ODERN Taxation and the 
 Single Tax^ 
 
 A PAPER 
 
 read before the association of MASSACHUSETTS ASSESSORS, 
 AT ITS annual meeting, IN THE STATE HOUSE, 
 
 BOSTON, DECEMBER 15, 1893 
 
 BY THE PRESIDENT 
 
 THOMAS HILLS 
 
 'ii ■ 
 
 Twenty-eight Years a Member, and Twenty-five Years Chairman, of the Board of 
 Assessors of the City of Boston 
 
Modern Taxation and the 
 
 Single Tax 
 
 roxpurt; 
 
 A PAPER 
 
 read before the association of MASSACHUSETTS ASSESSORS, 
 AT ITS ANNUAL MEETING, IN THE STATE HOUSE, 
 
 BOSTON, DECEMBER 15, 1893 
 
 BY THE PRESIDENT 
 
 THOMAS HILLS 
 
 Twenty-eight Years a Member, and Twenty-five Years Chairman, of the Board of 
 Assessors of the City of Boston 
 
 bg of tjje *^S0oc{ation 
 
 BOSTON 
 
 Press of Geo. H. Ellis, i4i Franklin Street 
 1894 
 

 I"" 
 
 ur\i'i /M'Moa.' '^'7^0,^ 2-, 
 
 HSbSvr^ 
 
 
 Uhit^-b 
 
 
 ctjvr, ISr,l6y4.. 
 
 /yiti,<| 
 

 MODERN TAXATION AND THE SINGLE TAX. 
 
 In his “Wealth of Nations,” Adam Smith, writing in the 
 same year in which Jefferson wrote the declaration of our 
 independence, said that, “the subjects of every State ought 
 to contribute toward the support of the government as 
 nearly as possible in proportion to their respective abilities ; 
 that is, in proportion to the revenue which they respectively 
 enjoy under the protection of the State. In the observa¬ 
 tion or neglect of this maxim consists what is called the 
 equality or inequality of taxation.” The eminent political 
 economist of our own times, John Stuart Mill, has said that, 
 “ equity of taxation means apportioning the contribution of 
 each person towards the expenses of government, so that he 
 shall feel neither more nor less inconvenience from his share 
 of the payment than every other person experiences from 
 his. This standard, like other standards of perfection, can¬ 
 not be completely realized; but the first object in every 
 practical discussion should be to know what perfection is.” 
 
 The different systems of revenue reflect the principles 
 which underlie the form of government under which they 
 exist. Take the taxation of England, for example. By a 
 report of Mr. Goschen, recently one of Lord Salisbury’s 
 ^ cabinet, it appears that, for a year when the total imperial 
 
 tax for England and Wales amounted to ;£'46,563,000, less 
 
 • than ^5,700,000, or about 12 per cent, of the whole amount, 
 
 f was based on real estate. Of the remaining ^41,000,000, 
 
 • over ;£’30 ,ooo,ooo were collected from customs and excise, 
 
 — mainly from wines, liquors, tea, coffee, sugar, and to- 
 bacco. Of the ^5,700,000 on real estate, 1,785,000 was 
 
 7 • income tax on rents received, which the landlords were 
 
 prohibited by law from placing on their tenants, so that 
 less than 10 per cent, of the whole sum was a direct tax 
 upon real estate, of which proportion about 4J per cent, of 
 the total imperial assessment was carried by occupiers as 
 a house and land tax. 
 
 
4 
 
 The local taxation of the same year, corresponding to our 
 State, county, and city or town taxes, amounted to some 
 ^16,000,000. Henry Fawcett, who, though totally blind 
 from his twenty-fifth year, became the professor of political 
 economy in the University of Cambridge fifteen years later, 
 and subsequently member of Parliament and Postmaster- 
 General,— an undoubted authority,— says that, “With a 
 few exceptions, all local taxation is confined to levying rates 
 on land, houses, and business premises. The exceptions to 
 which I refer are certain tolls and dues ; and in a few in¬ 
 stances some commodity, such as coal, is subjected to a 
 special local tax.” 
 
 When we know that the direct tax on vacant land, by a 
 law that was enacted in the time of Queen Elizabeth, is 
 based not on actual, but on rental or productive value, we 
 can understand how the nobility and gentry of Great Britain 
 can hold their vast tracts unoccupied. With farming land 
 taxed upon a rental basis and with the holdings of the 
 wealthy classes taxed as farming land, it is very evident that 
 the great burden of local assessments, and about 2 per 
 cent, of the imperial or national taxes, are carried by the oc¬ 
 cupiers of “ houses and business premises.” 
 
 No wonder that Mr. Goschen, in the report referred to, 
 stated “ that house property in England is very heavily 
 taxed.” And, when we recall the figures that show over 65 
 per cent, of the national taxes borne by the consumers of 
 wine, liquor, tea, coffee, sugar, and tobacco, it is easy to see 
 what classes carry the tax burden of England. 
 
 The fund from which this immense percentage of assess¬ 
 ments, both imperial and local, is drawn, is shown by the 
 statement of Mr. R. Dudley Baxter, who twenty years ago 
 put the annual income of the United Kingdom at ;£8i4,- 
 119,000. Of this sum, larger than the national debt of 
 Great Britain, he puts the income of those who receive not 
 exceeding ;£300 each at ;£517,000,000, or 63 per cent, of 
 the whole amount. 
 
