A Report on the Single Tax Campaign in Australia
Henry George
[Reprinted from The Standard, 21 May, 1890]
SYDNEY, N. S. W., April 14. 1890. Leaving the town of Forbes
yesterday morning at 6 a.m., and traveling all day by coach (not
stage, for the driver did not understand me when I two or three times
fell into that Americanism) and all night by rail, I have reached
Sydney in time to write a little for the outgoing steamer, which sails
to-day. It disappoints me that I have not been able to write more for
THE STANDARD, but what with the constant speaking, the long journeying
(and it is as impossible to write in one of these railway carriages as
in the stagecoaches), and receptions, I have been utterly unable to
get time for writing.
When I wrote last month I had just arrived in Sydney from a trip to
Newcastle and Maitland. The next day we took the Southwestern railway
to Goldburn, one of the most important of the interior towns, where I
was officially received by Mayor A. T. Ball, taken to the agricultural
fair, banqueted, and where I afterward lectured; thence to
Cootamundra; thence to Wagga Wagga, where there has long been a knot
of active single tax men, W. C. Hunter, a leading business man and
owner of a big lot of unimproved land, who has several times written
to THE STANDARD, being president of the league; thence to Albury, on
the border of Victoria, where we were most hospitably treated. Thence
we went to Melbourne, arriving on Tuesday and staying until Saturday,
when we went to Sandhurst, where I occupied the pulpit of the Rev. Mr.
Keith Mackay in the Congregational church on Sunday evening, and
lectured on Monday evening; thence to Echuca, a Victorian border town
further west and further down the Murray than Albury; thence to
Ballarat; thence to Gelong; back again to Melbourne; thence by express
to Sydney.
Leaving my wife in Sydney, as the journey, at the rate we were to
push through it, would be too hard for her, I went from Sydney into
the electorate of the president of the single tax league, Mr. Charles
Garland, M. L. A. I next visited the electorate which Mr. Frank Cotton
contested on single tax principles at the last election, and will
contest again at the coming election. I was accompanied by Mr. Garland
through his district, and by Mr. Frank Cotton and Mr. F. O. Furner, a
Goldburn merchant and most ardent member of the league, for the whole
way. I spoke in Blaney, Carcoar, Cowra, Green fell and Forbes.
Tomorrow (Thursday) we start for South Australia, and are due to
arrive in Adelaide on Saturday and to lecture on Monday. We shall go
as far as Broken Hill, the great silver mining district, which,
although within the borders of New South Wales, is most conveniently
reached from Adelaide, and then expect to return to Sydney early in
May. Our further programme I will not finally decide on until after
this mail is gone, when I can have a chance to talk to the committee
here; but I am afraid I will have to give up going to New Zealand,
much as we would like to visit that country and to talk with some of
our friends there, particularly with Sir George Grey. But the season
is getting late, and the trip, unless we were to abandon the idea of
returning by way of Europe, involves 8,000 miles of extra voyaging
(besides the coasting, which is the only means of communication for
the greater part of the islands) through a sea specially tempestuous
at this time of the year.
Beside the New Zealand trip our New South Wales friends want me to
spend another month speaking in this colony. I have received urgent
requests to go to Queensland, and have received warm invitations from
the premier and attorney- general of Tasmania to pay that colony a
visit, and I shall very much dislike to leave this country without
getting leisure to see some men and things that constant speaking and
traveling have as yet given me no opportunity to see. So that to get
home in anything like the time I wish a good deal must be cut out of
the programme of things which in themselves I would like to do. We
shall probably sail for home via Suez not later than the early part of
June and get home by September.
In New South Wales the political division is between free traders and
protectionists. In the colony of Victoria there is at present no
political division at all, the protectionists having it all their own
way, and the government being administered by a coalition cabinet, the
nominal free traders of which are content to accept the protective
policy as a fixed fact. The free trade party in both colonies has been
the party of the large land holders, and is of the brand of free trade
which journals like the Evening Post of New York represent in
the United States, while the democratic sentiment in both colonies,
and earliest and strongest in Victoria, was diverted to the
protectionist party. In Victoria protectionism in this shape carried
all before it. In New South Wales it came up later, but uniting all
the forces of discontent came at the last election within one vote of
securing a majority in parliament and the control of the government.
