344 



The Review of Reviews. 



Octaier 1. J906. 



tion aud a State bank. Our friends cry out against 

 reserving State lauds, forgetting that such a course 

 would save graduated taxation ; while a bank of issue 

 would develop national wealth and obviate the worse 

 failures of paternal legislation in every line of life 

 and industry. If the State must regulate enterprise, 

 it might surely find in co-partnership a better method 

 than legal offences or misdemeanours, whether in 

 ships, factories, mines, or other lines of industry; to 

 pay off foreign debt and secure social peace, health 

 and welfare. 



LAND MONOPOLY. 



Mr. J. Miles Verrall, N.Z., writes: — 

 If as Herbert Spencer says, "it is the duty of every- 

 one who regards a doctrine as true and important to 

 do what be can towards diffusing it." then it should be 

 equally the dutv of everyone to do what he can to- 

 wards refuting 'a false doctrine. In an article in 

 " The Review of Reviews " for June, on " Land 

 Monopolv m Tasmania," Mr. Percy R. Meggv says 

 that " the only just and natural method of doing 

 awav with the evils of land monopoly is to place a 

 tax 'upon all land values, without exemptions, and 

 without graduations, and to gradually increase the 

 amount till the whole of that value, which has been 

 directly created solely by the community as a whole, 

 has been appropriatecl and expended on its behalf." 



It does not require much of a dissertation to prove 

 the absolute injustice of Mr. Meggy's proposals. 

 There are thousands of owners of small sections of 

 town and country land who have paid for it out of 

 their hard-earned wages. Many settlers and their 

 families have lived for many years a very hard and 

 rough life, while clearing the bush, or draining the 

 swamps, making improvements, and waiting for roads 

 to be made (by rates on the land !) and the country 

 to be opened "up. In manv inrtances, if wa.ses had 

 been paid for this work, there would not only have 

 been no "unearned increment," but the original cost 

 of the land would have been absorbed. The land in 

 such cases has been used to the best advantage of the 

 " community as a whole," yet Mr. Meggy would treat 

 these small owners exactly the same as the big land 

 monopolists. Men who own the land they farm will 

 generally improve it more, and cultivate it better, 

 than those who only rent it, and they will usually 

 be content with a much smaller area than those who 

 onlv lease it — whicli leaves nice land for other people. 

 It is not true that the value of land has been " direct- 

 ly created solely by the community as a whole," for 

 its value depends most upon the price of its produce 

 in foreign markets. The evils of land monopoly are 

 that it prevents many people from owning aod occupy- 

 ing it, and it raises the price of land. The monopoly 

 of large leaseholds has just as bad an effect as the 

 monopoly of large freeholds. The land nationalists 

 say tliat " Tlie earth is the Lord's,'' forgetting (!') to 

 quote also, "and all that is therein," and ''Cursed 

 is he that removeth his neighbour's landmarks." But 

 if it is wrong to rob a man of a bit of his land by 

 removing his landmark, how much worse it must be 

 to pull up Ills landmarks, or to confiscate the whole 

 value of his land I 



The original price of the land sold has already been 

 " appropriated by the community, and expended on 

 its behalf." It would therefore be nothing less than 

 robbery to confiscate the real value of the land be- 

 longing to those who cannot properly be called mono- 

 polists, by taking the rent of it under the pretext 

 of taxation. Otherwise it would he equally just to 

 tax bondholders up to the full value of their in- 

 terest. If it would be just to confiscate the whole 

 value of the land (except the title-deeds !), then it 



would be equally just to confiscate the money paid for 

 the bonds (except the I.O.U.'s!). The profits of the 

 land are most uncertain, and sometimes there are 

 none, whilst the price of it falls as well as rises. 

 There is just as much evil in the monopoly of other 

 wealth as in the monopoly of land. A thousand 

 pounds' worth of land is no better value than a 

 thousand sovereigns. According to the gospel of the 

 single-tasers, the owner of a small section, or farm, 

 ought to be taxed to the full rent value of his land, 

 while the man with a million of bank deposits, shares, 

 bonds, or houses is to pay neither rate nor tax on 

 them. The man who sells a thousand pounds' worth 

 of land is not to be taxed upon the money he haS re- 

 ceived, wliilst the man who buys the land is eventually 

 to lose the whole value of the money he has paid. 

 Rating on unimproved land values is the thin edge 

 of the single-tax wedge. Small landowners have been 

 told that they will pay less rates, but they did not 

 understand that this advantage, if, or when, it exists, 

 is to be gradually taken from them by reducing the 

 land tax exemptions till there is no exemption, and 

 then by increasing the land tax until there Ib no 

 saleable value left in the land. Moreover, to tax a 

 poor man to the full value of his land might be not 

 only to rob him of his last penny, but it might also 

 deprive -ome saiall mortgagee of his little savings. It 

 is the monopoly of all kinds of wealth which is the 

 great evil, and a property tax with exemptions, so 

 sharply graduated that no man could make or keep 

 more than a hundred thousand pounds' worth of pro- 

 perty, would be a certain cure for, and preventioi i. 

 all kinds of monopoly. To prevent the accumulation 

 of enormous fortunes would benefit not only the com- 

 munity as a whole, but also the millionaires them- 

 selves and their families. Graduated taxation is a 

 check on greediness ; reasonable exemptions are an 

 encouragement for thrift and industry. Henry 

 George's writings prove the utter injustice and un- 

 righteousness of the present distribution, or rather 

 monopoly, of wealth, but his single-tax conclusions 

 are not only most "lame and impotent": they are 

 absolutely iniquitous. 



MR. REID'S REJOINDER TO MR. WATSON'S 

 REPLY. 



(Per favour of the Australian Press Cuttings' Agency, 

 Collins-street, Melbourne: copyrighted by them.) 

 When Mr. Watson defines what Socialism means, I 

 reply, his definition is interesting, but unimportant. 

 The ■' platform '' of the Australian Socialist par'- is 

 not constructed to fit in with his views, his views 

 must fit in with the platform of the party, I'l- he 

 must disavow it. If he were the leader of an or- 

 dinary political party, his definition would be most 

 important, perhaps conclusive. But as matters stand, 

 the lead comes not from him but to him, and he 

 must be loyal or ask for his discharge. He has not 

 revolted: indeed, he had, I believe, something to do 

 with making the present Socialistic "objective," 

 which is the thing that really concerns the public. 

 If the means for realising the " objective " were the 

 " nationalisation of monopolies," and that only, the 

 question would be a big one still, but the "objec- 

 tive," after proposing the "nationalising of mono- 

 polies." adds, " and the extension of the industrial 

 and economic functions of the State and the muni- 

 cipality." The term " extension " is beautifully elas- 

 tic : it means everything, or very little. It can stretch 

 from the smallest point to infinity : can be restrained 

 to one or extended to the socialisation of every indus- 

 try. What the word "extension" really means, in 

 the platform of the Labour Leagues that lead Mr. 

 Watson, is made quite plain in the " objective." The 

 object of the " extension " is expressly declared to 



