SINGLETAX 
 
 AND ITS 
 
 CLEVELAND CHAMPIONS 
 
 Letters and Answers Published in the Catholic^Pefiletin, 
 Cleveland, Ohio, May, 1915 to May, 1916. 
 
 WHERE WE DISAGREE: 
 
 "Does the Singletax Club of Cleveland, Ohio, hold the 
 doctrine of Henry George, that private ownership in land is 
 *a bold, bare, enormous wrong?' " 
 
 ANSWER given by O. K. Dorn, Treasurer of the Single- 
 tax Club: "Yes, we believe that private ownership in land is 
 a bold, bare, enormous wrong." 
 
 "Does the Singletax Club of Cleveland, Ohio, as regards 
 the question of ownership in land, side with Henry George or 
 with Pope Leo XIII?" 
 
 ANSWER of Mr. Dorn — "We emphatically side with Hen- 
 ry George in his controversy with Pope Leo XIII." 
 
 (See pages 12-^) 
 
PREFACE 
 
 On May 28, 1915, the Catholic Bulletin republished a summary of an ad- 
 dress given by the Rev. F. S. Betten, S. J., of St. Ignatius College, Cleveland, 
 at the Convention of the Catholic Union of Ohio (D. R. K. Staatsverband), at 
 Celina, in 1913. The slngletaxers of Cleveland evidently felt alarmed, because 
 the:' immediately began to bombard The Bulletin office with letters. For 
 more than a year nearly every number of The Catholic Bulletin reprinted one 
 of these singletax communications with a suitable reply. Thus a consider- 
 able nft*Bber of the so-called arguments for singletax and of its various de- 
 structive features were discussed. Masters of Political .and Social Economy 
 consider this the broadest and most interesting debate on the subject. 
 
 Following suggestidiis from many quarters, we have gathered this cor- 
 respondence in the pre^'^nt pamphlet. Frequently, however, we do not re- 
 produce the entire lettei*. but only those sections which call for an answer. 
 We even omit one or another letter entirely, because the answer^ is too evi- 
 dently contained in other sections of the pamphlet. (The originals are kept 
 on file in our office.) For the convenience of our readers we generally place 
 
 y the ans^'er immediately after the paragraph to which it belongs, 
 f 
 
 A detailed index will enhance the usefulness of this pamphlet for methodi- 
 cal study. — Editor Catholic Bulletin. 
 
 (Copyright 1916 by L. G. Wey) 
 
 J <^ ^ S Oi doz, ^ :i. 3. 0 
 
 2 
 
INDEX 
 
 REFERENCE IS TO PAGES 
 
 ABSORPTION of landvalues by individuals 15, 20, 21 
 
 CATHOLICS. Can they be singletaxers? 15 
 
 CLEVELAND SINGLETAX CLUB'S Creed 13 
 
 DISPARITIES IN WEALTH 15 
 
 DOG TAX compared with singletax 16 
 
 EQUALITY OF MEN very limited 7, 8, 30 
 
 EXTORTION result of singletax 12 
 
 GREGORY, ST., "a singletaxer," against LEO XIII 18, 21 
 
 HORSTMAN, BISHOP, "a singletaxer" 32 
 
 .lUBILEE YEAR in Mosaic code. 10 
 
 LAND SPECULATION possible under singletax 11, 14, 17, 25; 
 
 importance of land speculation 26; land companies own whole 
 
 counties . 14 
 
 LANDVALUES increased in Cleveland 19; owners of them 20; site-value. .25 
 LEO XIII Encyclical on the condition of the working classes 4; Henry 
 
 George's Open Letter to him 7, 15, 16, 17, 18, 27 
 
 MOSES "a singletaxer" ...10 
 
 OCCUPANCY 8 
 
 OWNERSHIP, in what it does not consist 4; original title 5; not neces- 
 sarily bas'ed on labor 8; never recognized by the things "owned 5: 
 many things cannot be owned 8; land ownership in the Mosaic code. .10 
 
 PEW RENT and single tax 25 
 
 '»OLICE and fire protection, expenses for 20 
 
 POPE. The pope's authority in matters of taxation 17; never against 
 
 sound reason 15, 17 
 
 PUBLIC AUTHORITY'S right to restrict property 14, 16 
 
 PUBLIC OPINION v/s the popes 22 
 
 PUBLIC SQUARE lots as example 8 
 
 SITE VALUE 25 
 
 SINGLETAX explained 4; On whom it will fall or will not fall most 
 heavily 6; effect on workingmen 7; on farmers 6, 29; on residents 
 24; on industrials 24; is a remedy against all ills 14, 31; how to 
 
 be introduced 7, 16 
 
 SKYSCRAPERS 6, 12 
 
 SOCIAL QUESTION in the first place religious 17, 18 
 
 TAXES. Title of public authority to demand them 3; "too many taxes" 
 17; first requisite in taxes is justice 17; inposed according to 
 what is likely to happen 19; failure of taxpayers to receive their 
 
 money's worth 20 
 
 TEN COMMANDMENTS not given by the pope 22 
 
 TITLES of landed property to be set aside by Henry George 7, 11 
 
 VALUE. Areas of same value to pay same tax amount 11, 12 
 
SINGLETAX. 
 
 (Summary of the adcJress by F. s. Betten S. J.) 
 
 Henry George, an American economist, who died in New York, in 1897, 
 is the chief advx>cate of singletax, so much so that he is often called its "in- 
 ventor." 
 
 He maintained that the soil can never become the property of any in- 
 dividual. The community (state or municipality) alone can own land, and 
 this privilege is so exclusive that the state cannot part with it in favor of any 
 individual or private corporation. If any person, he says, ever claimed land 
 as his own and demanded that this claim should be respected by others, he 
 pcted as a usurper, and what he called his right was not better than the 
 right of a pickpocket to a stolen watch. His very words are: "Private pro- 
 perty in land is a bold, bare enormous wrong" — (Progres's and Poverty, 
 VII, 3.) 
 
 Consequently, if justice were to take its course, the state would have to 
 dislodge all the "so-called owners," without indemnifying them, because 
 their estates never belonged to them. The best way to do this, it occurs to 
 him, is to force them to pay the, full amount of rent for what they are pleased 
 to call their own into the public treasury in the shape of taxes. He proposes 
 to abolish all other taxes. Thus we have one tax, the tax on land values 
 cnly, a SINGLETAX, 
 
 Now landed property of individuals is no robbery. The denial of private 
 ownership in land is clearly against the doctrine taught by Pope Leo XIII 
 in his encyclical "On the Condition of the Working Classes," of May 15, 1891. 
 The Pope takes for an -instance a workingman who saves his money and 
 finally succeeds in acquiring a house and a little garden. Then he continues*, 
 "the land, in such case, is only his wages under another form; and, conse- 
 quently, a workingman's little estate thus purchased should be as completely 
 •at his full disposal as are the wages he receives for liis'^labor. But it is pre- 
 cisely In such power of disposal that ownership obtains, w^hether the pro- 
 perty consists of land or chattels." 
 
 This leaves no doubt at all. As" little power as the state has over the hard- 
 earned wages of the worker, so little power has it over the land now in his 
 possession. 
 
 According to Henry George that workingman's estate does not belong to 
 the workingman at all; it remains the inalienable property of the civil com- 
 munity; and while he leaves to the laborer the full disposal of his wages, the 
 lot or garden which is bought with them always remain at the full disposal 
 of the state, no matter what claim the laborer imagines to have to them. 
 
 We prefer to follow Pope Leo as our guide. 
 
 This sfettles the question for us, if there was a question at all. But let us 
 see what kind of arguments Henry George offers for his revolutionary state- 
 ment. Sound reasoning, of course, can never lead to such absurdities. 
 
 Henry George's argument is, in short, this: 
 
 The ^oil cannot be produced by human labor; but only such things as 
 are produced by human labor can be the object of private ownership; there- 
 fore, the soil cannot be the object of private ownership. (The question is 
 only about the original title; he readily grants, that those titles are just, by 
 which an. article rightfully owned is transferred to somebody else, as dona- 
 tion or purchase or inheritance). 
 
 The pen, he s'ays, with which I write is mine, because it was rightfully 
 owned by the manufacturer or the laborer, who transferred their right suc- 
 cessively to the wholesale and retail dealer, and finally to me. 
 
 Everything, therefore, depends on the proof for his assertion, that nothing 
 can become the property of man except by human labor. 
 
 Henry George bases his proof on a fundamental wrong conception of the 
 relation of the owner to the thing owned. He thinks that this relation is 
 something physical, something like string or rope tying the proprietor to the 
 property. Such a tie, he imagines, is effected by man's labor. There is no 
 such tie produced by labor between the farmer and his farm, therefore the far- 
 
 4 
 
mer cannot own the farm; but it is different with the carpenter and the 
 table he made, or the gunsmith and the gun. 
 
 Now, as a matter of fact, the relation of ownership does not consist in any- 
 thing physical. There is not physical tie between me and my watch. The 
 relation of ownership cannot be perceiyed by any of the five senses, but only 
 by the intellect. 
 
 If the absence of such a physical tie is the s^gn, that there is no owner- 
 ship, Henry George will have to deny all ownership. There Is no more con- 
 necton between the maker and the product than between the landowner and 
 his estate. 
 
 Much less than a physical connection is there a physical action and reac- 
 tion between the owner and the thing he owns. After a watchmaker has 
 finished the watch or the gunsmith his rifle, there is no more action or reac- 
 tion between the two than between the thing and a thief who steals it. Labor 
 indeed produces physical changes in the things offered by nature; but once 
 these changes are executed, action and reaction ceases, and the producer is as 
 much a stranger to the thing as if he had never touched it. 
 
 It is not surprising that from such material notions of the right of 
 property Henry Geqrge arrived at very strange consequences. 
 
 He opens his attack by exclaiming: 
 
 "What other right exists from which the right to the exclusive possession 
 of anything can be derived save the right to the right of man to himself?" 
 
 There is indeed no other right from which private ownership can be de- 
 rived. But this very right works against Henry George. Just the right of 
 man himself gives him the privilege to settle where he pleases, without being 
 dislodged by another comer, supposing only that the place is not occupied by 
 anybody else. Just the right to himself demands that he have the power to 
 choose a place where he may lay down his head without fear, a place where 
 he may return the following night, and if he so decides, as often as he pleases, 
 without being obliged to seek a new shelter every night. But this is exactly 
 the right of private ownership in land. 
 
 "How can man," Henry George continues, "in any other way — save by la- 
 bor act upon or affect material things' or other men?" 
 
 Here we have the logical sequence of his wrong supposition. The 
 * right of property does not consist in affecting or acting upon material tilings. 
 Does Mr. George perhaps even think that the right of property consists in act- 
 ing upon other men? Does he mean to say that the right of ownership con- 
 sists in this that I am strong enough to keep thieves and robbers aw-ay from 
 my property? A poor right of ownership! It would be the same as the right 
 which the pickpocket has when he prevents me from getting back my stolen 
 watch, that is, it would be no right at all, but simply the power of the 
 stronger. 
 
 "Nature," says Henry George, "acknowledges no ownership or control in 
 men save as the result of exertion." 
 
 Did it really escape Henry George that ownership is never recognized by 
 any of the things owned, whether they be supplied or made by man? 
 
 Nature, he^ays, does' not discriminate among men. "Birds will not come 
 to be shot by the proprietor of the soil any quicker than they will come to be 
 shot by the poacher." 
 
 No, but let him, in his own example, substitute the gun for the soil. Does 
 the gun acknowledge any ownership? It surely does not. Whether it hits or 
 misses the bird has nothing to do with the question of ownership at all: it 
 depends only and exclusively on the ability of the person who handles it, and 
 on its own perfection. 
 
 These instances will sjifiice to show how hazy and utterly incorrect Henry 
 George's ideas of ownership are and how lamentably deficient his argumenta- 
 tion. If he proves anything, it is that there is no ownership at all. Such 
 demonstrations are enough for him to declare all landowners robbers, and to 
 call upon the people to embark on a policy equivalent to wholesale confisca- 
 tion. Henry George signally failed to prove the injustice of private owner- 
 ship in land. Consequently the measure he proposes, singletax, is unjust. It 
 is a flagrant violation of rights that are as general and important as they are 
 
 .5 
 
sacred. What can mankind, what can a state expect of the adoption of such 
 a measure but ruin and destruction. 
 
 We may, with a high degree of certainty, try to forecast some of the harm 
 it is liable to nork. 
 
 Henry George is very enthusiastic about the grand effect of his smgie- 
 tax. "if I have worked harder and built myself a good house, while you 
 have been contented to live in a hovel, the tax-gatherer now comes annually 
 to m-ake me pay a penatly for my energy and industry, by taxing me more 
 than you." 
 
 But taxes are no tines. If I have bnilt myself a house, I have a much 
 greater Interest in the existence of public order and safety than he who calls 
 no house his own, and it matters nothing whether this is on account of his 
 carelessness or misfortune. It is therefore*right that I, having a greater in- 
 terest in the maintenance of order and safety, should pay a greater amount 
 into the treasury of that institution which alone is able to grant the protection 
 I stand in need of. 
 
 Taxes enable the state to grant to all members of the community all the 
 protection, facilities, accommodations, etc., which we comprise in the words 
 public order. It is therefore but natural that those should pay higher taxes 
 who derive the greatest advantage from the existence of this public order, 
 and who appeal more frequently to the assistance of the public authority. 
 Taking this as a principle, It is easy to see the injtistice which is connected 
 with Henry George's scheme of taxation. 
 
 Accordng to him only the unimproved land value is taxed. An acre 
 favorably situated in a city is as highly taxed as another acre equally valuabe, 
 no matter whether there are buildings on it or not; the factory that stands on 
 it or the skyscraper or the cottage is not assessed. 
 
 It makes no difference either whether it contains a coal mine or not, 
 whether It is sandy or the most desirable wheat land. It is the site only that 
 according to him creates the value. See letter II on site value. 
 
