THE NEBRASKA INDEPENDENT,
JUNE 11, iS(J3".
he always bit, when the pie was
passed around.
In the great battle that Is now be
!ng fought for' American liberty,
there are but two Bides: democracy
and plutocracy. The man who cavil.-
at the name democracy, who hints
vaguely that he has a better plan of
Kovernment than that devised by
Washington and Jefferson, Jackson
and Abraham Lincoln, and that seeks
to divide the, fusion forges, whether
he intends .It, or not, is the tool of
plutocracy and is playing into the
hands of the republican party.
ALEX H. VANCE. .
..Mllford, Neb. ; ?,
BONGO GAME
Mr. Gilbert Quotes Some Tariff Figures
Showing Ihe Tariff Folly
"Editor Independent:1 Here ' are; a
few figures for men who think:
'In the year lui there was manu
factured in the United States 13 bil
lions of dollars' worth of goods. Au
thority, Secretary Shaw.
tThe average rate of duties upon im
ported merchandise is 52 per cent,
Authority, Walter Wellman. '
' Now, 52 per cent of 13 billions 6?
dollars is' $6,71 0,000,000, - which tha
present- tariff of duties authorizes the
manufacturers to collect of the Amer
ican people each year, Jf they can. It
actually enables them to collect a
large portion of It but not all. Tha
probabilities are , they collect about
two-thirds; They collect nothing for
goods exp&rted. V s :
, There is honest competition on some
classes of goods, such as flour and tha.
cneaper cotton fabrics, and perhaps'
some others, that prevents them from
collecting it of the people. So, in or
der to be fair, we will cut this sum in
halves.
" We then have the sum of $3,385,
000,000, which is considerably less
than is probably collected. In order
not only to be fair, but to be absolute
ly safe, we will cut off the $385,000,000;
and we have the sum of 3 billions of
dollars three thousand millions col
lected by. the manufacturers and paid
by the people to them as the result of
the Dmgley tariff bill.
UBear in mind, that tMs is over and
above what is collected in duties fo,
the support of government. Bear in
-mind, this money is paid to the manu
facturers, the capitalists, and not o
the laborers. Bear in mind, that If
this 3 billions of dollars were divided
among the employes of the manufac
turers, it would give to" the something
less than 6 millions of laborers a lit
tie over $500 apiece. Bear in mind
that this would pay the entire labor
bill of all the manufacturers of tha
United States.
' Then ask yourselves, Is this state
of things the result of the intelligence
or genius of the people? Or is It the
result of misinformation or stultifica
tion? E. S. GILBERT.
Lincoln, Neb.
(Mr. Gilbert has opened up an In
teresting subject for investigation ani
thought. I should calculate it a littla
differently, however, assuming that
the 13 billions of manufactured goods
represent 152 per cent of what they
would have been valued at in the
absence of any tariff. Hence, 8 1-2
billions would represent the 100 per
cent, or full value in the absence of a
tariff, and 4 1-2 billions would repre
sent the possible tax collected by th
home manufacturers for their own
benefit Using the same precautions
Mr. Gilbert has, about 2 billions, in
stead of 3, is a conservative estimate;
of the Dingley tariff gift enterprise
run by the American people for the
benefit of the manufacturers. Asjo
' elate Editor.)
Ths Single Tax Fallacy
A Written for The Independent in an
swer to the Henry George Edition.)
Editor Independent: The single
tax theory Is based on the assump
tion that rent of land under private
ownership absorbs all surplus wealth
over a bare living to the actual pro
ducer. That increase of population, of
knowledge In the arts and sciences,
the use of labor-saving machinery, tha
division of labor, and the consequent
increased capacity for the production
of wealth has merely served to in
crease rent and the value of land, that
the land owner absorbs this surplus
wealth, of which both the capitalist
.and the laborer are robbed. The sin
gle tax solution of the problem is the
confiscation of economic rent by the
state and the abolition of all other
forms of taxation. Land monopoly,
they claim, is the "fundamental" mo
nopoly. With its abolition and the
adoption of. free trade, "trusts" would
be impossible, and absolute free com
petition would be assured.
