66

THE following Queries and Answers " are selected from the Standard-Mr. Henry George's New York journal-in the hope that they may help any of his friends-or enemiesin England to overcome any difficulties which they may feel in accepting his views :—

On the effect of the land-tax on the labour market, L. asked :-" Suppose your idea works to :-་ perfection, why would not the worker be as much at the mercy of the capitalist as now? Why would 'the hands' in a manufactory receive higher wages? Why would not the capitalist be able to absorb every good the reform might work?"

Mr. George answered :-"One conclusive reason why the worker would not be as much at the mercy of the capitalist as now is that he would be sure of a living. Now he must get a job of a capitalist or starve. Now it is with him a question of low wages or none. Then he would not be dependent on a capitalist for a job; he could get a living without anyone's permission. Then it would be, at the worst, a question of low wages or better wages. The hands in a factory would receive high wages, because they would not surrender their independence and become cog wheels in a big machine unless it were made exceedingly profitable to them. No one would go into a big factory for a mere living. The capitalist could not absorb every good the reform might work,' because the suction power of capital is gone when land is free."

On the subject of labour exploitation, A. asked: -Will the abolition of private property in land enable employés of capitalists to share in the product resulting from their labour? Suppose a capitalist engages in business. So long as he alone labours with his capital he is entitled to the entire product of that labour and that capital, and no one else can rightfully claim a share in it. But if the capitalist employs others to assist him-as the law would stand even after the emancipation of the land-the employés would get only the market value of their labour, while the capitalist would get the balance of the entire net profits or product."

Mr. George answered:-" When a capitalist labours alone with his capital, he is, as you say, entitled to the entire product. That product is in part wages and in part return to capital. When he employs others to assist him they, having no capital, get wages only. Under existing conditions the wages are regulated by competition for opportunities to work, and as opportunities are restricted while workers increase, wages decline, and he who can control an opportunity to work gets a surplus over wages and return to capital. But if land values were taxed away, opportunities to work would be practically unlimited, and there would be no competition for them. There would be, instead, competition for workers. In that case wages would be determined by the productiveness of the labour, and the capitalist would get nothing but his wages and return for his capital when he employed men, just as when he laboured alone

with his capital. His wages might be higher,

because his work would be more valuable, as a foreman's wages are now higher than a journey

་

:

On the effect of the land-tax upon farm values, E. J. W. asked "Can you explain how the principle of taxing land up to its full rental value' can be applied to farms whose rental value has doubled or quadrupled solely by the owner's industry in clearing off stones and useless vegetation, and applying fertilizers, &c. ?"

Mr. George answered:-"There is so much farming land that does not require such treatment, which under the land value tax would have little or no rental value, that the whole value of the farms of which you speak would be treated probably as improvement value. Most of such farms still have uncleared spaces of the same kind of land, or at least there are uncleared spaces of the same kind of land in the neighbourhood. Ascertain the value of these uncleared spaces, and you have the land value of the cleared spaces. If the clearing was made generations ago, it would not be taken into account. Thus, in taxing a lot in New York city, we should not regard the clearing made by the Dutch farmer in the seventeenth century as an improvement. So with made land, at first it would be an improvement, but in time that character would disappear. Improvements such as these are of the nature of inventions, the monopoly of which is secured to the inventor for a limited time only."

On the effect of the land-tax upon the machinery question, F. asked the following question:-" You say, I know, that so much good and profitable land would be made free that the labourer could always make a living by his own work on his own land, and that wages could never drop below what he thus could make by his own labour on a new piece of land. Certainly not. But that might be little enough, after a short while. For does it not become more and more difficult for a man to make a decent living by his own independent work? The things now needed to a decent life are so many that without the aid of machinery one man cannot produce them or their value. Unable to use the machinery of the world, a man will therefore soon be unable to make even the humblest living even on free good land, for fai ming will not much longer pay-pay even living wages --unless it be organised on a grand scale, backed by large capital. Briefly, we do all every day become more and more dependent on the use of machinery; as much dependent thereon as on land or air. Soon he, who in our civilised communities cannot make use of machinery, must starve, and the owners of the world's stock of machinery will own us all."