 Now suppose a skyscraper with its four or five thousand people or more. 
 Alongside of it live a few families in modest houses which cover the same 
 area as the skyscraper. The few families have to pay the same amount into 
 the public treasury as the owner of , the sl^vsoraper; and yet the latter requires 
 for the safety of his revenue ten and more times the amount of police and 
 fire protection, and derives twenty times the profit from the existence of pub- 
 lic order. Is this not a "bold, bare, enormous wrong?" 
 
 It is well to remember what Henry George has to say about the effect on 
 the present system of taxation. 
 
 "The present taxes work like a penalty on enterprise and industry. If a 
 man has built a ship we make him pay for his temerity, as though he had 
 done an injury to the state; if a railroad be opened, down comes tbe tax col- 
 lector upon it, as though it were a nuisance; If a manufactory be erected, we 
 levy upon It an annual sum which would go far towards making a handsome 
 profit." — (Progress and Poverty, Book IX, Chapter 1.) 
 
 This, therefore, is the purpose for which singletax is advocated: . .The 
 factory owners, the ship builders and navigation companies, the railroad 
 magnates, oil kings and coal barons are to make still more handsome profits 
 than they have been doing heretofore. The millions they have so far been 
 paying to assist in defraying the expenses of government will be turned into 
 their own coffers to widen further the breach between the very rich and the 
 toilers. 
 
 Among those injured there are especially two classes, the farmers and 
 the workingmen. 
 
 How is the FARMER to fare? Under the system of singletax gthose will 
 have to pay the largest amount of taxes, who need the largest extent of 
 ground. Now, a manufacturing company can make gigantic profit on an area 
 of twenty acres; a farmer who owns only twenty acres is a poor man. Per- 
 haps such a modest farm of twenty acres immediately joins the premises' of a 
 factory that covers the same area; if put up for sale in an unimproved con- 
 dition both pieces of immovable property would bring the same price, be- 
 cause they are in the same locality; consequently Henry George will write 
 
 6 
 
the same amount on both tax bills. But what a diiference in reality between 
 the two tax bills. The company may not as much as notice the expense 
 while it would be oppressive for its neighbor. 
 
 And which of the two would require more tire and police protection? 
 which will make more use of the law courts? for whom will even the state 
 militia be called out to protect his property in the case of disturbance?; for 
 whom will warships be detailed to escort his floating riches in foreign waters? 
 And yet in the singletax country both ^parties pay an equal amount of taxes. 
 Is not singletax "a bold, bare enormous v/rong?" 
 
 As to the WORKINGMAN, it should suffice to remember that aingleUix 
 provides no way at all for forcings the capitalist to part with a fraction of liis 
 vastly increased gain in favor of his workers. It is he that is to have the 
 whole benefit of singletax, and he can do with his money what he pleases. 
 Of course, he MAY share it honestly with the laborer who works in his mills 
 or lives in his skyscraper, but nobody can force him. What capitalism will 
 do, it has shown in the course of history, and this history forebodes very evil 
 days for the workingman whom singletax has placed at the mercy of the 
 millionaire. 
 
 And where is our workingman going to live? In a skyscraper, of course. 
 He has to pay the same tax for his little lot, whether there is a one-story 
 cottage upon it or a ten-story skyscraper. So what is more natural than ten 
 workingmen should band together, and, instead of putting their dwellings side 
 by side, place one on top of the other. Or worse still, some enterprising capi- 
 talist will erect a ten-story tenement house and the offer of low rent will not 
 only amply reward his own industry and thrift but will also prove too tempt- 
 ing for the workingman to be rejected. The ideal of the laborer's home is 
 the one-family house with at least some diminutive share of the earth's sur- 
 face around it. This ideal, difficult enough in our days, will be an absolute 
 impossibility under the sway of the singletaxers. The singletax country 
 is the paradise of the skyscraper. 
 
 It is idle talk of the advocates of Henry George who claim that the greatest 
 amount of the new tax will fall on the big cities. We simply ask, "^Is it to fall 
 on the capitalists, the representatives of industry and enterprise?" Certainly 
 not, because Henry George glories in the contention that he will be the liber- 
 ator of industry and enterprise. On whom, then, is: the burden of taxation to 
 fall? On the farmers and workmen, and on all those who are unable to 
 make the gigantic profits of the capitalists. It is they that will have to go 
 into their pockets in order to relieve the moneyed class. (See Letter num- 
 ber 10.) 
 
 NOTE, We have considered singletax as it was* proposed by its origi- 
 nator himself, in its plain, unmasked "singleness," because this is the only 
 way to understand it and to become aware of its destructive character. The 
 master's disciples commonly do not propose it in this simple shape but couple 
 it with other measures, some of which are quite harmless, nay recommend- 
 able. This is' done because people "are not ready to grasp the whole truth 
 of the single tax." (See article, "Can a Catholic" page 15) But the aim is to 
 gradually remove the taxes from personal property, imports, etc., and increase 
 "the tax on land values until no other tax is left." 
 
 HENRY GEORGE vs. LEO XIII. 
 
 Henry George was fully convinced of the correctness of his teachings. 
 In matters economic he thought himsetf to be a kind of pope. So when Leo 
 XIII., in 1892, issued his great letter on the condition of labor, he considered it 
 his duty to come out with a counter-proclamation. He speaks authoritatively, 
 like one who sits upon a much higher throne than that of the fisherman. He 
 wants "to lay before your Holiness the grounds of our belief, and to set forth 
 some consideration that you have unfortunately overlooked." He does not 
 ask for clearer instruction or solution of doubts: no, the great American 
 knowg that he is right, and his intention is to convert the ignorant pope. The 
 
good man really imagined that his open letter made a deep impression on Leo 
 XIII., and that it attained its purpose. 
 
 He begins by giving an outline of his creed. "This world is the creation 
 of God. The men brought into it for the brief period of t^eir earthly lives are 
 the equal creatures of His bounty, the equal subjects of His provident care. 
 . . . With the need for labor and the power to labor He has also given to 
 man the material for labor. This material is land — man physically being a 
 land animal, who can live only on and from land, and can use other elements, 
 such as air, sunshine and water, only by the use of land. Being the equai 
 creatures of the Creator, equally entitled under His providence to live their 
 lives and satisfy their needs, men are equally entitled to the use of l^md. And 
 any adjustment that denies this equal use of land is morally wrong." 
 
 One of the most obvious errors in these quotations is the assertion that all 
 men are equally entitled under Divine providence to live their lives and satisfy 
 their needs. How could a man who reads the Bible make such a statement? 
 A very peculiar providence governed the fate of David, whom God raised from 
 a shepherd boy to a king. Is everybody entitled to the same degree of Divine 
 care? The whole Jewish nation y^s the object of a most wonderful provi- 
 dence for tv/enty centuries. No other nation has been favored to such a de- 
 gree, and neither the Jews nor any other nation is entitled to it. It was a 
 free gift of God, who may be more liberal toward some and less liberal to- 
 ward others, without being unjust to any one. We all know men, good, ex- 
 cellent Christians, whom God has blessed with temporal possessions, while 
 others, equally good, live from hand to mouth during all their lives. Why is 
 this so? Has Divine Providence neglected its duty? If all were equally en- 
 titled to live their Uves and satisfy their needs, why this inequality? 
 
 It may be said that in certain points indeed all men are equal, for in- 
 stance, as far as they have a right to such an amount of Divine care as is re- 
 quired for them to save their souls ; without promising them at least so much 
 of assistance God neither would nor could create any human beings. Every 
 man also needs the right of acquiring private property and not to be hindered 
 in any unlawful way: a right which may be said to be equal in all the inhabi- 
 tants of the globe. But to demand that God must grant to every man equally 
 good chances to practice this right is little short of blasphemy. 
 
 It is therefore not true that all men are entitled to an equ^l share in the 
 bounties of God. There is to be a diversity in temporal possessions, which 
 will be productive of countles's acts of the most beautiful virtues and will 
 contribute very essentially to the final state of mankind, that of eternal bliss 
 in heaven. 
 
 This present world of ours is no end in itself. It is the labor day of toil 
 and trouble, a period of transition. God could never have destined mankind 
 for an eternal sojourn In a world like this valley of tears. 
 
 God created the world and threw it open to the members of the human 
 race, to be occupied by them, provided they would respect things already in 
 the possession of others; provided also, and this we have to consider a little 
 more closely, that the things in question are oceupiable at all. This is a point 
 entirely overlooked by Henry George. Air, or water in the ocean, or sunshine, 
 cannot become property, because none of these things can be occupied, as it 
 is impossible to mark them off as occupied or keep them under control. They 
 are therefore no objects of ownership. Air and sunshine may, indeed, be owned 
 in some way; namely, as far as they affect land; the wine-growers along the 
 Rhine distinguish well between the sunny and the shady sides of their hills; 
 and it is the air and the water of the ocean which make property in the sea- 
 side resorts so desirable. But in themselves, neither air nor sunshine can be 
 owned, because neither can be marked off as occupied. 
 
 If water, however, is drawn in a bucket or pumped into the city reser- 
 voir, and if the parties concerned care to make use of their right, it may be 
 rightfully called property, because it is sufficiently marked as occupied. 
 
 Now listen to Henry George: "If a man," he tells the Pope, "takes a 
 fish from the ocean, he acquires a right of property in that fish. . . . But 
 he cannot obtain a similar right of property in the ocean, so that he may sell 
 it or give it or forbid others to use it." Why does the fish become the prop- 
 
erty of the man? "Because it is the product of his labor." No, indeed not. 
 The man did not make the fish; if he did, he would frequently make better 
 ones than those he catches. The fish becomes the man's because th^ man oc- 
 cupied the fish. Before it was caught, the fish was nobody's property, so the 
 man made use of his natural right to occupy things that so far belonged to 
 nobody. If the ocean does not become his property, it is simply because the 
 ocean is not subject to occupancy. 
 
 Be it rem'arked in passing, that the state as the guardian of public welfare 
 has the right to limit the occupiabilty of unowned objects. Hence we have 
 our fishery laws for the protection of the fish in our lakes and rivers, our 
 game laws, to secure the propagation of useful or otherwise desirable game. 
 Such laws, provided they are not oppressive, are just and must be observed. 
 
 "If he sets up a windmill he acquires a right of property in the things 
 such use of wind enables him to produce. But he cannot claim a right of 
 property in the wind itself, so that he may sell it or forbid others to use it." 
 We need not formulate the answer, which is evident from the foregoing ex- 
 planations. But these two instances, the fish and the windmill, the ocean and 
 the wind, are only the stepping stones to arrive at the main conclusion. As 
 with ocean and air, so it is with the soil. "If he cultivate grain, he acquires a 
 right of property in the grain his labor brings forth. But he cannot obtain a 
 similar right of property in the sun which ripened it or the soil on which, it 
 grew." Of course, the sun which ripened the grain cannot become the prop- 
 erty of any one, but why not the soil? If I can make a fish my excluisve 
 property simply by seizing it, why not the soil on which I raise the grain for 
 my bread? The fish remains my property not only as long as I hold it in my 
 hand, or am broiling or eating it, but as long as it can be recognized as mine, 
 or at least as somebody's property. Why cannot a piece of soil remain mine 
 after once taking possession of it, provided only I can mark it as my property? 
 And why should I be obliged to raise my grain every year in another place? 
 
 Here follows what Henry George thinks to be proof for his assertion: 
 "For these things — namely sunshine, air, the ocean and the ^oil — are the con- 
 tinuing gifts of God to all generations of men, which all may use but none 
 may claim as his alone." It is difficult to see how these lines can prove 
 anything. 
 
 Either he means to say: These things are continuing in existence, but 
 things continuing in existence cannot be owned by individuals; therefore 
 these things cannot be owned by individuals. If he means this, we ask, why 
 can things continuing in existence not be owned by individuals? There are 
 houses in Europe, which have continued in existence for centuries and have 
 been owned all the time by individuals. There are swords, clocks, rings and 
 pieces of furniture, a hundred, two hundred an five hundred years old, and 
 constantly m the possession of individuals. Therefore the fact that these 
 things continue in existence is no reas'on v/hy thoy should not be owned by 
 individuals. Moreover, sunshine and air do not even remain the same; the 
 sunshine consists of a constant motion produced and ever renewed by the 
 sun in the ether; and the air is always' being changed by chemical influences, 
 especally that of the plants. Consequently the material continuity has 
 nothing to do with the question whether a thing can or cannot be subject 
 to ownership. 
 
 Or he wishes to lay stress on the fact that these things' are constantly kept 
 in existence by God as His gifts, and means to say that things kept in ex- 
 istence by God as Hi^ gifts cannot be owned by private persons. But is that 
 not the case with the iron which has been mined and is preserved for sale 
 or has been worked into a pen or plough. Does that iron need less of divine 
 influence in order not to 4rop out of existence than a house lot or any 
 section of the sea? 
 
 Or i^ perhaps this his idea: Air, sunshine and the soil are for the use 
 of all generations; but things that are for the use of all generations cannot 
 be owned by individuals; therefore thesp things cannot be owned by indivi- 
 duals. The statement implied by him, that things destined for the use of all 
 generations cannot be owned by individuals is ^mply absurd. The houses, 
 swords and furniture mentioned above were destined for the use of genera- 
 
 9 
 
tions by their first builders or makers; but this fact has not interfered with 
 the quiet possession of any of the successive individual owners, 
 nor did proprietorship of the latter disturb in any way the use made of 
 them by successive or former possessors. So it is with the landed property; 
 Ood has always taken care that one generation died when the next made its 
 appearance. ^ 
 
 Henry George may finally think that the last words are a real argu- 
 ment: "Things which all may use, but none may claim as his own." But 
 they would prove that hardly anything can be owned. Certainly not the 
 fish of the ocean, because they evidently belong to the things which all may 
 use. Every fisherman knows very well that anybody may catch any fish. 
 All may catch the fish but only one will catch it; just as in unoccupied ter- 
 ritory, everyone MAY occupy and settle in any place, but every place WILL 
 be occupied by one only. 
 
