The Third International Conference

To Promote the Taxation of Land Values and Free Trade

J.W. Graham Peace

[A statement written on behalf of the English Commonwealth Land Party, presented at the International Conference in Copenhagen, Denmark and published in Land and Freedom, September-October, 1926]

The one thing certain about the Third International Conference to promote Taxation of Land Values and Free Trade, held at Copenhagen, Denmark, July 20-26th, 1926, is that it was not in any sense of the word a "Conference." Those in control, The United Committee for T.L.V., London, saw to it that no opportunity for an exchange of opinion, or for any discussion, was permitted. It was clear from the start the intention was to secure, if possible, that no word of criticism of the terminology and method to which land-taxers are wedded should be heard; and this notwithstanding certain prominent taxers have declared that "taxation of land values is the wrong name for the right thing"! As in the case of the earlier "Conference," that held at Oxford, England, in August 1923, members of the Commonwealth Land Party attended under the impression that they, as Georgists whose only crime, if crime it be, is that they are making public opinion for the immedate application in full of the principle for which Henry George gave his life, would be welcomed as co-workers, who, while differing as to method, seek the same end viz., the economic emancipation of all men the world over. We had hoped to see an agreement upon a formula that would have united Georgists everywhere, and led to their fighting the common enemy instead of fighting each other. To this end we had submitted a Declaration of Principles, which we were assured would go before the Conference. This assurance -- in writing from the !' ommittee, and with it an invitation to the present writer to speak at the opening session. That the Danes were sincere in this matter is not to be doubted; but they were overruled by the United Committee, whose object is the promotion of taxation of land values; the advocacy of a political expedient not the assertion of a moral principle.

The difference between the two points of view is fundamental. On the one hand the Commonwealth Land Party everywhere seek to assert the equal right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness; and with them are the Danish League of Justice (Retsforbundet.) They demand the immediate restoration of the land, and without any payment whatever. The method being the collection in full of all the rent of all the land right now. In opposition to this forthright demand for economic freedom the land-taxers advocate the partial, step by step method of taxation, a method with which Liberals, Tories and Laborites in English politics can agree, since it leaves to them power so to control the application in practice as to prevent any taxation being imposed. Again, the taxation of land values in practice now is being denounced as a failure by many prominent and sincere advocates of that policy who, after more than 30 years experience in Australia and New Zealand, have been convinced against their will. With both logic and experience against them, the land-taxers persist in opposing all suggested change in method, being enslaved to an out-of-date and incorrect terminology.

So fearful were the taxers lest a straight vote on the question should leave them in a hopeless minority that an attempt was made to secure a pledge. One excited official of the United Committee, flourishing a form in his hand, roundly asserted that those who ventured to differ had "no right to be present for every member of the Conference has signed this pledge to support the taxation of land values." The gentleman was mistaken. No pledge was asked of the C. L. P. members, nor would they have consented to be bound. They went as free and unfettered members of a conference having on its badge the word "Liberty!" But it was not long before they learned that "Liberty" was only for the badge.

As a concession to the protest of the American and British C. L. P. members at Oxford, a Resolutions Committee was appointed this time, but the value of the concession was discounted by the fact of the Committee being nominated by the President, not elected from and by the Conference. Later it was discovered quite by accident that some addition to the committee had been made without mention to the Conference; the chairman having unguardedly stated the figures of a certain vote.