Mr. George answered :- "You speak of machinery as if it were a product of nature, over which labour has no control. Pray, what is machinery but a product of the land drawn forth by labour? We need only the land to give us

machinery. The owners of the world's stock of machinery,' indeed! Why, the same brawn and brain that made the existing stock of machinery can make another stock, and with free access to land would do so very quickly if the owners of the existing stock tried any capers. It is the private ownership of land that makes us in any degree dependent on the owners of machinery now. If labour would make new machinery it must first get permission of land owners, and land owners charge the highest price possible for their permission. With free land no one's permission would be necessary. Put a farmer, a carpenter, a mason, an iron worker, a machinist, a weaver, and a tailor, all in a condition of absolute destitution, on a productive island, and it will not be long, if the island be free, until they have dwellings, clothing, and food in abundance and of good quality, and will have accumulated such capital as will allow them to carry on production with the best tools. But if the island be privately owned, the owner will have these things and the artisans will be grateful to him for an occasional job to keep the wolf away. The idea that the community must take possession of machinery in order to give the people the advantage of the abolition of land ownership is due to an imperfect conception of the functions of land in the complex processes of modern industry. But let the truth be once grasped that land plays the same part in the most complex industrial conditions that it plays in the most primitive, and this fear of the power of machinery in free production will be recognised for the nightmare that it really is. It would be as impossible to maintain a corner in machinery as a corner in potatoes, if land were free."

As to the precise time when non-taxable land becomes taxable, D. asked the following question: -"You say that the improvements on land should not be taxed; that the land itself should be taxed, and that that tax should be regulated according to the rental value of the land, and that some land, having no rental value, should not be taxed at all. The question is this: Suppose twenty or more mechanics should occupy this non-taxable land and build each one a house and occupy it, when would that non-taxable land become taxable, and what gives it a rental value if not the improvements?"

Mr. George answered: "The non-taxable land would become taxable when other people were willing to pay for the privilege of going upon it. To illustrate: Let us suppose that line A is the outer limit of valuable land, and that any one who lives below that pays a ground value tax; but that land beyond it is free, and that all the free land lying between line A and line B is equally desirable, while that between line B and line C is, on account of greater distance from the centre or other cause, somewhat less desirable. Now, suppose that your twenty or more mechanics build upon the land between line A and line B. They will, of course, pay no tax, for the land has no value. After a while another mechanic wants free land, and as the space between lines A and B is not yet wholly occupied, he builds there too, and is also exempt from taxation. But now still another mechanic wants a home, and cannot build on the land lying between A and B, because it is all occupied. He must then decide whether he will go upon the less desirable land lying between lines B and C or

pay something to one of the occupants of the better land for the privilege of taking his place. When enough cases of this kind occur to give a rental value in the market to land lying between lines A and B, everybody occupying that land will be taxed. Then, and not before, the non-taxable land becomes taxable. Improvements do give value to non-valuable land, but only by monopolising it. So long as other land just as good in all respects can be had for nothing, no land will acquire value, no matter how much it is improved. It is the appropriation of better land which by forcing late-comers to go upon the poorer lands, gives value to the better land. A man who wants to shield himself from the scorching rays of a July sun will not pay anything for a first-class shade tree so long as other first-class shade trees are equally accessible; but if first-class shade trees are all appropriated, and he must either pay rent, go to a poorer shade tree, or stand in the sun, he will make it an object, if he can, to somebody to go to one of the poorer trees. So it is with land."

On the question of the man with capital and the man without, a disciple asks:-" If all taxes were transferred to land, or even if land were actually owned by the State and leased to individuals, would not persons already in possession of capital have a considerable advantage over those who have no capital, which would enable the former to pay a higher rent than the latter, and thus practically monopolise the use of land?"

Mr. George answered:-"The opposing influences at present is not insufficiency of capital, but the great cost of the ground, the burdensome taxes on the building, and the extra risk created by these two factors. Returns from capital tend to a level, and ground-rent is scaled according to the desirableness of the ground. These tendencies would be stronger than now if production were free."

Is civilisation advanced by private ownership in land? G. W. K. asked.

Mr. George answered: Private use of land is a cause of civilisation; but private ownership of land is its curse. Ownership of land involves the right to prevent its use. It is private ownership of land that makes it so difficult to use land. Private ownership sets up a toll gate, and it often happens that men are forced to pay a toll which leaves them nothing out of what they produce but a bare living."

On the effect of panics, conspiracies in production, and such proprietorship, E. M. W. asked :— (1)" Are not booms and panics more directly the result of fluctuations of currency or money supply than of land speculation? With a stable currency would not land values rise steadily with the advance of society, rather than by fits and starts? (2) Are not some of the great conspiracies in production beyond the reach of the reforms which would be accomplished by the nationalisation of the land? (3) Do not the benefits, moral and economic, which seem to be inherent in small proprietorship, justify a differential land-tax-an exemption of a certain value in homestead, for instance-to force the breaking up of all great holdings, which can be subdivided, without any great economic waste."