 Thus an accurate inspection of this passage only discloses that Henry 
 George had very confused ideas about the origin of property. If sunshine, 
 air and ocean cannot be owned, it is for quite different reasons, which do not 
 exist in the case of land. Henry George did not understand these reasons. 
 Had he studied those who before him treated this question, Protestants or 
 Catholics, he could not have written down huch hazy and superficial state- 
 ments. There is no trace in them of a real demonstration. His fundamental 
 doctrine, that land cannot be held in exclusive ownership, however con- 
 fidently asserted remains unproven. He proves it neither in his main work, 
 "Progress and Poverty," nor in the "Open Letter" to the Pope, and if he 
 could have proved it at all ho would have done so in these publications, 
 where he makes an attenlpt at it. 
 
 With this tumbles down that doctrine which has made him especially 
 famous, the theory of singletax, i. e., one tax to be levied on land only and 
 to replace all the taxes now in vogue. 
 
 LETTER OF MR. CARSON 
 
 The Catholic Bulletin: 
 
 Cleveland, May 18, 1915. 
 To the Editor: Rev. Father Betten says Henry George maintains "that the soil 
 can never become the property of anyone." 
 
 Well so does the Mosaic code. I invite the reverend gentleman to refresh his 
 memory by reading up in the Bible on the land laws established by Moses. 
 
 Mr. Carson evidently has heard s'omebody talking about the legislation 
 by which Moses enjoined the Jubilee Year. Every fiftieth year was called by 
 this name. After the land of Palestine was conquered, it was distributed 
 among the Israelites, and each man and each family received a certain por- 
 tion» which was probably not small, if in need, he might sell it, but in the 
 next Jubilee Year the sold portion was' to revert to him; and if he himself 
 had acquired land by purchase from another man, he also had to return i\ 
 to the original owner. How long this legislation (which changed every sale 
 into a lease for the rest of the fifty years) has been in force, it is impossible 
 to say. 
 
 But it is easy to see that this legislation far from making private own- 
 ership in land impossible, on the contrary made the land inalienable, un- 
 salable, ^rave it over in the strongest way possible to its private owner. Not 
 even the state — there was little of what we now call "state" — had the right 
 to take it away. According to Moses, it was' to remain the private property 
 of the family of its first owner until dooms'day; and it made no difference 
 whether he used it or not. This strange system, adapted to very peculiar 
 conditions, of course crushed land speculation, but it crushed als'o enterprise 
 and industry. 
 
 But was it not the correct system and ought it to be reintroduced? If it 
 were. Our Lord would have reintroduced it; He was not afraid of making a 
 hold stand against anything that was wrong and against anybody who acted 
 wrongly; He restored matrimony to its original purity and exposed • the 
 
 10 
 
avarice of the Scribes and Pharisees; if private ownership in land were what 
 Henry George claims it to be, a bold, bare, enormous wrong, Jesus of Naza- 
 reth would have denounced it as such. Our Lord everywhere supposes the 
 justice of private ownership of land; probably He Himself was, after the 
 death of St. Joseph, before the law of the land the owner of some little part 
 of the earth which was the work of His hands. (If He was, Henry 'George 
 would have declared Him a robber.) 
 
 The Bible is a big book and it might be very difficult for Mr. Carson, to 
 discover the places where the legislation of Moses i^ given. He will find all 
 these places quoted in an article of the Catholic Encyclopedia, headed "Jubi- 
 lee, Year of." It will do him a word of good to read this whole article. Or 
 let him go to the French Dictionaire de la Bible, (by Vigouroux), article 
 "Jubilaire Annee," or the German "Kirchenlexicon," article "JobeTjahr," or 
 to some similar article in the "Jewish Encyclopedia" which he can consult 
 in the public library. Any of these sources will furnish reliable informaton. 
 But thi^ information will be far different from Henry George's and Mr. Car- 
 son's dreams. 
 
 Henr>- George does insist upon private possession of land by those who want 
 to use it. lie would not set aside existing- titles. 
 
 Is that so? Let'^ see. Henry George says in Progress and Poverty (London, 
 Kegan Paul, 1883 page 242) : "Consider for a moment the utter absurdity of 
 the titles by which we permit to be gravely passed from John Doe to Richard 
 Doe the right to exclusively possess the earth, giving absolute dominion 
 agains't all others." This sentence — to say nothing of the gross exaggeration 
 contained in it — shows clearly what he thinks of "existing titles." 
 
 Let him reafd Questions 30 ^.nd 31 in the Singletax Catechism, the con- 
 tents of which we reproduce in the last paragraph of Fr. Betten's article. 
 Henry George proposes to introduce singletax gradually, "because the peo- 
 ple are not ready to grasp the whole truth of the singletax," but the aim is* to 
 absorb all land values, that is, "to set aside all existing titles." 
 
 It would make it easier to gret a home, or a site for business purposes. It 
 would make every man a landowner in the only senae in which an individual 
 should be a landowner. 
 
 If we admit the, morality of absolute private ownership of the land of Ohio 
 say by 100,000 men^ then these owners would have the moral right to dispose of 
 their titles to one man. We would then have all of the people of the state liv- 
 ing" here at the mercy of one individual. 
 
 Mr, Carson's contention that "it would make it easier to get a home, or 
 a site for business purposes" is sufficiently refuted in the second part of the 
 article. (See Pages 6 and 7) 
 
 In his last paragraph he introduces the supposition that all the land 
 owners of the state of Ohio might get it into their head to dispose of their 
 titles in favor of one man. But is that not just as much possible under single^ 
 tax? All the square miles now held by land companies will then be 
 on the market, and who will be the most able to buy but the factory owners, 
 railroad magnates, etc.? It is not only possible but probable, that some huge 
 combination will in the course of time absorb all the usable land, because 
 they can best pay the taxes. The "people" will then have to be satisfied with 
 the rocks or swamps. — At any rate, if we believe the pope, if we believe the 
 faith of the ages, the abolition of private property in land is "a bold bare 
 enormous wrong," which can never lead to sound conditions. 
 
 LETTER OF MR. O. K. DORN, TREASURER OF THE 
 CLEVELAND SINGLETAX CLUB 
 
 PART I. 
 
 Editor Catholic Bulletin: 
 
 Dear Sir: "In his address on the singletax. Rev. F. S. Betten makes so many 
 mistakes, according' to the singletaxer's view, that it is impossible to reply t«» 
 
 11 
 
Jill of them in a short communication. But let me call attention to one, and then 
 ask Fatlier Betten a few questions. 
 
 "He states: 'Under the system of singletax those will have to pay the largest 
 amount of taxes who need the largest extent of ground." 
 
 •'Yet in another part of his address Father Betten shows he understands 
 clearly that we propose to tax according to value rather than according to area. 
 
 "One corner lot on the public square in Cleveland can be sold at any time at 
 tlie rate of $10,000,000 an acre. 
 
 "Where is there any farm land at such a price?" 
 
 This is the first part of Mr. Dora's letter. He makes so many mistakes, 
 according to the common sense man's view, that it is impossible to reply to 
 all of them in one issue. The rest of his letter, if he wishes, will be taken 
 up later. 
 
 In stating that "under the system of singletax those will have to pay 
 the largest amount of taxes, who need the largest extent of ground," P. Bet- 
 ten has in view two or several acres of the same value, or, which is the same 
 situated in the same neighborhood. This is' clear to every one who reads the 
 article with a minimum amount of attention. It is made still clearer by the 
 fact that, as Mr. Dorn rightly observes, "F. Betten understands very well, 
 that we propose to tax according to value rather than according to area." 
 Nowhere in the article is there a comparison made between one area lying 
 in a congested city district and another one in the open country. The article 
 always expresses unmistakably that one city area is compared with another 
 one next to it, and one area in the country with another one bordering on it. 
 
 An instance is given in the article of a little farm of twenty acres and 
 a factory of one or two stories immediately adjoining the farm. Mr. Dom 
 may read it up and convince himself. Here is another instance. 
 
 Let us suppose a man owns the whole front on the Public Square In 
 Cleveland between Superior and Euclid avenues and two hundred feet deep. 
 He divides this i»to two equal part^ and sells both at the same price. It 
 makes no difference, how many millions he gets for each,, as long as the 
 price is equal. The new oivner of the Superior section, whom 
 we shall call Mr. Superior erects a substantial but moderate 
 building of some three or four stories: Mr. Euclid prefers a 
 skyscraper of twenty stories. While the skyscraper is building several ac- 
 cidents happen, and the victims have to be taken care of by public charity 
 an extra police force is called to prevent the disturbance^ of an impending 
 strike. After it is finished the police is kept busy protecting its numerous 
 stores and offices; the courts nearly constantly have some law affair to ^t- 
 tle between the owner and his hundreds of tenants; the fire deparments must 
 ever be on the alert to prevent damage by fire. Meanwhile Mr. Superior does 
 not cause one-fourth the expense to the city and county and state. And yet 
 the singletaxer will write the same amount on both tax bills. Will Mr. 
 Dorn deny that this is utterly unjust? 
 
 Sound reason demands, and we hope Mr. O. K. Dorn will O. 'K. this, that 
 everyone contribute to the support of public order in proportion to the ad- 
 vantage which he derives from its existence. True, no taxing system will 
 ever be devised which will fully come up to this ideal; but it i^ the goal to- 
 wards which those who plan the tax laws ought to direct their endeavors, 
 singletax certainly does not have this ideal in view; the scheme proposed 
 by its advocates violates justice and equity by its very nature. 
 
 "But let your Mr. Superior sell his property to ssuch as are willing to 
 pay the tax," indeed that is one of the purposes of singletaxers ; they 
 want to force people out of their property. But it is quite possible that our 
 Mr. Superior in spite of being forced to pay for the expenses caused by his 
 neighbor is making a moderate profit and consequently is not inclined to 
 sell. Does that make the tax on his property justifiable? Not at all. He 
 Ooes not receive his money's worth; he is forced to pay an immense sum to 
 the civil authority and is given relative^'' very little in return. Acts of ex- 
 tortion can be committed not only against the poor but ^ also against the well- 
 to-do; in the case of the factory and the farmer mentioned in the article it is 
 an extortion committed against a poor farmer; but it is extortion in ou/ 
 ca^e as well. This glaring injustice is one of the most prominent features 
 of the system of singletax. 
 
 12 
 
QUESTIONS PUT TO MR. DORN BY THE 
 CATHOLIC BULLETIN 
 
 In the second part ot his letter, Mr, Dcrn supposes that the singletax is 
 a universal remedy against all the evils in our present taxing methods and 
 all the social and political ills of our days. We do not imagine there is such 
 a panacea; at any rate, F. Betten has shown us that least of all the single- 
 tax can lay claim to have such wonderful qualities. We shall however give 
 an answer to Mr. Dorn's questions on condition that he answers the follow- 
 ing counter-que^ions : 
 
 1. Does the Singletax Club of Cleveland, Ohio, unreservedly hold the 
 doctrine of Henry George that private ownership in land "is a bold, bare, 
 enormous wrong?" Does it consequently consider the singletax only as a 
 means to dispossess all the landowners', great and small, poor and rich, of 
 what they now call their rightful property? 
 
 2. If the Single Tax Club advocates taxes other than the tax on land 
 pure and simple, does it do so with a view of by and by eliminating all other 
 taxes? 
 
 The answer we expect to both these questions is Yes or No, and nothing 
 else. Only a plain unqualified answer will serve to clear the atmosphere. 
 
 Note — If Mr. Dorn wishes, he may replace the first question by this: 
 Does the Singletax Club of Cleveland, as regards the question of ownership 
 in land, side with Henry George or with Pope Leo XIII? 
 
 TliE CREED OF THE CLEVELAND SINGLETAX CLUB 
 
 Mr. Dorn's Answer: 
 
 Answer to Question No. 1 — "Yes, we believe that private ownership in 
 land is a bold, bare, enormous wrong." 
 
 Answer to Question IVo. 2. — "We emphatically side with Henrj- George in 
 his controversy with Pope Leo XIII." 
 
 Answers from a letter addressed to The Catholic Bulletin, August 3, 1915. 
 While Mr. Dorn says he has no personal authority to commit the club he is! 
 confident that he makes no mistake in stating its position. Since that date 
 we have no word neither from the club nor from any of its members con- 
 tradicting Mr. Dorn's position. This tlierefore is the Creed of the Singletax 
 Club of Cleveland, Ohio. 
 
 During the debate we shortly called attention to the evident fact, that 
 Catholics cannot be singletaxers. The fundamental doctrine of Henry 
 Georgianism is diametrically opposed to the Christian dogma of the right- 
 fulness of private ownership in land, and its chief apostle by an open letter 
 to Pope Leo XIII removed all doubt. It remained, possible, however, that 
 the singletaxers of Cleveland did not subscribe to all the tenets propounded 
 by Henry George, and especially would decline all opposition to the head of 
 the Catholic Church. We must thank Mr. Dorn for having cleared away our 
 doubts. His answers are clear and unmistakable. If we conclude that the 
 .Singletax Club of Cleveland i§ an anti-Catholic, nay an anti- Christian insti- 
 tution, what can Mr. Dorn say to the contrary? 
 
 We do not believe that every member would be prepared personally to 
 swear to Mr. Dorn's statements. Many, perhaps' the greater number never 
 thought so far. They may believe that the Singletax Club simply stands 
 for a general endeavor to improve the methods of taxation. They are now 
 undeceived. The Cleveland Singletax Club stands for the unqualified de- 
 nial of an article of the faith. 
 
 We have still to mention one part of this letter: 
 As to your second question: 
 
 We do not advocate the levying- of any other taxes than the tax upon the un- 
 improved value of land. We realize that, as a matter of practical propaganda, 
 the removal of taxes upon labor products must be gradual and we support any 
 step in that direction. 
 
 This is an equally clear answer. The "Singletax Club is true to the 
 doctines of. the Singletax cathechism. See pp. three and four, 
 
 13 
 
 4 
 
Mr. Dorn concludes his letter by saying, "We invite you to print Henry 
 George's reply to the Pope in your columns." 
 
 Indeed not. Sir. Our columns are too precious for that. To show what 
 kind of literature that Open Letter represents, we have printed the short re- 
 view of its first pages. It is surprising how. much confusion there is in the 
 author's first and leading ideas. 
 
