law. 
 
 ' ' Hence : It must not take from individuals 
 what rightfully belongs to individuals" 
 in other words: a rightful tax can not be 
 one which is to be paid from the individual's 
 rightful property or from his own pocket! 
 Why not 1 Because * ' God can not contradict 
 Himself nor impose on His creatures laws 
 that clash. If it be [therefore] God's com- 
 mand to men that they should not steal 
 that is to say, that they should respect the 
 right of property which each one has in the 
 fruits of his labor;" God can not have or- 
 dained that men should be deprived of part 
 of their earnings or of their money in order 
 to enable the State to carry on its various 
 functions. But that is the case in ^ ' all taxes 
 now levied on the products and processes 
 of industry." Therefore we hear Henry 
 George declare that he holds all those taxes, 
 ** since they take from the earnings of
 
 THE SINGLE TAX 99 
 
 labor," to be unjust, 'Ho be infringements 
 of the right of property ! ' ' 
 
 This is a precious bit of modern eco- 
 nomics! When the Single Tax system will 
 once have been established, you will have 
 to pay taxes, but not from your own money. 
 And on the same principle that ' ' God can not 
 contradict Himself," you will have to pay 
 your physician in case of sickness, but never 
 from your own pocket. Also your tailor, 
 your baker, your grocer, etc., must not expect 
 to be paid from your own money, since this 
 would be an ''infringement of the right of 
 property." In the new era every one will 
 always and everywhere "respect the right 
 of property which each one has in the fruits 
 of his labor"! 
 
 Henry George continues: **To consider 
 what we propose the raising of public reve- 
 nues by a single tax on the value of land ir- 
 respective of improvements is to see that 
 in all respects this does conform to the moral 
 law. Let me ask your Holiness to keep in 
 mind that the value we propose to tax, the 
 value of land irrespective of improvements, 
 does not come from any exertion of labor or 
 investment of capital on or in it the values 
 produced in this way being values of im-
 
 100 THE SINGLE TAX 
 
 provements which we would exempt. The 
 value of land irrespective of improvement 
 is the value that attaches to land by reason 
 of increasing population or social progress. 
 This is a value that always goes to the owner 
 as owner, and never does and never can go 
 to the user; for if the user be a different 
 person from the owner he must always pay 
 the owner for it in rent or in purchase 
 money; while if the user be also the owner, 
 it is as owner, not as user, that he receives 
 it, and by selling [ ?] or renting the land he 
 can, as owner, continue to receive it after 
 he ceases to be a user. 
 
 ''Thus, taxes on land irrespective of im- 
 provement can not lessen the reward of 
 industry, nor add to prices, nor in any way 
 take from the individual what belongs to the 
 individual. [That would be downright rob- 
 bery!] They can only take the value that 
 attaches to land by the growth of the com- 
 munity, and which therefore belongs to the 
 community as a whole. 
 
 *'To take land values for the State, abol- 
 ishing all taxes on the products of labor, 
 would therefore leave to the laborer the full 
 produce of labor, to the individual all that 
 rightfully belongs to the individual." 
 
 This passage contains the whole justifi-
 
 THE SINGLE TAX 101 
 
 cation Henry George can give and does give 
 for the Single Tax. The land value is justly 
 collected as a tax from every ''possessor and 
 user" of land for two reasons: (1.) because 
 the land value always goes to the owner as 
 such; now the State or the community as 
 such, not the individual, is the real owner of 
 the land ; hence the land value must go to the 
 community or State; (2.) the land value does 
 not come from labor or from investment of 
 capital, but arises merely from the growth 
 of the community and from social progress; 
 hence it belongs by right to the community 
 or State. With these two reasons the Single 
 Tax stands or falls. Here we have the cru- 
 cial test. 
 
 The importance of this point, we think, 
 will justify our adding to the quotations 
 already given the following passages from 
 Progress and Poverty. 
 
 In Book VII., ch. III. (p. 262), Henry 
 George, having cited these sentences from 
 John Stuart Mill: ''The land of Ireland, the 
 land of every country, belongs to the people 
 of that country. The individuals called land- 
 owners have no right in morality and justice 
 to anything but the rent, or compensation 
 for its salable value" exclaims indignantly: 
 "In the name of the Prophet figs! If the
 
 102 THE SINGLE TAX 
 
 land of any country belong to the people of 
 that country, what right, in morality and 
 justice, have the individuals called land- 
 owners to the rent? If the land belong to 
 the people, why in the name of morality and 
 justice should the people pay its salable 
 value for their own?" 
 
 Equally emphatic is his answer to the 
 author of the "synthetic philosophy." 
 ''Herbert Spencer says: 'Had we to deal 
 with the parties who originally robbed the 
 human race of its heritage, we might make 
 short work of the matter.' Why not make 
 short work of the matter anyhow? For this 
 robbery is not like the robbery of a horse or 
 of 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 merely a robbery in the past ; it is 
 a robbery in the present a robbery that 
 deprives of their birth-right the infants that 
 are now coming into the world ! Why should 
 we hesitate about making short work of such 
 a system? ... If the land belong to the 
 people, why continue to permit landowners 
 to take the rent, or compensate them in any 
 manner for the loss of rent? Consider what 
 rent is. It does not arise spontaneously 
 from land ; it is due to nothing that the land-
 
 THE SINGLE TAX 103 
 
 owners have done. It represents a value 
 created by the whole community. Let the 
 landholders have, if you please, all that the 
 possession of the land would give them in 
 the absence of the rest of the community. 
 But rent, the creation of the whole com- 
 munity, necessarily belongs to the whole 
 community.'^ 
 
 Let us now consider the two reasons ad- 
 vanced by Mr. George with such eloquence 
 and fervor. 
 
 First, he argues : If the land of a country 
 belongs to the people, the community of that 
 country, then the land value necessarily 
 must go to the community of that country; 
 this value always goes to the owner as such. 
 Very good. But this "if" is not verified. 
 To maintain, as Mr. George does, that the 
 land of a country belongs to the people of 
 that country as a whole, and not to the indi- 
 viduals who have by some title or other ac- 
 quired parts of it, is false. 
 
 As to the second reason : the land value is 
 not the product of the individual's labor or 
 investment of capital we readily grant the 
 statement; but permit us to ask: Is it the 
 product of the community's labor or invest- 
 ment of capital? Evidently it is not; it 
 arises, as our economist himself says, from
 
 104 THE SINGLE TAX 
 
 the growth of the community and from social 
 progress. 
 
 The land value of which there is question 
 here, is not an inherent physical quality of 
 the land, which makes it better or more fer- 
 tile and consequently more desirable or more 
 valuable. Hence it is not and need not be 
 produced by the forces of nature nor by any 
 kind of labor. The object being given, its 
 increasing or decreasing value is consequent 
 upon certain extrinsic circumstances, in some- 
 what the same way as a good, substantial 
 meal has a greater *' value" for a hungry 
 man than for one having little or no appe- 
 tite. The meal has a producer, but not its 
 value as such ; the latter supposes merely an 
 empty stomach. 
 
 The actual value (exchange value) of an 
 object is nothing else than its fitness or ca- 
 pacity of being exchanged for other useful 
 objects. This springs directly from the gen- 
 eral estimation of men based on the useful- 
 ness of the object to satisfy some want or 
 desire, and on the greater or lesser difficulty 
 of obtaining it.^) Suppose a community in 
 a certain stage of civilization, and you have 
 
 1 Cf. A. Vermeersch, S.J., Quaestiones de Justitia. 1901, 
 N. 336. "Vera ratio valoris."
 
 THE SINGLE TAX 105 
 
 ipso facto certain needs and desires in that 
 community which are to be satisfied. Now 
 suppose, besides, various goods capable of 
 satisfying those wants and desires, and also 
 certain facilities of communication and of in- 
 tercourse which make the exchange of dif- 
 ferent objects in that community feasible; 
 then, without any further exertion, labor or 
 production, the various useful objects, 
 whether merchandise or real estate, will, by 
 common estimation, possess a certain ex- 
 change value; and this value will for the 
 selfsame unchanged object vary, decrease 
 or increase according as the extrinsic cir- 
 cumstances vary. To whom, then, does 
 the exchange value of such an object be- 
 long? Evidently to nobody else but the 
 owner of that object. Being really and 
 truly the owner of the object, of the entire 
 object, he owns it with all that is in it, 
 whether actually or potentially; he owns it 
 with all its usefulness to satisfy the needs 
 and desires of the owner himself, i. e., with 
 its '^use value"; he owns it with all its ca- 
 pacity of obtaining by exchange some other 
 good, i. e., with its ** exchange value." The 
 exchange value no less than the use value 
 belongs in justice to the owner of the object ;
 
 106 THE SINGLE TAX 
 
 he enjoys all the advantage in case of an in- 
 crease, as he has to bear all the ensuing dis- 
 advantage in case of a decrease. 
 
 This common sense answer does not fit 
 into the arbitrary systems of ''modern econ- 
 omists," but it is sound philosophy for all 
 that. It is but an application of the saying, 
 "Res fructificat domino," which is a maxim 
 of natural as well as of positive jurispru- 
 dence. He who denies the owner of an ob- 
 ject its exchange value, denies his right of 
 ownership. For what does it mean to say: 
 "This object, e. g., this bicycle, belongs to 
 me." It means, according to all men, that 
 he who can truly say so, has the full, free, 
 and exclusive right of disposing of it, and 
 that he can, independently of all others, en- 
 joy the advantages that result for him from 
 such disposal or use. He may ride on his bi- 
 cycle for the sake of exercise; he may shut 
 it up in a store-room ; he may give it away as 
 a present; he may also, if he chooses, ex- 
 change it for some other useful object. If 
 he makes such an exchange, that which he 
 thus acquires becomes as truly and completely 
 his, as was the object with which he parted. 
 To deprive him, therefore, of the whole or 
 of a part of the object acquired, would man- 
 ifestly be an infringement of the right of
 
 THE SINGLE TAX 107 
 
 property, and to deny him the right to the 
 whole benefit of the exchange, would in re- 
 ality be to deny or destroy his right of 
 ownership. 
 
 Hence it is that mankind's natural sense 
 of justice applies this principle constantly 
 to every species of property. Take a horse 
 dealer who owns two hundred fine horses. 
 Suppose from some cause or other the price 
 of these animals rises; then his gain, which 
 all acknowledge to be truly his, will perhaps 
 be twice as large as it would have been under 
 ordinary circumstances. The owner of a 
 dairy farm will with the same amount of 
 work make greater or smaller gains accord- 
 ing as the price of milk, butter, and cheese 
 rises or falls. The exchange value is an eco- 
 nomical growth, ''increment" or fruit of the 
 object; it belongs, therefore, to the owner 
 of the object no less than the natural fruit 
 of a tree belongs to the owner of the tree. 
 The ownership of an object and the owner- 
 ship of its fruit are inseparably connected. 
 In order to be logically justified in denying 
 the right to the land value, one must neces- 
 sarily deny the ownership of the land; and 
 in order justly to claim the land value for 
 the community, he must necessarily declare 
 the community to be the universal landlord.
 
 108 THE SINGLE TAX 
 
 This Henry George understood and he was 
 sincere enough to state it publicly. Hence 
 his bold declaration in Progress and Poverty: 
 ''If private property in land be just, then is 
 the remedy I propose a false one ; if, on the 
 contrary, private property in land be unjust, 
 then is this remedy the true one." 
 
 But Henry George not only maintains that 
 ''confiscating rent" is in accordance with the 
 moral law; he goes still farther. He holds 
 it to be the God-intended way of raising 
 the necessary revenues of the State, and sees, 
 moreover, in the natural provision of this 
 never-failing source of public revenue an ad- 
 mirable proof of the divine wisdom and good- 
 ness on behalf of mankind. Let us listen, for 
 a few moments, to his enthusiastic expatia- 
 tions in the Open Letter to Pope Leo XIII.: 
 
 "But, further: that God has intended the 
 State to obtain the revenues it needs by the 
 taxation of land values is shown by the same 
 order and degree of evidence that shows that 
 God has intended the milk of the mother for 
 the nourishment of the babe. [ ! !] . See how 
 close is the analogy. . . . See how with 
 the growth of such [large] cities the one 
 thing that steadily increases in value is land ; 
 how the opening of roads, the building of 
 railways, the making of any public improve-
 
 THE SINGLE TAX 109 
 
 ment, adds to the value of land. Is it not 
 clear that here is a natural law that is to 
 say a tendency willed by the Creator? Can 
 it mean anything else than that He who or- 
 dained the State with its needs has in the val- 
 ues which attach to land provided the means 
 to meet those needs? . . . 
 
 *'The Eight Reverend Dr. Thomas Nulty, 
 Bishop of Meath, who sees all this as clearly 
 as we do, in pointing out to the clergy and 
 laity of his diocese [April 2nd, 1881] the de- 
 sign of Divine Providence that the rent of 
 land should be taken for the community, says : 
 *I think, therefore, that I may fairly infer, 
 on the strength of authority as well as of 
 reason, that the people are and always must 
 be the real owners of the land of their coun- 
 try. [The philosophically false and theolog- 
 ically heretical doctrine of common (na- 
 tional) land ownership!] This great social 
 fact appears to me to be of incalculable im- 
 portance. . . . There is, moreover, a 
 charm and a peculiar beauty in the clearness 
 with which it reveals the wisdom and benevo- 
 lence of the designs of Providence in the ad- 
 mirable provision He has made for the wants 
 and the necessities of that state of social 
 existence of which He is author. ... A 
 vast public property, a great national fund,
 
 110 THE SINGLE TAX 
 
 has been placed under tlie dominion and at 
 the disposal of the nation to supply itself 
 abundantly with resources necessary to liqui- 
 date the expenses of its government, the ad- 
 ministration of its laws, and the education of 
 its youth, and to enable it to provide for the 
 suitable sustentation and support of its crim- 
 inal and pauper population.' . . . 
 
