The explanations which have thus far been given, and which are in strict harmony with the principles and methods laid down by Henry George, will surely be sufficient to show that such objections as those which follow do not apply to the system proposed by Single Taxers. These objections are a fair sample of those which have been current in public controversy and in general conversation, and they exhibit the impatient intolerance shown by its opponents, and their very imperfect mastery of the question.

The following misapprehensions have appeared in letters written in public controversy with the present writer. The letters indicate the opinion of their authors that the results named below would follow the introduction of the Single Tax—a term which they frequently use as if it was synonymous with Land Nationalisation:—

Dr. Wallis, in New Zealand Herald, of March 3 and 21, and April 5, 1890, says:

That it would "abolish the decalogue, and deny the primary obligations of public and private honour."

That it would place upon the land "a tax exactly equal to the rent which the land reclaimed and cultivated by us would yield, if we wished to let it or lease it to a cultivator."

That it means that "the hardest working class in the community should be selected and fixed upon as the sole class to be taxed, while all the other classes are to be exempt from taxation, and even to have dowries for their daughters, and different kinds of amusements provided, at the cost of the agriculturist."

That "they who own and till the land would be reduced to serfs, and slaves, and taxpayers, for the classes who follow all other kinds of business, or no business, in civilised lands."

That "Mr. Withy and his co-believers are entirely misleading the public when they say that it is only the unimproved value of the land that Mr. George's land grabbing scheme contemplates."

That "Mr. George is continually proclaiming in words that every man is most righteously entitled to the fruits of his industry, and at the same time he is doing all he can in order to seize upon, and confiscate to the use of the State, the fruits or results of the industry of all who hold property in land, whether the land he urban, or suburban, or rural."

That "the non-agricultural classes—the mechanics, tradesmen, merchants, manufacturers, professionals, capitalists, and idlers and rogues, etc. (forming from one-half to four-fifths of the population in most countries), are to be exempt from all taxation."

Mr. F. G. Ewington, in New Zealand Herald of March 31, April 28, May 9, 17, and 26, 1892, says:

"Mr. George has demanded the immediate depriving of owners of their land values without compensation."

"Mr. George and his disciples are trying to force that 'hateful thing'—rack-renting—'upon us.'"

"If the tenants were compelled to compete openly against each other, as they would have to do under Mr. George's system, 'rack-renting' would be the rule and not the exception, and each tenant would have so little attachment to, and interest in, the soil, beyond his term of lease, that it would be unduly exhausted, and its products consequently diminished."

"The simple device of making landowners pay all the taxes."

Possibly both these gentlemen might somewhat modify the expressions used if they were writing at the present date, although the writer has no knowledge that they would do so. He has, however, no wish to place them at a disadvantage by quoting their past remarks. But they stand in print, and his desire is to impress everyone concerned with the inaccuracy, the total inadequacy, of such criticisms as applied to a serious controversy upon a matter of the most profound importance. There is every room for differences of opinion as to the causes of, and the most desirable cure for, the disease, but none as to the fact of its existence in our social system. These writers condemn unsparingly the solution of the difficulty proposed by Henry George. They would, no doubt, be listened to respectfully and gladly if they would advocate some other remedy. Tn the meantime, the present writer claims to have shown that their quoted objections are not applicable.