 For us Catholics, the matter is finished, if Rome has spoken. After a de- 
 cision of such an official character as the encyclical of Leo Xlil the denial 
 of the right of private ownership in land is no longer a debatable point. It 
 is abs^olutely wrong, as wrong as the statement that twice two make five. 
 There is no other side to thisf question any more, which it might be worth 
 while for us to study. The following passage is necessary to understand 
 our answer to the second part of his letter. 
 
 In reply to the first part of my letter of July 29 you ask whether in my 
 opinion singrletax would remedy all of the ills listed, in reply to which I will 
 say that singrletax in itself will not, but without sing:lctax all efforts to correct 
 these ills will be futile or to say the least, the efforts will be only partly suc- 
 cessful. 
 
 MR. DORN'S LETTER: PART II. 
 
 As Mri Dorn ha^ answered our counter-questions, we continue in our re- 
 ply to his letter: 
 
 1. "As Father Betten condemns the single tax policj-, will he kindly state what 
 remedy he proposes for unemployment, congestion of population, and the tend- 
 ency of wages to the minimum? 
 
 As to the first paragraph we shall let our readers judge whether it does 
 not really imply that singletax will remedy all the evils enumerated with so 
 much emphasis. A question like this has no sense unless Mr. Dorn wants to 
 say: F. Betten is unable to mention such a remedy; but we have it, we have 
 the only one, and it is singletax. In his second letter he informs us, all he 
 meant to say was, that singletax in itself is no such remedy, but that without 
 it all other efforts will be fruitless. This is indeed surprisingly modest in 
 comparison with the triumphant outcry of the above paragraph. Singletax, 
 therefore (according to Mr. Dorn) is only one of the many things which are 
 required to do away with the ills of our social and economic life. Let us re- 
 member this, when Singletaxers again use such sweeping exclamations. 
 
 But after toning down his question in this way, after stating expressly 
 that the social question cannot be solved by one single, all-powerful remedy 
 with what right does he expect F. Betten to propose such a wonderful anti- 
 dote, which all by itself will prove effective against unemployment, congestion 
 of population and the tendency of wages to a minimum? 
 
 2. "Does he really think that it is good public policy to let one corporation 
 like Miller and Lux of California own two whole counties? 
 
 No, we do not think it is good policy to let one corporation own two whole 
 counties. But we are just as strongly convinced, that the introduction of 
 singletax would be a thousand times worse.^ — Moreover, neither Mr. Dorn nor 
 any other singletaxer has erer proyed, that under singletax such a condition of 
 things would be impossible. The fact that whole counties are owned by one 
 concern does not increase the value of the land ; consequently the tax on it, 
 even according to singletax methods, may be trifling; its aggregate certainly 
 cannot be higher, but is probably lower than if the counties were owned by 
 ten thousand farmers. Even under singletax, land can still be bought and 
 sold and held. Why, therefore is it not possible that one company hold the 
 land of the two counties and pay the taxes according to the singletax method, 
 until it finds an opportunity to dispose of the land with profit? We wishxall 
 the singletaxers to consider this possibility well, because it destroys many of 
 their dreams. 
 
 3. "If not, where would he draw the line in restricting private property in 
 land? 
 
 Unqnestionably the public authority has the right of keeping every kind 
 of property within such limits as the public welfare really requires. 
 
 Public authority can by various means prevent the accumulation of wealth in 
 a few hands ; it may for instance tax fortunes not only according to the enor- 
 
 14 
 
mous profits accruing to them from the existence of Public Order, but also in 
 proportion to an evident harm caused to the interests of the community. It 
 may even proceed to the simple confiscation of all that is above a certain 
 amount, should this drastic means be needed to keep colossal fortunes from 
 becoming a curse. 
 
 However, if the singletaxers do not deliberately close their eyes, they must 
 see that the largest landowners are not as s^jch the richest i>€oi)le ; it is not 
 by owning muCh land that the wealth of the nation threatens to become more 
 and more the property of the few. Land companies make much money but 
 their heyday is naturally shorty and if it were not, that would not change the 
 following fact, which every child knows, except, perhaps the singletax'^rs : 
 It is the owners of factories, railroads, mines, steamshi]) lines — all of whom 
 draw their revenues from relatively small areas — that swell the ^ranks of the 
 multi-millionaires. It is just those very same men whom Henry George iij his 
 fatherly kindness proposes to untax. 
 
 4. "How does Father Betten account for the disparities in wealth?" 
 
 For the disparity in wealth we account chiefly by the fact that God did 
 not create all men equal but gave to one better health, to another greater ♦ 
 strength of body, to a third a keener mind, to a fourth a stronger will and 
 that He permits everybody to use for his own benefit the advantage he thus 
 enjoys over others. 
 
 5. "And will he tell how he can justify, on moral grounds, private absorption 
 of land values?" 
 
 In exactly the same way in which we justify the private absorption of any 
 values. If a railroad station is built in a village the value of land goes up; but 
 so does the value of all other property, the value of cattle and milk and hay. 
 The new value of these things is absorbed privately without the slightest 
 scruple by the individual farmers. It is for the same reason that the increas- 
 ed value of the land which is brought about by the same causes — if we may 
 speak of causes in this case — is absorbed by the individual owners. 
 
 CAN A CATHOLIC BE A SINGLE TAXER? 
 
 Singletaxeris occasionally maintain that "there are not a few good Catholics 
 who are singletaxers and who know, that there is nothing in singletax philo- 
 sophy contrary to Catholic Doctrine." A short discussion and answer on this 
 point is, therefore, evidently timely and useful. 
 
 The fundamental doctrine of singletax is: Private property in land is a 
 bold, bare, enormous wrong; nobobdy has ever been the rightful owner of a 
 single square foot of land; only the civil authority, state or municipality, can 
 really own land; all the so-called land owners are robbers. 
 
 This is the way Henry George states his theory. It is the chief principle 
 of singletax philosophy. That such a sweeping indictment of all land owners 
 runs counter to the teaching of the Catholic Church certainly needs no proof 
 for anybody who has read his bible history and knows the Ten Command- 
 ments. To make assurance doubly sure Henry George after the appearance 
 of Leo XIII's great encyclical 'On the Conditions of the Working Classes,' in 
 which the right of private ownership in land is .expressly vindicated, thought 
 it his duty to publish a manifesto, an open answer to the pope, to let the 
 whole world know, that the views expressed in the papal- document were in 
 absolute disagreement with his own. 
 
 A Henry George man, therefore, oannot be called a good Catholic; on the 
 contrary, he, like Henry George puts himself in opposition to the infallible 
 head of the Church and denies a clearly pronounced Catholic doctrine. 
 
 On such monstrous foundation, then, Henry George bases his proposal to 
 levy all taxes exclusively on land, in order to change in this way all the land 
 owners into tenants of the civil community. Consequently all those who de- 
 fend this tax, the "Singletax," on the s'ame grounds as he, namely, by main- 
 taining that private ownership in land is unlawful and that all the lan-d ownr 
 ers are robbers, commit a serious fault against our faith. 
 
 But there are some Catholics who never have heard of the real doctrine 
 of Henry George. They think they haVe to do only with another taxing sys- 
 
 1.*; 
 
tea\ which at lirst sight seems to appeal to them. The reasons by which its 
 advocates try to support it (the true reason being very often omitted) appar- 
 ently touch on no question of religion. The leading spirits of the Singletax 
 mo^ment intentionally create confusion in the minds of those T^hora they 
 fpropose to ^conyert.'' (See p. 7) They make them believe that singletax 
 stands for a general endeavor to improve the methods of ta^xation. 
 
 Whenever some new and practical tax is introduced in any country, they 
 proclaim it as a singletax measure and triumphantly announce to the' world 
 V new progres's of their ideas. The inheritance tax, a very natural mode of 
 forcing people to contribute to the support of public order, is put under the 
 head of singletax. State revenue levied on franchises and monopolies i^ an- 
 other hobby of theirs. Completely their own, they ima^ne, is the so-called 
 unearned increment tax, which is laid, In various ways, on the amount by 
 which a piece of property increases in value on account of the increase of 
 the local .population or the building of a factory or railroad Nation; this 
 tax, which recommends itself to many well-informed persons, has nothing 
 at all to do with Henry George's absurd and un-Christian theory. 
 
 This confusion, brought on by professional singletaxers because they 
 know well that the public is not ripe for ^ngletax pure and simple, accounts 
 for the vagueness with which many well-meaning people view a measure 
 which if properly understood would only call forth their reprobation. Such 
 -ll-informed persons. Catholic or not. are to be sincerely pitied on account 
 of their lack of instruction, and because they involuntarily contribute to the 
 spread of an erroneous and very pernicious doctrine. 
 
 LETTER OF W. B. LUTTON, ATTORNEY 
 
 Editor Catholic Bulletin: 
 
 Sir — 1 — The courts have repeatedly upheld the legal and moral right of the 
 ^orvennment to destroy or restrict the us© of private property in whole or in 
 part by means of taxation. 
 
 We gladly grant this. The public authority has such a right even in a 
 higher degree than Mr. Lutton seems to think of. The public authority can 
 exDropriate individuals, i. e., condemn their property, on condition only, 
 that a reasonable indemnification be paid. 
 
 2 — Thus a tax is imposed to limit the number of dogs. If made heavy 
 enough and enforced, such a tax would, unquestionably, lead to a general 
 .slaughter of the canine family. 
 
 This gives us a chance to discuss shortly the fallacy of the famous dog" , 
 tax amendment. It seems to be a favorite weapon of the singletaxers. 
 Three years ago it figured conspicuously in a campaign pamphlet of theirs 
 in the state of Missouri. Now a tax on dogs does not decrease the number 
 of dogs. If it did, a tax on rats would decrease the number of rat^ ^d a tax 
 on rabbits would diminish the number of these rodents. If a dog tax had any 
 influence on the increase or decrease of these animals, the Turks would have 
 resorted to it long ago, to do away with the pest of their hordes of dogs in 
 the streets of Constantinople. 
 
 Did any dog ever bother his head about a tax which the city authority 
 gravely put on him? Indeed not. But the owners do. If a dog tax be intro- 
 duced, there will certainly be fewer owners after it has been working for 
 some time than there were before. The dog tax will surely decrease the 
 number of people who care to own dogs. It does not necessarily, however, 
 » as Mr. Lutton supposes, lead to a slaughter of thcs>e animals. The dog 
 owners may prefer simply to chase them into the street. Of course the city 
 may establish the honorable position of a dog catcher, but that is an extra 
 measure, not in itself contained in the impost on dogs. For the exchequer of 
 city or state it makes no difference whether there are ten thousand or two 
 hundred thov.s^and dogs on its domain. All the collectors of this tax care for 
 is the proprietors of dogs. - 
 
 The singletaxers imagine, that it is s^fe to tax the land because it can- 
 not be diminished. But if the dog tax diminishes the proprietors of dogs, 
 what will be the effect of the land tax? It will diminish the number of pro- 
 
 16 
 
prietors of land; there will be fewer people under singletax than there are 
 now who care to own land and pay the taxes for it. 
 
 They forget still another point The dog tax is never expected to bring 
 the entire revenue which the public authority needs; but the singletax 
 on land owners ^will. Suppose all tne expenses of the city administration 
 were levied on t^iose who own dogs, according to the value of the latter, who 
 woul^ care to keep one? Under singletax the land owners will have to de- 
 fray, all by themselves, this large sum; who then will care to be a land- 
 owner? 
 
 This is what the dog tax argument amounts to. 
 
 3 — We have so many taxes, it is difficult to keep track of them. In the con- 
 stitution and laws of Ohio, there must be#at least fifteen taxes provided for, 
 differing in theory, and some of them extremely injurious. The machinery of 
 assessment and collection is so complicated; the evasions, delinquencies and law 
 suits are so numerous, that the cost of the system is a burden so great as to 
 condemn our method of raising public revenue. 
 
 Now, supposing our law makers become disgusted with this absurdly illo- 
 gical and expensive tax system, and should decide to have an inexpensive and 
 simple system. What better could be done than to adopt the single tax? 
 
 Certainly the machinery of assessment and collection of taxes is com- 
 plicated. If our nation were still in a more or less barbarous condition we 
 should despair of it. But anyhow, a simplification would be desirable. We 
 propose a very simple tax, Mr. Lutton. Let us lay all the expens'es of our 
 sixth city upon the owners of brick houses. Nothing simpler for the asses- 
 sors, nothing simpler for the collectors. You hestitate, Mr. Lutton? Why? 
 Certainly because you see that s'uch a method would be too evidently unjust. 
 That is exactly what we want to bring out. The very first question concerning 
 any mode of raising money for public expences is not whether it is easy and 
 simple, but whether it is just. In the long series of articles which have been 
 running in the "Catholic Bulletin" we trust we hav<e ^own clearly that 
 singletax is unjust. Consequently all other qualities which might be attribut- 
 ed to it cannot come into consideration. 
 
 4 — It would encourage the possession of land for use, but would destroy all 
 incentive for holding land for speculative purposes. The "lord of the land" 
 would have to go to work and earn his own living. But all wanting land for 
 use could get it. 
 
 The same injustice does away with all the other advantages which are 
 claimed for singletax. Besides, who would force the "Lord of the Land" 
 to go to work? If he can pay the tax, why could he not hold a lot in the 
 heart of a growing city until its price has become tenfold? Land st)eculation 
 would not be an absolute impossibility under singletax. To suppress all 
 land speculation would be disastrous, especially in a developing country like 
 ours; and against the abus'es of this kind of enterprise the American spirit 
 can find better means than singletax, which is a bold, bare, enormous wrong. 
 
 LETTER OF HOWARD M. HOLMES, SECRETARY, 
 CLEVELAND SINGLETAX CLUB 
 
 August 20, 1915. 
 
