AGRICULTURE AND THE SINGLE TAX. 497 



body of land would become substantially free, and all the people 

 of this country would stand, so far as abundance of natural oppor- 

 tunities are concerned, where their predecessors stood sixty or 

 eighty years ago. . . . Furthermore, the annihilation of the spec- 

 ulative element of value is likely to have a particular beneficial 

 effect in and near large cities, where now the density of population 

 presents a great and terrible and threatening problem, before 

 which, hitherto, all the wisest and most humane of men have 

 stood gasping and helpless." Capitalists, it is contended, would 

 hasten to erect comfortable houses for rent on vacant city and 

 .suburban lots " if, from the value of such lots, the speculative 

 element were excluded. Houses would compete for men, instead 

 of men cutting each other's throats, as now, in the competition 

 for houses." 



The first result of the application of the single-tax principle 

 would be to discharge from taxation all unoccupied land in both 

 city and country. The value, or rent-yielding quality, having 

 been seized by the state, nobody would be so foolish as to pay taxes 

 on property which neither now nor hereafter could bring him any 

 return. All such holdings would be abandoned to the state, and 

 this is exactly what is intended. Of course, the state would not 

 tax its own property. 



Then the state would say to capitalists, " You can build on 

 this land on condition of paying ground-rent, and you will receive 

 such interest on your capital invested in bricks and mortar as the 

 law of competition will allow." But that is what capitalists can 

 do now. By paying ground-rent they can build as much as they 

 please. How is building to be expedited by changing the land- 

 lord ? In fact, it would be retarded. At present the land-owner 

 is spurred on to improvement by the hope of gaining a ground- 

 rent and by the imposition of a yearly tax on his property, which 

 he must pay whether it yields any return or not. Both these in- 

 centives would be wanting if the land were owned by the state. 



How would it be with agricultural land held for speculative 

 purposes ? The state would say to the would-be farmer, " You 

 can cultivate this land by paying the rent which neighboring 

 land pays." But can not the farmer get the same land now on 

 the same terms ? Show me the owner of unfilled agricultural 

 land who refuses to allow his acres to be cultivated at a fair rental. 

 I can show plenty of such land within one hundred miles of New 

 York, and all over New England, which any cultivator can have 

 the use of, without paying any rent at all, on condition of culti- 

 vating it. Surely the state would not offer land on more favor- 

 able terms. It would not let the land, rent free, and furnish the 

 capital to cultivate it also. In short, no new opportunities for the 

 cultivation of land would exist unless the state should offer better 



vol. xxxvr. 32 