The protectionist propaganda in New South Wales has been energetic,
enthusiastic, unscrupulous; and their papers evince a recklessness of
assertion and a power of evolving such facts as suit them that might,
if that were possible, put even the most reckless of our protection
journals to shame. For instance, when I spoke at Newcastle the crowded
meeting broke up with three cheers for Henry George and three cheers
for Mayor Christie, who had presided. The local protectionist paper
reported that the meeting had adjourned with three cheers for the
queen and three cheers for protection.
Into this struggle, which would ultimately have made New South Wales
as protectionist as Victoria, came the single tax. Here, as in the
United States, many of the men who first took up our ideas, in part at
least, were protectionists, and there came the same internal struggle
as to whether anything should be done or said that would prevent
anyone from acting with us and being at the same time a protectionist.
This was decided in New South Wales when at a conference the name of
the association was changed from that of Land Nationalization
Association to that of Single Tax League. Fewer in number, but freed
from dividing and demoralizing complications, our friends threw
themselves into the struggle as straight out free traders, and their
efforts undoubtedly turned the scale at the last election. The effect
of my coming here has been to accentuate their attitude in this
respect.
On the one side the revenue tariff free traders, while they recognize
our usefulness in the present, are afraid of us, and on the other hand
the whole protectionist rage is being directed against the single tax,
and they are denouncing not merely the free trade side of our
teachings, but the whole, and attacking the single tax as bitterly as
the most devoted adherent of vested wrongs could do, thus more quickly
and more clearly drawing the line, not between protection and a
revenue tariff, but between protection and the single tax, and adding
their weight to the forces that are pushing our principles into
general discussion. The effect is already to be seen. I hear of
numbers of men, who have heretofore called themselves free traders,
who are going over to the side of protection as the best available
resistance to the single tax, and on the other hand I meet and hear of
men, who have heretofore been protectionists, who are joining our
ranks. The movement thus commenced has only to go on somewhat further
to make the single tax men the free trade party and to drive the
revenue tariff free traders who will not go with it into the
protectionist ranks.
Although our people here are desirous that the next election shall be
postponed as long as possible, in order to give the influences that
are now working our way as long a time in which to operate as
possible, the general expectation seems to be that an election will be
called very soon after the meeting of parliament, and be held within
the next two or three months. But so clear does it seem now that an
election would result in a sweeping protectionist defeat that they may
deem it the part of wisdom to so moderate their parliamentary
opposition to the present government as to induce it to go on with the
majority it has at present. In this case two steps in the direction of
the single tax are expected by our people from the present government.
One, the abolition of some of the present tariff duties, and the
imposition of some small tax on land values, and the other, still
more, important, the adoption of a local government bill, which shall
provide for the organization of local governments where none now
exist, and which shall give to these local governments, wherever they
elect to do so, the power of exempting all improvements from taxation,
and of wholly levying their rates on land values irrespective of
improvements. A bill of this kind has already been drafted by the
government, but is defective in a clause which is open to the
interpretation of requiring improvements to be rated. But there seems
to be little doubt, that this will be amended either on introduction
or in committee. The effect of this measure in intensifying the
discussion of the single tax and in pushing home the thin end of the
wedge would be most enormous.
All the cities and towns of New South Wales are stunted by land
speculation and land monopoly, and exhibit most glaring instances of
the folly and injustice of taxing men for improving, and letting the
holders of idle land go free. In this respect they are worse than we
are in the United States, for there is a provision in the existing law
which requires that where land is rented its actual rent shall be
taken as the basis of valuation, and the owner of the most valuable
vacant land in or about a city or town has only to let it for a few
shillings as a cow or goat pasture to escape with a merely nominal
tax. The passage of the measure will not only bring the principle of
the single tax into immediate practical discussion and action in every
existing municipality, but it will force the question directly upon
the farmers, who, being for the first time brought into the sphere of
direct taxation, will be called on to decide whether their
improvements shall be taxed, or whether the tax shall be levied on the
value of land alone. What their decision will be where they
preponderate is certain in advance.
In Victoria my reception was not as warm as in New South Wales, for
there protection has been worshipped as ardently and has reigned in
public opinion and expression as unquestioned as ever in Pennsylvania.
