HENRY GEORGE IN SYDNEY.

Waikato Times, Volume XXXIV, Issue 2769, 12 April 1890, Page 6 (Supplement)

HENRY GEORGE IN SYDNEY.

(from our own correspondent.) Henky George is the sensation of the moment. The reception which has been accorded, and the enthusiasm which his utterances have evoked, bear convincing testimony to the fact that deep down in the heart of our colonial humanity there is more thoughtfulness, and more conscientiousness than we are apt to imagine. This is the chord divine which is touched by noble statements of noble truths, truths which to the eye that is not blinded by ignoble aims, shine in their own self-evi-dencing light. "The law of justice is the supreme law of the world. Whatever a man produces by his own exertions from the matter and forces of the universe is, and ought to bo his, against all the world. That which does not accord with justice must bring injury, that which does accord with it must promote the best interests of all," So far have we deteriorated from the days of ancient Rome, when fiat justitia ruat coelum was accepted as a truism that such simple truths as these sound almost like a new Gospel. But there are the seven thousand ready to receive them. They have taken root, and I doubt not, in spite of the opposition and coldness with which they are received in other quarters, will yet givi a good account of themselves. From the axiom that every man is entitled to what he has himself produced flows naturally ana simply the doctrine that the community is entitled to what it has produced ; that is, to the value which is given by its presence to the land on which it carries on its operations. When the community, therefore, in the person of its duly appointed officers needs money for public purposes, and proposes to take it by taxation, it should first take that which has been produced by itself in preference to depriving its members of the fruit of their individual exertions. Suum cuique—each to his own—is the unchangeable truth or law which is at the bottom of it. Those to whom the care of the public interests has been confided cannot safely ignore the rights of the public on this matter. As well as taking that from the public which is deemed necessary for public purposes, it is obviously their duty to secure for the public that to which it is justly entitled, and any neglect in eithor the one or the other must be productive of injustice and wrong, and therefore of oppression and misery. In the latter case, that which is for the public benefit is perverted to the public injury, with consequences which ars forcing themselves more and more strongly on public attention.

Such, as it seems to me aro tho cardinal teachings of the American economist and orator. As to their practical application, that he wisely leaves to the good sense of the people who adopt tlieni. For my own part it seems to me equally self-evident that rights which have been long slept upon ought not, even if it were possible, to be enforced with suddenness or violence. The progress of tho principle of taxation of land values must necessarily be gradual. As long as it is not completo, there is room for discrimination also. The good sense of communities which have imposed an income tax makes exemptions in the case of porsons of a small income, although, in one aspect of tho rigid logic of the case, they sliould be equally liable with others. Ho also the good sense of communities which commence to tax land values will exempt, partially or wholly, those whose occupancy of land tends most obviously to the public good, and will endeavour to make it press most heavily upon those who use the land as a means of extortion, and who do not make an adequate return for the revenues they exact. The householder, the fanner, the gardener—all in short who, by their own effort, make the land productive and thus add to the common wealth, will be regarded with a favourable eye in the ratio of their productiveness to the lind which they hold. Those who monopolise land without rendering it productive in order that they may profit by the increment of value which is produced by the labours and presence of others will be selected as t.lie proper mark for the heaviest taxation. The public good, in short, in this case, us it ought to be in all others, will be the linal test and criterion, rather than any narrow and technical adhesion to formulated doctrine. However, all this is for the future. At present, although delighted crowds enthusiastically applaud Mr George's lectures, there is a great deal of opposition. It ranges from the open and undisguised hostility of the mere land-grabber, who fears that his prey may be snatched from his teeth, to the jealousy of other reformers who see in him not a clear-minded thinker and co-operator, but a competitor. Teetotallers distrust the " Single-tax," because they think it would abolish taxation on liquor, and thus conduce to drunkenness. Protectionists distrust it because they think that under it our iron-workers and agriculturists would be exposed to the unrestricted competition of the cheap labour of other countries. Revenue tariffists distrust it because it proposes to abolish custom house?. Socialists, Anarchists and other innovators positively hate it because it promises to accomplish the end which they are seeking without interference with individual liberty or individual property. In regard to all these Mr George is a veritable [shniaol. His hand is against ovory man and every man's hand is against him. But the central truth which he maintains is potent enough to prevail against all of them. The right of the community to the value which the community has created is incontestible. The number who see it is increasing daily and they will soon be numerous enough to compel the legislature to make some move in the right direction.

I am still, however, of opinion that the title "Single-tax" is an unhappy one. It challenges opposition, which is really uncalled for. Suppose a movement were to be made in the direction of taxing unimproved land values. I''or years, probably for a generation, perhaps for a century, it would fail in appropriating the whole value. *Jtill more would it fail in providing sufficient revenue for the requirements of tho country. As a beginning we could not hope for mure than W to Id in the £, and that with liberal exemptions to small and productive hoMeiv. This would only form a fraction of tliu vast sum required for revenue purposes, and the balance would still require to be raised by methods in which all shades of political or fiscal opinion would have their say. As a matter of fact Mr George is as in>:ch opposed to revenue taritiisin, which is supposed to be the present nyatem of the colony, as lie is to t'rotdctionisii). There is therefor", no more reason why Protectionists should oppose him than the so-called Freetraders. Mr George, in fact, is at one with the former in their end, which is the good of tho country. The only difference that I can see between them on the tariff question is that he insists on looking at things as they ought to be. The latter deem it more in consonance with the fitness of things to look at them as they are. As to theory Mr George is unapproachable. If commerce were really the benevolent interchange of commodities which he deems it; if skilled labourers could abandon their callings and take to agricultural labour without individual distress or national loss, if a now market could be assured for the vast increase of raw material, which would thus be raised, protection would have no reason for its existence. It would be as much out of place us the idea of warlike preparation for defence in a general millenium. Hut until this comes to pass like the army and navy, it'will continue to have a good deal to say for itself. Both our political leaders, Mr Dibbs and Sir Henry Parkes have taken advantags of Mr George's visit to Sydney to make political pronunciamentoes in the country districts. Their utterances seem superficial and commonplace beside tho more profound questions which are now agitating men's minds. They may be, and very likely are, better adapted to tickle the ears of the groundlings. Astute politicians don't spend a lifetimo in haranguing voters to no purpose. If they can't guage the exact intellectual and moral capacities of the various " Buncombes " they address no one can. It seems trivial and contemptible stuff. But here again we are face to face with the difference between what is and what ought to be. If audiences .vero more intelligent or more conscientious they would demand mental pabulum of a higher order. But whilst Mr George can attract audiences of five or six thousand nightly, (every one of whom pays for admission and comes thrtmgh the pouring rain) as ho has been doing since his arrival, there is no just ground for despair.