The residents of a small New Jersey village were recently called together
for the purpose of considering the advisability of incorporating the
village into a borough; and the Philadelphia newspapers reported that
an application for incorporation had been signed by a large number of
“taxpayers and citizens.” What is meant by this dividing of the people
into two distinct classes? This question becomes of more than passing
importance in view of the fact that the case cited is not an isolated
one. For instance, during the political campaign of 1905, in New York
City, a prominent newspaper spoke editorially of the candidacy of William
R. Hearst for Mayor on a municipal ownership platform as an “appeal to
the _untaxed_ and an attack upon the _taxpayers_.”
The Secretary of the National Reciprocity League, in an address at
Chicago, is reported to have said that “Municipal ownership and operation
of street railways had become a craze; that people who do _not pay_ taxes
are the most enthusiastic supporters of the craze, as those who _pay_
taxes are opposed to the idea.”
The late Charles T. Yerkes, in reference to the election of Judge Dunne
as Mayor of Chicago on a municipal ownership platform, said: “The city
will run heavily in debt. Will the poor man suffer? No; because the poor
man does not pay taxes. Men with property pay taxes; these will suffer.”
Mr. Yerkes did not say just what kind of _property_ was meant; but as
the returns of personal property in Chicago are said to be less today
than they were twenty years ago (although the city is three times as
large, with six times the wealth), it is evident that the owners of that
kind of property—stock-owners of that kind of property—stocks, bonds,
mortgages, paintings, jewelry, silver services, etc.—are not going to
suffer to any great extent if they can help it. Then it must be the real
estate owner, again, who is expected to do the suffering, because of the
increase of taxes, should there be any such increase.
Day after day we read in the newspapers communications in reference to
public questions which are signed “Taxpayer,” or “Property Owner,” as
if that fact should give more weight or influence to their opinions or
suggestions. Others go still further. A Pittsburg preacher in a recent
sermon denounced universal suffrage, saying, “Only property owners should
vote and all others should be disfranchised.” Numerous other instances
could be cited which tend to show a growing tendency to consider the real
estate owner as the only person who pays taxes.
Now the great majority of our people have probably not looked upon these
signs of the times with any apprehension as yet; but “great oaks from
little acorns grow,” and this increasing disregard for the rights of men,
as men, this creating of class distinctions with a tax-bill as a line
of demarcation, on the theory that one small class pays all the taxes
and is, therefore, entitled to rights and privileges that are denied to
others, is dangerous and contrary to all principles of Democracy.
Owing to the inherent defects of human nature, no doubt there will always
be those among us who will expect and demand more than they are entitled
to, but the average American is satisfied with a square deal. When
deprived of what he considers his just rights, however, he is, like most
other people, inclined to become indifferent to the rights of others.
Sooner or later he helps to swell the large army of the discontented; and
history teaches that discontent is not only the mother of progress, but
the mother of trouble. “On the contentment of the poor rests the safety
of the rich.”
It is not intended to discuss in this article the justice or injustice
of any particular tax, but simply to consider the question of taxes—how
they are paid and who pays them—in the hope that we may thereby the more
intelligently render unto Cæsar the things that are Cæsar’s.
Let us consider first the tax on real estate, one of the most important
illustrations of the so-called “direct” taxation which Mill has defined
as “that which is demanded from the very person who, it is intended or
desired, should pay it.” Now it is, of course, true that this tax is
levied against the property and the tax-bill is rendered in the name of
the nominal owner, who is, naturally, expected to pay it; but whence
comes the money with which he discharges this debt against his property?
If the premises are rented or leased, are not the taxes, insurance, cost
of repairs, interest on investment, etc., all added to the rental which
is asked of and paid by the tenant? There are leases drawn today which
contain a clause providing “that any increase in the taxes shall be
added to the rental.” And yet, during the late struggle in Philadelphia
over the attempted lease of the gas works to a private corporation for
seventy-five years, a gentleman appeared before the committee of councils
on behalf, as he said, of the taxpayers _and_ rent-payers.
During the passage of the mortgage bill through the 1905 session of
the New York Legislature, a member of the committee appointed by the
real-estate owners to oppose the measure said: “The result, should the
bill pass, will be for the real-estate owners to raise the rents. It is
the public who will have to bear the burden, not the real-estate owners.”
So we appear to have very relevant testimony to the effect that the man
who receives the tax-bill, the man “on whom the tax is levied and who
is expected to pay it” really acts as an agent, collecting the tax from
his tenant and passing it on to the authorities. Is the tenant then a
_taxpayer_ or a _citizen_? As more than eighty per cent. of the people
of the United States occupy rented houses, the sooner this question is
satisfactorily answered and each of us understands his own individual
responsibility, the better for all concerned.
Would not the rent-payer hesitate to cast his ballot for corrupt
municipal government—with its accompanying reckless and dishonest
expenditures of the public money—would he not hesitate to strike or riot,
if he knew that the expenses (the teamsters’ strike in Chicago, in 1905,
is said to have cost the city $100,000 a month for special policemen) and
losses would eventually have to be paid by increased taxes _added to his
rent_?
The United States Steel Company is said to have done much to eliminate
strikes at its different plants by selling a portion of the capital stock
of the company to its employes. Every man who owns even one share now
feels that he is a part of the organization, that its interests are his
interests, its losses his losses; and he is not inclined to do anything
that will injuriously affect himself. When property owners understand and
admit it, and rent-payers realize that they are a part of the municipal
corporation, of the state and of the republic, that the public interests
are their interests, the public losses their losses, that we must all
rise or fall together, a great deal will have been accomplished toward
the creation of better feeling and a consequent improvement in existing
conditions.