 Editor The Catholic Bulletin: 
 
 Sir — I write for information, I have a number of Catholic friends of whom 
 I might frankly ask the same questions, but they are not at hand now when the 
 question is in my mind; and, perhaps through natural delicacy, we have never 
 discussed religious faiths., 
 
 1. Question — Is it really a part of Catholic faith that members of the Catlio- 
 lic Church must accept the dictum of the Pope on political and economic tiues- 
 tions? I have always supposed that the Pope's authority was restricted to mat- 
 ters of church discipline and of faith as regards the spirit and a future life. I 
 am not a scholar and may be mistaken. I ask this in no unfriendly spirit. I 
 belong to no church and have always discouraged rabid anti-Catholics. 
 
 By this time it ought to be clear to Mr. Holmes, that the question of sinerle- 
 tax is in the very first place a moral and religions matter. It is based on a 
 religious doctrine, namely whether the present owners of landed property 
 are thieves or not, wether God instituted private property in land or con- 
 demned it. We may pave our streets with brick or asphalt, that will not 
 concern the pope nor any other ecclesiastical authority; but if the city with- 
 
 17 
 
out any reason and compensation seizes a pile of bricks for this purpose, the 
 matter becomes a moral question, and those ordering such a seizure, if 
 Catholics, cannot be absolved unless they promise to hiake due resti- 
 tution. The singletaxers intend to seize without reason and compensation 
 not a pile of bricks but all landed property. (They do not even know yet 
 whether they are going to give it to the city or the country or the state or 
 the nation). That this is in the very first place a moral and religious ques- 
 tion of supreme importance, a question both of doctrine and of justice every- 
 body who has common sense must grant, whether he be a scholar or not. It 
 is an economic question, but bound up with a grave moral and religious is- 
 sue. The whole Social Question, as Pius X says in his encyclical on the Trade 
 Unions in Germany, is in the first place of a moral and religious nature "and 
 must therefore be guided chiefly by the moral law and the verdict of religion.*' 
 (Encycl. of Sept. 24, 1912). 
 
 Mr. Holmes thinks the Pope's authority is restricted to things that re- 
 gard "the spirit and a future life.'* Certainly, Mr. Holmes. But there is 
 hardly any earthly thing or action or relation which is' not liable, at least 
 under certain circumstances, to "regard the spirit and a future life." The 
 Ten Commandments certainly are an official utterance of Almighty God about 
 matters which "regard the spirit and a future life:" yet the greater part of 
 tbem concern themselves very minutely with earthly, worldly, temporal, ma- 
 terial things, and actions and relations. For us Catholics, the Pope is the 
 Grod-appointed guardian of the Ten Commandments. Verstanden? 
 
 2. You seem to implj'' that if the Pope declares our land system to be just 
 good Catholics must accept it, however much tlieir reason may revolt. 
 
 Indeed, good Catholics must accept this; nor will sound reason ever 
 revolt against any papal decision. The power which finally governs papal 
 decisions is not the pope's good pleasure nor his knowledge nor the advice 
 or the influence of the cardinals, but the One . who said to the first pope, 
 ••thou art a rock, and upon this rock I will build my Church." God has more 
 than a thousand means to prevent the pope from error. It is at the Same 
 time He who fashioned human reason, and being sound of reason the 
 contrary of what He teaches through His mouthpiece of the throne of St. 
 Peter. Catholics have that much confidence in the providence of an all- 
 knowing, all-wise and all-mighty God. 
 
 3. If Pope Leo XIII's dictum in that respect is to be accepted by Catholice, 
 what will they do with that of Pope Gregory the Great, who denounced private 
 property in land — to say nothing of Cardinal Manning, Bishop Nulty, Dr. Mc- 
 Glynn, Dr. Burtsell, the Rev. Thos. Cox of Chicago, and many lesser lights. 
 
 St. Gregory denounced Property in Land ? Mr. Holmes, you really do 
 not know what you are talking about. You can only refer to one passage 
 in St. Gregory's* works, which is quoted by Socialists to prove that St. 
 Gregory was a Socialist. Have perhaps the singletaxers become Socialists of 
 iate7 Of course the passage proofs nothing. It is one of those strong ut- 
 terances' often found in the Fathers of the Church, by which charity was in- 
 culcated to the rich. St. Gregory expressly tells them to give liberally "of 
 to landed property a singletax meas-ure. (See Cath. Bulletin, Article "Can 
 their own"; hence he does not only not deny private property but supposes 
 it as self-evident. (See John A. Ryan, Alleged Socialism of the Church 
 Fathers, pp. 15, 16, 20). 
 
 is perhaps your quotation from Cardinal Manning of a similar char- 
 acter? And after all, it makes' no difference for us, what Cardinal Manning 
 or Bishop Nulty (eternally quoted) or Dr. Burtsell or the "many lesser lights'^ 
 have to say. They all together cannot oi^tshine the light of the one authority 
 which alone has the promise of infallibility. 
 
 4. At a great gathering of Knights of Columbus in Pennsylvania. Mr. Man- 
 ahan, congressman-at-large from Minnesota advocated the single tax as a land 
 reform measure. 
 
 We need not say that Mr. Manahan is no authority for us in such mat- 
 ters. But we doubt very much that he really recommended ^ngletax. He 
 probably spoke of some tax measure concerning real estate. It is well 
 
 91 
 
known that the adherents of Henry George call every taxing method referring: 
 a Catholic be a Singletaxer?" and Mr. Dorn's letter of Aug. 3rd.) ' 
 
 5. I have been told, but can't vouch for it, that Dr. Ryan, protessox- oi jjoii- 
 tical economy in the Jesuit college at St. Paul, i.s a single taxer. Anyv/ay, ha 
 hinted at it in his "Everybody's" debate on socialism with Hilquit. 
 
 Walsli, of the Industrial Commission, is a single taxer, and we have several 
 Catholics in our Club. 
 
 Hoping for a better understanding, and that we can get together ultimately 
 on some practical program for social reform, I remain. Yours very truly, 
 
 HOWARD M. HOLMES, 
 Sectretary, Cleveland Single Tax Club. 
 
 There is no Jesuit College at St. Paul, Minn. — Rev. Dr. Ryan, far from 
 advocating singletax, ha^ even issued a pamphlet to refute that whole theory, 
 under the title, "Henry George and Private Property" (Columbus Press, N. Y., 
 15c.) — besides writing the above mentioned booklet "Alleged Socialism of 
 the Church Fathers." (B. Herder, St. Louis, 50c.) F. S. B. 
 
 ANOTHER LEXrER OF MR. LUTTON, ATTORNEY 
 
 Editor Catholic Bulletin, Dear Sir: 
 
 I received a copy of your Bulletin issued August 6th and have read with 
 considerable pleasure your discussion of the Single Tax with Mr. Dorn. 
 
 We would like to make a few observations on your article and assure you 
 that we do so only in a spirit of helpfulness and with the utmost good will. 
 
 1. At the outset, and in order that we may start right, we would ask that 
 you give' us credit as we give you credit for seeking the truth. It says some- 
 where that the truth will make us free. And Freedom — economic, political, per- 
 sonal — is a panacea for all ills, although, as you say, the Single Tax may not be. 
 
 How much credit Mr. Lutton deserves for seeking the truth we need not 
 decide. So much is sure that he could have been more honest in one of 
 his statements. He maintains that it is we who said that singletax may not 
 be the panacea for all ills. It was Mr. O. K, Dorn, Treasurer of the Single- 
 tax Club, just as well. Here are his words: "In the last part of your letter 
 of July 29, you ask whether in my opinion singletax wpuld remedy all of the 
 Ills listed; in reply to which I will say that singletax in itself will not." 
 (From letter of August 8. Mr. Lutton's phrase, "as you ^y" is not ex- 
 pressive of fairness. It is only calculated to make the reader believe that 
 singletaxers do not grant this. 
 
 2. You have stated to Mr. Dorn that you would answer some questions of 
 his on condition that he answer some counter-questions of yours. It seems to 
 us that if the singletax is wrong and you know wherein the fallacy resides 
 you ought to point it out without reference to whether someone answers your 
 questions, so that we may no longer travel the wrong road. 
 
 We have been pointing out the fallacies of singletax for more than four 
 months. It is not our fault if Mr. Lutton is still travelling the wrong 
 road. 
 
 3. Referring to your illustrations of two lots of equal value on tlie Public 
 Square in Cleveland, on one of which is constructed a building of twenty stories, 
 and on the other, one of four, we think you have drawn some misleading con- 
 clusions. In the first place, under any just system the expense of accidents oc- 
 curring in the construction of a building is a proper item in the cost of construc- 
 tion and should be paid for in full by the owner. Suppose, under your arrange- 
 ment, ten serious accidents occurred on the four story building and none on the 
 twenty story structure. The owner of the larger building would be compelled 
 to pay In taxes part of the expense of the construction of the smaller one. 
 
 Mr. Lutton refers to an instance which we gave in our answer to Mr. 
 Dorn, which is started on page twelve. It may-be well to re-read it, that our 
 answer be more fully undersood. 
 
 Mr. Lutton overlooked a very obvious thing. In the apportioning of 
 taxes, in fixing the rates of life insurances and similar affairs, nobody goe^ 
 by what will actually happen, because that c^.n never be known beforehand, 
 hut by what is most likely to happen. Will he really deny that most likely in 
 the erection of a twenty story building more accidents will occur than in the 
 construction of a four-story one? Under siHgletax public authority levies the 
 same amount on both buildings, because they cover an area of equal value. 
 Is that not a most unjust tax, if we take as standard what is most likely to 
 
 19 
 
happen? This is the only conclusion common sense will draw, and we do 
 not see at what other conclusion Mr. Lutton can arrive. 
 
 4. You assume that taxes are paid for fire and police protection, etc. As 
 a matter of fact, a man may pay in a large amount and his property may • be 
 stolen on account of drowsiness of a patrolman, or destroyed by reason of the 
 negligence of the fire department, but he has no redress.. It is inaccurate and 
 incorrect, therefore, to say that the taxpayer pays for these things when he is 
 forced to pay whether lie gets them or not. A tax is simply the money paid by 
 a person as a member of society for the support of the Government. The 
 amount that each should pay, apparently, is the thing that bothers us. 
 
 Certainly, on account of the drowsiness of a patrolman or the negli- 
 gence of the fire department a poor (or rich) taxpayer may suffer great in- 
 jury. But let us suppose that singletax is in vogue, and that factories, 
 mine owners, navigation companies and other pets of Henry George pay 
 taxes only for the value of the area they use (which means' that they are 
 practically untaxed) ; will any reader of the Bulletin think that as soon, as 
 such heavenly conditions are introduced, there will be no longer any' drowsy 
 policemen, nor any negligence in the fire departments of the cities? Indeed 
 not Consequently it may happen under singletax just as well that "the tax- 
 payer pays for thos'e things (police and fire protection) when he ^s forced to 
 pay whether he gets them or not." 
 
 Moreover, if a system which denies Henry George's principles does not 
 work out satisfactorily, the fault often lies with those who apply the system 
 and not with the system itself. But Henry George's system is essentially 
 wrong, and no matter by whom applied can never w^ork out satisfactorily, 
 it is as with a gun; if a gun is good, you can usq it, and if it does not 
 hit the mark, it's the shooter's fault; if it is bad, nobody can do anything 
 VN'ith it, not even the best marksman. The singletax system is a bad gun. 
 
 But what Mr. Lutton really means to say is this: "It is incorrect .to 
 say that a man pays taxes for police and fire protection, because he may 
 not get either. It is not the purpose of taxes to procure stich protection at 
 all; the purpose of taxes is simply the support of the government" Great 
 George, what a wisdom! Listen ye citizens of the Forest City, under single- 
 tax you will not pay a cent for police or fire protection, at least it will be 
 incorrect to say that you do. You will pay for the support of the g^overn- 
 ment only. Whether that government will grant you any protection at all, 
 as long as you do not pay for the expenses thereby incurred, it is hard to 
 tell. This is the kind of government which the great thinkers of the Single- 
 tax Club promise to you. We sincerely recommend Mr. Lutton as a fit mem- 
 ber of the first singletax administration of Cleveland. 
 
 5. You urge it as sound reason that everyone should contribute to support 
 public order in proportion to the advantage which he derives from its existence. 
 The advantage that each derives is a thing difficult, if not impossible, to detect. 
 Life is more valuable than property: and under such a rule a man with a family 
 would be required, we think, to pay more in taxes than a bachelor with his 
 heaned-up millions. A poor man with threadbare clothes who enjoyed life, 
 would derive more advantage from good order, perhaps, and so would be com- 
 pelled to pay more into the public treasury than a dispeptic millionaire. 
 
 Mr, Lutton mixes up two things. The advantage one derives from the ex- 
 i.stence of public order is one thing. The joy and happiness one -gets out o£ 
 life is another, and a vastly different thing. Our young first-communicants 
 for instance, or the Sisters of our convents, enjoy a happiness which is to- 
 tally unknown to the rich infidel millionaire. But public order has mighty 
 little to do with it. while it has everything to do with the factories or mines 
 of the money-king. 
 
 And as for the man with the family, "we should say, that if nothing " 
 comes into consideration but the expenses for increased protection, he ought 
 to prepay more than the bachelor. But by doing his duty to his' family he 
 pays to the state such a heavy tax, that any higher charge on the score of 
 his family would be absurd. Mr. Lutton, we heartily favor even an extra tax 
 on the bachelor. But please do not say that this stamps us singletaxers. 
 
 6. Since you are defending the present system of taxation, we would like 
 to have your opinion on the following: Tn Cleveland in the last ten years land 
 values have increased approximately 200 million dollars. In your opinion, to 
 
 20 
 
whom does it belong? Does it belong to the people of the City of Cleveland, or 
 to a few landlords, We contend that it is a community product and, therefore, 
 belongs to ihe Community and that it should be used in paying the obligations 
 of the Community which amount to an annual 10 million. Are we wrong in 
 this? Is this unjust? We would be glad if you would enlighten us. 
 
 Provided the present owners have acquired their landed property in a just 
 way, the entire value as it is today, no matter by how many millions its 
 aggregate has increased since it came into their rightful possession, belongs 
 to them and to them alone, that is, to the owners of modest hous'e-lots as 
 well as those who own scores of acres. To say the contrary is to advocate 
 wholesale robbery. It neither belongs to the city nor to the county nor to 
 the state nor to the nation nor to the human race in general. Neither city 
 nor county nor nation nor the human race in general has any right with re- 
 gard to this kind of property which it ha^ not with regard to any other kind 
 of property. Public authority may tax it, may even tax the so-called un- 
 earned increment as such; but no public authority is or ever was the rightful 
 owner of such possessions. 
 