 Take an illustration to show the weight and bearing of 
 German taxation. An American correspondent writing 
 from Berlin, a few years since, gives us an example from 
 among his acquaintance. He speaks of “a skilled work- 
 
5 
 
 man, a thermometer-maker. In the United States he would 
 earn two or two and a half dollars a day, and that would be 
 low. He can make in Berlin a thaler [75 cents] a day ; 300 
 days a year [if not sick], 300 thalers,— a year’s wages 
 ^225. He must pay for four rooms in the fourth story 
 160 thalers. Then he must pay a tax on his rental of 30 
 thalers, an income tax of 6 thalers, school tax, military tax, 
 etc., at least 10 thalers ; and, with 68 per cent, of his in¬ 
 come gone for rent and taxes, he has 94 thalers [^70.50] 
 left for food, clothing, and the other expenses of himself 
 and family.” 
 
 The producers in this community, the correspondent as¬ 
 serts, “ have to bear nearly the whole burden of local and 
 general taxation.” 
 
 Those who founded our Commonwealth had lived under 
 the land-tax law of Queen Elizabeth, and had felt the weight 
 of the government burdens as they settled down from the 
 landlords, and remained with crushing force when they 
 reached the class that could not further transfer them. 
 That law remains in England to-day as it was when the 
 Puritans left for America; and then as now, in Old Eng¬ 
 land, it could be said, to use the words of Mr. R. Dudley 
 Baxter, just quoted as one of her distinguished statisticians, 
 “ rates reach everybody. . . . They fall heaviest on the de¬ 
 serving poor who are struggling to keep above pauperism. 
 They press with great severity on workingmen who own and 
 occupy their own land and houses.” 
 
 With the recollection of their bitter experience, the rulers 
 of the Puritan State formulated the principles of a republi¬ 
 can system of taxation, when the General Court in May, 
 1634, “ordered that, in all rates and public charges, the 
 town shall have respect to levy every man according to his 
 estate, and witFTconsideration of all other his abilities what¬ 
 soever, and not according to the number of his persons.” 
 
 This is essentially the Adam Smith and John Stuart Mill 
 rule, given to the world nearly a hundred years before the 
 earlier of these writers was born. It has been adopted by 
 all of our sister States ; and, with such modifications as their 
 varying interests require, it remains the fundamental princi¬ 
 ple of the tax laws of all the States of the Union. It admits 
 
6 
 
 of but one construction. It means that the public charges 
 shall be borne by every member of the community in pro¬ 
 portion to his ability to bear them, and not by methods of 
 assessment that transfer the burden “according to the num¬ 
 ber of his persons” ; that is, by the consumption of his 
 family. 
 
 While it is true that this principle of taxation remains as 
 the basis of the tax laws of all our American States, it must 
 be admitted that legislation in the interest of their own 
 communities, exemptions granted by the national govern¬ 
 ment, or gained by special classes, and the non-enforcement, 
 or the difficulty of enforcement, of the laws for the assess¬ 
 ment of personal property have in all our States disturbed 
 the relation between real and personal estate, so that, while 
 in theory the rule remains, in practice, the land and build¬ 
 ings in all our communities bear a disproportionate share of 
 the burden.* 
 
 *The proportion as shown by the assessment of 1893 for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts 
 and all its cities and towns was as follows: — 
 
 Assessed by Cities and Towns. 
 
 Valuation real estate, $1,839,663,813 ; tax on real estate,.$26,647,153 
 
 Valuation 
 Personal Estate. 
 
 Personal estate,.$588,675,216 
 
 Tax on poUs,. . 
 
 Taxes. 
 
 $8,411,016 
 
 1.339.123 
 
 Assessed by the Tax Co.m.missioner or other Agents of the State. 
 
 ValjM-tion ^ 
 
 Personal Estate. axes 
 
 Corporate taxable excess,.$243,582,089 $3,726,740 
 
 Bank stock excess,. 77,618,212 474.960 
 
 Sa\nng-bank deposits ta.xable, . . . . 228,730,018 1,143,650 
 
 Massachusetts Hospital Life Ins. Co., 10,862,137 54.3io 
 
 Life insurance values,. 57,122,117 142.805 
 
 Insurance premiums,. 13,872,108 246,732 
 
 Foreign railways,. 53.498,830 53,498 
 
 Trust companies deposits,. 1,339,069 20,421 
 
 Mining companies,. 7.956,830 3.722 
 
 Gas and electric light companies, . , - 12,175 
 
 Foreign mortgage companies, . . . - 5.288 
 
 Railroad companies tax,. 24,122 
 
 Railroad inquest tax,. i,794 
 
 Inspector of gas metres,. . 3.942 
 
 Liquor licenses (about),. 2,000,000 
 
 $1,283,256,626 Tax on personal estate. 
 Total tax, . . 
 
 Proportion of taxes from real estate, 58.9 per cent. 
 
 Proportion of taxes from personal estate, 41.1 per cent. 
 
 [7,664,298 
 
7 
 
 Yet, notwithstanding the great advantages which the 
 holders of intangible personal property enjoy by the exemp¬ 
 tion of those important classes of credit property — United 
 States bonds and real estate mortgages — from all assess¬ 
 ments, many able theorists are endeavoring to persuade our 
 community and its representatives in the legislature to give 
 them still greater advantages at the expense of the business 
 men and real estate owners and occupiers. 
 
 Some ask that all credit property may be relieved from 
 assessment; others claim that all personal property, tan¬ 
 gible and intangible, should be exempt, leaving real estate 
 to carry the whole load; while still another school, of whom 
 Henry George is the acknowledged leader, would give ex¬ 
 emption, not^nly to all personal estate, but to all buildings 
 and other structures, and lay the whole burden of assess¬ 
 ments on the land alone. 
 
 Exemptions which are departures from the principle upon 
 which our fathers founded our system of taxation make it 
 difficult to justify the imposition of assessments upon sim¬ 
 ilar classes of property. 
 
