The Gisborne Times PUBLISHED EVERY MORNING MONDAY, JANUARY 21, 1907.

Gisborne Times, Volume XXV, Issue 1984, 21 January 1907, Page 2

The Gisborne Times PUBLISHED EVERY MORNING MONDAY, JANUARY 21, 1907.

Ir appears that the “shadow hunt’’ must continue, unprofitable though it bo, for we arc told in a further contribution from our Single Tax contributor that we have made “no serious attempt to demolish” his “facts and arguments.” Well, when we showed plainly' enough that his “dogmatic assertions” were copious, and that his statements, which were intended as arguments, were so contradictory as to refute themselves, there was nothing more left for us to do, unless, to please our contributor, we accepted his assertions as arguments merely because they bore the siamp of dogmatism, which he now coolly tolls us is the natural production of sincerity and nothing more, and that dogmatism is a sufficient substitute for argument. He goes further, and admits that dogmatism is a necessity in tire Single Tax propaganda. That being so, it is almost useless to argue further with him, for the sun} total of his argument amounts to this, that because Single Taxers hold an emphatip belief the mere forcible pronouncement of it ought to be sufficient to convince others without the use of further argument. Admittedly his whole case rests upon that plea, and until he realises that sensible, unbiassed people require something more tangible upon which to build their opinions and information, it will be useless to continue the discussion. We never hud finy doubt as to the sincerity of Single 'Taxers; but tli3 fact that Henry George believes a thing most implicity and honestly is not sufficient reason why any other man should accept that belief without substantial reason. Yet this is what our correspondent expects, and ho accuses editors of being slaves who are not free to express their holiest convictions because, forsooth, they do not bow down to the dogmatism of the Single Tijxer in opposition to the dictates of their mature judgment. “Where,” lo asks, “is there a free editor? Are they not all compelled to bow down and worship before Mammon tjie god of the monopolist?” And wo emphatically answer No to the latter question, while to the former wo reply that, speaking for ourselves (and that is as far as anyone should he c-xpected to go), wo are as free as air to express what opinions may he expressed within the limits of truth and reason, and if Single Tax dogmas would but come witliiu the length of

that tether the monopolist does not exist who could suppress our advocacy of them. But they do not come within roach of that chain—tho only one with which wo are bound ; nor do tho Singlo Taxors help us to grasp thorn. Rather do they obscure whatever little reason is contained in their extravagant notions by dogmatising and trying to force upon us a belief upon which they are not themselves agreed. For proof of this assertion we take up that remarkable book, tho “Clue to the Economic Labyrinth,” and on the first page (20o) opened up promiscuously, without any reference to the index, wo read : “This wage fund idea is also the foundation of John Stuart Mill s ‘Principles of Political Economy.’ It it likowise at the bottom ol: Ricardo s fallacies, and of hundreds who followed those beacon lights into the. eddies of a disastrous shipwreck. 1 use these last words with full deliberation, as an expression of my firm opinion that, these teachings have helped more than any other cause, to retard our advance by obscuring tho real problem, and thus preventing its enilier solution.” And in the page preceding that quoted we read : “Oho spell has been destroyed which was thrown over this problem (speaking of over-production) by tile false theories of celebrated economists of tho Adam Smith, Matthews, and Stuart Aiill type; an artificial veil which more than anything else lias hindered an earlier penetration of tho seeming mystery.” In another part of tho book (page 64) tlio writer boldly asserts that “Land taxation would not prevent land monopolisation,” and the four succeeding pages are dovoted to proving that “Land taxation would not put an end to tlio abuses of landlordism,” in which he says: “Henry George’s plan would not in tlio least increase tlio financial sacrifice of such pui-chasors. They would have to' buy only the. improvements ,as the unimproved value ' f the land disappears in consequence of the tax, and this tax would not bo higher than the present interest on their purchase money.” Therefore, in order to refute one Single Taxer wo have only to quote another, anu yet our contributor reckons that editors and others ought to bo such simpletons as to accept as gospel tho bald unsui>ported assertions of one of liis persuasion who is contradicted by another. It does not interest us at all whether Air. Alassey would be benefited or impoverished by tlio Single Tax, because our care is not for tho individual, but for the community, and when we are convinced upon logical grounds that a tax paid by one section of the community is not a fair one, tlio instincts of common justice demand that it should be resisted.