The Gisborne Times PUBLISHED EVERY MORNING TUESDAY, JANUARY 29, 1907.

Gisborne Times, Volume XXV, Issue 1991, 29 January 1907, Page 2

The Gisborne Times PUBLISHED EVERY MORNING TUESDAY, JANUARY 29, 1907.

'Wtikn we crossod swords with our Single Tax friend and replied to the few coherent statements contained in jiis long dissertation, wo had no idea ol following him into the complete maze of incoherency through which be lias dragged bis Single Tax red herring of which there is nothing now loft but the scent and the bit of string that binds him to it. That scent still lias its fascinations for him, though it does not possess the aroma that Noah smelt when lie got out of the Ark: yeti it is encouraging to observe that even the scent is fading, and that our ardent Single Taxer is now getting oil to another and a saner theme inaugurated by Mr. lan Ingersoll. Mr. Ingersoll’s theme lias the niprit- of being brief and to the point, and he lays down his postulates in clear and concise language in a way that our Single Taxer would do well to copy it he can ever hope to make converts by any other means than by giving people a surfeit of Words meaningless and contradictory. For hours we have studied the logic of these words, and all that we can gather from them is that money is not wealth, and rent, interest, and wages are not money; then wo want to know what aro they all, and amid live or six columns of closely printed matter there is no answer to be found except that wages aro sometimes paid in other commodities than money. And because that is so in poor and uncivilised countries where a system of barter is adopted for the want of money, we arc asked to assume that a retrogression to that condition of things would bo an advantage to the human race provided we call it Single Tax which is our friend’s sacred shibboleth. ‘ Now let us test the logic, of his words once more, and it will be seen that where ho attempts to be explicit he only succeeds in deluding himself and perhaps one or

two of his renders. “I quite fail to understand,” ho says, “how n style of dogmatic or positive assertion can necessarily ho contradictory ol itself.” Wo liovor said it was. And lio adds “I am equally unable to understand how a stylo of dogmatic assertion proves tlio want of thought so necessary to a logical conclusion.” We never said that either. AVhat wo did say was that “lie adopted a style of dogmatic assertion that is so contradictory of itself as to prove the want of thought, etc.,” whieli is a very different tiling from wliat lie tries to make us say ; but ibis is only another instance of tlie specious character of bis argument.. Now if “money is not wealth,” and “rent, interest, and wages are not, really money but wealth,” it logically billows that the laborer who is paid in money cannot become wealthy, whereas if lie is paid in potatoes or bread or something that lie can eat lie becomes wealthy—a strange doctrine this,truly ; but let us follow tbo argument another step. “Money is simply tho moasuro of, value and a medium of exchange,” wo are told, and “rent, interest, and wages aro not really money, but wealth.” Then let us ask who is tbo wealthy man? It cannot bo tho man who possesses money only for “money is not wealth.” No, the wealthy man is ho who possesses “rent, interest, and wages,” for, to repeat our Single Tax friend’s words, “rent, interest, and wages aro not roally money, hut wealth,” Ergo, tlie man who possesses rent, intorest, and wages is the wealthy man. But how is lie to possess them? If most men (not Single Taxors) had their way they would possess them in tho shape of money ; but this tho Single Taxor cannot permit, and the workman must receive his wages (wealth) in “the products of labor” if lie desires to become wealthy. (Instead of a Savings Bank account therefore be will have a barn full of potatoes and other perishable things, and ho can fancy himself a wealthy man, though he can’t sell them for money unless ho wants to part with his wealth before it rots. Such is tho gospel of the Single Taxor and ho will talk and write and write and talk in that strain until he thinks he has convinced somebody. But who can be convinced by such folly? And when ho finds that volubility is not the sole essenco of common sense, nor Single Tax tho unerring panacea for poverty, he is willing to turn to the schemes of Mr. lan Ingorsoll or some other equally obscure gentleman who is not a Single Taxer and adopt his schemes without pretending to give up his own though really forced to do so by tho insufficiency of his own arguments. It is obviously impossible to follow the gentleman’s multitudinous, unsupported, and illogical assertions, and it must suffice to say that wo would traverse some more of them wore it worth while, for it is hopeless to argue with a man who could say that we have relied upon one irrelevant, issue “for the utter defeat and ruin of the Single Tax cause,” when we not only answered effectively 'every shred of argument that ho used that was not mere padding, but quoted a Socialistic work of the highest standing and latest date to refute t-lie Single Tax theories ; but of that he conveniently takes no notice, and we have cause to regret tho amount of space that has been wasted on the subject.