Adam Smith says of taxation that “the subjects of every state ought to
contribute toward the support of the Government as nearly as possible in
proportion to their respective abilities; that is, in proportion to the
revenue which they respectively enjoy under the protection of the states.”
Montesquieu defined taxation as “that portion of a person’s property
which one contributes to the state in return for protection in the
enjoyment of the balance.”
Both these eminent authorities look upon the payment of taxes as a duty
which the citizen owes to the state in return for something which he
receives from the state; but neither says in just what manner that duty
must be performed, and there are undoubtedly numerous ways in which the
obligation of the citizen may be discharged.
A very important phase of the tax question to be considered here (owing
to its being the source of almost the entire income of the United States
Government) is what is known as “indirect” taxation, or the tax on
commodities, processes, etc. This is more easily collected than a direct
tax, because the consumer hardly realizes that he is being taxed when
paying for articles which he may use his own discretion about purchasing;
but it bears most heavily upon the poor, as only articles in general use
will yield the necessary revenue.
For instance, the tariff on imports, for the fiscal year ending 1905,
produced more than $260,000,000. This enormous amount was, of course,
paid at the custom house by the importer of the goods, but it was then
added to the cost of the goods and finally paid by the consumer. This tax
is great or small, depending entirely upon the necessities or desires of
the people.
The higher the social and economic development of a people, the greater
will be the burden of this tariff tax; as what were once considered
luxuries eventually become necessaries of life, and a larger proportion
of income is consequently expended for food, wearing apparel, household
goods, etc. Under such circumstances, a man who is in receipt of a
fair-sized income (even though possessing little or no taxable property),
if he buys freely for the wants of himself and his family, may
contribute more toward the support of the Government than his wealthy
landlord, who buys sparingly, swears off his personal taxes, and collects
his real estate taxes from his tenants.
The internal revenue tax on spirits, fermented liquors and tobacco
produced in 1905 about $230,000,000, which, while also paid primarily by
the manufacturer or distiller, is then added to the cost of production
and included in the selling price, which is paid, of course, by the
consumer. Not only the man who smokes or drinks, but everyone who uses
spirits in the manufactures or arts, in patent medicines or drugstore
prescriptions (many of which contain large quantities of liquor), is
contributing a share of this tax. Oleomargarine produced during the same
period over $600,000, and playing cards about $425,000.
Another very important source of income, levied in times of emergency, as
during the war with Spain, is the stamp tax, which produces millions of
dollars. The man with a small bank account pays as much for a stamp when
issuing a check for one dollar, as does the man who issues a check for
$100,000 or more; and each pays the same when purchasing an article of
manufacture which is sold under a stamp.
Again, we should not overlook such items as license fees, financial,
mercantile and franchise taxes, which, while levied by the city, state or
national governments upon some particular person, firm or corporation,
are really added to the cost of production or operation and ultimately
paid by the general public. For instance, during the political campaign
of 1904 in New Jersey, when equal taxation of railroad property was the
burning issue, the Republican candidate for governor, in a speech at
Trenton, stated: “No matter how high the tax on railroad property is
made, the people who pay the freight rates and passenger fares will, in
the end, pay it.” As a railroad director, he undoubtedly knew whereof he
spoke. Like the salesman’s expense account—which included an overcoat,
although it didn’t show—the freight and passenger rates also include the
franchise taxes, which tend to increase the cost of everything we eat,
everything we wear, every article of use or adornment in the home, every
portion of the material required in building the house, which ultimately
has its effect on the rent the tenant must pay. In the light of these
facts it would seem that, instead of there being question as to “who pays
the taxes,” the problem is to discover the man who does not pay taxes in
some form.
Again, there are thousands of Americans who do not own one dollar’s
worth of real estate, and many of them very few household goods, but who
have a birthright in this free land by reason of descent from the heroes
who pledged their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor for the
liberties we now enjoy; who fought and bled and died for the principle
of equal rights, no taxation without representation, and who established
upon this continent a “government of the people, by the people, for the
people.”
And the men of ’61! Have they not as much right to a voice and vote in
the affairs of the nation as those who remained at home and laid the
foundations of a fortune during that critical period? Had the soldier
remained at home, perhaps he too might now be a heavy taxpayer, or
tax-dodger. But he answered the nation’s call in the hour of need, he
sacrificed his opportunities and offered his life upon the altar of
his country. And, if he escaped with his life, he returned home, after
years of privation, suffering and hardship, probably ruined in health or
crippled for life, compelled to make a new start. Has he not discharged
his obligation to his country?
Who are the men who would rob an American of his birthright, who insist
that none but property owners should vote or hold office while all
others—the payers of rents, of the tariff, of the internal revenue, of
franchise and stamp taxes, etc.—should be disfranchised? Can they show a
better title than the men, or their descendants, who do the work in time
of peace and the fighting in time of war, but who may not have been able
to secure any real property—honestly or otherwise?
The Constitution of the United States provides that no man shall be
deprived of his right to vote on account of race, color or previous
condition of servitude. What right have we to attempt to deprive any man
of that privilege because he does not own property and pay “direct” taxes?
Mettius Curtius said that “Rome’s best wealth was her patriotism.”