 ''There is, indeed, as Bishop Nulty says, 
 a peculiar beauty in the clearness with which 
 the wisdom and benevolence of Providence 
 are revealed in this great social fact, the pro- 
 vision made for the common needs of society 
 in what economists call the law of rent. Of 
 all the evidences that natural religion gives, 
 it is this that most clearly shows the existence 
 of a beneficent God and most conclusively 
 silences the doubts that in our days lead so 
 many to materialism." 
 
 These enthusiastic sentiments of Bishop 
 Nulty and Henry George, alas! are like the 
 emotions called forth by the reading of a 
 thrilling novel. They are based on fiction, 
 not on truth and reality. There is no such 
 "vast public property," no such ** great na- 
 tional fund" ! And there can be none! For, 
 as Leo XIII. in harmony with ancient and 
 modern philosophy has so clearly demon- 
 strated in his grand Encyclical which Henry
 
 THE SINGLE TAX 111 
 
 George tried to refute by bold assertions and 
 rhetorical phrases, the welfare of the indi- 
 vidual, of the family, and of human society 
 at large demands that temporal goods, land 
 as well as movables, should be divided and 
 owned severally. Hence God did not give 
 the earth to the whole of mankind as their 
 common property or the land of a country 
 to the nation of that country as a whole, 
 but He wished the earth to be divided, ' ' leav- 
 ing the actual distribution of private posses- 
 sions to men's industry and to the law of 
 peoples." Such is human nature and such, 
 therefore, are the designs of God's wisdom 
 and benevolence. 
 
 The beauty which Bishop Nulty and Henry 
 George admire in the design of ''taking the 
 rent of land for the community, " or of rais- 
 ing the public revenues by a single tax on the 
 value of land irrespective of improvements, ' ' 
 is no beauty at all, but an insult to justice. 
 For what does the Single Tax practically 
 mean? It means neither more nor less than 
 this: all taxes are to be paid by those who 
 own land; all others, even if they possess 
 millions, go scot free. The injustice of such 
 a system of taxation is so glaring that one 
 must be blinded by prejudice or lack every 
 notion of equity not to see it. Moreover,
 
 112 THE SINGLE TAX 
 
 that the laying of all taxes on landowners 
 would inevitably ruin agriculture and thus 
 jeopardize the prosperity of nations, is so ob- 
 vious an inference that the arbitrary and oft- 
 repeated assertions of Henry George to the 
 contrary can not in the least dim its evidence.
 
 VII. 
 
 DE. EDWARD McGLYNN AND HENEY GEOEGE 
 
 Henry George had no greater admirer nor 
 stauncher follower than Eev. Dr. Edward 
 McGlynn. At the funeral ceremonies which 
 were held for Mr. George in Grand Central 
 Palace, New York, October 30th, 1897, Dr. 
 McGlynn made the following remarks : 
 
 **We stand upon ground that is made sa- 
 cred by what remains of a man who was 
 raised up by a peculiar providence of a 
 Father in Heaven to deliver to men a mes- 
 sage of truth, of righteousness, of justice, 
 and of peace on earth. . . . This man 
 was not merely a philosopher and a sage, 
 but he was a seer, a prophet, a forerunner 
 and preacher sent by God. . . . Why is 
 this vast crowd here to-day and a vaster 
 crowd seeking admission outside to honor the 
 memory of Henry George? Why is it that 
 vast multitudes have passed this coflfin to- 
 day? It is because there was a man sent of 
 God, and his name was Henry George. And 
 8 113
 
 114 DR. McGLYNN 
 
 when God has sent such a messenger with 
 such a message, the hearts of mankind are 
 stirred to the depths. . . . That book 
 [Progress and Poverty] is the work of a 
 sage, of a seer, of a philosopher, of a poet. 
 It is not merely political economy, it is not 
 merely political philosophy, but it is a poem, 
 a prophecy, a prayer. ' ' 
 
 In a communication prepared for the press 
 Dr. McGlynn said of his deceased friend : ' ' I 
 believe that those gifts of his marked him 
 out singularly as a man raised up by the 
 providence of God to revise and to perfect 
 the teachings of the fundamental political 
 and economic verities that are absolutely es- 
 sential to the preservation of the Republic 
 and the healing of nations. I learned long 
 since that Mr. George's was essentially a 
 religious spirit. . . . He believed, and I 
 believed with him, that the carrying out of 
 his magnificent political philosophy and econ- 
 omy would make practical the preamble of 
 the Declaration of Independence and bring 
 about justice and equality in this world and 
 a better commonwealth and a truer Republic. 
 . . . It was for these reasons that I gave 
 heart and hand to Henry George in his work 
 and that I took active part in his first won- 
 derful mayoralty campaign [1886] and as
 
 AND HENRY GEORGE 115 
 
 far as I could with propriety helped in the 
 present one [1897]. I have made no secret of 
 my sympathy, and I would have all those 
 whom I could influence anywhere to know that 
 the doctrines of Mr. George are in the fullest 
 consonance with the teachings of the true re- 
 ligion, with the essentials of that religion of 
 the brotherhood of man under the fatherhood 
 of God." 
 
 It is not our intention to asperse the per- 
 sonal character of Mr. George or to question 
 the sincerity of his purpose to better the 
 condition of his fellow-men. We are deal- 
 ing exclusively with his economic system and 
 teaching as contained in his published works. 
 After having carefully examined his system 
 in all its details and compared it with the 
 principles of sound philosophy, and partic- 
 ularly with the explicit and unmistakable 
 teaching of the Encyclical ''Rerum Nova- 
 rum," we are forced to characterize Henry 
 George thus : If he was a poet, he was a poet 
 of mere fiction ; if he was a prophet, he was a 
 false prophet ; if he delivered to men a mes- 
 sage, it was not one of truth and justice. His 
 entire economic system is one huge error, 
 conflicting alike with human reason, with ec- 
 clesiastical teaching, and with divine revela- 
 tion. It is Agrarian Socialism, but Socialism y^ 
 
 '/
 
 116 DE. McGLYNN 
 
 in its proper meaning, undermining the very 
 foundation of a well-ordered human existence 
 and utterly destructive of the social order. 
 
 The same verdict applies, of course, to Dr. 
 McGlynn's teaching, which, according to his 
 words quoted above, is none other than that 
 of Henry George. About this there can not 
 be the least doubt. There exists a clear and 
 explicit statement of his economic views, 
 written by the Doctor himself, and, we are 
 told, ' * approved by Henry George, in a letter 
 to the New York Sun, as a correct exposition 
 of his land theory." Undoubtedly, ''Henry 
 George was the best judge of a correct state- 
 ment of his own principles." 
 
 We might, therefore, dismiss said state- 
 ment as containing nothing that we have not 
 already met with and rejected in Mr. 
 George's writings. But certain events con- 
 nected with that document have caused in 
 some minds such a confusion concerning the 
 main issue, that there seems to be no hope 
 of removing it until we understand clearly, 
 on the merits of the statement itself, whether 
 or not it is to be judged orthodox. About 
 this, as about all other points, we would have 
 the reader judge for himself. We shall sub- 
 mit to him the text of the statement without 
 any omissions, interspersing only such re-
 
 AND HENRY GEORGE 117 
 
 marks as will point out or summarize the real 
 meaning of the Doctor or show the opposition 
 of his tenets to the teachings of Leo XIII. 
 The entire document fills one and a half col- 
 umn in the New York Freeman's Journal 
 of February 6th, 1904. It will be sufficient 
 for our purpose to quote the first half. It 
 runs thus : 
 
 "All men are endowed by the law of nature 
 with the right to life and to the pursuit of 
 happiness, and therefore with the right to 
 exert their energies upon those natural boun- 
 ties without which labor or life is impossi- 
 ble." 
 
 The "natural bounties" here spoken of, as 
 we shall learn presently, are "the earth." 
 The term is a favorite expression of Henry 
 George and may almost be considered one 
 of his technical terms. The second half of 
 the sentence quoted is vague and obscure for 
 the "uninitiated" reader; the initiated will 
 find in it the embryo from which the whole 
 theory of common landownership is easily 
 evolved. In the same manner Henry George 
 succeeded in smuggling his theory into the 
 fifth and sixth of the "postulates" with 
 which he begins his Open Letter to Pope Leo 
 XIIL 
 
 "God has granted those natural bounties.
 
 118 DR. McGLYNN 
 
 that is to say, the earth, to mankind in gen- 
 eral, so that no part of it has been assigned 
 to any one in particular, and so that the 
 limits of private possession have been left 
 to be fixed by man's own industry and the 
 laws of individual peoples." 
 
 Leo XIII. writes: **Deus (enim) generi 
 hominum donavisse terram in commune di- 
 citur, . . . quia partem nullam cuique as- 
 signavit possidendam, industriae hominum 
 institutisque populorum permissa privatarum 
 possessionum descriptione." 
 
 These two quotations resemble each other 
 strikingly. Is the almost absolute identity 
 of the two statements a mere chance? The 
 wording is the same and yet, what Dr. Mc- 
 Glynn asserts in his declaration is diametric- 
 ally opposed to what Leo XIII. teaches in his 
 Encyclical. The following will make this clear. 
 
 ''God has granted the earth to mankind in 
 general," says the Doctor. Here he affirms 
 the common ownership of the earth by man- 
 kind at large. This common ownership he 
 designates a little farther on as the "common 
 right to natural bounties" or the ''dominion 
 over the natural bounties," and adds that 
 "the maintenance of this dominion over the 
 natural bounties is a primary function and 
 duty of the organized community."
 
 AND HENRY GEORGE 119 
 
 The Doctor mentions also ''the limits of 
 private possession" (of portions of the land). 
 What does he mean by this "private posses- 
 sion ' ' 1 He means ' ' possession ' ' in the Geor- 
 gian sense, as distinct from and exclusive 
 of ownership, or property, i. e., mere ten- 
 antcy. This is evident from the paragraphs 
 immediately following, where he carefully 
 distinguishes between ''private property and 
 dominion in the fruits of industry or in what 
 is produced by labor out of those natural 
 bounties, ' ' on the one hand, and ' ' the use and 
 undisturbed, permanent, exclusive private 
 possession of portions of the natural boun- 
 ties," on the other. "Such exclusive posses- 
 sion," we are told, "is necessary to the own- 
 ership, use, and enjoyment by the individual 
 of the fruits and products of his industry." 
 
 Hence, according to Dr. McGlynn, there 
 exist two kinds of private or individual 
 right, viz., the right of "possession," as dis- 
 tinct from ownership, dominion or property, 
 of portions of the land, and the right of 
 "ownership," (dominion or property) in the 
 fruits and products of one's industry. Over 
 and above these two individual or private 
 rights we have the common right of owner- 
 ship (dominion) in the land itself, vested in 
 the community as such. We need hardly
 
 120 DR. McGLYNN 
 
 mention that with regard to one and the same 
 object common and private ownership ex- 
 clude each other. Hence the assertion of 
 common landownership implies the negation 
 of private landownership, just as the affirm- 
 ation of private property in the fruits of in- 
 dustry involves the negation of common own- 
 ership in the same. Accordingly, Dr. Mc- 
 Glynn's theory of ownership is embodied in 
 these three assertions: (1.) the ownership 
 in land is common, not private; (2.) there is, 
 however, private possession, without owner- 
 ship, of land; (3.) there is private ownership 
 in the products of labor. 
 
 After these explanations the reader will 
 find no difficulty in grasping the precise and 
 entire meaning of Dr. McGlynn's statement. 
 We repeat the second sentence already 
 quoted : 
 
 *'God has granted those natural bounties, 
 that is to say, the earth, to mankind in gen- 
 eral, so that no part of it has been assigned 
 to any one in particular, and so that the 
 limits of private possession have been left 
 to be fixed by man's own industry and the 
 laws of individual peoples. 
 
 *'But it is a necessary part of the liberty 
 and dignity of man that man should own him- 
 self always, of course, with perfect subju-
 
 AND HENRY GEORGE 121 
 
 gation to the moral law. Therefore, beside 
 the common right to natural bounties, there 
 must be by the law of nature private property 
 and dominion in the fruits of industry or 
 in what is produced by labor out of those 
 natural bounties to which the individual may 
 have legitimate access, that is, so far as he 
 does not infringe the equal right of others 
 or the common rights. 
 
 ''It is a chief function of civil govern- 
 ment to maintain equally sacred these two 
 natural rights. 
 
 ''It is lawful and it is for the best interest 
 of the individual and of the community, and 
 necessary for civilization that there should be 
 a division as to the use and an undisturbed, 
 permanent, exclusive private possession of 
 portions of the natural bounties, or of the 
 land; in fact, such exclusive possession is 
 necessary to the ownership, use, and enjoy- 
 ment by the individual of the fruits and prod- 
 ucts of his industry. 
 
 "But the organized community, through 
 civil government, must always maintain the 
 dominion over those natural bounties, as dis- 
 tinct from the products of private industry 
 and from that private possession of the land 
 which is necessary for their enjoyment. The 
 maintenance of this dominion over the nat-
 
 122 DR. McGLYNN 
 
 ural bounties is a primary function and duty 
 of the organized/ community, in order to main- 
 tain the equal right of all men to labor for 
 their living and for the pursuit of happiness, 
 and therefore their equal right of access di- 
 rectly or indirectly to natural bounties." 
 
 Let us pause for a moment. Dr. McGlynn 
 never tires of repeating the three natural 
 rights which constitute his and Mr. George's 
 theory of ownership, viz., common ownership 
 in land, private possession, as distinct from 
 ownership, of land, and private ownership 
 in the fruits of labor. 
 