 It is hard to argue for a tax upon the bonds of our own 
 Commonwealth and those of her cities and towns, while 
 those of the nation are exempt; still harder, when secured 
 debts are free from taxation, to claim that unsecured debts 
 should be taxed ; yet harder if the next step is gained, and 
 the investments of our citizens in railroads and factories out 
 of the State, that build up rival States and communities to 
 compete with us for the business by which we live, are 
 relieved from assessment, to claim that we can justly tax 
 those who stand by our own Commonwealth, and with home 
 investments employ our people and build up the community 
 in which we dwell. 
 
 The revenue reformers, as they prefer to be called, are 
 generally holders of those classes of property the exemption 
 of which they deem essential to the public welfare; and, as a 
 rule, in their computations as to the effect of their schemes, 
 they make a mistake by claiming that the rate of taxation on 
 real estate and other property they would leave for assess- 
 'ment would rise only in the proportion that the valuation of 
 the class of property they desire relieved, bears to that of all 
 property liable to taxation. 
 
8 
 
 Following exemptions, the rate of taxation will increase in 
 more than mathematical proportion ; and with each added 
 exemption it will rise in still greater ratio than at the last 
 increase. The reason is not difficult to understand. If a 
 class of small amount is removed from the basis of taxation, 
 it will not affect the rate much more than if it had been acci¬ 
 dentally omitted by the assessors, to be restored at the next 
 annual assessment. But, as class after class is added to the 
 list of non-taxable property, the rate will rise, not only in 
 consequence of the loss of valuation from the tax basis, but 
 by the depreciation in value of that property which remains 
 within it to bear the added burden. 
 
 Hon. Henry Winn, who a few years since represented a 
 Connecticut River district in the Massachusetts Senate, and 
 is now the Mayor of Malden, has studied the questions of 
 local taxation more thoroughly than any other person with 
 whom I am acquainted. His little book of seventy-three 
 pages, entitled “ Property in Land,” is an able refutation of 
 the theories of those writers who would put all taxes upon 
 land values. I consider him good authority upon any ques¬ 
 tion of local assessment. Following exemptions, he recog¬ 
 nizes the force of the causes that produce the effect of 
 depreciating the value of property remaining assessable. In 
 a recent speech before a legislative committee he stated his 
 belief that the remission of all taxes upon personal property 
 would lessen the value of the real estate of Massachusetts 
 $110,000,000, and raise the average rate of taxation in the 
 State from $15.06 to $27.29 per thousand. 
 
 Since the law limiting the appropriation for cities to a 
 percentage of the valuation, has been in force, the rate of 
 Boston has averaged $13.00. By an entirely different course 
 of reasoning from that adopted by Mr. Winn, I found that 
 the taxation of real estate alone in our city would increase 
 its rate to about $25.00 per thousand. The effect of the 
 exemption of all personal property from assessment would 
 seem to be to nearly double the tax upon real estate, and 
 largely to reduce its value. 
 
 With such probable results, it would seem hardly worth 
 our time and thought to follow Mr. George’s scheme to raise 
 all taxes upon the value of the land alone. But the theory 
 
9 
 
 that holds that the revenues of the public can be drawn from 
 this source in ample measure, and that, when the law shall 
 free everything but land from assessment, poverty will be un¬ 
 known, has been so plausibly stated, and has been accepted 
 by so many people, that our time will be well spent in its 
 consideration. 
 
 The reform proposed is radical. It is nothing less than the 
 confiscation of all land values, by taking annually, under the 
 name and in the form of a tax, the entire income of that class 
 of property. 
 
 The wrong of the present system must be great, and the 
 benefit to future generations manifest, to justify the redis¬ 
 tribution of the property of the world, and the abrogation of 
 rights that have existed and been recognized by every civ¬ 
 ilized nation since governments were instituted. 
 
 The necessity of the change should be pressing, since, to 
 pass from one state of social order to the other, not only must 
 the owners be despoiled, but so intimately is every class con¬ 
 nected with the land upon which we live, that all except 
 those whose wealth is not in real estate and the paupers 
 must yield something of their accumulations or comforts 
 before society has settled down to the new order of things. 
 
 That this statement may not stand simply as the opinion 
 of the speaker, I quote an authority the followers of Mr. 
 George cannot discredit. 
 
 In an address to the workingmen of Boston, Feb. 22, 1889, 
 that gentleman admitted that, if his scheme was at once put 
 into operation, it might fail the life insurance companies and 
 savings-banks. He also said that in an agricultural commu¬ 
 nity it might be difficult to raise the money thought to be 
 needed for municipal wants, but, as such a people could only 
 have what the plan would furnish, they must economize and 
 bring their wants within their means. But he thought that 
 such a blissful state of society would follow the adoption of 
 his methods that full compensation would be obtained for 
 all the suffering that must be endured to reach that haven of 
 rest where poverty would be unknown.* 
 
 * Question .— How would it be with the farmers in the agricultural districts, where the 
 value of land would add to the expenses of the town in making, for instance, sanitary improve¬ 
 ments ? 
 
 A nswer .— I think where the value of the land is low you will find the necessities of the town 
 very low ; where the value of the land increases, the necessities of the town also increase; and I 
 
10 
 
 The theory starts with the proposition that, as all men are 
 created equal, all have an equal right to the soil, which is the 
 gift of God to all his children. The answer to this would 
 seem to be that men are not created equal. To one are 
 given five talents, to another two, and to another one. 
 Some are born in Greenland, where the snow that makes 
 their hut covers the sterile land for three-quarters of the 
 year, and life is one continued struggle for existence against 
 the forces of nature. Others first see the light where per¬ 
 petual summer and a fertile soil relieve them of all thought 
 for the morrow. It was Abraham Lincoln who said, “ Every 
 man is born with the right to make himself the equal of any 
 other man, if he can.” And that is as near equality as we 
 start in life. 
 