The single tax theory is not scien
tific. The difference in cost of produc
tion between the large and small
methods of production would not be
effected by any system of land taxa
tion. Whether a bonanza farmer pays
$50 per acre for his land outright, or
pays a single tax of say $2 per acre
to the state the same as his smaller
competitor, his relative superiority
would be the same. The economies
possible in the large system of pro
duction, would enable him to drive his
smaller competitor to th3 wall as ef
fectively as the small manufacturer
has been displaced by the trust.
There are a score of trusts whose
success is not' due to monopoly of
land or a ' protective tariff. For In
stance, the Western Union Telegraph
cpmpany, the, sugar ; trust, the cotton
seed oil 'trust, the. flour trust, the
Pullman Palace ; Gar -company, and
others, are due butkiy Itf the concen
tration of capital and superior or
ganizing ' ability ' and management,
which has enabled them to drive their
weaker competitors to the, wall and
thus monopolize their particular ; in
dustry. -' Such methods .would v4be
equally effective under a single tax
regime.
Will it be;, claimed that the tele
graph trust is' due ia an exclusiy ;
franchise, to a tariff that excludes
competition: with ; foreign telegraph
companies, or to the fact that the
telegraph trust has monopolized all
the land available ; for post holes? V
Admitting, for the moment, that tie
sugar trust monopoly 13 due to the
tariffrof one-eightneent per pound erf
refined sugar, how are we' to account
for the fact that there is only one su
gar trust to absorb the 100 millions
annual profit due to the tariff on su
gar? Is the tax not the same to all?
Why does not a score of competing
trusts spring up to share in thi3
enormous profit due to - the tariff?
How does it happen that there is only
one trust for each, industry? .The an
swer is that in a competitive strug
gle, the corporation with the largest
capital, the greatest skill and exper
ience, and the most superior business
ability will surely drive out their less
fortunately eauiDned comnetltors. n-i
iicvmg aone so .they will inevitably
monopolize that particular business
and would-be competitors will hesi-
tate to engage In a struggle with so
powenui a rival with the odds so
greatly against them. "
What does this revolution in ihn
methods of industry portend? For
one tning it means that competitive
Industry has, reached its logical out-
tome in monopoly. It means that the
f 1 i . m . - -
rigm oi "economic initiative, for
which shallow individualists so stren
uously contend, will be denied to b9
out of every 1,000 citizens and compe
tition, if any persists, will be be
tween . industrial giants, from which
lesser giants will be absolutely ex
cluded, the final - result of which
whether it ends in monopoly undc
one industrial giant or is shared in I
ujr a score oi lesser ones, makes no
difference to the large body of pro
ducers, who in either case are abso
lutely excluded, not by legal enact
ment, but by inexorable economic law
working under industrial competition.
Confiscation of rent is equivalent to
confiscation of the land, the object of
the single tax being, as Henry George
states, to make land "common prop
erty." Admitting that "equity does
not permit private property in land,
it by no means follows that we would
be justified in singling out one class
of exploiters and depriving them of
that property the "unearned incre
ment" of which has been shared in by
millions who are, now dead, or, if liv
ing, are not now land owners. Pres
ent land owners are probably the
beneficiaries of not more than 10 per
cent of the total accrued value of land
since the first purchase from the gov
ernment (the people). To confiscate
not merely the 10 per cent increase in
land values whila in the possession of
the present holders, but also the other
90 per cent absorbed by previous
owners would be as dishonest as it
is indefensible. .
There is a shallow economic fallacy
involved in the single tax assumption
that economic rent would be sufficient
for all the purposes of public revenue.