The Resolutions Comrrtittee rejected the Declaration of Principles, and refused to allow it to come before the members for discussion. This caused them to abandon the Oxford Declaration, which the U. C. had thought to get re-affirmed, and so a fresh resolution had to be found. This was drawn up hurriedly just before the close of the proceedings, and submitted to a gathering the members of which had no copy in their possession, and consequently, could not possibly know what they were being asked to commit themselves to. Something was declared carried, but until the official report appears it will not be known what it was. Readers of LAND AND FREEDOM will be able to judge of the value of any "Declaration" made in such circumstances. Similarly, they will be able to appreciate the true position in regard to a resolution to form an International Committee for Taxation of Land Values which was passed just as blindly. Afew copieswere in typed manuscript for the use of the platform; no one else being supplied. As these documents may yet be published to the world and action sought to be taken upon them, we think it only right that the actual facts should be recorded. At best they have the support of a minority of a Conference which did not confer, and only voted in confusion, and without clear information upon which to form an opinion. A number of interesting papers were read, but no discussion took place upon them. A certain liveliness arose on a motion to adopt the concluding paragraph of one of the papers as a resolution of the Conference. An amendment to substitute the words "Collection of the annual value of land" for the words in the original: "taxation of land values," was moved, and gave rise to an excited debate, at the conclusion of which a vote was taken. The amendment was lost, 19 voting for and some 40 odd against. Encouraged by this success the dictators became more confident, and more intolerant. Having prevented the chairman from calling upon the present writer to speak at the opening session, a flagrant attempt at "suppression" -- their own word was made when, later, his name was upon the printed programme of the day for an address upon "Landholding in England." He was second on the list; and was to be followed by the Assistant Secretary of the United Committee. This gentleman, who was really responsible for the treatment meted out to the critics of the taxation method, did not wait to be called by the chair, but jumped to the desk the moment the first speaker had concluded, and commenced his talk on "Land Values Taxation in Practice." It was much upon the lines of his paper at Oxford, where he was promptly corrected by delegates from the United States in possession of the facts. He is concerned to promote the T. L. V. and in his zeal omits to mention the growing evidence of the failure of that method now accumulating on all hands.

In his eagerness he overreached himself for, by rushing in before ourselves he provided us with an opportunity of correcting him, and supplying information on the other side of the questions. Thanks to the intervention of Danish friends, the chairman had his attention directed to the programme, and we were called upon in spite of the determined effort of those concerned to shut us out. The action was noted and had its effect upon fair-minded members who were there to seek truth rather than bolster up some pre-conceived notion.

So bitter was the feeling against the C. L. P. that the official in question did not hesitate to charge that we "had only come there to cause trouble." A childish and petulant accusation, the absurdity of which would be apparent to all the Conference, for, had it been true, the "trouble" easily would have arisen much earlier in the proceedings. To criticise, he would appear to think, is evidence of a desire to cause trouble. With this, we can quite imagine the Moscow triumvirate and their fellow-Socialist Dictator, Mussolini, would be in complete agreement. But, after all, principles are more than persons, and the great truth that Henry George served so well will triumph in spite of the mistakes and even the opposition of some of his followers.

The next exciting incident occurred in the final session. Here the issue was virtually the same "collection of rent" versus "taxation." An amendment was proposed but was ruled out by the chair, who suggested that an appeal from this ruling could be taken. This was done and the Conference decided by a very close vote, indeed, to sustain the ruling and so no discussion took place. Then followed a division on the question of deleting certain clauses from the Resolution to form an International Committee for Taxation of Land Values. Here the conduct of the controllers in preventing all discussion was seen to have had the inevitable effect. Instead of a vote of 19 the figures were 38-38. The platform was alarmed and after a hurried consultation the chair declared no figures, saying the secretaries could not agree. A second vote was taken and once more the figures were 38 each way. A further consultation while the audience awaited the declaration of the result and the President said: "The chair declares an equal vote; the chair will not vote." A Ballot was called and we of the C. L. P., convinced of the futility of forcing our view upon an incurably hostile minority decided to let them get the vote; the writer with several friends abstaining from voting. The result of the ballot was for the amendment 45, against 47.

There was no resolution against Land Purchase. At Oxford, it was only on the motion of the C. L. P. of America and Britain, in face of the official opposition of the United Committee, that an expression of opinion condemning a proposals to purchase land was carried. This time we left it to the U. C. to go on record that they do not oppose.

What comes of the Conference? Two vitally important
things!

First: The closer co-operation between the Danish State of Justice Party and the C.L.P., whose policies are identical This, alone, was worth going to Denmark to secure.

Second: The formation of an International to promote Land Restoration on our lines.

This latter step was taken only after it was clear that the United Committee would not depart from its terminology and method of "taxation." Our readers will be afforded fuller particulars in due course, as soon as the provisional Committee charged with the duty of making necessary preliminary arrangements, and upon which the C. L. P. has representation, is in a position to report. We anticipate great things from this step, and only regret we could not persuade all Georgists to come in with us. Since, however, it is clear that some are concerned to promote the taxation of land values and not to demand liberty through justice, our ways diverge, and each group must be free to work in its own way.