 That all may appropriate land in reasonable quantities 
 has been the rule in this and, practically, in all new coun¬ 
 tries. The price of $1.25 an acre for Western land is not 
 the value of it: it is the reimbursement of the expense of 
 surveys and governmental regulation. 
 
 But when land has been taken with the consent of the 
 government, whose officers are the agents of the community, 
 and it has been improved by the labor of its occupants, no 
 stranger, not even society, has a right to dispossess the 
 holder without compensation for the value labor has created. 
 
 Man was placed on the earth, not only to. live on it, but by 
 his labor to subdue it. The result of that labor on land is 
 as much his property, to enjoy, to transmit to his posterity, 
 or to sell to another, as is the result of his labor in build¬ 
 ing a house or making a plough. 
 
 Suppose a man sells wild fruit he has gathered, and buys a 
 horse for $100, and makes a wagon worth the same amount. 
 It is simple robbery for the government to take it from him 
 without purchase, although it may be employed for the bene¬ 
 fit of all. Has that man any better title to his team, or its 
 value of $200, than a tiller of the soil has to the $1,000 value 
 
 have no doubt that in Massachusetts, as in all our States, this tax would be sufficient to bear the 
 legitimate town expenses. If they were a little short, they would be a little more economical. 
 
 Question .— Would it result in failing the life insurance companies and the savings-banks? 
 
 Answer .— If it were to come suddenly, perhaps it might. [Laughter.] In return for them 
 we should get something better,— a state of society abounding in wealth, in which the causes of 
 greed and selfishness would be so far removed that there would be no such thing as widows and 
 orphans in want. [Great applause.]— J?e/ort of Boston Herald, Feb. 23, 1889 . 
 
I 
 
 he has added to his farm by ditching, draining, fencing, 
 planting, and fertilizing it ? And, if the teamster may sell 
 his horse and wagon, may not the farmer sell his improved 
 land? and in either case should not the rights of the original 
 owner go to the purchaser? 
 
 In every community that has passed the pioneer stage of 
 development the labor of man has been blended inseparably 
 with the land; and until the region becomes again a wilder¬ 
 ness it cannot be withdrawn from it. 
 
 Society could as well justify its action in stopping the 
 teamster every night and taking his earnings as taxes as in 
 taking the entire income of the farmer. In either case the 
 property would be left in the keeping of its nominal owner, 
 but only for the purpose of reproducing another crop for the 
 harvester of taxes. 
 
 But it may be said that, under the existing order, society 
 now compels the teamster to yield a part of his earnings in 
 the form of taxes, and that, under the new conditions, he 
 must still live on land, and either as owner or tenant, in the 
 form of taxes or rent, he would still pay his part of the pub¬ 
 lic charges. To this it may be answered that under the 
 present order there is no one so poor, not sheltered at the 
 public expense, who does not in some form and in some de¬ 
 gree contribute to the support of government. Our team¬ 
 ster cannot now escape an indirect payment for public pur¬ 
 poses, even if he lodges beneath his wagon standing in the 
 highway. The food he eats, the clothes he must wear, are 
 all charged with taxes, which he pays when he purchases the 
 commodities. 
 
 But the new method may make a more equitable distribu¬ 
 tion of the public burden. 
 
 I Let us compare the system of to-day and that which is 
 
 proposed. Mr. Croesus lives at the Vendome. He has 
 ^1,000,OCX) in credit property, the bonds of Western States, 
 I cities, and railways. Government compels him to pay 
 
 ^15,000 a year. Mr. Yeoman has a farm worth $3,500 and 
 stock worth $500. His annual contribution is $60. The 
 man with the team, Mr. Carter, is taxed $3. 'Each is as¬ 
 sessed a poll tax of $2.00; and each formerly paid 2 cents 
 tax to United States with every pound of sugar bought for 
 
2 
 
 the use of their families until the McKinley tariff law placed 
 that article on the free list. Each pays indirect taxes upon 
 rental and articles of consumption. The indirect assess¬ 
 ments bear more heavily on Mr. Carter than upon Mr. Yeo¬ 
 man, and with much greater weight upon both than upon 
 Mr. Croesus. The reason is that a much larger proportion 
 of their earnings must go for rent, fuel, food, and clothing 
 than is required from the income of their more fortunate 
 fellow-citizen. 
 
 For this there seems to be no remedy. Certainly, Mr. 
 George’s scheme does not furnish one. His promise is that, 
 with his reform, poverty cannot exist. We have only his 
 word for that. You will fail to find any demonstration of 
 it that should convince a careful investigator. 
 
 Under the new order of things Mr. Croesus pays no di¬ 
 rect tax except a poll tax. His indirect taxes increase; but 
 in the price of board at the hotel, and his other expenditures, 
 it would be a wild estimate that would put the amount above 
 $1,000. He may thank Mr. George for $39,000 net annual 
 income instead of $25,000, which was all he had left after 
 paying his taxes under the old system. 
 
 Mr. Yeoman finds that his tax bill calls for more than his 
 entire income. He attempts to raise the price of the prod¬ 
 ucts of his farm to meet it. He is met in the market by 
 immense quantities of butter, cheese, corn, oats, and hay, 
 attracted there by advanced prices from countries which 
 have not yet reformed. He must sell at the market price, 
 and pay the whole sum to the tax-gatherer. The result 
 must be that he will abandon the least profitable part of his 
 farm, let it grow to bushes and weeds, and confine himself to 
 the cultivation of fruits and those products that would be 
 injured by keeping or railroad transportation, and for which, 
 in their best state, Mr. Croesus and those of his social class 
 will pay remunerative prices. 
 