It is assumed by Henry George that
present rent is "economic rent," and
that the effect of the single tax would
be to transfer present rent from the
pockets of the private land owners In
to the public treasury, without1 any
diminution of the total amount now
collected. This assumption Is a fal
lacy. Present rent' is not "economic
rent," but is, on the contrary, "mo
nopoly" rent, due, principally, to ths
monopolization of all land, vacant as
well as occupied. Ricardo's law f
rent was assumed to act under cer
tain defined conditions of land appro
priation. The law of rent did not
take into consideration the enorm
ous increase in rent that would be ef
fected through the monopolization of
all land and not more than 7 or 8 per
cent of land is in actual us. TV
adoption of the single tix wonld rrm'-e
it Impossible as single taxers con
stants qcwrt tn hold land out of
use. Therefore 90 per cent of land
for which there is not present use
would be thrown on the market, wita
the inevitable result that economic
rent under a single tax regime would
decrease to perhaps one-fourth, , or
possibly one-tenth of the amount now
absorbed by private land owners. In
deed, existing laws that requires all
all land, vacant as well as occupied,
to be assessed at its "fair cash val
ue" would,, if rigorously and honest
ly enforced, probably reduce economic
rent and price of land 50 per cent
within five years. " So that the terra
"single" tax, as implying its suffic
iency for all public revenue is a miS
homer and absurd ,, ' ?V
J ; Admitting the contention, of single
taxers that rent'nder a single tax
regime would, continue to increaise
with increase in population and busi
ness, "in' even' greater' ratio thanf at
present, how would security of land
and improvements be effected by? a.
tax that ; would so greatly vary. with
increase in business and population,?
Thousands of lot3 'in Chicago, and
other cities not a tenth "as large, have
increased in value from 100 to 1,0ft)
per, cent1 in -a decade. Under a single
tax regime how long would the first
holders have been able to retain it tor
perhaps a home or a small place for
business before increase in rental
values ; would t have" forced them to
move or abandon 1 their improve
ments? Under such conditions of in
security of ; tenure ; Ino workingmau
would dare risk the building of ' a
home lest the increase of population,
or the approach of business in his vi
cinity would force him to move to i
less desirable location.-' . :
Under such conditions along the
railroad track would Drobablv' be the
favorite location ; for the homes of
the working class. Under the single
tax, all land, a3 Henry George states
in "Progress and Poverty," would; be
virtually up at public auqtion at ev
ery assessment period. The occupiers
of land and owners of the improve
ments would be forced to stand ready
to pay any increase in rental values
or ta move or abandon their improve
ments. It is evident that under such
conditions security for tenure of land
and improvements would be utterly
destroyed. t ,
The single tax, therefore, offers nu
solution of the economic problem. i
The only possible solution is the
substitution of co-operation for com
petition in, industry socialism.
' . w. H. STUART. :
Los Angeles, Cal. 31u0 E. 1st st
VV WW
El SAT
PILARS
Answers Crosby
"(Written for 'The Independent in an
swer to the Henry George Edition.) J
Editor Independent: I want to
congratulate you on the splendid en
terprise shown by your "Henry George
Edition." - It is-one of the ablest ex
ponents of the -single tax that has
emanated from the press anywhere.'
I was especially interested in th
article by Ernest H. Crosby, and be
ing a socialist, I would like to write a
word in reply:
Mr. Crosby contends that it would
be unjust to carry out the socialist
plan, viz: "to seize all private per
sonal property used as a means . of
production even where no monopoly
right is involved."
It all depends on how the "seizing"
was done. If a better industrial order
would result in affording greater hap
piness for all, then even confiscation
would not be unjust.
But here is where Mr. Crosby falls
down: "A man is Entitled to the full
product of his labor." If this be true
(and all socialists admit it); then
what advantage would there be in
the possession of a factory under the
single tax? If every worker received
the full product of his labor, where
would there be anything for the own
er of the fa'ctory?
Mr. Crosby overlooks this import
ant fact which no other theory ex
cept socialism proposes, viz: the do
ing away with the profit incentive to
do wrong. Under the single tax, as I
understand it, there would still re
main the incentive for one individual
to exploit another to make a profit
off another.
Under an industrial system whero
there would be no advantage for onj
person to make a profit on another
the earth would be changed into a
veritable heaven. It would then be
easier for all to do right than wrong,
and crime and wrong-doing wouii
cease because there would be nothing
for crime to feed upon.
Socialism proposes to do away with
the incentive to do wrong, and in thi s
one important r espect it maintains its
superiority over any and all other in
dustrial theories.
