Land Nationalization.

New Zealand Herald, June 8, 1892.

To the Editor.

Sir,—I have to answer three letters from Mr. Ewington, which appeared in your issues of 9th, 17th, and 26th of May. I will take them seriatim, and as briefly as possible; but it will require two letters to answer the whole,

In the first Mr. Ewington complains that I have "obscured the real point at issue" between us, On the contrary, I submit that that issue was my belief in two of Henry George's books, "Social Problems" and "Progress and Poverty" versus Mr. Ewington's disbelief in them. I had challenged him to criticise ten points of my own, but he declined to discuss them, elected to pin me to the two books named, and proceeded to make various quotations from them, and from two others as well, I accepted battle, and showed that the quotations from "Progress and Poverty," the more important volume, were taken from that part only which deals with the proposed "remedy." I said Amen to them all, and then contended for the introduction of the other part of the book also, viz., that which treated of the alleged disease and its causes. While saying Amen to Mr. Ewington's quotations, I desire that he shall apply my subsequent objection to the use in his letters of such terms as "robbery," page 12 "spoliation," and other depredatory epithets equally to Henry George's Use of them. In whatever writings they occur, I consider them "inappropriate in a discussion of economic principles," Mr. Ewington is quite in error in assuming that I was "evidently wincing" and "evidently disturbed "at his "unmasking of Henry George's theory, and placing it before the public In its undisguised deformity." He originally criticised me for expressing my personal belief in these writings. He will be aware that, while doing, so, I said to my hearers, "I would strongly recommend you to read them; read 'Social Problems' first, and after that, Progress and Poverty.'" I beg now to press this recommendation upon your readers also, But what I have deprecated all along is that they should take Mr. Ewington's partial quotations as being sufficient whereby to judge of the books, I claim that I have not only "tried to make out," as Mr. Ewington puts it, but have fully established the fact that these quotations do not give "an all-round idea of what he (Henry George) wishes to teach," and that I have done so without "reproducing half his book," If in doing this I imputed motives or used any ungenerous language to Mr. Ewington, I regret it, and withdraw the remarks at once.

In upholding Henry George's theory and proposals in this correspondence, I am placed at a disadvantage in having to deal with erroneous descriptions of them. Mr. Ewington is so inaccurate in his conceptions, that I have first to set him on the right track, and then to illustrate and argue for the real thing. The "undisguised deformity" is the creation of Mr. Ewington's misconception of Henry George's theory, In several cases, as I shall attempt to show, he condemns what Henry George also objects to; in others he refutes arguments which Henry George has shown to be unsound. He falls into these errors by only partially quoting, by placing the emphasis on the wrong words, or by missing the general tenor of the extracts when read with the context. He tilts a supposition introduced merely for the sake of pointing an argument, as if it was intended for a statement of fact.

Next, it is still evident that he concentrates all his desire for justice on behalf of one side of the case only. I believe that he is as anxious for justice all round as I am, but his writings show it as applied only to possessions, only to stored-up wealth. He will not consider the importance of the suitable supply of the daily wants of all, though he must see (hat this is not now secured. This he apparently subordinates to the important purpose of rendering secure the surplus remaining to some after their wants have been supplied. He wishes to continue the investment of this surplus in land values, as well as in other things. He refuses to believe that private land-ownership is a principal canse of poverty, and therefore he will not trouble to criticise this main argument, I have tried in vain to get him to deal with Henry George's contention, that an unjust diversion of part of the earnings of producers is caused by the present conditions of land-ownership. He apparently thinks this so unlikely as not to be worth considering. I must nevertheless persist in asserting the fact and in repeating that if he can upset us here, then angle Taxers must collapse. If he can show that "unimproved" land values are created by the individuals who own them, and are not produced by the whole community, we are done for. We seek to put an end to one injustice, and not to create another In spite of all that Mr. Ewington has written, and in spite of his confident assertion that he has "proved its injustice," I don't believe that we are proposing an unjust remedy. We certainly wish to secure justice for everyone.

I will how deal with Mr. Ewington's misconceptions.

1. He says (May 9) that Henry George "demanded the immediate depriving of owners of their land values." My answer is, that he demands the page 13 gradual taking of all ground rent by taxation. Mr. Ewington proves this when he quotes (April 28) from "Land Question," p. 39, as follows;—"The way to make land common property is simply to take rent for the common benefit; and to do this, the easy way is to abolish one tax after another (my italics) until the whole weight of taxation falls upon the value of land."

2. Another misconception is (May 26) that this taxation of ground rents would make the present owners mere tenants of the State, and deprive them eventually of their freeholds. This I deny, but will deal with it fully in next letter, when writing of rack-renting.