 Mr. Carter will no doubt wonder how it is, when he is re¬ 
 lieved of all assessments but a poll tax, that he cannot have 
 as much money as formerly. He probably will not get be¬ 
 yond the belief that it is because “everything costs so much 
 nowadays.” 
 
 But those who can look below the surface will see that. 
 
13 
 
 when the rich pay much less, the poor must pay much more 
 * than their share of the cost of government. 
 
 But the vacant city house lot, that standard subject of the 
 theorists of the George School, where the holder has received 
 “the unearned increment,”—has he a right to it He has 
 the same right that an iron merchant has, when the course 
 of trade advances the stock he is holding lo per cent. The 
 labor of the community bestowed or reflected on that bit of 
 our earth has been bought and paid for by its holder; and it 
 is as fair an object for the chances of business as is the stock 
 of hardware. 
 
 A striking instance of the effect of labor in the vicinity of 
 land is found in the fact that the natural advantages of Bos¬ 
 ton Common were known- to the Puritans four years before, 
 in December, 1634, Mr. Blackstone sold it for ^150. Except 
 for the purpose of ornament it has remained unimproved to 
 this time. 
 
 A moderate estimate of its value to-day for business pur¬ 
 poses is $25,000,000. But to every true Bostonian it is be¬ 
 yond all price, to be forever kept as a sacred inheritance 
 from the fathers of the cjty to their children. 
 
 The value of the Common and the corner lot have come 
 from the labor of no man or generation of men. 
 
 Clergymen, lawyers, doctors, merchants, mechanics, 
 farmers, and laborers, two hundred and fifty years ago, made 
 up the working force of Boston. They were an associated 
 body of men,— a community. Their successors are such 
 to-day. First at the North, then at the West, then at the 
 South End of the city, now behind our Public Garden, they 
 have made land valuable by their residence and labor upon 
 it ; and society has no more right to the increase they cre¬ 
 ated than it was called upon to make good the loss they sus¬ 
 tained when a change in the fashionable quarter transferred 
 values to another location. 
 
 There are those not yet in middle age who were born in 
 dwellings at the South End that cost $30,000, which sold for 
 less than half that sum when their occupants removed to 
 the more fashionable Back Bay. 
 
 Since Boston was settled, each worker, in his vocation, has 
 aided the advancement of the community; and each, paying 
 
14 
 
 his share of the cost of public improvements, has, as really 
 as those who labored on them, helped to make the value of 
 the corner lot. And that lot stands charged in its price 
 with the cost of all this labor, and also for interest on its 
 purchase moneys and its contributions for taxes. Whoever 
 buys it pays for the labor that has made it valuable, and is 
 entitled to whatever profit it may bring; for, from the time 
 that Winthrop landed to this hour, the gates of the city have 
 been open. Almost any one could join the community, and, 
 joining, had the right to make himself the equal of any man 
 in it, if he could. Every man of every generation might 
 have bought the corner lot if he would pay the price 
 of it. 
 
 And then, too, society has had a great advantage under 
 the present system that it could never have under that of 
 Mr. George. Should all the income of land be taken away, 
 one lot would be as valuable as another, except for its nat¬ 
 ural advantages. Consequently, the choice spots that nature 
 has made would be taken, and the sterile and the low, 
 marshy districts lie waste. There would be no attempt to 
 subdue the earth except in a very.limited sense, for there 
 could be no profit in it. The most valuable land of London 
 was an unreclaimed marsh in the time of Charles II., and 
 more than $100,000,000 of Boston valuation is found where 
 thirty years ago the stagnant waters of the Back Bay cov¬ 
 ered the great cesspool of the city. There is plenty of land 
 even in the city of Boston, waiting the improvement that 
 labor can bestow, some of it so cheap that, for the price of 
 sixty days’ work of an unskilled laborer, I can put him in 
 possession of a house lot within the city limits, and ten min¬ 
 utes’ walk from a railroad station.* 
 
 Nothing we call property is so valuable as land, when it is 
 needed ; nothing so valueless as land, where it is not wanted. 
 
 Let me break the monotony of my argument by illustra¬ 
 tions of this truism. A few years since, with a part of my 
 family, I was in the habit of spending my summer vacations 
 
 ♦A leading dealer in real estate in a suburban ward of Boston, through which two lines of 
 steam railroads pass with numerous trains for the accommodation of local travel, at an expense of 
 from five to ten cents per trip, in answer to an inquiry writes as follows : “ I think a fair state¬ 
 ment would be that for sixty days’ labor, say $ioo, a desirable house lot can be obtained, varying 
 with location from 2,000 or 2,500 to 5,000 square feet in size, and within ten minutes of trans¬ 
 portation facilities.” 
 
15 
 
 in the lovely town of Shelburne. One year on our arrival 
 we missed the daughter of the house. She had married, and 
 her father had bought for her home a farm separated from 
 his own by the beautiful Androscoggin. It had been the 
 home of an aged couple, whose children, as they grew up, 
 left the New Hampshire hills for the cities and the West. 
 At the death of the last parent the farm was sold. Making 
 the wedding visit, we found the buildings a comfortable 
 cottage that would cost about ^1,000 to build in this vicinity, 
 and a large barn, almost new, that would cost at least $500. 
 The land about the dwelling was well cleared, and the flavor 
 of the Red Astracan apples from the orchard still lingers in 
 my memory. The grounds consisted of more than 100 acres 
 of land, much of it covered with a good growth of sugar- 
 maples and other hard woods, interspersed with those of 
 the evergreen variety. This rural home was in the midst of 
 the most magnificent natural scenery. Adams and Madison 
 but four miles away, great Washington, “the crown of New 
 England,” but eight miles distant. 
 