Yet that patriotism was deadened and destroyed by privilege and class
distinction, and Rome fell. Patriotism is unquestionably the best wealth
of any nation; but it cannot be aroused or fostered in a republic by
dividing the people into classes, the rulers and the ruled, on the basis
of ownership of property.
Ill fares the land, to hastening ills a prey,
Where wealth accumulates and men decay.
The success, progress and safety of this republic rests upon the
contentment of the _whole_ people, and that contentment depends upon
justice and fair dealing. And every citizen, “unless he goes naked,
eats grass, and lives in a hole in the ground,” is a taxpayer to a
greater or less extent, according to the benefits he derives. He has
the same interests in the national welfare; the same responsibilities;
is entitled to equal rights and privileges before the law; and when we
have fully realized the fact we will have established a higher standard
of citizenship, we will each have more respect for ourselves and for one
another, and a deeper, truer love and higher regard for our country and
its institutions.
[Illustration: _Their Joke on the President_
_Davenport, in N. Y. Evening Mail_]
[Illustration: _Our Uncommon Carriers_
_Bart, in Minneapolis Journal_]
[Illustration: _Sick ’em!_
_Macauley, in N. Y. World_]
[Illustration: _Letters From The People_]
Our readers are requested to be as brief as possible in their welcome
letters to the MAGAZINE, as the great number of communications daily
received makes it impossible to publish all of them or even to use more
than extracts from many that are printed. Every effort, however, will
be made to give the people all possible space for a direct voice in the
MAGAZINE, and this Department is freely open to them.
* * * * *
_J. D. Steele, Charleston, W. Va._
I have been a reader of your Magazine since its first issue, and while
I partly agree with Mr. George H. Steele, Rockham, S. D., that none of
us are perfect, I admire you for having the courage of your convictions,
and it would be impossible to estimate the good your publication has all
ready done.
As a remedy for the evils existing, as set forth by Mr. Bert H. Belford,
Widners, Ark., I would suggest that our poor, ignorant, down-trodden
farmers in the South get posted. There certainly is no reason for any
grown up man of the present generation not being able to read, and almost
every daily and weekly newspaper would put the most ignorant backwoodsman
in possession of the facts which Mr. Belford states the farmers are
ignorant of.
I believe I have never seen a letter from this state, but West Virginia
hasn’t waked up yet. She is always behind in everything except graft.
May you live long and continue the good work you have undertaken!
* * * * *
_A. J. Jones, Parlier, Cal._
TOM WATSON’S MAGAZINE is one of the greatest educators of the age, stands
prominent in its class, is fearless, bold and decisive, is just what
the people want. Every Populist should read it and give it the widest
circulation possible.
Watson’s editorials are great and to the point. The Letters from the
People are very interesting. Would be pleased to hear from our workers
throughout the United States every month through the columns of TOM
WATSON’S MAGAZINE. In regard to the work in California, we are preparing
our petition for a place on the ballot, and will have a People’s Party
ticket in this State this coming election. Our slogan is: “The middle
of the road now and forever!” We take no part in any other party in
existence, or coming into existence. Let us profit by past experience.
The people here, regardless of party, are ready to accept our
principles. You may hear something drop in California in 1908. We have a
press ready to join us at once. Let us get busy at once. Brothers, the
fields are white for harvest.
* * * * *
_G. S. Floyd._
The lucid manner in which you expose the evils of our banking system
should convince any one not blinded by ignorance or prejudice of the
evils lurking therein, even as at present conducted, but if they secure
the additional special privileges that they seek, what may we expect?
Brother Starkey of Nebraska who writes discouragingly in the December
number should take heed, as the worm has turned in Pennsylvania and Ohio,
and one may hope and believe that your efforts have helped to produce
that result.
I was in Kansas in the early seventies when the horde of bogus Greenback
editors, shipped out from New York and New England with rolls of Wall
Street money, bought up the Greenback press throughout the West,
pretending loyalty to the principles until secure in possession, when the
hireling traitors came out in their true colors and the Greenback press
vanished like mist before the noonday sun.
The President’s eulogy of the pension office is worth no more than his
certificate of character to Paul Morton. To judge from observation and
the star-chamber methods of that bureau one would conclude that it is
run primarily as a factor in politics, and that the only criterion
for the grade and tenure of a pension is the whim or discretion of
an irresponsible official. Evidently the system is rotten and needs
overhauling or revolutionizing. From the nature of the service it is
doubtless true that irregularities are inherent therein, but certainly
there is room for improvement.
Conventionality, a parent of aristocracy, is responsible for the
misfortune of Midshipman Meriweather; herein we see one of the evils of
militarism; the discipline they recommend so highly is the discipline of
an underling, and this is mainly why they desire it.
Hurrah for Hearst!
You give Henry George, Jr., a severe prod in the current number. The
single tax is sprung by the plutocrats when they wish to confuse and
demoralize the reform forces.
* * * * *
_Nelson D. Stilwell, Yonkers, N. Y._
The non-appearance of the February number of your magazine caused me
genuine concern. I stand by you, every inch, in what you advocate and
teach, and wish the circle of your readers might be extended many fold. I
first had my attention called to the present evil condition of things by
reading Lloyd’s “Wealth vs. Commonwealth,” and that but paved the way for
further reading and investigation until my present condition of freedom
from the bondage of ignorance has been attained.