In New South Wales, for instance, I have yet been to only one town,
where I was not received by the mayor, and in that case the mayor was
absent. In Victoria, I had the honor of being received by a mayor in
one case, that of Mayor Carol in of Sandhurst, who met me, drove me
round, and after my lecture there, entertained us with a large party
in the town hall. Not merely has the protectionist sentiment there
bitterly opposed us, but, with the exception of Echuca, on the border,
the only organization we have is in Melbourne, and this is in the land
nationalization stage, being largely composed of protectionists, and
the single tax men among them having hitherto been indisposed to take
any position in opposition to protection, as hopeless at present.
Nevertheless, we were received by a cheering crowd when the train
halted at the Melbourne station, and when Dr. Maloney, president of
the Land nationalization society, drove us up to the hotel in his
carriage, we found there a large assemblage, among them a number of
men whom I have long known as friends of our cause. Mr. Robert Jones
of the Oarleton grammar school made an address of welcome, which was
afterward presented in beautifully illuminated form.
I lectured in Melbourne for three nights in the large town hall to
splendid audiences, which far exceeded my anticipations, and which
increased, being even larger on the last night than on the first. If I
can trust my own impressions, or accept what our friends said, these
lectures produced a deep and strong impression. Our best friends were
at the first very much concerned about my attitude toward protection,
but they were delighted afterward, and told me that they never
believed it possible that any man could stand up before a Melbourne
audience and attack protection as I did, and not merely be heard to
the very end, but carry the feeling and enthusiasm of the audience as
I did.
When I got to Melbourne I found that, without any consultation with
me or authorization from the committee in Sydney who have had charge
of my lecturing here, a general challenge had been issued to any
protectionist to debate with me, and that several having indicated
their readiness, the secretary of the Land Nationalization Society had
written to the Trades Council, a body like the Central Labor Union of
New York, asking them to name some one to meet me in debate, and that
they had thereupon named Mr. Trenwith, a member of the Victorian
parliament. Not merely was it no object for me to meet any one in
debate unless he should be clearly recognized by the protectionists
and protectionist papers as a fitting representative of their
doctrines -- which was not the case with Mr. Trenwith, [v.-horn] they
commenced to discount in advance -- but in the programme that had been
made for me no time for such a debate had been alotted. I stated
privately and semi-publicly at the Celtic Club, where I was
entertained after my [tirat] lecture, that this challenge had been
without my authorization and consent, and was led to suppose that the
matter would drop there. But on the night of my last lecture I was
told that this debate was generally expected, and so at the conclusion
of the meeting briefly stated what I had stated privately -- that I
had given no authorization for such a challenge, that there was no
time for such a debate, and that I was not disposed to make the
implied assumption that the labor associations were the official
champions of protection. Mr, Trenwith thereupon asked to speak, and
complained bitterly that he and the Trades Council had been led to
suppose that I would debate with him, saying that he had been reading
up for the purpose. So finding that some of our friends were very much
afraid of the use the protectionists would make of the matter by
claiming that I was afraid to meet a protectionist, I consented to
give to the debate the only night which was within my power, the
following Monday evening, on which our Melbourne friends were to have
given me a banquet.
The debate accordingly came off in the Exhibition hall before a
crowded audience, which, though for the most part protectionist, gave
me their heartiest applause, and so laughed at Mr. Trenwith's alleged
facts and preposterous assertions that I did not have to trouble
myself to reply to them, but could occupy my time in pressing home the
general principles, which, when once fairly considered, will destroy
the protectionist superstition in the mind of any one who thinks at
all.
My conclusion from my trip in Victoria is that protectionism is there
a shell, and that, if our friends will come out boldly and attack it,
a free trade party can soon be formed which will bring life into the
stagnation of Victorian politics.
In Echupa, on the border, we met some thorough-going single taxmen,
who have formed a single tax league, and have reprinted some of our
STANDARD tracts.
The Rev. D. Badger of the Baptist church met me here, and the mayor
presided at the lecture, Mr. Badger winding up with a ringing,
thorough-going single tax speech. But of our friends there and in
other places I must take some other opportunity to speak, as I must
close this now.
|