 Walking the short two miles between the home of our 
 host and that of his daughter, we crossed the river, and saw 
 the glorious view from Lead-mine Bridge, which Starr King 
 says is “one of the loveliest pictures ... on the earth.” 
 During my stay I was visited by a friend, my cotrustee of a 
 Boston savings-bank. I pointed out the estate, I told him 
 of its area, reminded him that the depot at Gorham was less 
 than five miles away, and asked what amount of money our 
 bank could safely loan on mortgage of the estate. With care¬ 
 ful consideration he answered ^1,000. The whole property 
 had been bought for $750, with only a small part of the pur¬ 
 chase money paid in cash. 
 
 As a counter-illustration let me tell the story of the great 
 land speculation of the Commonwealth. In 1856 the State 
 was the owner of about 100 acres of flats west of the Public 
 Garden in Boston. The city had been draining into the 
 basin in which they were situated from the early colonial 
 times ; and in 1821 its waters were shut out from the flow of 
 the tide by “the mill-dam,” now Beacon Street. 
 
 In conjunction with the Water Power Company, which 
 held the right to flow these flats “forever,” it was deter- 
 
i6 
 
 mined to fill them with gravel brought in from Needham by 
 the Boston & Albany Railroad Company. In exchange for 
 the right of drainage, filled land to the value of $470,000 was 
 granted to the city. To the Institute of Technology, the 
 Natural History Society, and other institutions were given 
 land exceeding in value $350,000. In filling, improving, and 
 selling 60 per cent, of the land, and filling and making the 
 other 40 per cent, into avenues, streets, and passageways, the 
 State expended $1,642,000. Fifty-three acres sold realized 
 $5,084,000, leaving a clear profit to the treasury of $3,442,- 
 000. This part of the old Back Bay basin has become the 
 fashionable residential quarter of the city. Before the im¬ 
 provement it would have been a dear purchase at anything 
 above a nominal price of, say, $100,000. Under the Henry 
 George system it would have been absolutely worthless,— 
 worse than worthless : it would have called for large sums 
 of public money to prevent it from becoming a menace to 
 the health of the community. At the last assessment with 
 which I was officially connected, that of 1892, the land value 
 of this tract, excluding the buildings, was $19,246,800. Had 
 the happy time that George promises antedated 1856, the 
 flats would never have been improved. And, upon his own 
 theory, the land and the increased value given to it by the 
 costly buildings erected on it should never be taxed ; for 
 all, except possibly the first $100,000, is the product of 
 labor. 
 
 In the western part of our State lies the county of Berk¬ 
 shire. 
 
 It stretches from Vermont to Connecticut. Its 550,- 
 000 acres are about one-eighth of the area of our State. Its 
 broad expanse of nearly 1,000 square miles (three-fourths 
 the size of the State of Rhode Island) includes one-third of 
 all the land of Massachusetts between the Connecticut 
 River and the State of New York. 
 
 Here, if anywhere in our Commonwealth, is that natural 
 land to which the followers of George might claim that man¬ 
 kind is entitled. The fact that men have carried two great 
 lines of railroads through it, and have tunnelled the Hoosac 
 Mountain to make a way for one of them, has somewhat 
 unsettled the conditions, as has the building of one of our 
 
7 
 
 youngest cities, Pittsfield, and the great towns of North 
 Adams, Great Barrington, and Lenox, within its borders. 
 But, including the value of these four municipalities (which 
 is more than one-half of all in the shire), and making no 
 allowance for the increased value of the land from the build¬ 
 ings and other improvements of the farming towns,— in 
 short, taking the land values just as they were found at the 
 assessment of May i, 1892, and they amount to only 15,- 
 098,773, less than 79 per cent, of the little man-made 100 
 acres in Boston, created under the conditions under which 
 land is now held. 
 
 That there are good reasons why there should be govern¬ 
 mental restriction to prevent the holding of enormous areas 
 by one person or family, all who are disinterested will 
 admit. 
 
 But in a well-ordered State, under republican forms of gov¬ 
 ernment, such holdings are impossible, except in the first or 
 early settlement of new countries. Apply the correction 
 needed then and there, and you can safely leave the self-in¬ 
 terest of the members of the new State to devise measures 
 to prevent the inordinate holding of unimproved land. 
 
 The city lot must double every ten years, or interest and 
 taxes will consume its value, and its owner will carry it at a 
 loss. Near my home is land that has been held by one fam¬ 
 ily for more than eighty years. It has risen to be worth 50 
 cents a square foot. The annual taxes, sewer, and sidewalk 
 assessments have made it too heavy to be carried longer, 
 even by one of our wealthiest families. A few years since 
 (and as soon as there was public need of it) they began to 
 unload. If they reckon fairly with themselves, they will 
 doubtless find that the property has cost at least five times 
 what they will receive for it. 
 
 But what of the plan, if, with all its injustice and hardship, 
 its spoliation of one class, its remission of taxes to the 
 wealthy holders of personal property, its increase of the in¬ 
 direct taxes of the poor, it cannot be made to yield the rev¬ 
 enues needed by the State? I will endeavor to demonstrate 
 that such is the fact, and relieve you of further atten¬ 
 tion. 
 
 In Boston we have land (exclusive of buildings) assessed 
 
i8 
 
 at as high a rate as $130 a square foot. It would be easy 
 in some locations to find an acre worth more than $2,000,- 
 000.^ 
 
 It must be conceded that, if the scheme will not work in 
 a community where such conditions are found, it will not 
 work anywhere. 
 