 Leo XIIL rejects common landownership 
 and affirms private ownership in land no less 
 than ownership in the fruits of labor. It is 
 his express purpose in the first part of the 
 '^Rerum Novarum" to maintain and defend 
 the existence of private ownership, especially 
 in land, by natural right. He always speaks 
 of the same thing, real property, true owner- 
 ship, which he designates in most varied and 
 sometimes striking terms, such as "rerum 
 dominium vel moventium vel solidarum" 
 '^possidere res privatim ut suas" ''bona 
 stabili perpetuoque jure possidenda" *'ter- 
 rae dominatus" '*jus dominii personis sin- 
 gularibus natura tributum.'* 
 
 As regards the Latin ''possessiones" in
 
 AND HENRY GEORGE 123 
 
 particular, it is to be noted that throughout 
 the Encyclical and in Latin authors generally 
 this term means real property, especially / 
 landed property or real estate. It is entirely 
 different from the term ** possession," as used 
 by Henry George and Dr. McGlynn, in direct 
 opposition to real property or ownership. 
 Hence, if Dr. McGlynn, on the one hand, ad- 
 mits "private possession of the land" and 
 speaks of ''the limits of [suchl private pos- 
 session left to be fixed by man's own indus- 
 try and the laws of individual peoples"; and 
 if Leo XIIL, on the other, defends the law- 
 fulness of ''private (landed) possessions" 
 and speaks of "the actual distribution of 
 [such] private possessions left to men's own 
 industry and to the laws of peoples," the 
 meaning of the Doctor, as we said above, is 
 diametrically opposed to that of the Pope. 
 By that phrase Dr. McGlynn denies private 
 ownership in land. By the same phrase Leo 
 XIIL affirms it. He only repeats what he had 
 more than once stated before in most explicit 
 terms, such as these: " Consequitur, ut in 
 homine esse non modo terrenorum fructuum, 
 sed ipsius terrae dominatum oporteat. 
 Hence it must be possible for man to acquire 
 as property not only the fruits of the earth, 
 but the very soil itself." 
 
 /
 
 124 DE. McGLYNN 
 
 Moreover, Dr. McGlynn maintains that 
 God granted the earth as common property 
 to mankind at large, and adds that ' * the main- 
 tenance of this dominion over the natural 
 bounties, as distinct from the products of 
 private industry and from the (necessary) 
 private possession of the land, is a primary 
 function and duty of the organized commu- 
 nity. ' ' Leo XIII. rejects common landowner- 
 ship. This follows, first, from the fact that 
 he teaches the justice and necessity of private 
 landownership, the latter being incompatible 
 with common landownership. Besides, he 
 declares it directly by a clause which Dr. 
 McGlynn omitted in his reproduction of the 
 papal text. 
 
 These are the words of the Pope (italics 
 ours): ''Quod vero terram Deus universo 
 generi hominum utendam, fruendam dederit, 
 id quidem non potest ullo pacto privatis 
 possessionibus obesse. Deus enim generi 
 hominum donavisse terram in commune 
 dicitur, non quod ejus promiscuum apud 
 omnes dominatum voluerit, sed quia partem 
 nullam cuique assignavit possidendam, indus- 
 triae hominum institutisque populorum per- 
 missa privatarum possessionum descrip- 
 tione. ' ' 
 
 This is the literal rendering of the text:
 
 AND HENRY GEORGE 125 
 
 ''The fact, furthermore, that God has given 
 the earth for the use and enjoyment of the 
 whole human race, does not in the least pre- 
 vent the lawfulness of private possessions. 
 For if it is said that God gave the earth to 
 mankind in common, this is not to be under- 
 stood as if He wished the common ownership 
 of the earth vested in all men, but because He 
 did not assign to any one the possession of 
 any particular portion of the earth, leaving 
 the actual distribution of private possessions 
 to men's industry and to the laws of peo- 
 ples." (Italics ours.) 
 
 This is Dr. McGlynn's ''version" of the 
 second sentence of the passage: "God has 
 granted those natural bounties, that is to say, 
 the earth, to mankind in general, so that no 
 part of it has been assigned to any one in 
 particular, and so that the limits of private 
 possession have been left to be fixed by man's 
 own industry and the laws of individual peo- 
 ples." 
 
 Here the essential and decisive clause of 
 the Latin text, marked by us with italics, is 
 altogether omitted ; besides, the combined ad- 
 versative and causal conjunctions '^sed 
 quia" are replaced by a simple consecutive 
 "so that"; moreover, the Latin ablative ab- 
 solute, which here is equivalent to an absolute
 
 126 DR. McGLYNN 
 
 sentence, is likewise changed into a simple 
 consecutive clause and added to the preceding 
 one, *'and so that"; finally, the term ''priva- 
 tarum possessionum," which in the Encycli- 
 cal means private property in land, is ren- 
 dered by ''private possession" in the Georg- 
 ian sense, excluding the right of property or 
 ownership. By these subterfuges Dr. Mc- 
 Glynn succeeded in manipulating what re- 
 mained of the Pope's weighty utterance so 
 as to make it convey a meaning directly op- 
 posed to that which it has in the Encyclical. 
 The Pope denies ''the common ownership of 
 the earth vested in all men"; Dr. McGlynn 
 affirms such common ownership and dominion 
 of the earth. The Pope affirms real private 
 property in land to be in harmony with the 
 general destination of the earth for the ben- 
 efit of the entire human race; Dr. McGlynn 
 allows the individual nothing but the mere 
 holding and use of land, without "private 
 property and dominion, ' ' which he restricts to 
 "the fruits of industry or what is produced 
 by labor out of those natural bounties to 
 which the individual may have legitimate 
 access." 
 
 So far we have examined the first part of 
 Dr. McGlynn 's statement, in which he briefly 
 expounds his theory of ownership. It is the
 
 AND HENRY GEORGE 127 
 
 Henry George doctrine : the denial of private 
 and the assertion of common ownership in 
 land. We now come to the second part of 
 his statement. It contains the application of 
 this theory of ownership, and treats of the 
 land rent and the Single Tax. Here, too, 
 the Doctor only repeats the ideas and tenets 
 of Mr. George; some passages are taken al- 
 most verbatim from the Open Letter to Leo 
 XIIL Bearing in mind what we have said 
 in our chapter on the Single Tax considered 
 as a system of taxation, the reader will find 
 it easy to follow Dr. McGlynn's exposition 
 and to perceive the falsity of the whole sys- 
 tem. 
 
 **The assertion of this dominion [common 
 landowner ship] by civil government is espe- 
 cially necessary because, with the very be- 
 ginning of civil government and with the 
 growth of civilization, there comes to the 
 natural bounties, or the land, a peculiar and 
 an increasing value distinct from and irre- 
 spective of the products of private industry 
 existing therein. This value is not produced 
 by the industry of the private possessor or 
 proprietor [i. e., the so-called * proprietor,' 
 for the 'possessor' of land, according to the 
 system, is but a tenant of the State or com- 
 munity], but is produced by the existence of
 
 128 BR. McGLYNN 
 
 the community and grows with the growth 
 and civilization of the community. It is, 
 therefore, called the unearned increment. 
 It is this unearned increment that in cities 
 gives to land without any improvements so 
 great a value. This value represents and 
 measures the advantages and opportunities 
 produced by the community; and men, when 
 not permitted to acquire the absolute domin- 
 ion [i. e., ownership, as commonly under- 
 stood] over such lands, will willingly [?] 
 pay the value of this unearned increment in 
 the form of rents ; just as men, when not per- 
 mitted to own other men [!], will willingly 
 pay wages for desired services. 
 
 ''No sooner does the organized community, 
 or State, arise than it needs revenues. This 
 need for revenues is small at first while pop- 
 ulation is sparse, industry rude, and the func- 
 tions of the State few and simple; but with 
 growth of population and advance of civiliza- 
 tion the functions of the State increase, and 
 larger revenues are needed. God is the au- 
 thor of society, and has pre-ordained civili- 
 zation. 
 
 ''The increasing need for public revenues 
 with social advance, being a natural God- 
 ordained need, there must be a right way of 
 raising them some way that we can truly
 
 AND HENRY GEORGE 129 
 
 say is the way intended by God. It is clear 
 that this right way of raising public revenues 
 must accord with the moral law or the law of 
 justice. It must not conflict with individual 
 rights, it must find its means in common 
 rights and common duties. By a beautiful 
 providence, that may be truly called divine, 
 since it is founded upon the nature of things 
 and the nature of man of which God is the 
 creator, a fund constantly increasing with the 
 capacities and needs of society, is produced 
 by the very growth of society itself, namely, 
 the rental value of the natural bounties of 
 which society retains dominion. The justice 
 and the duty of appropriating this fund to 
 public uses is apparent in that it takes noth- 
 ing from the private property of individuals 
 except what they will pay willingly as an 
 equivalent for a value produced by the com- 
 munity and which they are permitted to en- 
 joy. The fund thus created is clearly by the 
 law of justice a public fund, not merely be- 
 cause the value is a growth that comes to the 
 natural bounties which God gave to the com- 
 munity in the beginning, but also, and much 
 more, because it is a value produced by the 
 community itself, so that this rental value 
 belongs to the community by that best of ti- 
 tles, namely, producing, making or creating.
 
 130 DR. McGLYNN 
 
 **To permit any portion of this public 
 property to go into private pockets, without 
 a perfect equivalent being paid into the pub- 
 lic treasury, would be an injustice to the com- 
 munity. Therefore the whole rental fund 
 should be appropriated to common or public 
 uses." 
 
 This exposition of Dr. McGlynn sounds 
 quite plausible. Nevertheless, besides some 
 elementary truths, it contains grave errors. 
 It is true that God is the author of society 
 and that civilization is willed by Him. It is 
 true that the State needs revenues to carry 
 on its functions, and that there must be some 
 way of raising these revenues in harmony 
 with the moral order. It is also true that in 
 society, or a civilized community, land has a 
 value which it otherwise would not have. 
 
 But it is a grave error to maintain that the 
 revenues necessary for the proper govern- 
 ment of a community must not be paid by 
 the members of that community out of their 
 own pockets ; or, rather, it is an absurdity to 
 represent this mode of raising revenues as 
 '* conflicting with individual rights" and as 
 an "infringement of the right of property." 
 For what purpose has man received from the 
 Creator the right of acquiring private prop- 
 erty and for what purpose can and does he
 
 AND HENRY GEORGE 131 
 
 own what he has lawfully acquired? The 
 immediate purpose is to have wherewith he 
 may satisfy his personal wants and those of 
 his family, as well as fulfill his various du- 
 ties of justice or charity towards the com- 
 munity to which he belongs. When Dr. Mc- 
 Glynn was pastor at St. Stephen's, New York, 
 the collection plate was on certain occasions 
 passed round in the church. Now wherefrom 
 did the pastor expect his parishioners to 
 draw the contributions he hoped they would 
 drop into the plate, if not from their own 
 private resources ? When they put their dol- 
 lars into the plate, they made precisely that 
 use of them for which they had got them from 
 the Almighty. 
 
 It is, moreover, an error to maintain that 
 the ''peculiar and increasing value" which 
 the land has in a community, belongs to the 
 State or community, and it is an illusion to 
 speak of a common, constantly increasing 
 fund which "a beautiful providence" has 
 provided for the raising of the necessary 
 public revenues. 
 
 What is the value of land in a community 
 irrespective of improvements? It is **a 
 growth," answers Dr. McGlynn, "that comes 
 to the natural bounties," i. e., to the land. 
 "The value of land," Henry George says, "is
 
 132 DR. McGLYNN 
 
 the value that attaches to land by reason of 
 increasing population and social progress. 
 This is a value that always goes to the owner 
 as owner." Hence it belongs not to the 
 State, but to the individual who is the owner 
 of the respective land. The ''dominion of 
 the natural bounties, i. e., the earth," was 
 never given by God to mankind at large nor 
 the ownership of a particular country to the 
 inhabitants of that country as a body. 
 
 What is the land value 1 It is ' ' a product, 
 a creation of the community," answers Dr. 
 QMcGlynn with Mr. George, and therefore it 
 belongs to the community by the best of all 
 titles. This argument is a miserable sophism, 
 mere quibbling upon the words ' ' production ' ' 
 and ''community" and, moreover, considers 
 only one kind of wealth to the exclusion of 
 all other kinds, to which it might be applied 
 as well. 
 
 The land value or exchange value of land 
 arises indeed ' ' by reason of increasing popu- 
 lation and social progress." It "represents 
 and measures the advantages and opportuni- 
 ties" which exist in the community. In 
 primitive conditions, Henry George inforais 
 us, when the population of a country is sparse 
 and much land unoccupied, no value attaches 
 to land itself.
 
 AND HENRY GEORGE 133 
 
 As population increases and industry be- 
 comes more varied and elaborate, value be- 
 gins to attach to land and rises higher and 
 higher, especially where population centers 
 as in large cities. ''Consider the enormous 
 value of land in such cities as compared with 
 the value of land in sparsely settled parts 
 of the same countries. To what is this 
 duel Is it not due to the density and ac- 
 tivity of the populations of those cities to 
 the very causes that require great public ex- 
 penditure for streets, drains, public build- 
 ings, and all the many things needed for 
 the health, convenience and safety of such 
 great cities? See how with the growth of 
 such cities the one thing that steadily in- 
 creases in value is land; how the opening 
 of roads, the building of railways, the mak- 
 ing of any public improvement, adds to 
 the value of land." {Open Letter.) 
 