I have observed the trend of things for ten years last past and confess
that instead of improvement and reform, I see a steady progress towards
further enslavement. What will be the end of it all? I am beginning to
doubt the maintenance of society and law and order if the entrenched
forces attempt to maintain their control. God forbid that our country
should be baptized again with blood. But upon the heads of these “fools
and blind” men be it, who cannot see the handwriting on the wall.
Your articles on finance and money interest me and absorb all my
attention and edify me very much. Your Magazine has a purpose back of it,
and no one will give a more ready acquiescence than the writer.
To be a reformer is to align oneself with the noblemen of bygone days
whose hearts throbbed for the people. No greater example could be found
than Christ, whose kingdom is called “the times of Reformation.”
Permit me to bid you God-speed.
* * * * *
_Horace C. Keefe, Wallula, Kan._
I have somewhere said “this is the decade of the three Toms”—Tom Watson,
Tom Johnson, and Tom Lawson. They are each or all likely to leave lasting
footprints on the century, and I’m anxious that my Tom’s shall not be the
least. I say “my” because Tom Watson stands for all that the country—if
not the world—must come to, to have peace and answer the daily Christian
pleadings—that “Thy will be done on earth as it is in Heaven”; to be His
will it must embody all that the doctrine of brotherly love contemplates;
that is ideal, that is Populism. The other Toms stand for that part of
the whole they contemplate or are willing to concede from a more or
less selfish standpoint. Your Magazine is startlingly convincing in its
arguments and facts—but, my dear fellow, it lacks that dignity that a
Presidential candidate for a great principle should command. I know your
excuse will be that your appeal to the masses must be in such style—DON’T
DO IT.
It is the aggressive intelligent few that shapes the destinies of
countries, and that will be so with ours; if the reverse were true, why
does not the labor class have 50 or more, the farmers 100 or more, the
socialists a like number of members in Congress? Such a result would show
intelligence and a hope that something would result. Cut out such queries
as—Why the negro maids? Deductions and conclusions are debatable but not
style. The writer is one of the martyrs for the cause and has been your
ardent admirer and well wisher. There is no question as to the ultimate
outcome—though you and I may not be permitted to enter in.
* * * * *
_W. E. Arrant, Alto, Tex._
I read and will say that your Magazine is interesting and entertaining
in many respects, and I admire your ability and style in showing up the
evilness and corruption of this age, which no doubt is doing good in the
way of educating the readers thereof on the main cause of the present
economical and industrial conditions that now confronts the whole people
and oppresses the poor that labor and toil that they may share a small
portion of their labor: while the rich revel in riches and the poor live
in poverty.
I have been a student for several years, studying the economic
conditions, the causes and effects of present conditions. The more I read
and learn of the causes and effects, the more I wonder how and why the
masses of the people have been so completely deceived so long.
I have been a Populist for several years. Was discouraged and disgusted
with the fusion act in 1896, and since that time I began to read and
study the Socialist doctrine to find out what they had to offer as a
remedy for the whole people. Through this search for knowledge I found
that the Populist Party was only a reform measure dealing with the
effects and only a national movement, while the Socialist Party is
international, and goes to the root of the cause of the unjust system of
exploitation, and means the emancipation and freedom of the whole human
family—a plan and system by which one can not rob another by a plan of
legalized system of robbery. It means a system to be established upon
earth by which one can live for all and all for one. It means that we
shall establish a righteous system by which one nation shall not have its
hands at another’s throat for pelf. It means a system by which it will be
possible for all Christians to live a pure Christian life and practice
the Golden Rule in fact and truth.
I realize the error of having more than one party representing the
interest and prosperity of the whole laboring and working people;
therefore, judging between the two, the Populist and the Socialist,
have cast my lot with the Socialists, and expect to make the fight for
justice and emancipation for wage slavery in the Socialist Party.
I appreciate your position and hope that you will accomplish much good
with your valuable Magazine in the way of educating the people. I fail to
see how you can ever expect to help to finally free the laboring people
from economic bondage of slavery, without joining the Socialist Party.
You have asked the people to give their ideas as to what they think about
the existing conditions. I have given my views as I see them. I can
realize no permanent hopes for relief outside of the Socialist and the
co-operative commonwealth.
* * * * *
_Harry Partington, City._
I took the publication since the first number and today I have in the
house only the December copy, as I want to get everybody to read them
that will and thereby have persuaded several to buy them, and you can
depend on me to continue to do so, and will try and get others to do so.
I look at it that I am in the city and can get it at the news-dealers
with more certainty than as a yearly subscriber.
What I think of TOM WATSON’S MAGAZINE can never be told. I would like
it semi-monthly, but I know I shall have to wait possibly some time
before that comes. Dear sir, believe me, I am a very sincere believer
and practicer of his doctrine and have been since the Democratic party
undertook to carry the 16 to 1 doctrine under the auspices of W. J. B. of
Nebraska. Sorry Billy failed then and 1904.
Hurrah for W. R. Hearst, but the money power is too strong yet. But
hammer at them and teach us to be steadfast.
* * * * *
_David Meiselas, Brooklyn, N. Y._
I have at last determined to congratulate you upon the success you have
made with your Magazine. It is, beyond any doubt, good work. In reality
I can hardly think to write all the praise the editorials are worth. I
enjoy them as I would some classic by Shakespeare, or some scientific
work by Darwin. The more I read them, the more I like them. They are
digestible; and talk about brain food—it is the best.