 Let us try it by the 1892 valuation.! The total value of 
 the land was ^399,i/OT/S- From this amount we must de¬ 
 duct ;^5,843 ,ioo, marsh and flats; for no man will spend 
 money to reclaim them if government is to take all the in¬ 
 come. Again drop ^46,869,500, the value of vacant land, 
 since no one will buy it or take it until needed for instant 
 improvement; and less than 30 per cent, of the city’s as¬ 
 sessed area is now classed as improved land. A still further 
 reduction should be made for large tracts connected with 
 the dwellings of our suburban wards, which, classed as im¬ 
 proved, would be abandoned under the system of Mr. 
 George. 
 
 That this reduction is justified is shown by comparing the 
 area to each building in the Sixteenth Ward in the heart of 
 the city, where the average is only 1,791 square feet, with 
 that of Ward Twenty-three, one of the outlying wards where 
 the average rises to 4,997 square feet. The value might be 
 ten or fifteen million dollars at present -prices, but we will 
 not include it. Let it pass. 
 
 Land values must shrink enormously when the entire in¬ 
 come is taken for taxes : how much must be a matter of 
 opinion. Under such circumstances the land could hardly 
 be expected to hold one-half its present value; but, to be 
 safe, say it will lose only one-third, and we find a loss of the 
 
 * Assessed value, May i, 1892, of block in city of Boston, bounded northerly by Winter 
 Street, easterly by Washington Street, southerly by Temple Place, and westerly by Tremont 
 Street, 97,652 square feet of land, $7,157,800, This is $73.29 per foot, $3,192,512 per acre. The 
 buildings upon this area have an assessed value of $982,200, equal to $10.05 foot, $437,778 per 
 acre. Or for land and buildings $83.34 per foot, $3,630,290 per acre. 
 
 t Assessed value of land (exclusive of buildings) in the city of Boston, May i, 1892 : — 
 
 194,907,530 sq. ft. occupied land, ^346,457i575 = $1-769 per ft. 4,474 acres $77,059 per acre 
 
 508,544,966“ “ vacant land, 46,869,500= 0.092 “ “ 11,675 “ 4,012 “ “ 
 
 112,050,454 “ “ marsh and flats, 5,843,100= 0.052 “ “ 2,571 “ 2,272 “ “ 
 
 815,502,950 sq. ft. land, marsh andflats, $399,170,175 = $0,489 per ft. 18,720 acres $21,323 per acre. 
 
 Assessed value of land (exclusive of buildings) Commonwealth of Massachusetts, May i, 1892, 
 4,504,273 acres, $878,276,021, equal to $195 per acre. 
 
19 
 
 vacant land, marsh, and flats, ^52,712,600, shrinkage of im¬ 
 proved land values, $115,485,858, a total of $168,198,458. 
 To give the scheme every advantage and to reach round 
 numbers, reduce the loss 12 per cent., drop it from $168,- 
 198,458 to $146,457,575’, and, having given up over $30,000, 
 000 that might fairly be included against the plan, we have 
 left for assessment, under the George system, land values of 
 exactly $200,000,000. 
 
 Ground rents are not more profitable than other safe in¬ 
 vestments. Government bonds yield less than 3 per cent. 
 Savings-bank investments about Call the income of the 
 land 4 per cent. ; and, when Mr. George’s tax officials have 
 got it all, they will have collected an amount more than 
 $3,800,000 short of what Boston needed for last year’s tax 
 levy. 
 
 But the State tax on Boston for .1892 was only $680,744, 
 because of a State revenue, mainly from the assessment of 
 corporations, national banks, and savings-banks, of more 
 than $1,000,000 in excess of the State tax on all the cities 
 and towns of the Commonwealth.^ Losing this income 
 under the George scheme, the State must call on Boston 
 for an additional $1,066,524; and the shortage will rise to 
 $4,650,000. 
 
 But this is not all. Boston could not have paid its bills 
 with $11,805,404 if it had not received as income the collec¬ 
 tions by the State of the taxes of Boston citizens upon 
 their holdings in Massachusetts corporations. This direct 
 income, paid to the city in money, would be lost under the 
 George single tax. In 1892 it amounted to $960,671.99. 
 Adding its sum to the shortage already ascertained, and the 
 deficiency after the last dollar has been collected under the 
 single tax plan is over $5,600,000. A deficit of over 45 per 
 cent, in each annual assessment would seem to be a very 
 rapid progress to municipal poverty. 
 
 Let us try the plan by the statistics of Woburn, a small 
 semi-rural city, having good railroad connections, with depots 
 within ten miles of the State House. It is a fair state- 
 
 *The sources of this revenue are shown in the table in the foot-note on page 6. The taxes 
 on “ corporate excess,” ” bank stock excess,” and “liquor licenses,” are. divided between the 
 State and its municipalities. All other assessments by agents of the State are solely for the 
 treasury of the Commonwealth. 
 
20 
 
 ment to say that in Boston land values are 6o and buildings 
 40 per cent, of real estate, and that in Woburn the condi¬ 
 tions are reversed, land 40, buildings 60 per cent. 
 
 At first glance it would appear that the younger would 
 suffer less than the older city under the new method, as a 
 larger proportion of the property would be exempt This 
 would be true if the land could be made to yield the re¬ 
 quired revenue. 
 
 But all the income of land under the most favorable condi¬ 
 tions falls far short of producing the ordinary tax levy. So 
 the problem being,— How can the city annually raise the 
 money it must have,— the test will show the smaller in far 
 greater financial difficulties than the larger municipality. 
 