 The author of the Open Letter and his fol- 
 lower. Dr. McGlynn, seem to imagine that 
 every action that is done, and every work 
 that is accomplished in a certain community 
 or State is also an action and a work of that 
 community or State. Has the State of New 
 York built all the villages, towns, and cities 
 within its borders, with all their houses, their 
 roads, their railways, all their improvements
 
 134 DR. McGLYNN 
 
 and conveniences, in a word with all those 
 numberless factors which in one way or 
 other have contributed to the rising of the 
 land value in the various parts of the State of 
 New York? Some buildings, some works, 
 some means of material prosperity, etc., are 
 due to public or State activity or to public 
 funds ; but by far the greatest share in ' ' creat- 
 ing" the land values both in city and country 
 within the limits of the State is undoubtedly 
 to be assigned to private activity and to pri- 
 vate enterprise of individuals or private cor- 
 porations. Generally speaking we may safely 
 maintain that only a very small proportion of 
 the land value in a country is the ''product" 
 of the respective community or State. 
 
 The argument quibbles upon the term "pro- 
 ducing, making, creating." Making or pro- 
 ducing, in the proper sense, when applied to 
 material objects or things, means bringing 
 them into existence by causing in a given 
 material for man can make naught out 
 of nothing a physical change to arise, in 
 consequence of which the object now is 
 what it was not before, say a chair, a 
 statue, cultivated soil, roast beef. Such, 
 and only such, ''producing" or "labor" 
 is acknowledged by all to be a legitimate 
 title to the direct and proximate result, i. e.,
 
 AND HENRY GEORGE 135 
 
 the ''product of one's labor," provided one 
 works on material that belongs to him ; if one 
 exerts his physical powers on material not 
 his own, he can only claim a fair compensa- 
 tion for the labor expended. In both cases 
 the ''particular product of labor," with its 
 entire usefulness or "use value," belongs to 
 the owner of the material. Should the owner 
 grant or let the use of his property to some 
 one else, he has the right to demand com- 
 pensation for such use. But in this case, 
 if the use of the object should afford to the 
 user an opportunity of making some gain, 
 e. g., by trading, this gain, whether great or 
 small, would belong entirely to the user. 
 Now this is precisely the manner in which 
 roads, ships, railways, and all other advan- 
 tageous arrangements or conditions, private 
 as well as public, in a country or in several 
 countries adjoining one another, cooperate to- 
 wards increasing the exchange value of land 
 in the various parts of the respective coun- 
 try ; viz., by affording opportunities for gain 
 or comforts. The physical improvements 
 and works themselves are the products of 
 labor, but not their usefulness as such, much 
 less the land values which are but a further 
 consequence of such improvements. Hence 
 the "rental value" of the land does not be-
 
 136 DR. McGLYNN 
 
 long to the community or State *'by that best 
 of titles, namely, producing, making or creat- 
 ing." 
 
 From the foregoing explanation the reader 
 will easily understand that the argument of 
 Henry George and Dr. McGlynn, if it proved 
 anything with regard to landed property, 
 would likewise hold as to all other kinds of 
 property. The value of all material goods 
 which are exchangeable, is affected, in one 
 way or other, by those material conditions 
 and features which distinguish a civilized and 
 progressive country. Not only landowners, 
 but also common laborers, business and pro- 
 fessional men, in short, all classes of people 
 are benefited by the various means of com- 
 munication and social improvement. Hence 
 their gains would likewise, at least in part, 
 belong to the State. The argument evidently 
 proves too much and consequently proves 
 nothing. 
 
 To conclude, therefore, the State or the 
 community can not claim the land rent by any 
 just title whatsoever; it being neither the 
 owner of all the land in a country nor the 
 ''producer" of the land value. The confisca- 
 tion of the land rent by the State, as proposed 
 by Mr. George and Dr. McGlynn, would there-
 
 AND HENRY GEORGE 137 
 
 fore be sheer robbery, a downright infringe- 
 ment of the citizens' right of property. 
 
 We abstain from giving the rest of Dr. Mc- 
 Glynn's statement, since nothing new could 
 be learned from further quotations. Those 
 who wish to read the Doctor's one-sided and 
 superficial description of the working of the 
 Single Tax system, together with his invec- 
 tives against private landownership, which 
 is represented as giving ''the power to im- 
 poverish and practically to reduce to a spe- 
 cies of slavery the masses of men," are re- 
 ferred to the columns of the New York Free- 
 mmi's Journal, Feb. 6th, 1904; or, if they 
 prefer, they may read Progress and Poverty 
 or the Open Letter of Henry George, where 
 they will find the same thoughts, not infre- 
 quently expressed in the same words.
 
 vm. 
 
 THE TRUTH ABOUT DB. McGLYNN's RESTORATION 
 
 To a communication to the press, part of 
 which we quoted in the preceding chapter, Dr. 
 McGlynn added these words- ''I am par- 
 ticularly happy to be able to say that I found 
 more than abundant consolation for some 
 tribulations which I have suffered because of 
 Mr. George's doctrines in the fact that these 
 tribulations brought out the explicit declara- 
 tion from ecclesiastical authority that there 
 was nothing in these doctrines contrary to 
 the teachings of the Catholic religion." 
 
 A communication from Eondout, N. Y., 
 Jan. 16th, 1893, runs as follows: ''When 
 asked whether the action of Msgr. Satolli in 
 reinstating Dr. McGlynn could be taken to 
 mean that the Church itself advocated such 
 views as Henry George and Dr. McGlynn 
 held, Dr. Burtsell said: . . . 'Dr. Mc- 
 Glynn 's restoration through the mediation of 
 Msgr. Satolli is a simple declaration from the 
 Holy See that his views of landownership 
 138
 
 DR. McGLYNN'S RESTORATION 139 
 
 are permitted to be advocated by him, not 
 being contrary to the laws of the Church. 
 This, however, does not imply the conclusion 
 that the Church itself advocates, or will ad- 
 vocate, such ideas in regard to landowner- 
 ship and the theory of a single tax, for she 
 has never yet come to any such conclusion. 
 There is a great difference between deciding 
 a thing to be not contrary to the Church's 
 teachings, and the Church 's teaching such be- 
 liefs herself. Dr. McGlynn's theories are 
 now 'free doctrine.' People may adopt or 
 reject his opinions as they see fit, without in- 
 curring the displeasure or the rebuke of the 
 Church through her officers.' " 
 
 This communication is reprinted in the 
 New York Freeman's Journal of Feb. 6th, 
 1904. In the same issue we read at the end 
 of an editorial note : * ' The conclusion is that 
 the Church has neither confirmed them [the 
 principles of Henry George and Dr. Mc- 
 Glynn] as true nor condemned them as false. 
 This is the status of the Georgian Land The- 
 ory at present. It is an open question; the 
 Catholic is free to advocate or condemn it, 
 but he is not free to adduce the authority of 
 the Church as an argument against it, has no 
 grounds to say that the Church condemned 
 it."
 
 140 DR. McGLYNN'S RESTORATION 
 
 It is the purpose of this chapter to show 
 that the view of Dr. McGlynn's restoration 
 expressed in the quotations just given, is un- 
 tenable. What judgment on Dr. McGlynn's 
 teaching did ''ecclesiastical authority," ''the 
 Holy See, " or " the Church, ' ' give on the oc- 
 casion of his reinstatement by the Apostolic 
 Delegate, December 23rd, 1892? Let us re- 
 view the facts connected with that event, as 
 they were published at the time through the 
 press. 
 
 A despatch from Washington, dated Jan. 
 14th, 1893, contained the following passage: 
 
 "Msgr. Satolli authorizes the publication 
 of the following statement in regard to the 
 Pope 's action in the case of Dr. McGlynn : 
 ' On the very day of the reconciliation of Dr. 
 McGlynn with the Church public notice was 
 given of it with the statement that Msgr. 
 Satolli had absolved from censure and recon- 
 ciled Dr. McGlynn by special power for the 
 purpose, requested from and granted by the 
 Holy Father, and moreover, that the absolu- 
 tion had been given because Dr. McGlynn had 
 willingly accepted the conditions laid down 
 by the Holy Father as necessary and suffi- 
 cient.' " 
 
 Further on the conditions of the reconcilia- 
 tion were stated thus : ' ' The conditions were
 
 DR. McGLYNN'S RESTORATION 141 
 
 in this form : Dr. McGlynn had presented a 
 brief statement of his opinions on moral-eco- 
 nomic matters, and it was judged not con- 
 trary to the doctrine constantly taught by 
 the Church and as recently confirmed by the 
 Holy Father in the Encyclical 'Rerum Nova- 
 rum. ' Also it is hereby publicly made known 
 that Dr. McGlynn, besides professing his ad- 
 herence to all the doctrines and teachings of 
 the Catholic Church, has expressed his re- 
 gret (saying that he would be the first to re- 
 gret it) for any word or act of his that may 
 have seemed lacking in the respect due to 
 ecclesiastical authority, and he thereby in- 
 tends to repair, as far as he can, any offense 
 which may have been given to Catholics. 
 Finally, Dr. McGlynn has of his own free will 
 declared and promised that, within the limits 
 of a not long period of time, he will go to 
 Rome in the spirit and intention which are 
 becoming to a good Catholic and a priest." 
 Note appended : * ' Dr. McGlynn says that he 
 knows that the despatch from "Washington 
 containing a statement, the publication of 
 which is said to be authorized by the Apos- 
 tolic Delegate, is genuine and authentic, and 
 that he will make the statement the subject 
 of his talk at Cooper Union to-night. He 
 will make an additional statement of his
 
 142 DR. McGLYNN'S RESTORATION 
 
 own." {New York Herald, Jan. 15th, 1893.) 
 At the meeting which was held at Cooper 
 Union in the evening of Jan. 15th, 1893, Dr. 
 McGrlynn read both the letter addressed by 
 himself to the Apostolic Delegate and the 
 above-mentioned ' ' brief statement of his opin- 
 ions on moral-economic matters. ' ' 
 
 According to the World, Jan. 16th, 1893, 
 Dr. McGlynn said : 
 
 ''Now that, as is made clear by the pub- 
 lished statement of Archbishop Satolli, we 
 are relieved from the restraint of certain 
 considerations of prudence and delicacy, I am 
 only too happy to publish the letter which I 
 presented to the Apostolic Delegate, and his 
 acceptance of which was immediately followed 
 by the declaration of the removal of the ec- 
 clesiastical censures, and by this publication 
 to reaffirm the sentiments which it contains. 
 The letter is as follows: 'Monsignor: I 
 am very happy to learn that it has been 
 judged that there is nothing contrary to Cath- 
 olic doctrine in the doctrine taught by me, as 
 it was explained by me in the exposition of 
 the same which I sent to Your Grace, and I re- 
 joice that you are prepared to remove the 
 ecclesiastical censures. I assure you that I 
 have never said, and I would never say, con- 
 y sciously a word contrary to the teachings
 
 DB. McGLYNN'S RESTORATION 143 
 
 of the Church and the Apostolic See, to which 
 teachings, and notably to those contained in 
 the Encyclical Rerum Novarum, I give and 
 have ever given a full adhesion, and if what- 
 soever word may have ever escaped me which 
 might seem not entirely conformable to those 
 teachings, I would like to recall it or to in- 
 terpret it in a sense conformable to them. I 
 have not consciously failed in the respect due 
 to the authority of the Holy See ; but if what- 
 soever word may have ever escaped me not 
 conformable to the respect due to it, I should 
 be the first to regret it and to recall it. As 
 to the journey to Rome, I will make it within 
 three or four months if the matter be not 
 otherwise determined by the Holy Father. 
 I am Your Grace's very obedient servant, 
 Edward lMcGlynn.' " 
 
 What do we learn from these documents 
 concerning the question we propose to an- 
 swer? 
 
 We learn the following facts : 
 
 1. Msgr. Satolli reconciled Dr. McGlynn by 
 special power granted by the Holy Father. 
 
 2. Dr. McGlynn received absolution from 
 ecclesiastical censures because he accepted the 
 conditions laid down for him by the Holy 
 Father as necessary and sufficient; viz.: 
 
 3. Dr. McGlynn presented a statement of 
 
 /
 
 144 DR. McGLYNN'S RESTORATION 
 
 his opinions and it was judged not contrary 
 / to the teaching of the Church and of the En- 
 cyclical ' ' Rerum Novarum. ' ' 
 
 4. Dr. McGlynn professed his adherence to 
 all the doctrines of the Church and expressed 
 his regret for any word or act of his that 
 might have seemed lacking in the respect due 
 to ecclesiastical authority. 
 
 5. Dr. McGlynn promised to go to Rome 
 in due time and in the proper spirit. 
 
 From his statement made at the meeting 
 of Jan. 15th, 1893, also quoted above, we 
 learn the following facts: 
 
 1. Dr. McGlynn had presented a letter to 
 the Apostolic Delegate, the acceptance of 
 which was immediately followed by a dec- 
 laration of the removal of the ecclesiastical 
 censures. 
 
 2. By the publication of this letter at the 
 meeting, the Doctor wished to reaffirm the 
 sentiments contained therein. 
 
 3. He had learned with satisfaction that it 
 had been judged that there was nothing con- 
 trary to Catholic teaching in his doctrine, as 
 explained in his exposition of the same. 
 
 4. He assured the Apostolic Delegate that 
 he had never consciously said a word con- 
 trary to the Church's teaching, nor conscious- 
 ly failed in the respect due to the Holy See.
 
 DR. McGLYNN'S RESTORATION 145 
 
 5. The Doctor expressed his full adhesion 
 to the teachings of the Church and notably 
 to those contained in the Encyclical **Rerum 
 No varum." 
 
 6. As to the journey to Rome he was will- 
 ing to make it within three or four months. 
 
 These are all the facts contained in the 
 two documents. Where is there a decla- 
 ration of ''ecclesiastical authority," from 
 ''the Holy See," from "the Church"? 
 