Mr. George answered :-" (1) When land values rise steadily with the advance of society, they take

on a tendency to rise with greater rapidity than society advances, until land reaches a selling value so far in excess of rental value that production is checked and industrial depression results. This is irrespective of currency Auctuations. The same thing would happen if there were no medium of exchange, and commerce was pure barter. (2) No, they could no more flourish, if land were free, than a water-lily could bloom in a hay mow. (3) We should favour a reasonable homestead exemption, but not for the purpose of creating a peasant proprietary."

Is the land-tax to be equal on all plots, whether the houses are large or small? J. P. B. asked :— "Would two adjoining vacant lots be taxed the same amount under your system? Now, suppose A, who is a comparatively poor man, builds upon lot No. I a small house to be used as a dwelling place and store. B, who is a richer man than A, builds upon lot No. 2 a larger house, which, by sub-letting, brings in an income twice as large as A's. How would the taxes be regulated?'

Mr. George answered :-" The two men would be taxed alike if the ground-rent value of each lot was the same. If B could make it profitable to build a large house on lot No. 2, it would be profitable for A to build a large house on lot No. 1. It would also be to the best interest of all classes in the community, himself included, that he should do so. If he could not or would not do it, he ought to take a lot which he could improve up to its highest capacity and let someone use lot No. 1 who would not waste the opportunity it offered. One of the objects of the land value tax is to compel the best use of valuable land. Under our present system of taxation B compels his tenants to pay all that part of the tax that falls on the house, paying nothing himself but that which falls upon the value of the land. Under the land value tax B's tenants would really pay no taxes, for ground value tax would be paid by B out of the rent he would obtain from them anyhow, and cannot be shifted to the consumer as a house value tax is. Under our present system A pays all the tax on lot No. 1, except what falls on the store, for he is the consumer as to all the rest of the house."

PRIVATE PROPERTY IN HOUSES. SIR,-Objection is made to my observation of injury done to humanity by private ownership of dwelling-houses as well as land.

Injury results when ownership exists for the purpose of receiving rent; and as that is the object of private ownership generally, it is the general result that humanity is not best served by such ownership.

It will not be questioned that injury must result to the community at large from the acquisition by the Dukes of Bedford and Westminster of a very large proportion of the house property of the older parts of London. Neither can it be, surely, maintained with reason that the extension of London by means of “jerry-building" can be of public advantage.

If these questions can be separated from the land question I should like to be shown how.

There would probably be no injury done to the commonwealth by persons building houses for their own occupation, but that is not what I mean by the term "private property in houses."

The question does not begin and end in the metropolis. The village of Newnham, in the north of Hertfordshire, serves as an illustration of another view of the case. 19 out of 29 houses in this sequestered nook have only one door each, and the

owner of these messuage tenements will not have any addition made to their number. He further says that any young people wishing to marry must wait till their fathers and mothers die if they want to occupy a house (?) on his estate, and, further still, he prevents any of his tenants (query slaves) from keeping a store of any sort of provisions for sale.

Now what would be the effect of taxing their Graces the Dukes of Bedford and Westminster to the full extent of their ground rents, and taxing the owner of Newnham to the full extent of the land value, and leaving these human monsters to measure and sell the light and air to the occupants of their houses (sic)?

CHARLES WALKDEN. Ashwell, Herts, August, 1887.

[The statement that " injury results where ownership exists for the purpose of receiving rent," is not of universal application. It is true when a man receives rent for land, for he then obtains rent for that which he has not created or improved. He gets something for nothing, and other people are compelled to give something for nothing, and are thus injured. But when a man builds a house and obtains rent, he receives payment for labour which he gives in exchange for the rent. The acquisition by the Dukes of Bedford and Westminster of houses built by other people is an injustice and "injury" which results from their retaining the profits arising from the ownership of land, which profits belong to the community. The state of things at Newnham is the result of private ownership of land, and private ownership of land must be abolished. But with the abolition of private ownership in land, it would be necessary to arrange that occupiers of land, whether for agricultural or building purposes, should have secured to them the value of their outlay, otherwise they would not cultivate or build. -ED.j

LETTER TO LORD BRAMWELL.

MY LORD,-Impelled by a desire to instruct, or to be instructed (a praiseworthy desire you must admit), I venture to invite your lordship impartially to avail yourself of the columns of the DEMOCRAT as freely as you do those of the Times. Besides, my lord, you could prescribe to another class of readers your antidote to the "pernicious " doctrines, as you call them, which I advance. I am but a plain hardworking man, without any pretence to erudition, like your lordship, and shall offer an easy victory if I am in the wrong. It would be your duty to hold me up to the ridicule of the DEMOCRAT readers, and the task would be grateful to yourself for this reason. Reynolds' Newspaper (I hope your lordship reads it), in giving a biographical sketch of Henry George, said he was brought into notice here through the Radical newspaper. When the paper was started, I interviewed the editor, and brought him to see that it was impossible to ameliorate the condition of the masses before eradicating the evils of our land system. Private property in land is indisputably

private property in man, and landholders would continue to prey on us so long as any booty lasted, hence the axiom that the idle rich must grow richer and the industrious poor poorer.