3. A third misconception is (May 16) where he contests Henry George's plea that a man belongs to himself, He assumes that Henry George in this denies that a man owes any duties to his fellows, and then, on that hypothesis, devotes two paragraphs to affirming the contrary, But that is not Henry George's contention; he is thoroughly at one with Mr. Ewington about the social obligations of man. What Henry George denies is not a man's duties to all his fellows, but that he is under any obligation to part with a share of his productions to any section of them for their own individual benefit. He considers that everyone is bound to contribute a share of his productions to the public chest for the purpose of sustaining public services. It would have made the contention originally clearer to your readers, had I inserted the words "equal" and "each," but in writing to a student of Henry George's works it should have been unnecessary, It would then have read, "forcibly contends for the equal right of each man—firstly to himself," etc. This is the sense of the whole chapter commencing on p. 235 of "Progress and Poverty." I believe that we have natural rights; some contend that we have only such rights as the I State allows us. Very well, I don't mind much which view is taken; I only claim that in either case such rights must be equal to each man. If this is refused, then I am anxious to know which class of our fellows is to have the privileges. I am not a candidate for them, and shall oppose others getting them, or retaining any which they now possess.

4. A fourth misconception is shown in a question (May 17) containing a part only of my quotations from Henry George, as follows;—"Is it not incorrect that" the ownership of land will always give the ownership of men?'" "Do the 90,000 freeholders in New Zealand own men?" etc. Certainly it is incorrect, and it is not Henry George's assertion. The question contains a mere fragment of the original statement, which has a very important qualification in it, as follows:—("Progress and Poverty," p. 245,) "To a degree measured by the necessity, real or artificial, tor the use of land; and when that necessity is absolute, when starvation is the alternative to the use of land, then does the ownership of men involved in the ownership of land become absolute," Does it not seem to be a strange method of carrying on a contra, versy, to ignore such a qualification as this, and then to argue as if it had no existence? "The necessity" has fortunately not reached such "a degree" in New Zealand that the land-owners own men, and it is quite unnecessary to "challenge Mr., With y to prove one case in all Australasia where men are reduced to that alternative "(viz., starvation). Apparently Mr Ewington is willing to run the risk of the existing principles of land-owning bringing such conditions about, because he does not believe in the possibility of their doing so, I firmly believe they are calculated to do it, as population increases, and therefore I wish to alter them, and by so doing remove the risk.

But I ask, how far short of slavery are hundreds of thousands in England, where the necessity is many degrees greater? Modern writers, who know their condition, have published facts enough to convince me that they are far page 14 Worse off. If They were really chattel slaves, and not nominally free, their owners would, in their own interest, feed and clothe and house them better than in their present lot. From want of sufficient food and clothing they have dwindled, and cannot now do a day's work; from want of sanitary shelter they die prematurely. Such treatment of his slaves would not pay an "owner;' but free men and women are so cheap, when shut off as they are in England from the alternative of producing a living from land, that this sad condition is permitted by the most intelligent and compassionate of nations, It is ignorance of the economic connection between private land-ownership and the existence of poverty which explains the phenomenon. I am to blame, and so is everyone in the British nation, according to the light that he possesses, for the existence of such an evil. And it we don't admit our responsibility in these colonies, where population is sparse, let us yet beware lest the existence of the same principle here shall bring similar conditions upon our descendants. They have largely developed in American cities long-since, and Melbourne is experiencing something very like them, "To a degree measured by the necessity for the use of land" these symptoms appear wherever land is privately owned. I maintain that Henry George satisfactorily shows that when the necessity shall become absolute, then his illustration of a hundred men on the island would be fulfilled to the letter. "Purely imaginary," says Mr. Ewington. Of course it is imaginary, and is put forward as such. It is a suppootion put forward to argue the logical outcome of existing arrangements if carried to extremes. The inference intended to be drawn is that arrangements which could produce such alternatives as the drowning of the ninety-nine, or the murder of the one, must be very faulty, and must work more and more mischief, the longer they exist, The supposition is directed against the existence of this vicious principle, which has enabled Scotch landowners legally to depopulate large areas in order to make deer parks. Henry George contends that no such power should be placed in the hands of any section of the people, and he wisely uses a supposition to show what its extreme exercise would ultimately lead to.

Mr. Ewington says (May 26), "Georgeism evaporates into thin air under criticism," In all that I have so far dealt with, he has not criticised Georgeism, but his own misconceptions of it. In doing so he has largely confirmed its soundness; and it is really my belief, that if he would carefully and thoroughly study the theory, he would accept it.