Yes, Thomas E. Watson should be well considered as a champion for the
cause of the people. Either he is a second Hearst or Hearst is a second
Watson. They are so much alike in their fights for the people you can
hardly tell which is which.
Over here in New York we are having a grand time, viz:
Murphy telling things about McClellan and vice versa. The big insurance
grafters howling for more. Mr. Ivins telling things about the “reform
grafter,” Mr. District Attorney, etc., etc.
Abraham Lincoln said we should have a “government of the people, by the
people and for the people.” I must say we are living up to it, in New
York—nit. We are having “a government of McCarren, by McClellan and for
Murphy.” Great government, is it not?
If this is not the age of wonder, I don’t know what. But, Mr. Watson,
keep up your steady work; don’t forget the Hon. Platt and Depew, the
former our Chinese advocate and president of the largest express company;
the latter the champion lobbyist of them all. Don’t forget our generous
Senator Knox (with his generous rate bill). There are many more whom you
should prey upon.
* * * * *
_G. White, Enloe, Tex._
Yes “I will help”; it is one of the very, very few papers and magazines
that I can heartily indorse from the old Liberty Bell to the last sheet
of its reading matter; the gags and brakes that are applied to other
editors, or a great majority, at least, disqualify them as editors.
The things that we most need to know are suppressed and the reading
public are kept in the background on the most vital questions of the day.
There is a mighty storm gathering in this once glorious republic; its
muttering thunders can be distinctly heard. The glaring, forked tongues
of wrath can be plainly seen over the tops of the distant hills that
hedge in our eighty million people.
The old ship on which we have sailed thus far is out of repair; the pilot
asleep, or cares nothing for the safety of his passengers; the captain
has bought most of the crew; the breakers are just ahead.
I know not how my fellow-countrymen may feel over the affair, but for
your humble Texas farmer it’s a sad picture. The light that once burned
so bright not only lit up North America from Alalch Mountain to the
Rockies, but crossed both oceans and gave to the world an object lesson
of what a free people could do.
The same light guided Prescott at Bunker Hill. It was the never-setting
star at Valley Forge that led Washington to the gate of glory at
Yorktown. Is it true that the territory bequeathed to us (“and it was
paid in blood”) is to be betrayed into the hands of the enemy for the
small pittance of thirty pieces of silver? Is the money-bag of America
to rule or ruin? Or will those who think and yet have a chance to act
demand a settlement? TOM WATSON’S MAGAZINE is one that is asking for a
settlement. May the day soon come.
* * * * *
_N. M. Hollingsworth, Terry, Miss._
I see that you contemplate enlarging and improving the Magazine. I can
see the place for enlarging, but not improving in the subject matter,
except by enlarging and perhaps improving the material, etc. It is as
good as human agency can make it. I only wish it could be read by every
man, woman, boy and girl in the land. It is such an educator as we need,
and it is being read by a great number.
I was at our county cotton-grower’s meeting last Saturday and was
delighted to find so many reading your splendid Magazine. I secured a
subscriber and have promise of several more which I will forward in a day
or two. I have seen your letter to the _Atlanta Journal_ in which there
is enough exposure of Clark Howell’s perfidy, etc., to consign him to the
garbage heap.
If you think it worth while in the Educational Department of the next
number of your Magazine, tell us what effect bucket shops and trade
exchanges have on the price of such produce as are dealt in.
Wishing you and your Magazine all the good that can come to a mortal and
a great publication, I remain your devoted friend and admirer.
* * * * *
_S. T. Z. Champion, Sterrett, Pa._
I am a constant worker and reader of this great reform movement and have
been for the past twelve years, and have voted the ticket straight till
they got me to straddle W. J. B. one time and I got such a fall I fear I
will never live to get over it. I am getting old. I am one of Robert E.
Lee’s old web-foot boys and stacked my old Enfield rifle at Appomattox
Court House on the 9th of April, 1865. It looks like a miracle to see the
fingers pushing a pen that pulled the trigger 40 years ago, and yet when
I think of the blood that was shed for this great nation’s freedom and to
see it being stolen away from us by those money knaves it makes me feel
like I am just 16 years old. I have nine boys, all Populists. Oh, how I
want us to live to get at least one more vote for that grand and noble
boy, Thomas E. Watson, for our next President. Don’t you all feel me
rejoicing over New York’s election, but I fear they will not let Hearst
have his seat as mayor of New York. I have just read Watson’s answer to
Hoke Smith’s letter. It is a grand reply.
You can count on me when the last roll is called. I’ll be there. Yours
for reform.
* * * * *
_W. H Thomas, Fairhaven, Mo._
After spending 25 years in the thickest of the fray I could hardly go
back to the “wallowing in the mire.” No, my brother, I never say die, but
am still pegging away. Yes, I am a Populist. I am a rampant Socialist
and I think that most of my old comrades have followed my example and I
can see no reason why all Populists should not do the same. You know,
my brother, that the Socialists are growing as no other party ever grew
and they are bound to become a dominant factor in politics in the near
future. It is evolution. Reforms do not go backward. The Populists have
done a grand work, but Socialism is inevitable and I would rejoice to
see all old Populists get aboard the band wagon. You are doing a noble
work and to show you that I appreciate it I am going to send you a dollar
for the magazine and 50 cents for that fountain pen, although I can
illy afford it, as I am 65 years old and dependent on my labor for the
support of my family.