The single tax has not proved to ba
as acceptable to the great farming
class as socialism. I cannot name
three of my farmer acquaintances out
of perhaps four hundred or more who
are single taxers, and these are more
socialists than sintrle taxers. -
HENRY E. ALLEN.
Benton Harbor, Mich.
ikd NINETY-FIVE CFNTS
BUYS THE GENTS HIGH nRinp
NEW 1903 MODEL BURD1CK
drops with the nndorstandlnjr and ftrrreeraent that you
can pive it ton days' free trial, put lttoevcry tfst, and 1C
terequippea, better tires, hubs, hamjers, bearings, and
j., -wry way hf-'ier grsde than ar.y biej-clo you zsa
bujf from any other home In Chicago, at liciae or
Elsewhere for lefts than 20.00, you can return the bicycle
to us at our expense, and you will not be out one cent.
FOR QUO mil SPECIAL BICYCLE
ft ATA 1 fifi SHE newlS the most complete line of
UftlKLjaifC new 1903 model nU', ladles'
and children' ttcycles at prices so low as to be really
startling, for ecrythlnar tn bicTcle sundries and sap
cites, for the most astonishingly libe-a.1 offer ever
beard of, cut this advertisement oat and mail to
SEABS, ROEBUCK fiCO.,0"""
THE HARROWING DETAILS
OF DESTRUCTION, DISTRESS AND
DEATH AS THEY ARE TOLD
;, IN THE NEWSPAPERS IN
THEIR ACCOUNTS OF
TORNADOES, FRESHETS, FLOODS
Again Emphasize the Importance an!
Necessity of" Providing Against
Misfortune and Death. -
. No man or woman with a heart can
read the "o'ertrue tales" of disaster,
distress and death which have filled
the newspapers for more than three
weeks. Tornadoes in various sections
of the central west have swept tha
sayings of years into dust and scat
tered the dust in a desolated path be
hind them.' Tornadoes have also de
stroyed scores of lives. We are scarce
ly1 through mourning over these de-
structiye visitations when
. j THE WATERS BURY TOWNS
and drive thousands of people from
their homes. Millions of dollars worth
of . property is wholly -destroyed an!
other millions are lost to the owners,
while thousands of wage-earners and
poor people are forced to accept pub'
lie and private charity. The awful
details fascinate us while we peruse
them painful an! pathetic though
they be. The good people who are
fortunate are rallying to protect and
assist those who have suffered. Mean
while it is well to reflect upon tha
uncertainty of prosperity and the po.
sible reverses and afflictions incident
to human life.
xuE BANKERS RESERVE LIFE
does not seize the opportunity to
preach anew its old texts. It simply
wishes to remind its weekly readers,
that life insurance In this modern age
is not merely a donation to the wid
ows and orphans of the deceased. U
is quite as important as a plan fo?
saving the credit, the business, and
the opportunity of success to the bus
iness man. In other words a modern
life policy combines the features of
safe investment with protection.
B. H. ROBISON, PRESIDENT,
of Omaha, Neb., invites all the read
ers of this journal to communicate
with him upon the subject for their
own good. He will cheerfully under
take to elaborate to all inquirers, who
are insurable, not only the protection
Idea, but the investment idea of ths
favorite twenty payment increasing
dividend gold bond policy issued by
the aggressive, successful, safe and
progressive home life company.
Dr. Mitchell's Lumpy Jaw Cure
Dr. Mitchell's Lumpy Jaw Cure is
guaranteed to cure or money refunded.
One application Is enough. One bottle
is sufficient for 4 head or more. You
can buy it at your druggists or he
can get it from his jobber. If he won't,
write us direct and we will send you a
bottle for $1.25 delivered. Marshall
Oil Company, sole sale agents for the
United Staies, Marshalltown, la.
" "m
J. K. Graves, Morehead, Kas.: Wo
believe the time has come for us as
pop-ilists to cut loose from the demo
cratic pflrty of the north anl the re
publican party of the south and rise
or fal' upon the principles we advo
cate and preach.