The Henry George's Debate

Unity Club departed f rom its regular routine last Monday evening by having a debate on the teachings of Henry George. Mr. A. Arnold Clark,of Lansing, stood by George, while Mr. Giles B. Stebbin3 opposed bim. About three hundred people evidently of the most intelligent sort, among whom were many students, listened closely to the argumente on both sides. Mr. Clarke in opening, remarked that he was glad that his opponent was not a believer in Malthusian doctrine, and yet in looking around and finding so much poverty and misery on the one hand, and extravagant luxury on the otber, one could not helD thinking that unless poverty could be abolished, Mr. Malthus was right in his theory that more people were born into the world than it could support, aild sótae had a right to live and some had not. He believed that "all men had an unalienable right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness," but that this could only be secured by the adoptinn of the method proposed by Henry George, viz., to tax land to its full value, lle proceeded to show that no individual gave land its value, but that the enormous increase in that value of land was due entirely to the community, therefore that value should beloug to the community and not to the individual. He further claimed that land was opportunity, and distinguished between opporcunity and property by explaining that a lump of coal ready to put in the fire was property, because industry had taken it Erom the earth and made it available for use, but land under which coal lay was opportunity, for the ownership of it prevented otners from producing coal as they needed it. Thus it happened that a few men over their wine in an elegant room in 2Tew York, could set the price of coal for the month for the 1 whole country, because they controllec the opportunities for producing coa that God had meaut for all, The speaker defined the law of wages and its co-relatiou to the law of rent as pointed ; out by George, and concluded with the i argument that the opening up of nat ural opportunities by the single tax would bring unexampled prosperity, abolish poverty, and euable men to live as God had intended in peace and ttappiness. Mr. Stebbins in replying referred to Henrv George's idea tbat as the world progressed some increased in wealth while otbers grew into deeper poverty and quoted statistics shqwing that there had been a tremendous increase in the wages of the working classes throughout the world, but more especially in this country, that there was a vast iucrease indeposits in saving banks, and tlie great grovvth in the purchasiug power of money now, compared with thirty years ago. Considering these things he contended that poverty was gradually being abolished by the progress of society. IJe procee'led to controvert George's lavv of wages by quotiug statistics showiitg that wages were lowest Ui North Carolina where land is cheap. and highest In ilhode Island and Massachusetls, where land is dearest, while according to George's theory it shouldbethe reverse. He considered that taking it altogether no one ever wrote upon the labor question with such erroneous ideas as Mr. George. iegarding the right to property in land he believed that its value was all the result of personal exertion, and quoted the authority of experts who estimated that it would cost more than the whole value cf the land in {ew York and l'ennsylvania to bring the land ia those status, from a state of wilderness to lts present condition. Hefiirther believed that if the working men of this country were to save the millions of dollars spenteverv yearfor drink there would be no crying about poverty. Mr. Clarke having fifteen minutes to reply explained that he did not mean that the poor were not better off now than ever before, he admitted that a laboier of lo-day was betxer off as far as physical comforts were concerned than a king a few centuries ago, but he believed that facts proved that the gulf between the rich and poor was widening, and man's estáte was becoming more unequal. iïe poiuted out that the value of lands was notowned by the people who had createdthem lor while the whole community created them the few owned and enjoyed them. He entirely undermined Mr. Stebbin's statistics by quoting Cairoll V right as declaring that all statistics upou labor subjects were too utterly unreliable to deduct principies from. He concluded by declaring that while he would be glad to see ihe workers abstaia from liquor, that under existiug sircumstances it was impossible, and if they did so it would only reduce the wages still lower, because seeing that natural opportunities were not open. the law of wages was that they should be as low as ineu could live, and if men lived without liquor, they would be torced to work as cheaply as the average worker's standard of "living. The interest throughout was well sustained and all went away thinking.