Don’t Teddy, the Trust-buster, make you tired? I think he is the biggest
fraud that ever sat in the Presidential chair.
Wishing you long life and abundant success, I am with you till the battle
is won.
* * * * *
_James A. Logsden, Moline, Ill._
I have read with great interest the editorial, “Tolstoi and the Land,”
in the October number of TOM WATSON’S MAGAZINE, and while I cannot agree
with you in the position you take upon the land question, I accredit you
with sincerity and honesty of purpose. In common with many others of us,
you are giving of your time, energy and substance, to bring remedial
justice and economic truth to human society.
Being fair-minded and in earnest pursuit of economic truth and equity,
you will, I am sure, accept honest criticisms of your opinions.
In the outset you propound three questions, which are as follows:
“Is it true that the real grievance of the masses is that the
land has been taken away from them?”
“Will no reform bring them relief until the land has been given
back to them?”
“Will universal happiness be the result of putting an end to
private ownership of land?”
To negate these questions you call upon history to bear witness:
“As a guide to our footsteps the past must always be to some
extent our light, our guide.”
With this I am heartily in accord. It has been rightly said:
“History keeps the grass green upon the graves of former
civilizations, and stands as a beacon light to future ones. It
is the ever-living Janus, peering both into the past and into
the future.”
But history does not prove, as you assert, that civilization exists as a
result of private ownership of land. These are your words:
In passing upon this and statements appearing in subsequent paragraphs, I
think I shall have fully answered your three previous questions. When it
“became a matter of _self-interest_ for some _individual_ to improve the
land” was it because of his ownership or of his _security of possession_?
When you admit that “as long as each individual felt that his parcel of
land might go out of his possession at the next regular division there
was no incentive to improvement,” you have admitted the latter. “Not
until the individual became assured that the _benefit of his labor_ would
accrue to himself did the waste become a farm and the hovel a house.”
What was his assurance—private ownership or security of possession? That
it was not private ownership is proven by the tenant system in vogue
in every civilized country in the world. Obviously it is not private
ownership that impelled the landless tenant to go upon land owned by
others, clear away the forest and “make the land a farm.” Then what is
his assurance? Security of possession—the knowledge that he will be left
unmolested to enjoy the “product of his labor.” This tenant enjoys his
security of possession because of the _tribute_ he has been compelled to
pay to the owner to leave him unmolested in his possession and enjoyment.
Could he not be as secure in his possession if the land were owned and
the exaction made by all the people?
Therefore, “if the history of the world shows anything at all, it shows
_this_,” that civilization has developed and progress has gone forward,
not by reason of private ownership of land, but in spite of it.
“If, what is manifestly impossible,” says Mr. George, “a fair
distribution of land were made among the whole population,
giving each his equal share, and laws enacted which would
impose a barrier to the tendency to concentration by forbidding
the holding by any one of more than a fixed amount, what would
become of the increase of population?”
Your assertion that there would be no improvement under such a condition
as you mention is self-evident. But this, instead of being an argument
against the Henry George philosophy, is, in fact, an argument in its
favor.
What Mr. George _does_ propose I shall endeavor to make clear in
subsequent paragraphs when I touch upon your hypothesis regarding the
primitive tribesmen.
Before passing to this, however, I desire to direct your attention to
your observation that “the right of each citizen to hold as his own began
with the laborer who claimed the product of his labor.” The convincing
power of this statement is lacking, because you have failed to prove
to us that without private ownership of land man can not “claim the
products of his labor.” As a matter of fact, you can not furnish such
proof because it is manifestly untrue. Before the savage, wandering in
the primeval forest, ever dreamed of laying claim to any parcel of the
soil as his own, did he not so lay claim to the fish and game he took?
Did he not so lay claim to the fruits and berries he gathered? Did not
the tribesman who followed his flocks and herds over the plains so lay
claim to them as the product of his labor? Without ever a thought of
the private ownership of the soil, he had produced them as truly as
the stockman of today produces the cattle he sends to market, and he
valiantly disputed the right of any person to any share of them. Most
truly he who labors is entitled to labor’s product, but to say that in
order to claim such product it is necessary to privately own land is to
fly into the face of obvious fact. How many of the wage earners of today
are land owners? How much is added to the wages of those few who are,
by reason of this fact? You yourself raised the point that it is not
necessary to own land in order to fleece the public, laborer, land-owner
and all out of their earnings. If this be true how do you harmonize it
with your former claim that it was private ownership of land that first
made it possible for the laborer to claim and retain the product of his
labor.
I come now to the case of the “score of tribesmen” of whom you speak.
While the score were fishing, hunting, drinking or gambling, the one
cleared the wild land, fenced out the rest and claimed it as _his land_.
But, in fact, did this make it his land? By virtue of what did it become
his land? You doubtless had this question in mind when you attempted to
answer it in the following:
“Having put his labor into the land, having changed it from a
waste into a farm, it was the most natural thing in the world
that he should claim it as his own. Why shouldn’t he? _He_ made
it a farm.”
What was his ultimate purpose in putting his labor into the farm? Was it
not the products which his labor, applied to the land, would bring forth?
You say “he made it a farm.” He found it a farm awaiting his efforts.
You will agree that he was entitled only to the result of his own labor.
In fact, this is the truth for which you are contending. What were the
results of his labor, the farm or the products? Manifestly the latter.