 The Washington despatch authorized by 
 Msgr. Satolli says that "the brief statement 
 of the Doctor's opinions on moral-economic 
 matters was judged not contrary to Catholic 
 teaching." Dr. McGlynn himself writes in 
 his letter to the Apostolic Delegate simply: 
 "I am very happy to learn that it has been 
 judged that there is nothing contrary," etc. 
 "It was judged," "it has been judged." 
 By whom? By the Apostolic Delegate? If \/ 
 this had been the case, the Washington des- 
 patch, or, at least. Dr. McGlynn himself, 
 would have mentioned it. The expression, 
 ' ' it was or has been judged, ' ' especially when 
 compared with the phrase, "Msgr. Satolli 
 had absolved from censure and reconciled 
 Dr. McGlynn"; and again, "I rejoice that 
 you are prepared to remove the ecclesi- 
 astical censures," rather indicates that the 
 
 10
 
 146 DE. McGLYNN'S EESTORATION 
 
 "judgment" concerning Dr. McGlynn's doc- 
 trine did not proceed from the Apostolic 
 Delegate. 
 
 Moreover, it would have been impossible 
 for Msgr. Satolli to examine and decide the 
 doctrinal part of the McGlynn case himself. 
 He had but recently come to this country 
 and was not yet sufficiently acquainted with 
 its language to read the publications of 
 Henry George or similar works. He had 
 not followed the Henry George controversy, 
 which had been carried on in this country 
 for over ten years and which had excited 
 the minds of Henry George's followers as 
 well as of his opponents in a degree that 
 can only be compared with the excitement 
 caused by the Catholic school controversy 
 which just at that time was in full blaze. 
 Besides, the Apostolic Delegate was kept 
 busy with many other intricate and annoy- 
 ing affairs. In truth, he was not in a posi- 
 tion to judge for himself of the doctrine ad- 
 vocated by Dr. McGlynn, but was forced to 
 consign this task to others. And this he did. 
 
 In the New York Freeman's Journal, 
 whose reliability in this matter admits of 
 no doubt, we read (issue of Dec. 5th, 1903) : 
 
 ''On the arrival of Archbishop Satolli in 
 this country as the Pope's representative.
 
 DR. McGLYNN'S RESTORATION 147 
 
 appeal was made to him to reverse the act 
 of excommunieatioii against Dr. McGlynn. 
 He suggested that Dr. McGlynn should fully 
 state and explain his doctrine on the land 
 question. The Doctor presented to the Able- 
 gate a direct and explicit statement of his 
 teaching, just as he had been teaching it 
 from the beginning. His presentation of 
 the George Jand theory was submitted to 
 and carefully considered by a committee of 
 the professors of the Catholic University at 
 Washington, who with the Encyclical 
 quoted by [our correspondent] before them 
 declared that it contained nothing contrary 
 to the teachings of the Catholic Church. 
 These professors were Revs. Thomas Bou- 
 quillon, D. D. (Dean of the Theological Fac- 
 ulty) ; Thomas 'Gorman, D. D. (now Bishop 
 of Sioux Falls, S. D.) ; Thomas J. Shahan, 
 D. D., and Charles Grannan, D. D. 
 
 ''On this decision Archbishop Satolli, in 
 formal words, and in the name of the Pope, 
 removed the ban of excommunication from 
 Dr. McGlynn, and the first announcement of 
 the Doctor's reinstatement was made by the 
 papal representative from the Catholic Uni- 
 versity at Washington. Previous to the re- 
 moval of the ban Dr. McGlynn had expressly 
 stipulated that he should be free to continue
 
 148 DE. McGLYNN'S RESTORATION 
 
 to expound the Single Tax as long as he 
 thought proper." 
 
 Again, in the same journal, for Jan. 23d, 
 1904, we read: 
 
 ''When [our correspondent] carries his 
 interpretation so far as to say the Encyclical 
 condemns the Single Tax doctrine, he comes 
 in collision with the judgment and official 
 decision of those learned professors to whom 
 a statement of the doctrine was submitted 
 by Msgr. SatoUi, the Pope's representative. 
 With the greatest regard for [his] ability 
 and learning, we are constrained to prefer 
 the official interpretation of those university 
 professors which the Pope's representative 
 received and acted upon, and on the basis of 
 which he restored Dr. McGlynn to his ecclesi- 
 astical status. 
 
 *'Msgr. Satolli requested Dr. McGlynn to 
 state the Single Tax doctrine which he ad- 
 vocated. He complied, and his statement 
 was submitted by Msgr. Satolli to the pro- 
 fessors of the Catholic University at Wash- 
 ington. Their decision was that they found 
 nothing in the statement contrary to Catholic 
 teaching. As they included the Encyclical 
 as Catholic teaching, their decision was that 
 there was nothing in the statement of Dr. 
 McGlynn contrary to that papal document.
 
 DR. McGLYNN'S RESTORATION 149 
 
 This was accepted as final by the Papal Dele- 
 gate, and Dr. McGlynn was restored without 
 any retraction or repudiation on his part 
 of the doctrine he had been advocating, 
 and with the understanding that he could 
 continue to advocate it. On the evening of 
 the day on which he said his first Mass after 
 his restoration, he gave a public lecture in 
 which he advocated it." 
 
 Finally, on Feb. 6th, 1904, the Freeman's 
 Journal wrote under the heading, *'The 
 Georgian Land Theory," as follows: 
 
 ^'In compliance with the suggestion [of 
 a correspondent], we give elsewhere in this 
 issue the two statements of the Georgian 
 Land Theory as understood by Dr. McGlynn 
 and Dr. Burtsell. These statements were 
 approved by Henry George, in a letter to the 
 New York Sun, as a correct exposition of his 
 land theory. They were submitted to Msgr. 
 SatoUi and by him referred to a committee 
 of professors of the Catholic University of 
 Washington and declared by them to contain 
 nothing contrary to Catholic teaching. 
 After this decision was rendered the Papal 
 Delegate removed the excommunication from 
 Dr. McGlynn and restored his faculties." 
 
 The Freeman's Journal adds: ** These 
 facts, it seems to us, ought definitely to close
 
 150 DR. McGLYNN'S RESTORATION 
 
 the question. . . ." Undoubtedly they 
 ought to close it, and we venture to maintain 
 that they do close it. For they make it evi- 
 dent beyond even the possibility of a doubt, 
 that the judgment which declared the land 
 theory advocated by Dr. McGlynn to contain 
 nothing contrary to Catholic teaching, was 
 not a ''declaration from ecclesiastical au- 
 thority," but the opinion of the four pro- 
 fessors who had been called upon to examine 
 Dr. McGlynn 's statement. These learned 
 professors acted merely as private theologi- 
 ans. Their decision, therefore, carries no 
 more authority than that which utterances of 
 scholars generally carry. But after all, did 
 their learning keep the four professors from 
 making a wrong decision? Alas! it did not. 
 Their decision is so manifestly erroneous 
 that it has always been and is still a mystery 
 how they could arrive at it. 
 
 We have demonstrated, by a minute and 
 accurate examination of the tenets of Henry 
 George and Dr. McGlynn, that their doc- 
 trine is substantially the same. We have 
 demonstrated that their whole economic 
 teaching is essentially embodied in the state- 
 ment: there is no private, but only common 
 ownership in land. We have, finally, demon-
 
 DR. McGLYNN'S RESTORATION 151 
 
 strated that this doctrine openly conflicts 
 with natural reason, with the explicit teach- 
 ing of Leo XIII., and with Holy Scripture. 
 The opinion, therefore, of the professors who 
 pronounced the Henry George-McGlynn 
 Land Theory to contain nothing contrary 
 to the teaching of the Church, has no value / 
 whatever. And in the reinstatement of Dr. 
 McGlynn, as well as in the events connected 
 with it, there is nothing that could in truth 
 be construed as a doctrinal decision or judg- y 
 ment from any ecclesiastical authority. The 
 action of the Apostolic Delegate in the 
 McGlynn case was of merely disciplinary v' 
 character. 
 
 Those who followed the events occurring 
 soon after the arrival of Msgr. Satolli in 
 this country, will remember what a surprise 
 to the public was the news of Dr. McGlynn 's 
 restoration, on December 23rd, 1892. Cath- 
 olic writers and lecturers had stigmatized 
 Henry George's theory of landownership as 
 contrary to the teachings of the Church and 
 of Holy Writ. Dr. McGlynn, who had made 
 the Georgian tenets his own, had chiefly on 
 that account come in conflict with his ecclesi- 
 astical superiors. Nevertheless he was ab- 
 solved from censure by Msgr. Satolli with-
 
 152 DR. McGLYNN'S RESTORATION 
 
 out being requested to retract his former 
 teaching. This was and remained for many 
 an insoluble riddle. 
 
 Previous to the removal of the excommuni- 
 cation, as we have seen, Dr. McGlynn pre- 
 sented to the Apostolic Delegate an * ' explicit 
 statement of his teaching, just as he had 
 been teaching it from the beginning." This 
 statement was examined by a committee of 
 four professors of the Catholic University 
 of America, who declared ''that it contained 
 nothing contrary to the teachings of the 
 Catholic Church." Accordingly, the Apos- 
 tolic Delegate saw no reason why Dr. Mc- 
 Glynn should be asked to recant his former 
 teaching; on the contrary, he naturally 
 rather pitied the Doctor, who had been for 
 so many years to all appearances wrongly 
 supposed to hold and propagate an erroneous 
 and even heretical doctrine. This sufficiently 
 explains the action of the Pope's representa- 
 tive. 
 
 However, the said supposition was not 
 wrong, but the decision of the advisory com- 
 mittee was wrong, and it was only because 
 the Apostolic Delegate had been misled by 
 that decision, that the restoration of Dr. 
 McGlynn took place under such easy con-
 
 DR. McGLYNN'S RESTORATION 153 
 
 ditions and without any recantation of his 
 former teaching. 
 
 The New International Encyclopaedia 
 gives the 'following summary of Dr. Mc- 
 Glynn's career: ''He was born in New 
 York, September 27th, 1837, of Irish parents. 
 He was educated at the Propaganda in Rome, 
 was ordained there, and in 1866 became 
 pastor of Saint Stephen's Church in New 
 York, but in 1886 was removed by the Arch- 
 bishop, on account of his opposition to 
 parochial schools, and especially because of 
 his persistent advocacy of Henry George's 
 Single Tax theories, which were declared at 
 variance with Roman Catholic teachings. 
 He was soon after summoned to Rome to 
 give an account of himself, but he refused 
 to go. On the contrary, he boldly advocated 
 in public the doctrine 'no politics from 
 Rome.' In July, 1887, he was excommuni- 
 cated. In December, 1892, after a hearing 
 before the Apostolic Delegate, Msgr. Satolli, 
 he made his submission and was restored to 
 his priestly functions. He was in charge 
 of a parish in Newburgh, N. Y., until his 
 death, Jan, 7th, 1900. He aided in founding 
 the Anti-Poverty Society, and became its 
 president (1887)."
 
 154 DR. McGLYNN'S RESTORATION 
 
 Dr. McGrlynn's absolution from ecclesias- 
 tical censures at the hands of the Apostolic 
 Delegate was, under the circumstances, a 
 great humiliation for Archbishop Corrigan; 
 for it made the steps which had been taken 
 against the Doctor by his immediate ecclesi- 
 astical superior appear before the whole 
 world as arbitrary and unjust. Yet the 
 saintly Archbishop never uttered a word of 
 protest, but preferred to be silent, after the 
 example of his Divine Master.^ 
 
 1 The generosity of Msgr. Corrigan's conduct through- 
 out " the McGlynn case " can be fully appreciated only 
 by those who, like myself, have had access to the docu- 
 ments left behind by the saintly Archbishop. Some day, 
 no doubt, these documents, authentic copies of which I 
 had the privilege of examining in the winter of 1904-5, 
 will be published, and then only will the McGlynn case, 
 in all its details, appear to the public in its true light. 
 A. P.
 
 IX. 
 
 WHOSE IS THE UNEARNED LAND VALUE? 
 
 Those who claim the unearned land value 
 for the community or the State advance one 
 or both of these reasons: the land belongs 
 to the community ; the land value is a product 
 of the community. Both these assertions 
 have been refuted in previous chapters. The 
 second, however, being independent of, and 
 apparently more plausible than, the first, 
 may profitably be made the subject of a sep- 
 arate inquiry. It is thus clearly proposed 
 in an article of the Catholic Sentinel, Port- 
 land, Ore., November 3rd, 1904: 
 
 "When the first comer settles on a claim 
 in the midst of a vast wilderness, the land 
 has no value whatever. It is of very little 
 difference to him whether he settles a few 
 miles farther east or west, provided that 
 the bounties of nature are pretty evenly dis- 
 tributed in the new region. But when the 
 second settler comes, there is a decided ad- 
 vantage in settling in the neighborhood of 
 155
 
 156 THE UNEARNED LAND VALUE 
 
 the original comer, for the reason that the 
 two settlers will be able to help one another 
 in their work. At this stage, the land which 
 originally had no value, receives a slight 
 value, due merely to the fact that a settle- 
 ment has been begun. As time goes on, and 
 the numbers in the community increase, a 
 teacher is hired to instruct the children. A 
 new family now moving into the wilderness 
 would have a very strong motive inducing 
 them to locate near the new settlement, 
 rather than to move farther on in the wilder- 
 ness. Then a church, a store, a blacksmith 
 shop, police protection, and other accessories 
 of a well-regulated community, are obtained. 
 And these things and other similar causes 
 combine to increase the value of the land. 
 Now Henry George, and with him Dr. Mc- 
 Glynn, proposed that this land value due 
 to the presence of society, this 'unearned in- 
 crement' of value, should be confiscated for 
 the use of society." 
 
