510 POPULAR SCIENCE MONTHLY. 



same time. On the other hand, if it be assumed that the title to the 

 farm is the property, and, as such, can be rightfully taxed where it 

 (the title) is, then it stands to reason that the subject of the title, the 

 farm in California, ought not to be also regarded as property and taxed 

 in ISTew York or England. In other words, if the title to the farm is 

 property, then the farm is not really in California at all (unless the 

 owner of the title resides there), but goes out of that State in the 

 pocket of the individual who walks off with the title to it. "We have 

 all heard of such a concentration of meat that all that is valuable 

 in an ox for food can be put into a quart can; but such a concentra- 

 tion of property as is here supposed is something much more remark- 

 able; and admits of a man having a drove of oxen in his hand, ten 

 acres of woodland in his hat, a church with a steeple in one coat 

 pocket, and a four-story brick block and a mill privilege in the other. 



To the Reader. — As the promulgation of ideas that are not in harmony with long- 

 accepted lines of thought generally provokes controversy and expressions of dissent, which 

 in turn often result in promoting self-education, the author, with a view of furthering 

 such a result, would here ask attention to two letters, voluntarily written, when his views 

 respecting the relations of titles to property were originally advanced by him (some years 

 since) as a contribution to economic science ; the first written by an eminent professor in 

 one of the leading colleges of New England ; and the second by an eminent merchant of 

 New York, whose knowledge of economics was mainly the result of a long experience in 

 practical business and financial transactions of great magnitude. 



No. 1. "My Dear Mr. Wells: 



" You are misled by the term titles, and are not only wrong, but, what is worse, are 

 wrong in a superficial way. 



" The real question relates to the nature of credit. 



" I buy a piece of land for five hundred dollars tind give my simple note for value re- 

 ceived. The title to my land is my deed. My note has thereafter no connection whatsoever 

 with the land, but it has value nevertheless. The bank buys it as a piece of property and 

 holds it till maturity for the sake of the difference between its face and its price — i. e., for 

 the discount. Your philosophy does not account for this proceeding ; mine does. 



" Your assertion is that things of value must have a ' physical quality.' I deny that 

 utterly ; nothing has value by means of a mere physical quality. Does not my annual serv. 

 ice to the college have a value ? I get, at any rate, twenty-five hundred dollars a year for 

 it. I render no ' physical quality ' whatsoever. 



"My note is worth nearly or quite five hundred dollars, but it is not a title to anything ; 

 it is a claim on me. So are all credits — claims merely, not titles at all. 



" You say if such things are value we might multiply values indefinitely. No ; because 

 we can not sell them indefinitely. So far as we can sell we make values. Even land and 

 merchandise won't sell notes, with all their physical quality. Physical quality has nothing 

 to do with it. The only possible test of property is sale. The reason why credits are more 

 limited in their use than commodities and services is simply that they relate to future time, 

 which is less certain than past and present time. 



" Yours truly, ." 



With a desire to obtain an opinion on this interesting economic question from the mer- 

 chant, the foregoing note was referred to his consideration by permission, and elicited from 

 him the following rejoinder : 