 Woburn had in 1892 a 
 
 Land valuation of .... $3,186,239, producing a tax at $15.70 of $50,028 
 Building valuation of. . . . 4,409,055 “ “ “ _ 69,222 
 
 Personal property valuation of 1,737,229 “ “ “ 27,276 
 
 Polls. 3,743 “ “ “ 7486 
 
 Total tax .... $154,012 
 
 But the State assessed and paid to the city corporation 
 taxes that amounted to ^3,290.75, and national bank taxes 
 that amounted to $4,253.68, so it appears that there were 
 assessed in the year 1892, for the city of Woburn, taxes 
 amounting to $161,556. 
 
 The city has an area of 7,651 acres, which at its assessed 
 value is, as nearly as may be, $400 an acre. Upon this area 
 there are 2,344 dwelling-houses. 
 
 Under the proposed scheme no one will have more land in 
 connection with a dwelling than is absolutely needed. 
 
 It will be remembered that, under the pressure of the 
 present system, the area to each building in a ward in the 
 heart of Boston was only an average of 1,791 square feet. 
 But let us give the plan every chance, and assume that 5,000 
 square feet will be retained with every dwelling, 269 acres 
 will be used. I do not know how many factories and other 
 miscellaneous buildings there are in the city ; but, like the 
 dwellings, the}' will occupy the smallest area possible. To 
 allow that they will take one-third the space used by the 
 
21 ROXBURY, 
 
 dwellings would seem to be ample. Possibly, a little land 
 might be taken for market-gardening; but we will say that 
 360 acres will be used, and the rest abandoned. Allowing 
 for an increased State tax of ^11,839, which the loss of State 
 revenue will require, the area must produce, upon the plan 
 of Mr. George, ^173,395 per year, in order to meet the finan¬ 
 cial needs of the city. Assume 4 per cent, on the value to 
 be a fair rental, and the occupied land must be worth over 
 ^4,000,000 to produce the required amount. This is 30 
 cents a foot, over $13,000 an acre, more than thirty times as 
 much as the average price of Woburn land to-day, with all 
 the labor that has been bestowed upon it. 
 
 With the entire income taken, the land would only be val¬ 
 uable for its necessary use in sustaining the buildings which 
 will yield a return. Under such conditions the man who 
 would take an acre, and pay the taxes on it, would be a 
 public benefactor. With 7,300 acres to be had for the tak¬ 
 ing, surely it is a liberal estimate to allow that the occupied 
 land would be worth as much as the average of to-day; that 
 is, $400 an acre. 360 acres at $400 would amount to $144,- 
 000. Ground rent at 4 per cent., $5,760. Call it 6 per 
 cent., $8,640. Can any one indicate from what source could 
 come the deficiency of $164,700.^ 
 
 But some zealous follower of Mr. George will answer all 
 that can be said as to the impracticability of the scheme, 
 with the statement that all men must live on land, and that 
 the plan would work if the necessary tax be apportioned 
 upon as much of it as should be used, and its occupants 
 compelled to pay the assessment. 
 
 To oblige the land-holder to yield more than 100 per cent, 
 of his income, because all must use some part of the earth’s 
 surface, would be on a par with the morality of a govern¬ 
 ment which should send its officer to a man who had money, 
 with the statement that air was necessary to his existence, 
 and with orders to deprive him of his share of it until he 
 produced the needed amount. 
 
 An easily understood illustration will demonstrate the 
 amount of the robbery and the confiscation of other than 
 land values that must follow the imposition of the single 
 tax, even in Boston, where our land is most valuable. I 
 
22 
 
 have an estate where as nearly as may be the lot of land 
 cost ^1,000 and the building ^3,000, a total value of ^4,000. 
 In the assessment of 1892, with the rate at $12.90’per 
 $1,000, the tax was $51.60. The valuation of the taxable 
 property of the city for that year, including its share of Mas¬ 
 sachusetts corporate stock, bank shares, and ships in foreign 
 trade,* was $958,862,412. Boston’s share of the assessable 
 value of the deposits in our savings-banks and other personal 
 property taxed by the State would carry its aggregate valu¬ 
 ation above one thousand million dollars, or five times the 
 amount of the basis of assessment under the George system. 
 My tax must consequently increase fivefold, to produce the 
 amount needed for the annual tax. 
 
 My rent is $400 a year. Clearly, the building produces 
 $300 of this income and the land $100. But Mr. George’s 
 tax officials demand, under the name of a land tax, $258, 
 — more than 150 per cent, in excess of the entire ground 
 rent. 
 
 As no one will build or rent houses unless the net profit 
 is equal to the interest that can be obtained from other safe 
 investments, this added burden of taxes must be carried by 
 my tenants, increasing the rent to be paid from $400 to 
 $600,— an advance of 50 per cent.,— with national taxes 
 to be added, and with indirect assessments increased on 
 account of increased prices occasioned by the land taxation 
 of the premises of shop-keepers and traders in all commod¬ 
 ities. 
 
 If time permitted, it might be profitable to trace the in¬ 
 cidence of such a tax scheme further, and show to what 
 extent under its operation the rich would pay much less 
 and the poor much more than under the methods to which 
 we are accustomed. Such an analysis would show that a 
 tax exclusively on land, or on land and buildings, would, like 
 a tariff, throw its burden on the masses of the people in 
 proportion to their consumption. A man would be taxed, 
 not upon the relative amount of his property, but according 
 to the number of persons in the family he must shelter and 
 support. 
 
 We have good reason for remembering with gratitude the 
 
 Report of the Assessors of Boston for 1892, p. 9. 
 
men who founded here “a church without a bishop, a state 
 without a king.” 
 
 Let us not cease to be thankful that, with their clear ideas 
 of justice, they instituted and sent down to us a system for 
 the assessment of the public charges that requires the offi¬ 
 cers of the law “to levy every man according to his estate, 
 and with consideration of all other his abilities whatsoever, 
 and not according to the number of his persons.”