 The argument contained in this passage, 
 as we have already shown elsewhere, proves 
 too much, a clear sign that there is a 
 radical flaw in it. When the first comer 
 settles in a vast wilderness, the land has 
 indeed no exchange value whatever. But the 
 very same is the case with everything else the
 
 THE UNEARNED LAND VALUE 157 
 
 settler may possess or raise or manufacture 
 in that new region: huts, barns, horses, cat- 
 tle, chickens, corn, potatoes, beans, shoes, 
 clothes, implements, etc., etc. None of these 
 objects has in the midst of a vast wilderness 
 any exchange value whatever. Now let other 
 settlers come into the same region, and not 
 only the land, but all other property begins 
 to have an exchange value, which will, within 
 certain limits, increase as the community 
 grows and advances. This value is '^due to 
 the presence of society" and is, if we deduct 
 a fair compensation for the labor expended 
 on those objects, an ''unearned increment of 
 value," just as in the case of land. Ac- 
 cordingly all this "unearned increment of 
 value" is to be "confiscated for the use of 
 society." Thus, according to the principles 
 of the Single Tax men, we have not taxation 
 on one kind only of goods, i. e., land, but on 
 all kinds ; we have not a ' ' single ' ' tax, but 
 mirabile dictu! a universal tax! 
 
 To escape this absurdity, one might say: 
 There is a difference between things pro- 
 duced by labor and things not so produced. 
 The former we do not want to tax, but only 
 the latter; the former belong to their owner 
 with all the value that may eventually accrue 
 to them; not so the latter. We ask: Why
 
 158 THE UNEARNED LAND VALUE 
 
 do the former, but not the latter, belong to 
 their respective owners with all the value 
 that may eventually accrue to them? This 
 discrimination is quite arbitrary. Between 
 things produced by labor and things not so 
 produced, there is, of course, this difference 
 that on the former human labor has been 
 expended to produce them, while no labor has 
 been expended on the latter, except, perhaps, 
 for their improvement. But what follows 
 from such difference? This, that the por- 
 tion of the value which corresponds to the 
 amount of labor expended is rightly con- 
 sidered as a compensation for that work or 
 labor and is therefore earned by such labor ; 
 whilst the surplus of the value is not a com- 
 pensation for labor and is therefore un- 
 earned. Now in society, especially in mod- 
 ern society with its manifold artificial means 
 of production and communication, things 
 produced have, as a rule, a much greater 
 value than the mere equivalent of the labor 
 expended on them. This surplus of value, 
 therefore, is no less unearned by the pro- 
 ducer than the value of a piece of unim- 
 proved land is unearned by the landowner. 
 In this regard there is absolutely no differ- 
 ence between the two kinds of property.
 
 THE UNEARNED LAND VALUE 159 
 
 Hence if the owner of things produced by 
 labor may rightfully claim the ''unearned 
 increment" of their value, so may the owner 
 of landed property rightfully claim the ''un- 
 earned increment" of his land. The first- 
 mentioned proprietor has no better title to the 
 said "unearned increment" of value than the 
 landowner has to the value of his land. 
 
 Yes, he has a better title, replies Henry 
 George; for having produced the objects in 
 question he really owns them and conse- 
 quently also that which flows from such 
 ownership ; the landowner, on the other hand, 
 has not the producer's title the only title 
 from which, in the last resort, springs the 
 right of ownership. 
 
 This answer would indeed remove the ab- 
 surdity we have pointed out, but only by 
 substituting another absurdity, viz., that 
 labor (production) is the original title of 
 ownership and that land, not being produced, 
 can not really and truly be owned. 
 
 The same reason is clothed by the Catholic 
 Sentinel also in this form: "It seems to 
 us that the real question is : Is it desirable, 
 from the point of view of the general good, 
 that John Smith, who owns a corner lot in 
 a rapidly growing suburb, should be allowed
 
 160 THE UNEARNED LAND VALUE 
 
 to pocket tlie rise in value of his lot, although 
 he has not done anything personally towards 
 causing the rise?" 
 
 And, we may add, since the unjust is cer- 
 tainly undesirable and the just desirable, 
 the real question is ultimately: Is it just, 
 from the standpoint of natural right, that 
 John Smith, the owner of a corner lot, 
 pockets the rise in the value of his lot, al- 
 though he has not done anything towards 
 causing the rise? This question, however, 
 supposes in the mind of the enquirer a rather 
 imperfect notion of lawful and unlawful 
 ''pocketing." In order to pocket something 
 lawfully it is not at all necessary that one 
 should have done something personally to- 
 wards its rise or origin; he may have some 
 other title to claim it. A few examples will 
 make this evident. 
 
 The owner of a large vineyard, let us 
 suppose, has had for several years such poor 
 crops that he was barely compensated for 
 his work. But after the years of scarcity 
 follow very fruitful years. With the same 
 amount of labor the wine-grower realizes 
 now the threefold crop of former years. 
 Evidently two-thirds of the increased re- 
 turns are ** unearned increment"; neverthe- 
 less he pockets the profit with the same
 
 THE UNEARNED LAND VALUE 161 
 
 quiet conscience with which he formerly took 
 the poorer returns. A seamstress, working 
 according to the old style, by hand, earned 
 $1.50 a day, which was a fair compensation 
 for her work and amply sufficient for her 
 support. She purchased a sewing machine 
 and now, with the same amount of labor, 
 earns $3 a day. In less than two months 
 the machine is paid for. Henceforth she 
 receives every week $9 over and above the 
 compensation for her personal labor, accord- 
 ingly as pure gain, or, in technical parlance, 
 as an unearned increment. Needless to say, 
 she pockets the whole of her $18 every week 
 without a scruple. More than that, every 
 month she deposits the sum of $35 in a bank 
 at 314 per cent, interest, and every year she 
 draws the interest of her increasing capital, 
 again without the least scruple, although she 
 has done nothing personally towards causing 
 this increase of her money. Now on what 
 ground, we ask, will or can any one disturb 
 the quiet conscience of that happy wine- 
 grower or of that industrious seamstress? 
 Was not all they pocketed their legitimate 
 gain or income, although part of it was not 
 due to their personal labor, was not earned by 
 them, but was for them truly an ''unearned 
 
 increment"? Evidently earning or labor is 
 11
 
 162 THE UNEARNED LAND VALUE 
 
 not the only lawful title to ownership, profit 
 or gain. Hence John Smith may have a 
 just claim to the increased value of his corner 
 lot, although he did not earn it. 
 
 But has the land value which John Smith 
 did not earn, perhaps been earned by the 
 community? In the question whether or not 
 the land value is earned by the community, 
 this latter expression may stand either for 
 the community in as much as it is one social 
 body, or simply for the individuals who com- 
 pose it. In either case the question is to be 
 answered in the negative. The importance 
 and subtlety of this point demand a thorough 
 and detailed examination. 
 
 We have repeatedly used the term ''un- 
 earned'^ without dwelling on its definition. 
 Here it is necessary to analyze and ascertain 
 its true meaning. What then does this term, 
 taken in its proper and strict sense, mean? 
 An alms which you give to a poor man is not 
 earned by him; he receives it as a charity. 
 A rich man who lives on his interest, does not 
 live on his earnings; the property which 
 yields him a sufficient income to live on, may 
 have been earned by him previously; but he 
 may also have received it as an inheritance 
 from his parents, in which case it was not 
 earned by him. The husbandman, however.
 
 THE UNEARNED LAND VALUE 163 
 
 who lives on the produce of his farm, in as 
 much as that produce is the result of his 
 labor, lives on his earnings. Again the fair 
 wages of a workman, the salary of a clerk 
 or a teacher, are earned by them, because 
 they are due compensation for work for 
 which they have been engaged. 
 
 It is plain that two conditions are essen- 
 tially required in order that something may 
 be said to be earned. First, it must be a 
 remuneration for labor, i. e., for the exertion 
 of one's powers. Earning and labor are 
 correlative terms; one implies the other. 
 Secondly, the remuneration must be one to 
 which he who receives it is by justice entitled. 
 Such is the case of the farmer who by dint 
 of his own labor raises a crop on his farm; 
 he can not be deprived of it by any one with- 
 out injustice. Such is likewise the claim of 
 the workingman, the clerk, the teacher, with 
 regard to their wages or salary. A claim 
 of justice is essential to constitute earning 
 in the strict sense of the term. 
 
 This claim of justice, may, however, arise 
 in two ways, according as one works for 
 himself, so to say as his own master, or for 
 another by whom he is employed. He who 
 works for himself and with his own means, 
 can evidently claim as his own the product
 
 164 THE UNEARNED LAND VALUE 
 
 of his labor. Thus the produce of an in- 
 dependent farmer belongs to him; the work 
 of art produced by a painter or a sculptor 
 belongs to the artist. No one can deprive 
 them of the fruit of their labor without in- 
 justice ; and if they exchange it for an equiv- 
 alent amount of another kind of property, 
 or for an equivalent sum of money, the price 
 they receive is in justice theirs, it is earning 
 in another form. If one works for another, 
 i. e., if he hires his labor to another and for 
 his benefit, a fair compensation for the work 
 is to be agreed upon, and this agreement or 
 contract constitutes in this case the claim of 
 justice to the compensation when the work 
 has been conscientiously done according to 
 the agreement. Examples of this second 
 kind are hired laborers, clerks, teachers, etc. 
 Hence we arrive at the following definition: 
 That, and that only, is earned, which belongs 
 to one as a product of labor or as a compen- 
 sation for labor. 
 
 The exact meaning of the term being es-* 
 tablished, the question, Is the land value 
 earned by the community? can now be more 
 clearly expressed thus : Does the land value 
 belong to the community as a product of 
 labor or as a compensation for labor? All 
 agree that the exchange value of a statue
 
 THE UNEARNED LAND VALUE 165 
 
 or a painting which has been produced by 
 an artist working independently, is to be 
 considered as compensation for his work and 
 is therefore earned by him. All agree like- 
 wise that the increase in value which is due 
 to the improvements made by the landowner 
 himself is earned by him. But the question 
 with which we are engaged at present refers 
 to the value which land has, irrespective of 
 improvements. Is this value earned? 
 
 Let us call to mind what exchange value 
 is and how it originates. The exchange 
 value, as we have mentioned elsewhere, is the 
 capacity of an object, which it has in society, 
 of being exchanged (sold) for some other 
 good. The correctness of this definition 
 may be made evident by its application to 
 any particular example, be it a movable good, 
 a piano, a horse; or an immovable one, a 
 field, a farm, a town lot. The exchange 
 value arises proximately from the common 
 judgment or estimation of men, remotely 
 from various features of the salable object 
 and from external circumstances or con- 
 ditions on account of which people attach 
 to objects such and such a value. The prin- 
 cipal factor determining the exchange value 
 is in all cases the usefulness or fitness of 
 the object to satisfy the wants or desires
 
 166 THE UNEARNED LAND VALUE 
 
 of men. But the cost of production or 
 transportation and the abundance or scar- 
 city of similar goods are likewise to be 
 taken into consideration. Now in the case 
 of landed property there can plainly be no 
 question of cost of production or transpor- 
 tation. Its value, therefore, will depend ex- 
 clusively upon the usefulness, be it for agri- 
 cultural or for business purposes, of the 
 respective parcels of land, and on the 
 greater or lesser difficulty of obtaining suit- 
 able estates. How, then, does the value of 
 land, irrespective of the qualities it possesses 
 by nature, and of the improvements which 
 are the result of the owner's labor, arise? 
 
 Let us consider the settlement in the wil- 
 derness, whose formation and development 
 the writer in the Catholic Sentinel describes, 
 after it has grown to be a town of about 500 
 families. Land has now a considerable 
 value, because it is much more advantageous 
 to live in town than outside of, or at some 
 distance from it. For there is "a decided 
 advantage" in living near so many neigh- 
 bors, who may assist you when you need 
 help, who may provide you with almost any- 
 thing you want in time of health or sick- 
 ness, as the grocer, the baker, the tailor, 
 the carpenter, the doctor, the druggist, etc.,
 
 THE UNEARNED LAND VALUE 167 
 
 etc. On account of such and similar ad- 
 vantages people attach to land in town a 
 greater value than to the surrounding or 
 more distant territory. 
 
 Now do the inhabitants of the town 
 ''create," i. e. produce, for one another those 
 practical or social advantages which make 
 the land so valuable in the eyes of all? Cer- 
 tainly they do, but how? They create them 
 indirectly and incidentally with what they 
 create directly and immediately. Take for 
 instance the grocer, who builds his store in a 
 certain place and keeps it stocked with all 
 the kinds of groceries people may desire. 
 The store with its provisions is the direct 
 and immediate product of his labor or activ- 
 ity, it is his creation in the strict economic 
 sense, entailing the ownership of the prod- 
 uct, viz., of the store with its provisions. But 
 this same building with the groceries stored 
 therein furnishes ipso facto to all the in- 
 habitants of the place the opportunity or ad- 
 vantage that they can buy there whatever 
 they wish in the line of groceries. This is an 
 indirect and incidental effect or consequence 
 of our grocer's enterprising activity. The 
 advantage thus indirectly and incidentally 
 created for the people is indeed a real ad- 
 vantage, and a considerable one. But is it
 
 168 THE UNEARNED LAND VALUE 
 
 earned by the storekeeper? that is to say, 
 does it belong to him as a product of his 
 labor? which product, since it passes to 
 others who are benefited by it, viz., the people 
 of the town, demands on their part a cor- 
 responding remuneration? Evidently no. 
 Who has ever heard that people were bound 
 to compensation for the mere advantage of 
 having a grocery store in their neighbor- 
 hood? 
 
 For the grocer, however, it is likewise a 
 great advantage that so many families live 
 near him. What would become of him and 
 his store if there were no people in the place? 
 Yet for this advantage, again, of having so 
 many people living near him, the storekeeper 
 owes them no compensation ; only when they 
 come to buy from him is he bound in justice 
 to give them whatever they want, provided 
 he accepts from them the fair price he has 
 fixed for his goods. The advantages, there- 
 fore, which the grocer and the people create 
 for one another are of such a nature as not 
 to demand any compensation on either side; 
 in other words, they are not earned. 
 