These he enjoyed. Upon what possible ground, then, could he go still
further and claim also the soil as belonging to himself and his heirs
forever?
Moreover, you will concede that before this tribesman determined to
abandon the spear and the rod and become a farmer, this piece of ground
could have been taken by any of the other twenty men; in other words it
was common. It must be further conceded that in casting about to find
a suitable location for his farm, he chose the site which offered the
best natural advantages relative to fuel, water, fertility of soil, and
proximity to the tribal bartering place. At this point let us carry your
illustration still further and assume that all or part of the other
twenty tribesmen decided to become farmers also.
In the same manner as their forerunner, they look about for the best
location, and the one offering the best advantages. But it is taken, and
the others must take second, third or fourth place, according to who gets
located first. But these men have equal rights. Why should some of them
enjoy the exclusive ownership and possession of those sites which give
them natural advantages over the others? Manifestly, they should not. But
how can they equalize these advantages? Just to the extent that farmer
number one holds advantage over farmer number twenty-one—just to that
extent should number one compensate the little community as a whole for
the privilege which he enjoys. And so with all the others. A community
is forming, with its _natural_ demand for revenue for _common purposes_.
Here is the _natural revenue_. Here lies the fundamental principle which
political economists call the Law of Rent. Here reposes the very essence
of the law of compensation. Here also is found the basis principle of
economic justice, which, traced to its last analysis, as civilization
advances, is capable of developing the highest expression of human
society. Here is the answer to your question,
“Will universal happiness be the result of putting an end to
private ownership of land?”
It was not “just that the twenty idle tribesmen should take away from the
one industrious tribesman that which his labor had created.” Neither was
it just that he should rob the other twenty when they came to exercise
their equal right to the use of the land, as he manifestly would if he
were left to the exclusive use of the soil, or the best portion thereof,
without compensating those he has excluded.
Let him retain possession of the farm and his products under these
conditions, and you have, not private ownership of land, but common
ownership.
Another point that you have obviously overlooked, and one that goes to
the heart of the social problem, is the element of land monopoly. Your
tribesman was not satisfied with selecting the best land, and fencing
so much thereof as he could till by his own exertion, but he fenced in
vast areas that he could not use, and also claimed that as “his own.”
By so doing he not only enjoyed the fruits of his own labor, but forced
the other twenty to share their products with him as a tribute for using
that part of “his land” which he himself could not, or did not, care to
use. You may say that they had equal opportunities with him to get first
choice. Even if this were granted, it makes no difference in principle.
The fact still remains that he has the power to wring unwilling tribute
from them. Only one could have the best, and though his contemporaries
may have been justly punished for their lack of foresight—which I do not
admit—there is yet another side to the question. What is the status of
future generations in relation to this proposition? Are they guilty of
sleeping upon their rights when all the land has been taken before they
were born, or are they born into conditions which they have had no voice
in making?
If your lonely tribesman, for whose welfare you manifest such
solicitation, had been content with the amount of land he could utilize
to good advantage, had he been willing to contribute his just share to
the common expense, and had he been sufficiently just to recognize and
respect the equal rights of his compeers, the common would yet have
remained after all had been supplied. What was true of the primitive
state is true today in our highly organized society. Shifting conditions
make no changes in universal principles.
“Society” (did not) “as a matter of self-preservation admit the principle
of private ownership of land.” It admitted it because it did not know a
better plan—because it did not know the Laws of Rent and of Compensation.
You deny that “great estates were the ruin of Italy.” “Before a few could
buy up all the land there must have been some great cause at work, some
advantage which the few held at the expense of the many.” “What was that
advantage?” you ask. No better answer can be given to this query than
to refer you back to your own illustration of the farmer tribesman. Did
he buy the land? You say he “fenced it in and claimed it as his own.”
In like manner did all land pass into private control, each individual
claiming far more than he could use. After all the land of Italy had been
“claimed” and enclosed, or that of any given community thereof, the power
that these land _claimers_ held over subsequent comers is obvious. The
only asset of the individual without material wealth is his labor, which
is only one—the active—factor in production. Under circumstances such as
the foregoing, he is debarred from the passive factor—land—and can apply
his labor to it only by paying tribute to those who have _claimed_ it.
In the circle of the human family, those endowed with keen, unerring
foresight are comparatively few. It cannot be gainsaid that those few,
knowing that land is fixed in quantity—which cannot be expanded as
population increases, and as demand for it increases—saw in the early
periods, as they see today, what a powerful advantage they could wield
over their fellows by “fencing in” all the available land—by fencing out,
not only the cattle, as you put it, but also their fellow-men. Is it
not plain that this was the source of the power of which you complain?
Was it not this that furnished the advantage you name? Can you not see
the stream of unearned tribute wrung from the hands of honest labor
constantly flowing into the coffers of these land owners? And seeing it,
can you then maintain that great estates were not the ruin of Italy?
What made the “ruling class of Rome, that had concentrated into their
own hands all the tremendous powers of the State?” What gave them the
power to “fix the taxes” and enact the “infernal laws” which you rightly
contend ought to have been repealed? “Ah!” you say,“they _controlled
the money_.” By what power did they come to control the money? Was it
by a power inherent within themselves, or was it not the power which
they derived from the corner which they held upon the _natural revenue_
which they diverted from the public treasury into their own coffers, thus
making it necessary to provide for the common expense by unjust taxes
upon the products of labor?