I converted the editor, who introduced Henry George to be a thorn in your side. My dogma was enunciated before Henry George could lisp; then surely I am an attractive target for your shafts. Understand me, I am not vain enough to class myself with John Stuart Mill, or Henry George, and other noble philanthropists. It was accident that led me to study the land question when a youth, and all that followed was in a chapter of accidents.

I respectfully, yet flatly, contradict your statement that the soil of England is the absolute property, in esse or in posse, of individuals apart from the masses. I believe, further, that your statement fosters crime. Man cannot live without the soil, and as those who pretend to own it debar him from the use of it without pay, they daily demand of him "Your money or your life," like highwaymen.

Why should we pay? The landhol der renders us no service, and if we rose and expatriated every landholder to-morrow, God's gift would remain, and we should be better off.

If your lordship can rebut my assertions, it imperatively behoves you to do so.

JOHN WHEELWRIGHT.

SPREAD THE LIGHT. SIR,-Rousseau's Social Contract, c. xv., says, Though the people of England think they are free, they are much mistaken; they are only so during the election of Members for Parliament. As soon as they are elected, the people are slaves-they are nothing." How exactly this represents the truth is shown by the Coercion Act, passed in direct opposition to the will of the masses, and the emasculation of the Land Bill in the interest of the classes. And so it will be until we have paid members and adult suffrage.

A few words from De Lolme are worth pondering over. He says that the combination who share the actual exercise of the public power and its advantages do not allow themselves to sit down in inaction. They wake while the people sleep. Entirely taken up with the thoughts of their own power, they live but to increase it. Deeply versed in the management of public business, they see at once all the possible consequences of public measures. They give rise, at their pleasure, to every incident that may influence the minds of a multitude who are not on their guard (to wit, the manufacture of fictitious crimes in Ireland, "Parnellism and Crime," &c.), and who wait for some event or other that may finally determine them.

Ever active in turning to their advantage every circumstance that happens, they equally avail themselves of the tractableness of the people during public calamities and its heedlessness in times of prosperity.

By presenting to them many things at once, and which are to be voted for in the lump, they hide what is destined to promote their own private views, or give a colour to it, by joining it with things which they know will take hold of the minds of the people. By presenting in their

NOW IS THE ACCEPTED TIME.

SIR, When, eighteen hundred and seventyseven years ago, the world under the mighty sway of Rome was at peace, and there were hardly rumours of war to distract men's attention from a consideration of things affecting their present or future well-being, when there was a hush in the turmoil of human strife, Christ came among men, and many were ready to listen to him, and some to follow.

The world is again at peace. Humanity has grown better through seeking to follow the laws of Sinai, and to pray the Lord's Prayer and understand the Sermon on the Mount, these eighteen hundred years, and are saying, "who will show us any good." There is nothing to distract from the great question of human natural rights and oppor tunities, and of the cause of misery, poverty, and crime. The poverty of the poor and the sympathy of the rich compel men to think.

The hour is come. The stars in their courses fight for us. God is with us, for our cause is just, who then shall be against us?

Let us be careful to improve the time and let no opportunity slip by of spreading the light and truth that ground rents are values created by the public and intended by the Creator for public purposes, as they are essentially public property. That their appropriation by the public would put a stop to gambling in land values and the present system of legalised piracy, land gambling, oppressive taxation, and poverty among those who are willing to work. Then justice will reign supreme instead of selfishness and avarice. When that time comes, the millenium will be here.

SILAS MANVILLE.

He first

SIR,-As a subscriber to your interesting and valuable periodical, the DEMOCRAT, I take the liberty of enclosing the accompanying paragraph which appeared in the Standard of the 11th inst. As you may see, an individual of presumably gentle birth, and in H.M. service, behaves in a manner that would disgrace a costermonger. threatens and then flogs an unfortunate tollgatekeeper in the execution of his duty. Lastly, this gallant defender of his country tries to evade retribution by a sneaking lie, worthy of a modem Ananias, and is fined the ridiculous sum of £1 and costs by the indulgent Solon on the bench, who no doubt would, if the offender had been a poor man and without influential friends, have dealt with him in an exemplary manner and befitting the assault in question. A short time ago a very similar case occurred near Portsmouth, the offender this time being a Naval Lieutenant, and if my memory serves me aright, was dealt with in a singularly lenient fashion by another panderer to aristocracy. I may add that I have not the slightest acquaintance with any of the parties