THE Wairarapa Age. MORNING DAILY. SATURDAY, AUGUST 24, 1912. A NEW THEORY.

Wairarapa Age, Volume XXXII, Issue 10702, 24 August 1912, Page 4

THE Wairarapa Age. MORNING DAILY. SATURDAY, AUGUST 24, 1912. A NEW THEORY.

Jt has been left to Mr Arthur Withy, a young gentleman who is devoting his time and energies to an attempt to convince the people of this country that the wholo economic system is wrong, to explain precisely upon what principle the Hon George ! Fowlds bases his Itind reform proposals. Wo were under tho impression that ex-Minister Fowlds was quito capable of explaining his own proposals. Apparently he is not. Mr Withy states that Mr Fowlds holds "that whatever improvements any individual produces on or in the land, and whatever wealth any individual produces from the land rightly belongs to him, and should be enjoyed by him rato and tax free, and free also from toll or tribute of any kind to any other individual." Very well. Will Mr Withy or Mr Fowlds kindly tell us how they propose assessing the improvements that tho individual produces on or in tho land ? Will they concede that tho individual is entitled to tho improvement created by a succession of favourable seasons? Tf they will, do they contend that this improvement has been produced by tho individual? If they will not, arc they going to attack the principles and teachings laid down in Holy Writ? And then as to tho wealth. Mr Withy says that "whatever wealth any. individual producer, from the land rightly belongs to him." Does it? Ts this consistent with the theory of the singlc-taxer? A dairy-farmer may produce a ton of cheese in a season. Who creates tho value of that cheese? It may he worth £-10 a ton one year and £3O a ton the next. Ts it not tho community that has created tho wealth of tho individual? Tf it is, why, if Mr Withy's theory be. correct, should tho wealth produced belong to the individual? The apologist for Mr Fowlds llieri proceeds to argue- that, "whatever value attaches to land by reason of the presence and progress of tho general public, and by reason of this collective expenditure* on pnhlic works and public services, rightly belongs to the public as a whole." Let us eee if it does. Seren-

ty ou eighty years ago, whoa Europeans first came to tin's country, land was practically worthless. Xho presence and progress of iAic general public has undoubtedly created a value in land] but does Mr Withy seriously contend that the increased value, minus the uncertain value created by individu.il improvement, belongs to the public as a whole? Such a proposition would at once be absurd. And as to -fcho collective expenditure on public works and public services. Is Mr Withy aware that the expenditure has already benefited thp community as a whole or was intended to do so? Is he so ignorant of the history of the public works expenditure of this Dominion that ho does n«t know that a large portion of the -expenditure has gone in wages, and that much of it has gone in improving the cities and towns, for the benefit of all? Havonot the community cs a whole already received their fair share of the public expenditure ?Wo do not deny the soundness of tho basic principle that |the product belongs to the producer. But Mr Withy would rssist very I materially in our investigation if ho would tell us just who is the producer. What has Mr Withy himself done, for instance, to entitle him to a share of the benefits which an all-wise Providence has conferred upon another? Tf his theory be correct, the whole fabric of civilisation has been based upon an erroneous conception of the proper order of thing?. We freely confess that the man who produces is entitled to a fair and reasonable share of whit he luvs produced, that is if he can get it. There are so few of us, however, who are in a

position to enforce our rights, that many of us have to be content with what we can get. Perhaps Mr Withy will confide- in us how we can procure what we regard as full value for the money that we expend from day to day. The world is made up of inequalities and apparent anomalies, even the oceans possess amphibious creatures which, in thoir voracity, devour the smaller fish. We cannot fay exactly why it is &o. But Providence hag decreed it, and there the fact remains. We cannot -agree that the community is entitled to anything that it has not produced, and we defy Mr Withy, or Mr Fowlds, or any other person, to prove that tho community has produced all the value in land above what tho individual has created. The value of the increment in land, as, in anything else, belongs to the person wlio is temporarily in possession of it, subject always to the rightful prerogatives; of 'the State.