AGRICULTURE AND THE SINGLE TAX. 483 



II. 



This consensus of opinion held good for something more than 

 a century. In the year 1879 Mr. Henry George published his 

 "Progress and Poverty," in which he revived the single-tax 

 idea with some variations. Mr. George says that he arrived at 

 his conclusions by independent reasoning, without knowing any- 

 thing of Quesnay or his doctrines (" Progress and Poverty," p. 

 381). The only practical difference between Mr. George and the 

 physiocrats is that he would take all the "net product" for 

 public use, while they would take only so much as might be re- 

 quired for the purposes of economical government. There are 

 differences of reasoning between them, but this is the only differ- 

 ence in results.* 



Mr. George's latest commentator, Mr. Samuel B. Clarke,f 

 allows that the net product may turn out to be a net deficiency 

 as regards the full support of government. In one of his opening 

 paragraphs he says : 



" He (George) assumes, without conclusive evidence, that 

 economic rent in the present state of this and every civilized 

 country largely exceeds the amount required for necessary gov- 

 ernmental expenses. The assumption, however, is not essential to 

 his scheme. If the amount realized by the proposed tax would 

 not support the Government, of course there would have to be 

 taxes on other things ; but the amount to be raised would be less 

 by the amount of the land-value tax." 



If we could settle this question of the sufficiency of economic 

 rent to sustain all the costs of government in advance of actual 

 experiment, much would depend upon what we should call neces- 

 sary governmental expenditures ; much would depend also upon 

 what we should take for the basis of economic rent. The lat- 

 ter is defined by Mr. Clarke as "the fair rental value of land 

 exclusive of distinguishable betterments." Buildings, fences, 

 and growing orchards are distinguishable betterments. Perhaps 

 roads and ditches made at the sole expense of the land-owners 

 may be so considered. But are clearing, grubbing, breaking, 

 marling, grading, and like ameliorations distinguishable ? If so, 



* In the " Forum," September, 1889, Mr. Thomas G. Shearman, one of the most dis- 

 tinguished members of the single-tax party, holds that it is not necessary to push the single 

 tax beyond necessary governmental expenses. The absorption of the entire ground-rent, 

 he says, " is not a practical question at present, and will not be for a long time to come, if 

 every This marks the recent divergence between Mr. George and the " Standard " on the 

 one hand, and the Rev. Mr. Pentecost and the " Twentieth Century" on the other. With 

 the latter the single tax is a cult ; with the former it is now only an economic doctrine, 

 or at most a " pious opinion." But certainly " Progress and Poverty " teaches a cult, if it 

 teaches anything. 



f " Current Objections to the Exaction of Economic Rent by Taxation considered," by 

 Samuel B. Clarke, of New York ; pamphlet edition, 1889. 