“They controlled the money.” But what is money? Is it the means or the
end? Is it not merely a labor-saving invention to facilitate trade? Is it
not money only by common consent? Is it not merely a commodity converted
for convenience into a medium of exchange? You make the point that by
controlling the money, they controlled commodities. But if they had not
controlled the land, which is the source of all commodities—even the
money itself—how could they have controlled the money?
Can you not see that men divorced from the toil and permitted to produce
only on the terms of some other person are forced into the labor market,
to vie with each other in a competition that grows keener and more
vicious as a population increases?
You say that “the power to fix taxes is the power to confiscate.” The
very opposite is true. The power to confiscate is the power to tax.
Give that power to one class and what more does it want? Let that class
confiscate land values, which you agree are naturally common property,
and you give it the power to rob its victim, not merely to the “limit
of their capacity to pay,” but to literal starvation, if they choose
to carry the principle of private ownership of land to its logical
conclusion. For certainly to recognize the right to private property in
land is to recognize the owner’s right to do with _his land_ what he
pleases. To recognize this is to recognize the land-owner’s right to deny
to the landless either the use of _his land_, or any of its products,
on any terms whatsoever. Thus, in carrying the principle of private
ownership of land to its logical conclusion, and recognizing it as a just
principle, is to sanction literal murder. Can a system that has this for
its ultimate, be other than a vicious system, even though it may never
be carried to that extent? It is by means of this vicious system that
human sufferings are augmented by a thousand fold and the sum of human
happiness is correspondingly diminished.
Do not the foregoing facts prove to you that your statement that “_usury_
is the vulture that has gorged itself upon the vitals of nations since
the dawn of time,” is economically untrue? Is it not clear that usury is
only an effect of a deeper-seated cause inherent in land monopoly?
As proof that the universal condition of inequality is _not_ inherent
in land monopoly, you say that the Rothschilds and other “kings of high
finance” do not “buy up vast domains that they may be served by a lot of
tenants.” But when touching upon this phase of the question, you should
always bear in mind that all land is not farm land. The power of the
coal barons to exploit does not arise so much from the fact that they
own large tracts of land, as from the fact that it bears large deposits
of coal. Nor does their power to exploit affect merely the miners of
coal. Coal is a public necessity, and the ownership by these barons of a
comparatively small area of land places them in a position to place—by
reason of unreasonable prices—a tax upon every user of coal.
What is the basis of the railroad’s power for unrestrained exploitation?
Unquestionably it arises from its exclusive franchises, inherent in its
rights of way.
Mr. J. Pierpont Morgan and others of his class do not derive their
unearned revenues from their power to tax. But whence this taxing
power which affects every user of their several products?—Monopoly
of franchises, monopoly of mineral resources, such as mines,
quarries, etc.? What is the source of the Standard Oil monopoly?—Its
ownership of oil land or enough thereof to force independent owners
to sell on the company’s terms, and its consequent power to force
railroad discriminations in its favor? Where did the beef trust and
other industrial corporations derive their monopoly power? Railroad
rebates—“the big pistol”—railroads with their monopoly franchises. And
the railroad monopoly and these other breeds will be extinct in an
instant. End land monopoly and make railroad franchises common property
and the railroad monopoly will be at an end. Had not the Amalgamated
Copper Co. controlled the majority of the copper-bearing lands of the
world, “The Story of Amalgamated” would never have been told.
Referring again to the railroads, was it not largely the great land
grants donated to them by our Government that were the beginning of
their power? These grants operated in two ways to the advantage of the
railroads. First, they greatly increased the wealth of the railroads,
and, second, they diminished the power of the people by diminishing the
area of land open to settlement.
“Land is plentiful and it is cheap. The country is dotted with abandoned
farms that can be had _almost_ for the asking.” You say “almost for the
asking.” This implies that he who takes these farms must pay something
to him who has “abandoned” them. Why _almost_? Why not take them, as in
the case of the primitive tribesman, without asking? You state that they
have been abandoned because the owner could not make a decent living upon
them. Then why make the condition of the next owner more hopeless by
levying tribute against him for the use of a worthless farm?
Make land common property, safe-guard the interests of all by assuring to
each land-holder perpetual use, providing he pay his equitable share into
the common treasury—which in each case would be the increment of value.
Then “_abolish all other forms of taxation_.” This will secure every one
in the enjoyment of his labor’s product, will abolish monopoly and the
individual or corporate taking power, vicious tariffs, and all. This is
all you have demanded.
Your demand is a just one, but—as I trust you may be brought to see—your
remedy is superficial and cannot be made effective. You must dig in
deeper soil, else your laudable efforts are vain. The abrogation of
offensive legislative enactments and the enactment of other statutes
dealing with effects will avail nothing. Nothing save the rooting out of
the mother of evils can possibly accomplish the end for which you are so
courageously and manfully striving.
Your work is a noble one, and its power for good is measured only by the
number of people whom you can reach. I admonish you to give the land
question thorough and painstaking investigation. I trust you will bear
with me for what may seem excessive frankness. But you are not looking
for bouquets, but simple, unembossed truth. When I say to you that in my
opinion you have not familiarized yourself with the philosophy you are
attempting to refute, you will accept this criticism in the broad view of
public interest.
I have gone into greater detail in my comments upon your editorial than
I expected to go in the outset, but it has seemed advisable, in order to
get a clear view of all the points raised by you. However, I trust I have
not gone beyond the limit of the space that may be available.
* * * * *