 But suppose a compensation were due. 
 Are these advantages not mutual and, eco- 
 nomically considered, equal? Undoubtedly 
 between the advantage, on the part of the
 
 THE UNEARNED LAND VALUE 169 
 
 grocer, of having a chance to sell his goods, 
 and that, on the part of the people, of having 
 an opportunity to buy what they need, there 
 is, from an economical standpoint, no differ- 
 ence; for as long as buyer and seller deal 
 fairly with one another, each will always re- 
 ceive the equivalent of what he gives. Hence 
 it follows that the compensation due on one 
 side would, in our supposition, be balanced 
 by that which is due on the other. Accord- 
 ingly, in whatever way we may consider the 
 economic or social advantage created by the 
 grocer for the inhabitants of our prospering 
 town, it is in no wise "earned" by him. 
 
 What has been said of the grocer, holds 
 good of all the other inhabitants. Whatever 
 material advantages may accrue to others 
 from their presence and private enterprise, 
 are produced indirectly and incidentally, and 
 without claim to compensation; in other 
 words, they are not earned. 
 
 On the public improvements, i. e., those 
 which are made by the community or town 
 as such, e. g., public roads, public buildings, 
 etc., and on the advantages arising from 
 them, we need not enter. Public improve- 
 ments are brought about and supported by 
 common expense ; they belong to all and bene- 
 fit, all; besides their connection with the rise
 
 170 THE UNEARNED LAND VALUE 
 
 of land values is the same as with that of 
 private enterprises or improvements. 
 
 However, in order to make our description 
 of the origin of land values complete, let us 
 consider how social advantages are produced 
 by causes exterior to our imaginary town. 
 Suppose a railroad line is built through it. 
 At once the land values will begin to rise. 
 Why 1 Because of the new advantage of easy 
 communication with other places, which helps 
 business and traffic exceedingly. Can the 
 railroad company claim from the town any 
 compensation for the facility it offers of com- 
 municating with distant towns and cities? 
 No. The company owns the road which it 
 has built, the direct product of its labor and 
 expenses. Besides, when the road is actually 
 used, the owners can claim the actual income 
 ffom trjaffic and transportation. But for the 
 facility, as such, of communicating with 
 other places, no compensation is due to the 
 company for the same reasons as we have 
 set forth above. 
 
 Accordingly, all the practical advantages 
 which arise for the people from private and 
 public improvements, and which increase the 
 land values, are unearned by those who pro- 
 duced the respective improvements. Can it
 
 THE UNEARNED LAND VALUE 171 
 
 then be that the land values themselves are 
 earned by them? 
 
 Let us proceed to the last stage of our ar- 
 gument. How do the social advantages 
 which concur in raising the value of land pro- 
 duce this effect! They do not act physically, 
 like the rays of the sun which ripen the 
 grapes, or like a mechanic who produces a 
 tool. Their activity is of a totally different 
 order; it is what is called by philosophers a 
 moral activity, one exerted in and through 
 the reflecting mind. For those practical ad- 
 vantages are reasons on account of which the 
 common estimation of men attaches to such 
 or such parcels or sites of land such or such 
 a value. The mind considers them as well as 
 various features and circumstances of the 
 land itself and thus after an equitable ap- 
 preciation of all the objective reasons forms 
 the judgment or decision by which the land 
 value is finally determined. Such is the na- 
 ture and the origin of that mysterious thing 
 called exchange value. 
 
 Now since the objective reasons which 
 create the land value, produce their effect by 
 an activity altogether different from that 
 which we call labor, the land value in itself 
 is not a product of labor and consequently is
 
 172 THE UNEARNED LAND VALUE 
 
 not earned directly. The same holds of ex- 
 change values generally. They neither have 
 in themselves any physical reality which is 
 produced by labor, nor do they originate 
 from their remote causes in any other way 
 except by the appreciation of the mind. 
 Hence they can never be earned in them- 
 selves or directly. They may, however, be 
 earned indirectly or mediately, i. e., in as 
 much as the causes from which they arise 
 are earned. Thus the value of a statue or a 
 painting is earned by the artist, because the 
 artistic perfection of the work which gives 
 it its value, is the product of his labor. For 
 the same reason the increase in value which 
 is due to improvements made by the land- 
 owner, is earned by him, viz. indirectly. But 
 we are now dealing only with the value which 
 land has on account of exterior social ad- 
 vantages. These advantages, as we have 
 demonstrated, are unearned and conse- 
 quently the rise in value of land caused by 
 them is not even earned indirectly. This land 
 value, therefore, is absolutely unearned. It 
 may be called, in a general sense, a product 
 or creation of society, to signify that it 
 springs through the estimation of men from 
 practical advantages found only in society; 
 but it can not be called so in the economic
 
 THE UNEARNED LAND VALUE 173 
 
 sense of the term. The land value, irrespec- 
 tive of improvements, is strictly and abso- 
 lutely an unearned increment. 
 
 We are now prepared definitely to answer 
 the query. To whom does the land value, this 
 ''unearned increment," belong and by what 
 title? According to the principles laid down 
 so far the answer can not be doubtful. The 
 exchange value of an object, as we have seen, 
 is the possibility of obtaining by exchange 
 an equivalent amount of other goods; in 
 other words, it is the usefulness of the object 
 considered as a means of exchange. Now 
 who can claim this usefulness? Evidently no 
 one except the owner of the object. The 
 owner and he alone has in virtue of his right 
 of ownership the legitimate and inviolable 
 power of disposing of his property for his 
 own benefit, and that in any manner what- 
 ever, so long as he does not violate the rights 
 of others or a just law prohibiting such or 
 such a particular use of his right. The 
 owner may keep his property for himself or 
 give it away as a free donation ; he may lease 
 it to others for a certain amount of yearly 
 rent ; he may also, if he pleases, give it away 
 on condition of receiving for it its equiv- 
 alent according to common estimation a 
 transaction which we call selling. If he sells
 
 174 THE UNEARNED LAND VALUE 
 
 his property, his ownership in what he sells 
 ceases, but in its stead he receives its equiv- 
 alent, i. e., becomes the owner of the price. 
 
 Now in selling his property and pocketing 
 a fair price for it, does the seller violate any 
 just law or other people's rights? The law 
 forbids the act of selling only in special cir- 
 cumstances, e. g., if the owner is under age. 
 Generally speaking, a proprietor is not for- 
 bidden by law to sell his property. Besides, 
 the seller does not wrong the buyer, because 
 the latter receives the equivalent of the price 
 he pays and consents to the bargain freely. 
 Finally, no one else is in any way wronged, 
 because no one else owns the property in 
 question or has a claim to its value or any 
 part of it. Hence the transaction is entirely 
 legitimate. By selling his property the seller 
 becomes the rightful owner of the whole price 
 which he receives, just as the buyer becomes 
 the rightful owner of the whole property 
 which he buys. Claiming the price for any 
 one else than the owner of the salable object, 
 would evidently be to deny his right of 
 ownership. But the claim to the price in case 
 of an exchange, and the claim to the ex- 
 change value of an object, are one and the 
 same thing. Consequently, to deny the owner 
 the claim to the value of his property, is in
 
 THE UNEARNED LAND VALUE 175 
 
 fact a denial of his right of ownership. By 
 its very nature, therefore, the value belongs 
 to the owner of the valuable object and the 
 right of ownership essentially includes the 
 legitimate claim to the value of the object 
 owned, no matter what that object is, chattel 
 or land. 
 
 From the foregoing the reader will easily 
 understand that our doctrine is but an ap- 
 plication of the principle: ''Ees fructificat 
 domino." The exchange value as such is 
 a product or fruit which property yields 
 under certain favorable conditions of society. 
 It is a civil or social fruit. Outside of so- 
 ciety property would be useful only within a 
 very limited sphere; in society it becomes, 
 besides, under favorable circumstances, ex- 
 changeable for other useful goods. This new 
 advantageous feature of property, with all 
 the benefit to be derived from it, belongs to 
 the owner of the object for the same reason 
 that its other useful qualities and its natural 
 fruitfulness belong to him. The owner of a 
 thing owns the real thing and the whole thing 
 as it is; he owns it, therefore, with all its 
 fitness for immediate practical purposes and 
 with all its fruitfulness, if it is capable of 
 bearing fruit, be it physically or civilly. 
 
 **Res fructificat domino" is a self-evident
 
 176 THE UNEARNED LAND VALUE 
 
 principle and is constantly applied by every 
 one without the slightest misgiving. If the 
 owner of a vineyard is blessed with a crop 
 that not only compensates his labor, but 
 leaves him double the amount as pure gain, 
 one-third of the produce goes to him as '' la- 
 borer," being the fruit of his labor, the re- 
 mainder goes to him merely as landowner, 
 being the fruit of his vineyard ; the former is 
 an industrial, the latter a natural fruit. The 
 seamstress of whom we spoke on a previous 
 page, who earns $3 a day with her machine, 
 pockets indeed the whole amount; but only 
 half of it is her personal earning; the other 
 half is the industrial fruit of her machine, 
 just as the interest which she draws from the 
 bank is the civil fruit of her deposit. The 
 * ' fruit ' ' of her machine, however, and of her 
 money, is no less hers than the sum which 
 corresponds to her personal daily work, be- 
 cause *'res fructificat domino." 
 
 Upon this principle rests whatever income 
 a proprietor may legitimately claim as pro- 
 prietor, independently of his personal labor 
 or activity ; for what corresponds to the lat- 
 ter, is due to him as the fruit of his labor and 
 is an earned increment. If in a lucrative 
 business one and the same person does the 
 work and owns the capital put into the busi- ,
 
 THE UNEARNED LAND VALUE 177 
 
 ness, he can claim the entire profit, which is 
 partly earned, partly unearned. If, on the 
 other hand, one furnishes the work, and an- 
 other the capital, the profit will have to be 
 divided between the two partners according 
 to a fair proportion agreed upon before- 
 hand; the share of the former is due to him 
 as compensation for his labor, whilst the 
 claim of the latter is that of a proprietor to 
 the fruit of his capital. 
 
 In an advanced stage of social progress 
 almost any kind of property may be made 
 productive or fruitful. Not only labor, but 
 also land and capital are rich sources of 
 wealth, nor can any one of them be dispensed 
 with. Of the three, land is undoubtedly the 
 most important, no matter whether we con- 
 sider its abundance of hidden treasures and 
 its fertility, by which it is, as Leo XIII. says, 
 ''a never failing store-house for man's ever- 
 recurring needs," or look upon it as the 
 dwelling-place wherein men may live and 
 build their houses, work-shops, stores or 
 offices. In both respects land is the basis of 
 the two other sources of wealth. It is, there- 
 fore, of paramount importance, nay of im- 
 perative necessity for the welfare of society 
 not to abolish, but to maintain intact the right 
 of landownership as the author of nature 
 and of society has established it. 
 
 12
 
 X. 
 
 THE FUNDAMENTAL, FALLACY OP AGKARLA.NISM, 
 SOCIALISM, AND COMMUNISM 
 
 In his Open Letter Henry George strongly- 
 resented that Leo XIII. had classed the Sin- 
 gle Tax men as Socialists; he moreover ac- 
 cused the Pope of having confounded So- 
 cialism with Communism. 
 
 What is Socialism? Socialism is a special 
 J form of Communism, as Agrarianism is a 
 special form of Socialism. 
 
 Every system that attacks private owner- 
 ship and substitutes in its place common 
 ownership is in the proper sense of the word 
 Communistic. Communism, however, may be 
 more or less comprehensive and radical, ac- 
 cording as the denial of private ownership 
 extends to one or several or all of the great 
 classes of material goods that are at present 
 and always have been held in severalty. 
 Extreme Communism denies the private own- 
 ership of all classes of objects and advocates 
 the transfer of all goods without exception 
 to the community as owner and administrator. 
 178
 
 THE FUNDAMENTAL FALLACY 179 
 
 Moderate Communism ''advocates only the 
 abolition of private property as far as capi- 
 tal, or the materials of labor, or productive 
 goods in contradistinction to non-productive 
 goods, is concerned. By productive goods 
 are meant real estate, all kinds of raw ma- 
 terial, factories, machines, tools, means of 
 transportation, in fine, everything not in- 
 tended for immediate consumption. . . . 
 This moderate form of positive Communism 
 is at present the only one which has adher- 
 ents. They are divided into two large 
 groups, bitterly hostile to each other: An- 
 archism and Socialism. 
 
 '^ Anarchism (Anarchist Communism) de- 
 mands the transfer of productive property 
 to independent groups of workingmen (com- 
 munities). . . . Socialistic Communism, 
 or simply Socialism, advocates the transfor- 
 mation of all capital, or means of production, 
 into the common property of society, or of 
 the State, and the administration of the prod- 
 uce and the distribution of the proceeds by 
 the State. Since modern Socialists, and 
 chiefly the followers of Karl Marx, intend to 
 realize this scheme upon a purely democratic 
 basis, they call themselves Social Democrats, 
 and their system Social Democracy."^ The 
 
 1 Cathrein-Gettelmann, Socialiam, pp. 14 sqq.
 
 180 THE FUNDAMENTAL FALLACY 
 
 transformation of all the means of produc- 
 tion into the common property of the State 
 or commonwealth, is the final aim and the 
 substance of Socialism strictly so called, in 
 which all Socialist platforms both in Europe 
 and America agree. ^ Their other and more 
 immediate demands, in which there are many 
 differences, are, as it were, only steps and 
 means to accomplish that end. Agrarian So- 
 y cialism, finally, denies private and advocates 
 common ownership in land only. 
 
 All these systems have one and the same 
 principle in common, viz., common or col- 
 lective ownership; they differ only in its ap- 
 plication. "Whether they are called Com- 
 munism or Socialism is immaterial, these 
 terms properly meaning the same thing, just 
 as the words ** community" and ''society." ^ 
 In their strict sense, however, the terms have 
 come to signify the special systems as enu- 
 merated and described above. 
 