 It is well to remember that there has been increase in value occasioned by 
 the growth in population or similar circumstances as long as the world ex- 
 ists. In all centuries cities have grown from small beginnings, and the own- 
 ers of landed or other property never doubted that the increment accruing 
 therefrom waS really theirs. The Church never thought it her duty to teach 
 them anything different. Wherever she happened to own anything, she has 
 at all times just as other owners accepted the benefits coming to her in this « 
 way. Our own parish churches and parochial schools and other institutions 
 do not act differently. In view of Wilis' fact it is very strange indeed that 
 there are Catholics — at least it is said there are — thoughtless enough to re- 
 peat the declamation of the singletaxers. 
 
 For a more extensive and philosophic refutation of Henry George's con- 
 tention we refer the reader to John A. Ryan, "Henry George and Private 
 Property in Land," pp. 22 etc., or Arthur Preuss, "The Fundamental Fallacy 
 of Socialism,*' pp. 155, etc. 
 
 ANOTHER LETTER OF MR. HOWARD M. HOLMES, SECRE- 
 TARY OF CLEVELAND SINGLETAX CLUB 
 
 We should never have made up our mind to publisTi such a letter, were 
 it not for the incredible amount of brass it contains. That is the only word 
 we find for the properties manifested in it. 
 
 Oct. 19, 1915. 
 
 To the Editor of The Catholic Bulletin: 
 
 1. In view of your statement regarding Pope Gregory the Great and his 
 supposed views on the land question, I send you under separate cover a reprint 
 of an article in the Atlantic Monthly by F .W. Garrison, grandson of William 
 Lloyd Garrison, and call your attention to the paragraph marked. 
 
 The article Mr. Holmes sent has for its motto just the passage we refer 
 to in our answer of Oct. 16. The pap'sage is about five lines long. It is all 
 Mr. Holmes ever heard or saw of the works of St. Gregory the Great. He 
 never consulted them himself. The few dots put into the text by F. E. 
 Garrison, grandson of William Lloyd Garrison, (we nearly fainted when we 
 saw these formidable names) should have shown him that the context might 
 possibly change the meaning. It really does. A few lines before, the author 
 states that he wishes to admonish those who do not give of their own. 
 How this can leave any doubt in the mind of Mr. Holmes as to the great pope's 
 real meaning, we fail to see. It is "one of those strong utterances often 
 found in the works of the Fathers of the Church by which they inculcate the 
 piactice of Charity." 
 
 AVe fail to see, also, how it could escape Mr. Holmes, that St. Gregory 
 speaks of property in general, and not at all exclusively of the property in 
 land., nay movable property is evidently much more in the pope's mind be- 
 cause it is movable property, food, clothing, money, that is chiefly given as 
 
 21 
 
alms. If it were true, therefore, that he denies any private ownership at ail, 
 he denies every kind of it, that is to say he advocates an ultra Socialism. 
 And by quoting him as an authority Mr. Holmes and the singletaxers march 
 over into the camp of ultra Socialism. 
 
 This is not very creditable to Mr. Holmes but the worst is that we have 
 said all this already on October 16. Poor Mr. Holmes. He can't read. But 
 maybe it is different. Did you ever succeed in refuting a good, well trained 
 parrot? Never No matter what you say against him, he will always repeat 
 his few phrases. Is this the case with Mr. Holmes? We do not say it is. 
 
 2. Please accept thanks for your frank ackno-wiedgrement of belief in the 
 extreme doctrine of the infallibility of the Pope, and of the! duty of good Catho- 
 lics to accept the decisions of His Holiness on all questions — no matter what 
 they may themselves think. Many Catholics do not accept that view, any more 
 than many Presbyterians believe in some of the harsh features of their old 
 chvirch creed. 
 
 Mr. Holmes cannot read. Otherwise he could never maintain that our 
 reply to him contains such a monstrous statement. "We have expressly grant- 
 ed to him that the Pope's authority is confined to things which regard "the 
 spirit and the future life," and that matters like the singletax problem come 
 under this head on'iy as far as they bear on faith and morals. AVe challenge 
 :\Tr. Holmes to mention to us a single Catholic who docs not hold oyr view 
 in this point. If anyone doesn't, he is no Catholic at all any more. Or has Mr. 
 Holmes in this regard also learned — certain anti-Catholic phrases which he 
 repeats in season and out of season? — And what have the Presbyterians 
 to do with this? By her divine Founder, the Catholic Church has been s'o 
 v/ell equipped with all she needs, that she hasn't to look, over the fence into 
 the Presbyterian garden to see what is good and true. 
 
 ?>. His Holiness may say "Thou shalt not steal," and we acceiit it because it 
 is in accoixl with our average moral perceptions. But as to what constitutes 
 private property (ethically) our views are undergoing a slow change. 
 
 It is not His Holiness who says, "thou shalt not steal" but one that is a 
 little higher. If Mr. Holmes is a Christian he has learned by heart the 
 Ten Commandments; of God and knows very well that they did not originate 
 from the Pope of the Roman Catholic Church. It is not our fault, if his 
 words make the impression that he clid not learn them any too well. And 
 how does he know that our views are undergoing a change as* to what con- 
 stitutes private property? Such changes exist only in the imagination of 
 those whose minds reside in misty or stonn-tossed brains. (But for good- 
 ness sake, Mr. Holmes, if you want to make a vain attempt at giving us a 
 proof for your assertion, please do not come a third time with St. Gregory.) 
 
 4. And church leaders of all denominations usually lag behind public 
 opinion in this respect. 
 
 And do you mean to say that the pope is to look to the phantom god- 
 dess of Public Opinion to find out what is right? And do you mean to say 
 that we Catholics have to sit in judgment over the pope and see whether he 
 still agrees with what you are pleased to call Public Opinion? Do you mean 
 to insult us in our sacred conviction of the character of the Papacy? Do you 
 mean to insinuate that it v/ould be better for u^ to run after your home-made 
 public opinion than to follow the Head of our Church? If you do not mean it. 
 why do you use such language? Are you unable to say what you wish to 
 say? In that case don't be too proud but take a good night school course in 
 English. 
 
 5. It was so In the anti-slavery struggle, most of the religious leaders at 
 i.iie time looking upon the slaves as rightful private property. Yours truly, 
 
 HOWARD M. HOLMES. 
 
 To reproach the Church of the first ages with not having condemned 
 slavery in principle, and with having tolerated it in fact, is to blame it for 
 not having let loose a frightful revolution, in which, perhaps, all civiliza- 
 tion would have perished with Rora?n society. Religious equality was the 
 negation of slaverv as it was practiced by pagan society. The Church made 
 the enfranchisement of the slave an act of disinterested charity. Tfee very 
 
 22 
 
chair of St. Peter was occupied by men who had been slaves? — Pius in the 
 second century, Callistus in the third. Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. XIV, 
 pp. 36-39 for statements and references to prove that, if not the only, at least 
 the principal cause of the disappearance of slavery at all times, is Chiisti- 
 anity and Catholicity acting through the authority of its' teaching and the in- 
 fluence of its charity. 
 
 li. 'Sot lor iiul>Iication -unless j-ou need it for a filler.H. M. H. 
 
 We need it for a filler. We never have articles that attract any attention 
 from anybody. Especially the single taxers completely disregard our modest 
 publication. This "filler" again shows to our readers what kind of thinkers 
 and talkers the singletaxers are. We also congratulate the Cleveland Single- 
 tax Club for having such an able secretary. If he cannot catch the mean- 
 ing of two little plainly printed paragraphs which he may read and re- 
 read as often as he likes, what a mess will he make of it when he has to 
 report the oral proceedings of a meeting which he hears only once. 
 
 Very likely Mr. Holmes feared that his argumentation contained in the 
 "filler" will bring him into hot w^ater and therefore he added the postscript 
 hoping thereby to get in his little wisdom and escape publication. We have 
 no time for personal correspondence and Mr. Holmes must be prepared to 
 have his contentions either published or ignored altogether. 
 
 A THIRD LETTER OF MR. HOLMES, SECRETARY OF THE 
 CLEVELAND SINGLETAX CLUB 
 
 Editor Catholic Bulletin: ^ 
 
 "You cannot agree with us tliat absorption of site values (oi,- what political 
 economists call rent) is wrong. Very well; let us see if we cannot agree on ine 
 fiscal side of the single tax. 
 
 • No, indeed, we cannot agree with you on this point. But above all we 
 cannot agree with you if you say that private ownership in land is a bold, 
 bare, enormous wrong or that all men are entitled to an equal share in the 
 bounties of God. Even leaving aside the religious question altogether, we 
 have already shown that we cannot agree with you in taxing a skyscraper of 
 twenty stories not more than a one-story house in the same place. This is 
 the fiscal side of tlie question. But we shall do you another favor. 
 
 In his letter Mr. Holmes enumerates s'ome ten points concerning taxing 
 methods and invites us to discuss them with him. One or another of them 
 has already been mentioned on other occasions. Others treat of imperfec- 
 tions of our present tax system, \Vhich we readily grant to exist. But this 
 does no mean that we wish to adopt singletax. (see pagelo). Let us make 
 a bee line for the happy days' whai singletax will be introduced, and observe 
 how things must then present themselves. 
 
 Let us' suppose for a moment that the State of Ohio has introduced single- 
 tax. This means that the land owners alone defray all the expenses of the 
 governor and all officials, etc. To forestall useless questions of the single- 
 taxers, we state expressly, that the tax will he adjusted according to tlio 
 iiite value of the soil. An acre in the vicinity of a population center will 
 have to pay proportionately more than one in the open country. But let 
 the reader mark well that only the site value counts. That is to say. a 
 swampy or rocky spot will pay as much in taxes as another equally large 
 area which is in the same neighborhood or at the same distance from the 
 center of the population. According to the principles of the singletaxers it 
 is the population only and exclusively that "makes the value." A water- 
 fall which offers thousands of horse power, the fact that coal or oil is hidden 
 under the surface, may not be considered at all. A gravel field and the best 
 wheat land, provided they are in the same locality, pay th^ same tax. This 
 is only to show to the singletaxers that we understand their theory. 
 
 23 
 
Three Classes of Land Owners 
 
 As soon as singletax is introduced those who own land will be the only 
 taxpayers. Now there are evidently three class'es of land owners. There are 
 first those who use the land they own merely for private purposes. T^ey 
 possess a residence with perhaps a moderate lawn in front or a back yani 
 or kitchen garden in the rear. But they do not think ofMnaking money bv 
 this real estate. Such land owners we s'hall call residents. 
 
 A second class are the farmers. They work their soil to obtain a revenue. 
 Buildings and similar improvements are means to this end. They need a 
 proportionately large area to have a moderate income. 
 
 The third class are the indnstrials. They use the soil simply as the 
 necessary ground for their enterprises. They erect factories, establish mines 
 and steamship lines, build railroads, etc. Here belong also the owners' of 
 hotels, apartment houses and office buildings and the whole clasfe of any kind 
 of landlords. 
 
 In many cases a person may be in several of these classes. Consequently 
 the singletax may affect him variously. But that cannot alter our deductions. 
 The three clasfees, residents, farmers and industrials are clearly distin- 
 guishable. 
 
 Under the present system these three classes pay a certain amount 
 of taxes. Nor would it be difficult to find the aggregate of what each class 
 is now^ contributing to the expenses of the state. But whatever this amount 
 may be, one thing i^ sure: The introduction of singletax will bring a very 
 considerable reduction to the class of the industrials. The sum they now 
 pay into the public treasury will be enormously diminished. This is the 
 chief purpose Henry George had in view when devising his tax. 
 
 The present taxes he s^ys work like penalty on enterprise and industr?-. 
 "If I have saved while you wasted. I am mulct while you are exempt. If a 
 man build a ship we make him pay for his temerity, as though he had done 
 an injury to the state; if a railroad be opened, down comes the tax col- 
 lector upon it, as though it were a nuisance; if a manufactory be erected, we 
 levy upon it an annual sum which would go far towards making a hand- 
 some profit." (Progress and Poverty, Book IX, Chapter from which this is 
 taken is in the same strain.) 
 
 To the railroad and steamship companies, therefore, the oil kings, the 
 owners of skyscrai)ers and coal mines will be donated a s^im, which will go 
 far towards making a handsome profit. And who will pay this difference? 
 Who is going to make up for the "handsome profit'* which the industrials 
 will not have to contribute any longer to the public expenses? Only two 
 more classed of people are taxable under singletax, namely, the residents and 
 the farmers. The taxes of residents and farmers, therefore will increase 
 enormously. They may fight it out between themselves who is to pay the 
 larger share. 
 
 Let not the singletaxers come and say the farmer^ have their land in the 
 country, where the site value is low. The indnstrials as a class whether their 
 establishments are in the heart of cities or in the backyroods will pay mnch 
 less than now; the difference must come from others which neces^tates that 
 the taxes of those "others" be raised no matter where they live. There is no 
 other way. If, however, the singletaxers maintain that as a matter of fact 
 the farmers will pay less than they pay now, ^o much the worse for the 
 residents; the burden will fall on them alone. But factory and mine owners, 
 railroads and skyscrapers will not pay the taxes they are now paying, if 
 Henry George's theory is carried out. 
 
 It is really surprising that considerations as plain and obvious as these 
 evidently never came to the minds of the singletaxers. To us they makp 
 It sure that the singletax even viewed from the merely fiscal or financial 
 standpoint even without any reference to religion, is utterlv unjust and can 
 have only disastrous effects. 
 