 In his Encyclical "Eerum Novarum" Leo 
 
 XIII. does not enter upon any classification 
 
 or enumeration of the various Communistic 
 
 forms, which he supposes to be sufficiently 
 
 v/ known ; nor does he mention any of their de- 
 
 1 Ibid. pp. 56 sqq. 
 
 2 Cf. Institutiones Juris Naturalis, by Theodore Meyer, 
 S.J., Pars II., nn. 137-140.
 
 / 
 
 THE FUNDAMENTAL FALLACY 181 
 
 mands except that which is common to all 
 systems and is the basis of all other demands, 
 viz., common landownership. Using the 
 term Socialism and Socialist in a broader 
 sense, he attacks all Communistic forms at 
 once and refutes them all by disproving the 
 one essential and fundamental tenet in which 
 they agree. This was a veritable master- 
 stroke of the great Pontiff. The foundation 
 of a building being destroyed, the stories 
 erected upon it tumble by themselves. Such 
 is Leo's refutation of Socialism and Commu- 
 nism. Apparently he deals only with Agra- ^ 
 rianism, but by refuting it he eo iyso refutes 
 all economic systems destructive of society. 
 
 In fact, between Agrarian Socialism and 
 the other Communistic forms there is no es- 
 sential difference; the difference lies merely 
 in a greater or less degree of consistency, 
 the least consistent being Agrarianism, the 
 most consistent, extreme or absolute Com- 
 munism. A supporter of common landown- 
 ership cannot consistently fall short of advo- 
 cating Anarchism or Socialism strictly so 
 called, nay, even extreme Communism. 
 
 **A Socialist, therefore," writes Cathrein, 
 ** might well take a leaf out of Mr. George's 
 book. Not only as regards the soil, but also 
 
 1/
 
 182 THE FUNDAMENTAL FALLACY 
 
 with respect to all other things owing part of 
 their value to nature (and to these how few 
 are the exceptions?), he might emphatically 
 exclaim: *Is not labor the only source of ac- 
 quiring? Does nature discriminate, and des- 
 tine her prizes for one man rather than for 
 another?' This principle, then, of Mr. 
 George's (viz., that labor is the only source 
 and title of ownership) avails him nothing, 
 unless he is prepared to throw himself into 
 the arms of radical Socialism."^ And 
 again: ''Therefore we justly conclude that 
 private property in land has the very same 
 natural basis as private property in general. 
 He who cries out against individual property 
 in land as unjust, must necessarily raise his 
 voice against all private property, and hence 
 openly and frankly profess downright Social- 
 ism. ' ' ^ 
 
 Let us examine in detail how from the 
 common ownership of land follow all the 
 principal demands of Socialism. Can an 
 Agrarian Socialist, without contradicting 
 himself, admit private ownership in raw ma- 
 terials? He cannot. All raw materials be- 
 long to the natural bounties; they are prod- 
 ucts of nature, not of man. Accordingly, 
 
 ^ The Champions of Agrarian Socialism, pp. 112 sqq. 
 
 2ibid.p. 119. e.t... ,,
 
 THE FUNDAMENTAL FALLACY 183 
 
 they are positively owned by all men in com- 
 mon ; were any one to appropriate a portion 
 of them for himself to the exclusion of all 
 others, he would rob mankind of its own. 
 Do not say, raw material must often be taken 
 out of the bosom of the earth as a fish must 
 be taken out of the river or lake to be en- 
 joyed at a meal, and this taking out fre- 
 quently implies great labor and expense. 
 Taking is not making; what is to be taken 
 by man, must first have been made by nature, 
 i. e., the Creator; and what nature or God 
 has made, is the common property of all and 
 no one's exclusive property! Neither can 
 what nature has given to all be turned by any 
 one's efforts or exertions, however laborious 
 and expensive, into his private and exclusive 
 property. For such a change would involve 
 the destruction of the common ownership in 
 that particular object, since common and in- 
 dividual ownership in the same thing are in- 
 compatible. But a natural right of owner- 
 ship vested in all mankind cannot be de- 
 stroyed or cancelled by a particular action, 
 however laborious, of one or several indi- 
 viduals. If this were feasible, why should 
 not a burglar who with great labor and skill 
 succeeds in taking public money out of the 
 city treasurer's vaults, be empowered to
 
 184 THE FUNDAMENTAL FALLACY 
 
 turn the common property of the city into 
 his private property? 
 
 But the Agrarian Socialist must go far- 
 ther and surrender to the community also 
 the artificial means of production. We say 
 the artificial means ; because means which are 
 merely natural, e. g., the flowing or falling 
 water of a river, belong to the bounties of 
 nature which are common to all. The arti- 
 ficial means are produced by human labor, 
 as machines, mills, etc., and are either the 
 product of the community as such or that of 
 one or several individuals. It is self-evident 
 that they are and remain common property 
 in the former case; and that they are so in 
 the latter, we shall now explain. 
 
 Whatever particular means of production 
 we may consider, e. g., a machine, it consists 
 of material which, through the labor and 
 skill of those working on it, received its pres- 
 ent form and composition. That material, 
 however, was once raw material and as such 
 naturally the common property of all. But 
 no private activity of individuals, as we have 
 seen, can destroy the natural right of owner- 
 ship vested in mankind. The material, there- 
 fore, or the substance, as we may call it, of 
 every machine, even when completed, remains 
 what it was by nature, the common property
 
 THE FUNDAMENTAL FALLACY 185 
 
 of all. Now the natural common ownership 
 in the substance of the machine prevents the 
 acquisition of any private ownership in the 
 accidental form produced by labor. 
 
 For the natural common right is mani- 
 festly prior and superior to any supervening 
 individual claim and must therefore prevail 
 in a case of colliding rights or claims. Such 
 a case we have before us: the ownership in 
 the substance, on the one hand, is useless 
 without the ownership in the accidental form, 
 and vice versa; on the other, it is impos- 
 sible that the machine be, at the same time, 
 the actual property of mankind and the ex- 
 clusive property of one or several indi- 
 viduals. Whose claim, therefore, must, in 
 the objective order of justice, yield and 
 whose will prevail? The inferior must yield 
 and the superior will prevail; or, as Henry 
 George correctly and forcibly puts it, ''The 
 individual right is lost in the common right. 
 It is the greater that swallows up the less, 
 not the less that swallows up the greater." 
 
 Consequently, the community which owns 
 the material will also own the form as it 
 arises through the labor of the ''producer;" 
 and when the machine is finished, it is the 
 property of the community, not of the "pro- 
 ducer." Had the latter worked on material
 
 186 THE FUNDAMENTAL FALLACY 
 
 that was his own, or at least ownerless, both 
 the substance and the form, that is, the whole 
 machine would be his ; but he worked on ma- 
 terial owned by the community and there- 
 fore the community, as owner of the mate- 
 rial or substance, becomes also the owner 
 of the new accidental form. The '^ pro- 
 ducer," indeed, has a claim upon the com- 
 munity which he has benefited for a com- 
 pensation for his labor; but in the machine 
 itself he has no claim of ownership except 
 that which everyone has in the common prop- 
 erty of all. 
 
 The case of a machine is, in the supposi- 
 tion of common landownership, exactly the 
 same as that of a cultivated field. Take an 
 agriculturist who, by expending labor, im- 
 proves a piece of land. What right does he 
 acquire according to the theory of common 
 landownership 1 
 
 He acquires indeed the right to gather the 
 fruits of his labor, that is, a portion of the 
 produce of the field, but he does not and can 
 not acquire the ownership of the field; and 
 even if he continues to lavish labor upon 
 it, he does not acquire its ownership. The 
 field was before, and always remains, the 
 property of all, and any one who wishes to 
 cultivate and use it, has the right to do so
 
 THE FUNDAMENTAL FALLACY 187 
 
 in his turn, just as our agriculturist did so 
 far. If some labor of his has not yet been 
 adequately compensated, he may eventually 
 claim what is owing to him, but he can not 
 permanently exclude others from cultivating 
 and using the same field if they wish to do so ; 
 for to exclude them would be to deprive 
 them of their natural right to the bounties of 
 nature, which are their real property as well 
 as that of all others.* 
 
 In the same way, whatever is natural in 
 the machine, is and always remains the com- 
 mon property of all; the artificial improve- 
 ment or accidental form which results from 
 
 1 In the same manner Cathrein argues in the following 
 passage: " It would be vain to object against Mr. George's 
 argument, that the agriculturist expends labor and capital 
 on his farm, and that there may occur many cases in which 
 it can scarcely be decided how much of the value of an es- 
 tate is due to labor and capital. From this it would only 
 follow that the farmer has the right to gather the fruits 
 of his labor, but not that he has the right of permanently 
 excluding all others from the use of the same land. 
 
 " Perhaps one might urge that the proprietor, continuing 
 to expend new labor on his field, will ever continue to be 
 entitled to exclude others from its simultaneous use in 
 order that he may ^et the fruits of his labor. 
 
 "We reply: If labor is the only title of ownership, 
 whence does the landowner derive his right to exclude 
 others permanently from his estate, supposing that they 
 also wish to cultivate this same piece of ground, especially 
 if no other land is to be had. He may have a right to 
 compensation for the labor already expended; but the right 
 of excluding others permanently from the advantages which 
 the soil offers as the previous condition and basis of labor, 
 cannot be derived from the sole right to the produce of 
 labor." (The Champions of Agrarian Socialism, pp. 100 
 sqq.)
 
 188 THE FUNDAMENTAL FALLACY 
 
 labor could be claimed by the producer, if it 
 were something by itself, or if the substance 
 or material were his own or, at least, some- 
 thing without an owner. But the accidental 
 form is naturally inherent in, and physically 
 identical with, the substance and must there- 
 fore go to the owner of the substance, the 
 community. The producer has a right to a 
 compensation for his labor; to its product, 
 that is the machine, he has no claim. Thus 
 it is that the principle of common land- 
 ownership leads necessarily to the common 
 ownership of all the means of production 
 resulting from labor. 
 
 The same reasoning applies also to those 
 things which, while produced by labor, are 
 not destined for production. For whether 
 or not an object is intended and used for pro- 
 duction, is a circumstance which makes no 
 differenpe whatever as regards the owner- 
 ship of the object ; whatever is made by labor 
 out of material which is positively owned by 
 mankind, remains the property of mankind. 
 Hence our final conclusion is, that common 
 landownership makes all private ownership 
 whatsoever impossible. Advocates of com- 
 mon landownership, therefore, can not reject, 
 but must endorse the further demands of 
 Anarchism or Socialism proper, and they as
 
 THE FUNDAMENTAL FALLACY 189 
 
 well as Anarchists and Socialists must join 
 hands with the extreme Communists. From 
 the standpoint of natural justice, Agrarian- y 
 ism is the real basis of Anarchism, Socialism, 
 and Communism. Hence, when Leo XIII. in 
 his great Encyclical ' ' Rerum Novarum ' ' pro- 
 posed to himself the task of refuting all these 
 pernicious systems, he could not have found 
 a shorter and more direct way of accomplish- ^ 
 ing it than the one chosen by him. As from 
 common landownership follows the common 
 ownership of all raw materials, of all means 
 of production, and of all products of labor, 
 so from the necessity and lawfulness of pri- 
 vate landownership follows the necessity and 
 lawfulness of private ownership in the means 
 of production as well as in the products of na- 
 ture and of labor: and all this in virtue of 
 the right order instituted by the Creator as 
 the natural law. Justly could the Pontiff, 
 therefore, conclude the first part of his mem- 
 orable Encyclical with this weighty pro- 
 nouncement: ''The first and most funda- 
 mental principle, accordingly, if we wish to 
 alleviate the miserable condition of the 
 masses, must be the inviolability of private ^ 
 property. ^^ 
 
 This is the only solid groundwork upon 
 which real and truly beneficial reforms can
 
 190 THE FUNDAMENTAL FALLACY 
 
 be built. Let all those, therefore, who have 
 the welfare of society at heart, ground them- 
 selves on this unshakable foundation. And 
 let especially the working classes, whose con- 
 dition demands a speedy and sure remedy, 
 turn away from all who, by their erroneous 
 principles, sap the very basis of a peaceful 
 and prosperous existence, whilst by their spe- 
 cious promises they deceive the masses, fos- 
 ter discontent, and increase misery. If some 
 of their immediate proposals seem to meet 
 real grievances, they are neither peculiar to 
 their systems nor at all connected with their 
 fundamental tenets and ultimate aims. Only 
 on the basis of right thinking and justice can 
 practical measures be devised and applied 
 which will truly and permanently promote 
 the welfare of society. 
 
 Leo XIII. was not satisfied with pointing 
 out the true principles of social reform; in 
 the second part of his Encyclical he also in- 
 dicated practical ways and means for a so- 
 lution of the social problem. From the ele- 
 vated position of his Apostolic See he has 
 mapped out a magnificent programme for 
 Church and State, for employers and em- 
 ployees, instructing them how to accomplish 
 the desired result by harmonious co-opera- 
 tion. Let all Christians study and weigh his
 
 THE FUNDAMENTAL FALLACY 191 
 
 Encyclical letter "On the Condition of La- 
 bor" and heed the voice of one whose mem- 
 ory is deservedly honored by a monument 
 bearing the inscription : 
 
 *'LE0 XIII., THE WORKINGMEN's FRIEND. 
 
 The End.
 
 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA LIBRARY 
 
 ^ Kfi. -lii:i A_ T A^^^l^ 
 
 NOV 
 
 R 
 
 M 
 
 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. 
 
 UNIVERSITY of CAUFOKNm 
 
 AT 
 
 LOS ANGELES
 
 U^.SOUTHERN REGIONAL LIBRARY FACILITY 
 
 AA 000117653 6 
 
 HD 
 
 1315 
 
 P92f
 
 la 
 
 Un