LETTER OF MR. MATT HAUS 
 
 Dear Sir: — 
 
 1. My attention has been called to an article on single tax in your issue 
 of Oct. 1st, in which you say that land speculators would not be put out of busi- 
 ness by the single tax, for "If he could pay the tax, why could he not hold a 
 lot in the heart of a growing city until its price has become tenfold?" My 
 answer to that is, no one could afford to hold land out of use if the Gevern- 
 ment were annually collecting from him all the land was worth for use. If he 
 kept it until its value had been increased tenfold then the tax would be tenfold 
 also. Thus all incentive to hold land for speculation would be taken away. No 
 one would care to hold land unless he wanted it to live upon or to do business 
 upon. 
 
 The selling price of land is its untaxed value. As fast as the tax is in- 
 creased, the selling value falls. If the annual tax were made equal to tlfe rental 
 value, the selling value would disappear. 
 
 Here is a lot, say worth $1,000. At 5 per cent the rental value would be $50 
 a year. Suppose the Government taxes the lot 5 per cent or $50.00 a year. No 
 one would be fool enough to pay anything for the lot as a purchase price. Let 
 US/ suppose the influx of population and improvements which caused a doubling 
 of land values without any increase in taxation. Then the owner of this lot 
 could sell for ^1,000. But if the Government imposed a tax of $100.00, there 
 could be no such purchase price obtained. The use of the lot would be still 
 worth 5 per cent of the value--$2,00(J — but no one except a crazy man would 
 pay anything for it to the owner when he knew that the Government would 
 collect the rental each year as the value went up due to increased population, 
 location, ^tc. 
 
 Mr. Haus* argument is this. The value of a lot is equal to a sum of 
 money which if put on interest would bring the amount now paid for the 
 rent of the lot (not the rent of lot and house but the lot alone). As soon as 
 the value rises, on account of the increase in population or for similar exterior 
 reasons, the singletax government will increase the tax accordingly. There- 
 fore, unless one has an actual use for a lot he will not buy or hold it but 
 will rather leave his money in the bank. Sounds very well, doesn't it? But 
 it is based on a supposition which is* not always true. It supposes that the 
 actual value of a piece of property can never be greater than the sum 
 which would bring- the amount of the rent or tax as interest. This may be 
 correct in most cases, at least under the singletax regime. 
 
 But take a growing residence district. Somepne owns a complex of 
 four nice lots, just enough for an apartment house. He knows that sooner 
 or later one will be built in this neighborhood. He has sure Information 
 that there is an energetic and enterprising company which already looks 
 for suitable places. 
 
 Now remember two things: First, that the tax on such a plot, single- 
 tax i mean, is not higher than if it were improved, that it is and remains as 
 high and low as the tax on the surrounding improved lots, and that the 
 prospect of a much higher sale at some future time cannot induce the ap- 
 praisers to increase the tax. Remember second, that the apartment house 
 will bring an enormously larger rent than four residences would. Because 
 the four residences would not only have fewer stories, but could never cover 
 the ground so completely as this one establishment. The money therefore, 
 which is paid for these four lots will bear an incomparably higher interest 
 than the money paid for any four of the house lots in the same neighbor- 
 hood. In other words, the owner of them will be acting like a good business 
 man if he for several years pays the taxes in the expectation of a much 
 higher price in the future— and all this under the singletax system. Land 
 speculation, though of course greatly hampered, is not an absolute impos- 
 sibility where Henry George rules. 
 
 We have taken here a residence district. If in our article of 
 October 1, we accidentally referred to "the heart of a growing city," we did 
 TiOt lay stress on this circumstance. We meant to emphasize only that even 
 under singletax some kind of land speculation will remain pos'sible. But 
 after all why should not similar circumstances even in the heart of a city, 
 especially a growing city, prevail on a shrewd business man to engage in 
 similar speculations. 
 
 To repeat. Mr. Haus' argument if^ based on the wrong supposition that 
 under no condition can the value of property for some particular purpose 
 be larger than the sum \\ hich brings as interest the amount of rent which 
 
 •25 
 
other properties in the same neighborhood will fetch. There can be a vast 
 difference which the tax assessors will never be able to reach. 
 
 AVe have taken as example an apartment house, an instance of the 
 housing industry. Our case will become still better if we pass over to 
 the other industries, as factories, etc. All these branches of human enter- 
 prise can make great profits on proportionately small areas. Is it not 
 quite possible that a man should keep a number of house lots idle because 
 he has good reason to expect that some factory will settle there? The fac- 
 tory owner does not pay more tax for an acre than the modest house in the 
 «ame locality. He will gladly give a higher price. (If the place were im- 
 proved, the factory would have to pay for the improvements also). 
 
 Did Mr. Haus ever stop to consider what the word site-value means? 
 In our latest singletax article we said: 
 
 But let the reader mark well that only the site value counts. That is 
 to say, a swam,py or rocky st)ot will pay as much in taxes as another equally 
 large area which is in the same neighborhood or at the same distance from 
 the center of the population. According to the principles of the singletaxers 
 it is the population only and exclusively that "makes the value.!' A water- 
 fall which offers thousands of hors'e power, the coal or oil hidden under ihs. 
 surface, may not be considered at all. A gravel field and the best wheat land, 
 provided they are in the same locality, pay the same tax. 
 
 To enlighten Mr. Haus still more we quote from the singletax platform 
 (The World Almanach) : 'The only value taken into consideration would 
 be the value attaching to the bare land by reason of neighborhood, etc' . 
 taking for public use' (i. e. taxing) 'that value which attaches to land by 
 reason of the growth and improvement of the community.' (Let anyone 
 take the World Almanach and convince himself that we are correct in quot- 
 ing. The other bold statements of this platform, for instance about unbur- 
 dening the farmer, giving to everyone his own house, etc. are in flagrant con- 
 tradiction with the principles of Henry George, aa our articles have shown.) 
 Under such circumstances it is not only pos'sible but very probable that in- 
 dividuals or corporations will hold land favorable to industrial enterprises 
 until it will yield them a large profit. Speculators would still hold natural 
 oi)portunities unused or only half used. 
 
 2. If you can think of a better and easier way to prevent land speculation, 
 I'd be glad to consider it. The withholding of valuable land from use .practi- 
 cally lessens the size of the globe for industrial purposes, it lowers wages by 
 lessening opportunities for labor, and in agricultural districts and city suburbs 
 i! sra iters people who should be nearer together. 
 
 Mr. Haus ha^ the genuine singletax horror of land speculation. It is 
 the only evil in the world. Do away with land speculatoin, and the wages 
 will jump sky high. Involuntary poverty will disappear (Platform). Yet it 
 was land speculation that led to the establishments of the colonies from 
 which sprang these glorious United States. Land speculation laid the foun- 
 dations of our state of Ohio and settled all the states of the West. We dare 
 say that a very large percentage of the houses of Cleveland owes its arigin 
 to land s'peculation. 
 
 We do not deny the many evils connected with it, nor do we defend all 
 tiie methods used by the speculators. Everything thought out by men 
 and practiced by mortals is open to abuse. Sound policy will think of how 
 to prevent the abuse while keeping the good thing itself. — As far as single- 
 taxers can see there is' only one device ever conceived by a human mind 
 which is without the slightest evil consequence and that is singletax. 
 
 In the very last sentence of his letter Mr. Haus unwittingly gives credit 
 to land speculation for its good influences? against congested districts, tene- 
 ments and slums and in the same breath admits the reverse as an effect of 
 site tax. And it is true as we have maintained that site tax will need to 
 have people housed in high buildings u^ing little ground space — Mr. Haus 
 would house us close together. 
 
LETTER OF MR. M. J. McGUIRE. 
 
 Editor of CathoJic Bulletin: 
 
 1. I have been reading- -with interest, rind not a little aniupemcm, 
 series of controversal letters with Cleveland Single Taxers. You assume lo 
 speak the Catholic church vieAV on the question at issue. Now when a chur>',h 
 is built it becomes the property of those who contribute financially to defray the 
 expenses of construction, to be correct — Holy 'Name church is the property of 
 the members of Holy IJame parish. A very common source of revenue for oper- 
 ating and maintenance in vogue in many CathoJic churches is pew rent. This 
 rental is wisely determined by the advantage which the occupation of a pew 
 gives to the pew-holder, proximity to the altar, pulpit, etc., the pews in front 
 renting for more than those in the rear, in fact we generally find the pews in 
 the extreme rear of the church minus a name plate. Quite a single-tax arrange- 
 ment Mr. Editor, only the Church is consistent in its insi.stence on r an ying 
 single tax to its logical conclusion. 
 
 We read Mr. ^IcGuire's letter "with not a little annisement." Pop<^ 
 Leo Xin, unbekpown to Mr. IMcGiiire, condemns the principle on which 
 singletax rests. Henry George writes an open letter to the pope to em- 
 phasize the great difference between the pope's doctrine and his own. And lo 
 and behold, there corned .Mr. ]McGuire and shows that the Church of I^o 
 XIII is singletaxing the people all the time. Do j^ou really think, Mr. Mc- 
 Guire, that all the pastors wiio partly support their churches by pew rent, 
 believe with Henry George against Leo XITI, that "private ]iroperty in land 
 is a bold bare enormous wrong?" 
 
 The readers of the Catholic Bulletin know very well, that the single 
 taxers mean to tax every piece of landed property according to its value 
 — site-value to be sure Well there are many cases, in which the price, the 
 rental, even the tax can be fully and justly determined by the site value of 
 3 commodity. This is so whenever no other difference comes in but the site, 
 the locality. But it is simply stupid to talk of singletax in all these cases'. 
 Not only the church pew, but also the jplace in a theater, the stall in a mar- 
 ket house, the room pr rooms in an arcade building are differentiated ex'^Jv.-' 
 lively by their site, their «tirroundingsf,^f^cc'^.«sibili.ty and- '^o rorth. !sor does 
 it make the slightest difference, whether the building which differs these 
 commodities has been erected with public funds or by a compay^y or an in- 
 dividual person. The reason for the difference in price, tax, rei ;tal, pew-rent 
 or whatever name may be chosen, is always the same. ' 
 
 What we have against singletax is not that it assesses according to 
 value, site-value included. There is nothing reproachable ia this. But tlie 
 sinarletax system of Henry George is built on the un-CIiristi?in and uiiiiatiir;»l 
 assumption that private OT\iiership in land is a ])old, baref enormous Avrouir. 
 Singletax will fall most heavily on those ^^h6 use proporti onately the largest 
 area, the farmers, who at the same time make the prop*yrtionately smallest 
 profit. Singletax, according to Henry George is to lessen the tax of the own- 
 ers of railroads, faetoiles, mines, steamship lines and to i it the bulk of taxes 
 which they are now paying oji others, Singletax, by levyi ig the same amomit 
 OP the houselots, whether the houses are high or low, <nill discourage the 
 modest residence of the workingman and induce him to ^'ve in a maiiy-story 
 tenement house where the rent is much lower, becaus-Athe tax for all the 
 stories is not higher than it w^ould be for one story. T^^3se are some of the 
 reasons why we emphatically condemn singletax. B\ the fact that the 
 value of property, site value included in some way ent- "s" into the fixation 
 of the tax amount, does not make it objectionable. Srtb a gg.'aduatiou of 
 prices or rentals or whatever it may be is very natural,'«and suggests itself 
 to every man who has common sense. It is truly amusingfto see IMr. 'McGuire 
 exclaim triumphantly: Quite a singletax arrangement, :MiI Editor. 
 
 Mr. McGuire says in short: The pew-rent system of many Catholic 
 churches fixes the amount according to local advantages. The singletax 
 fixes' the amount according to the local advantages. Thereiore the Pew-rent 
 system is singletax. It is the same conclusion as this: Cijf^cinnati is situated 
 in Ohio; Cleveland is situated in Ohio; therefore Cinciiinati is Cleveland. 
 Or: in the churches the seat^ are taxed according to ibcation: in the the- 
 aters the seats are taxed according to location; therefore the churches are 
 theaters. < 
 
2. Mr. Smith's pew rent is not reduced because he does not intend to im- 
 prove himself spiritually by occupying- his pew, he does not pay less because he 
 does not use it, nor does he pay more because he does use it, he pays the site 
 value of the pew. 
 
 Mr. Smith's rent is not reduced though he does not make actual use 
 of his pew, nor does he pay more, if he uses it. For goodness' sake, Mr. 
 McGhiire, does that make tlie pew rent paid by him, a singletax? If you 
 rent a room in a rooming house or hotel, you pay your money, whether 
 you occupy it or not, nor do you pay more if you live in it all the time? does 
 that make an ordinary rooming house or a hotel a singletax concern? This 
 is the same wrong conclusion as the one mentioned just before, 
 
 Mr. McGuire has another thing in view. Here is the gist of one of Henry 
 George's great sayings, quoted more than once in the course of this corre- 
 spondence. If a man owns a strip of land on the lake, he has' to pay a 
 certain amount of taxes on it; but il he actually uses it, if for instance, he 
 builds himself a ship and constructs a landing bridge, hires men and starts 
 a flourishing shipping business, we make him pay extra, by assessing an 
 extra amount on his increased revenue. The singletaxers j^'ould not do that. 
 "We do not tax industry," they say. Very well. As remarked^ above, the 
 bulk of the taxes now paid by the richest men will have to be paid by 
 others. The richest men will practically go scot-free. This is one of the 
 most glaring points of injustice necessarily connected with singletax. 
 
 But neither do we tax industry as such. The idea should be clear. A 
 tax is a contribution towards the maintenance of public order, graded accord- 
 ing to the interest which the individual citizens are supposed to have in the 
 existence of such public order. Now, the man with the strip of land plus the 
 flourishing shipping business certainly has a much greater '^interest in the 
 existence and maintenance of public order than the man with the strip of 
 land only. It is therefore just to assess him higher, and it would be un- 
 just not to raise his assessment — not indeed on account of the strip of land, 
 nor on areoimt of his industry but for the simple reason that he MUST 
 be presume^&to require in a great varfety of ways, much more of government 
 protection. Vhe advantages of public order are a peremptory necessity for 
 every business. The expenses for the maintenance of public order, therefore, 
 belong to the Nordinary and natural expenses. Anyone who wants to open 
 any kind of bus>iness must be prepared to pay them. It would be a fraud to 
 burden them on 5thers. 
 
 We have to mention one more point. It is the crime of crimes. 
 
 Suppose Mr. S^j^ith has the unholy thought of subletting his pew to Mr. 
 Erown, at an enhanced rental, instead of occupying it himself. "Multiply 
 these subrentals, eaqh with a profit, by a thousand, increase the demand for 
 pews enormously, Mk Editor, and we are just beginning to perceive to what 
 an impious, unjust, irlrational condition this system or rather, lack of system, 
 lor which you so stouvtly hold a brief, has led us." Mr. McGuire's hair stands 
 on end atf the sight of such an abomination. "Increase the demand for pews 
 enormously." Not an Vasy matter, ISlv. McGuire. Mr. Smith has not built the 
 church and will find it hard to increase the demand for pews beyond the 
 size of the parish. \ 
 
 But let us be seri<ius. Mr. McGuire has adroitl/ chosen his instance, the 
 pew rent, because in at are bound up two things widely different from each 
 other: the propertijJor revenue feature and the sacredness of all that per- 
 tains to religion. A^ far as the revenue is concerned, it matters absolutely 
 nothing, ^hether tl\e amount charged for the pew^ is paid by Mr. Smith 
 or Mr. Brown. The trustees will not bother their head about it, as long as 
 they get the five dollars. The pastor will greatly prefer to see the pew filled 
 Sunday after Sumlay by the excellent Brown family. In. the whole parish 
 nobody will be worrying that the "advantages the whole parish is respon- 
 sible for" go to someone els'e. 
 
 The fact is that Mr. Smith does not sell what belongs to the parish; he 
 never claimed to have bought the pew itself. But he justly thought that the 
 right of using it had been acquired by him. Wliat he transfers to Mr. Brown 
 was entirely his, naniely, not the pew but the right of occupying it. He 
 
 2S 
 
makes money simply by disposing of what he has acquired by paying his 
 own hard cash. 
 
 So there is no difficulty as far as the revenue" or money question goes. 
 If any comment is roused, it will be on the score, of the sacredness of the 
 object. In fact a traffic in church pew rentals would be frowned upon by 
 the whole congregation. A similar traffic in theater seats or grand stand 
 places would meet with no objection. The fact that the whole congregation 
 built the church, that it may be said to be owned by the congregalion, makes 
 no difference at all, a^ we have seen before. Should it be noticed that pews 
 have been rented to persons who evidently do not think of ever occupying 
 them, there are very simple means to prevent such an abuse. 
 
 Now Mr. McGuire means to s'ay this: The whole earth is like one 
 wide church. Its various sections, called homesteads, farms, lots, unused 
 acres of Wheatland, etc. are the pews. Under the present system s'ome 
 of the "pew holders" either do not use their pews themselves or go so 
 far as to sublet them to others at a rental much higher than they have to 
 pay thems'elves. This Mr, McGuire thinks is wrong, as wrong as it is for 
 Mr. Smith to either leave his pew empty or sublet it with profit to :Mr. 
 Brown. But there is in this case no sacredness of the object which could 
 fill us with religious awe. So why should we find fault with this system 
 prodded only that there be no flagrant abus'es. Should abuses occur, should 
 the^actual possessors seriously threaten the general welfare, the public 
 authority has the power to apply a remedy. It makes no difference whether 
 the soil is private or public proper^p'. Renting and rerenting, letting and 
 subletting will remain a correct kind of business. There would be letting 
 and subletting of theater seats, of gardens, of farmland, even if the single- 
 taxers had succeeded in dispossessing all the present land-owners. 
 
 Mr. McGuire's letter is a shot into the air. He does not try to give a 
 proof for the supposition underlying all ramblings, namely, that; "private 
 ownership in land i^ a bold, bare, enormous wrong.r- Q ^ r ^^ stand in this 
 matter is the stand of the mankind /t)i all centuries, of the Eiuie, of the 
 Catholic Church. If a workingman saves money, buys a modest house and of 
 course calls himself its owner, he commits a bold, bare, enormous' wrong 
 according to the singletaxers. According to Leo. XIII the he use and lot is 
 as much at his disposal as' were. his wages, because it only^ represents his 
 money or wages in another form. 
 
 LETTER OF MR. W. Q. RADCLIFFE 
 
 Mr. McGuire did not see fit to reply to our answer. But he has found 
 a champion in Mr. Wm. Q. Radcliffe. Some points, of his letter, it may be 
 useful to refer to. 
 
 1. In your reply to Mr. McGuire of March 17 you say: • / 
 'If a workman saves money, buys a modest house, and, of course, calls him- 
 self its owner, he commits a bold, bare, enormous wrong-, according- to the sin- 
 gletaxers.' 
 
 "Unwittingly, you mis-state what sing-letaxers say. A house is a product 
 of labor. Therefore, a house Is rightfully a subject of private property. Evi- 
 dently you do not understand the singletax philosophy." 
 
 REPLY: Calling oneself the owner of a house we understand in the 
 sens'e which attaches to such a phrase under our system df ownership. If a 
 person says he owns a house, he means that he owns both the house and the 
 lot on which it stands. This latter point we have in view above all, since 
 we try to refute the opposite doctrine of the singletaxers". The workingman 
 who has bought the house with his savings owns the lot, and owns it fully 
 and by right, the same way as he owned the money which he paid for it. 
 Tt is just this private property in land, this ownerhsip of the lot, which 
 Henry George con4emns as strongly as he can. His very words are: "Private 
 ownership in land is a bold, bare, enormous wrong" (Progress and Pov- 
 erty, VII, 3.) This" has been set forth most clearly in our first instalment 
 of F. Betten's address (Our No. 96— May 14th, 1915). Do we mis-state 
 what singletaxers say, when we maintain that acc9rding to them the 
 
•workingman who buys himself a house with his savings and calls it hi^ 
 own commits a bold, bare, enormous wrong? 
 
 We know very well that the singletaxers allow a man to really own 
 what they style the product of labor, and if Mr. RadclifEe will take the 
 trouble of going over our singletax correspondence he will not find one 
 place where we ^eak otherwise. Evidently we understand singfetax 
 philosophy. 
 
 2. '*! advise you to read Henry George's able and respectful letter to Pope 
 Leo XIII." 
 
 REPLY: Why should we read It? to be "converted" by it? No, sir. 
 For us the pope sneaks the last word on such questions. You might just 
 as well imite us to read a treatise, of Henry George or yourself, purport- 
 ing to prove that twice two is five. We have explained the Catholic stand- 
 point especially xa. our answer to a letter of Mr. Holmes, Secretary of 
 the Cleveland Singletaxers' Clu'b, in our number of Dec. 10, 1915. Mr. 
 Radcliffe has not read this. How able H. George's letter to the pope is — 
 to sey nothing of the overbearing pride manifested in it — is shown on p. 7. 
 A study of that chapter will do Mr. Radcliffe a great deal of good. 
 
 3. "Nothing can be clearer than that we have equal rights to the use^of 
 the earth, and that any legral distribution of land which offends against wiis 
 principle of equal rights offends God's moral law." 
 
 We say first: I^t Mr. Radcliffe or any other singletaxer come and 
 rrove it. 
 
 So far it has only been affirmed, never proven. The reason is evident; 
 T^o proof for it is possible. No singletaxer has ever to our knowledge, as 
 mtiqh as attempted to offer an argument for it. They confine themselves 
 to mere statemp;!?/^^;.- 
 
 Secondl>\: if this were true of land, it would also be true of all other 
 . things, nay tr^.ier even, because bread and clothing is more necessary to 
 man than that^be should call a patch of land his own. From their unproven 
 assertion that Vs Henry George puts it) a^l men are equally entitled to the 
 use of land, tht\ singletaxers infer that land cannot be owned by any indi- 
 vidual, but mustVbe public property. Now, if all men were equally entitled 
 to the use of la:id, they would also be equally entitled to the use of all 
 other creatures up'pn the face of the earth, and consequently nothing could 
 ever become the private property of any individual. Thus the principles 
 of the singletaxers Necessarily lead to an ultra-Socialism. 
 
 What is true inf this much vaunted equality of rights is that all indeed 
 have the right not to be prevented by immoral means from acquiring any 
 of the world's good^. This applies to movable property as well as to the 
 surface of the earth and the treasures hidden under it, as' far as they are 
 really subject to and capable of private ownership. 
 
 Let not Mr. Radcliffe say that many of the land speculators in fact use 
 Immoral means. By saying this, he would transfer the debate to another 
 realm. There would no longer be the question whether everyone who call^ 
 a spot of ground hi% own — as much his own as his pocket knife or his auto — 
 thereby is a robbei/ and thief; but only whether he acquired it in the right 
 way. This question is the same for all kinds of property, for the auto and 
 the pocket knife and the printing 'press as much as for the acres of land 
 he may happen to hold. We do not find fault with the singletaxers if they 
 maintain that property in land may not have been acquired by blameless 
 methods, but because they deny that any man can hold and ever has held as/ 
 his property any part of the soil. The singletax club of Cleveland main- 
 tains that "private property in land is a bold, bare, enormous wrong." 
 This at least has been stated by Mr, O. K. Dorn, treasurer of the club in a 
 letter of August 3, 1^15, and has! not been contradicted since. Let Mr. Rad- 
 cliffe read our articles in the issues of August 6 and 20, 1915. 
 
 30 
 
FROM TWO OTHER LETTERS 
 
 ''What specitir-d statement of Henry Cleorg-e do you object to?" 
 
 If you had read even superficially our long correspondence with the 
 prominent singletaxers of Cleveland, you would know that we object to his 
 whole system. 
 
 "How can rig'hteousness come on earth while we encourage those who hold 
 land out of use and discourag-e those who use land? etc." 
 
 Righteousliess will come on earth if all will combine in following out 
 the teachings of Leo XITI 'in his Encyclical on the condition of labor. 
 Henry George saw fit to write an extra pamphlet to oppose this doctrine. 
 
 See on this point what was said in reply to Mr. Dom, p. 13. 
 
 "Under singrletax there would be no encourag-ement to hold land idle nor 
 tax for using: land and righteousness would be here." 
 
 This is in the same strain as the foregoing. It is the usual' superficiality 
 of the singletaxers. They completely overlook the evils of s^ngletax, a few 
 of which are enumerated on p. 27. And granted even that there would be 
 no idle land any more, there will remain (a thousand weapons in the hands 
 of those who are desirous of plundering tneir neighbor, especially the vastly 
 increased financial power of manufacturiiig; mining and similar concerns. 
 Even under the present system it is not Jthe land compani( 
 the enormous fortunes. "Righteousness ■'ould be here 
 Yes, introduce singletax, and there will W no cheatini 
 no adulterating of food and other artic^s, no for? 
 liocketing, no highway robbery, no safelbl owing, 
 as soon as the system described in our qutii 
 ruary 18 will have been introduced. (See) 
 
 Mr. Holmes, the secretarv of the Clei 
 He is delighted, too. He writes: 
 
 "Dear Sir: — Single Taxers are delighted bi 
 and especially by his statement that the sinj 
 cannot be merely done away with by attacks"^ 
 distribution of wealth and by a .iust system ol 
 idea," 
 
 Certainly, it contains a very wise idea. Al 
 of C. V. has this idea? It is an idea as old as hu^ 
 ing to over-reach a fellow-man. But we believe 
 admitting that it is Leo XIII who in an encyclic 
 masterful way in the document just mentioned, 
 refutation of socialism and semi-socialism 
 largest number of its pages are devoted to an e^ 
 reform. Although it does not treat directly of 
 Holmes' to make a careful study of it with perfecj 
 mend to him the practical edition of the encyc 
 Program of Social Reform, B. Herder. St. Louij 
 shown in our columns how hazy, confused, inc^ 
 Henry George's notions of property and reform 
 been rendered entirely unable to appreciate luc^ 
 find and enjoy them in Pope Leo's* work. It 
 brought this out in a visible form by printing t\ 
 of the divisions and paragraphs in the text. 
 
"BISHOP HORSTMAN A SINGLETAXER" 
 
 (From a Catholic Bulletin Editorial, Dec. 1915) 
 
 After our controversy with members of the Cleveland Singletax Club 
 had been going on for six months, the Cleveland singletax organ, "The 
 Ground Hog," finally ventured into the lime light. It maintained that we 
 were lining up "intellectual argument and sophistry" against the good 
 singletaxers' "heart attitude." To quote a sentence: "Economic truth and 
 justice is not a question of the intellect; it is a question of l^eart attitude, 
 one man to another." 
 
 It then offered a surprising bit of Information. "The late Bishop^ Horst- 
 mann . . . was a slngletaxer." . . . "he believed in the essential justice of 
 single tax." . . . "Bishop Horstmann was a boyhood and lifelong friend 
 of Henry George, and also a very intimate friend of the late Tom Johnson." 
 
 No doubt Bishop Horstmann believed that land could justly be taxed. 
 But if he had been a singletaxer he would have left a few words in print to 
 help out the Ground Hog reporter. That the good bishop was a s'chool mate 
 of Henry George must not be charged up to him too harshly, he could not help 
 it. The same is applicable to Tom Johnson. Here the singletaxers may 
 use the "heart attitude." They Aill readily admit that it is good Christian, 
 doctrine to "respect those that differ from you in opinion, and love your 
 enemies." 
 
 Thous'ands of Catholics remember the story often told by the late 
 Bishop Horstmann about his boyhood friend Henry George. Speaking of 
 the dan ger in reading everything at hand, he would refer to '^Progress and 
 PoiJflMlHHyLejiry George' an/1. Jiow upon meeting him in a train he was 
 George in '''B joy asked him if he h^d read his book 
 kOf it? "i)e^" said Bishop Horstmann, slowly, "it has 
 qualitJV ^ice print — but, Henry! there is nothing 
 
 ^t' an equal amount of "convincing evidence* 
 a singletax controversy. 
 
 5 for the Study of the Social Question, 
 to Catholic Social Literature, 
 of the Roman Catholic Central Verein, 
 ilding, St. Louis, Mo. 
 
 c Bulletin, a live paper for live people. 
 50c per year. Cleveland Weekly Edi- 
 shed 1911. Linus G. Wey, editor. Address 
 Lorain Ave., Cleveland, O.