protecting life and property, and administering justice, and, as it is extremely difficult to apportion exactly benefits received, for all these the real test of what should be given in return is the ability of the payer.

tax

The tax on the increase in land value, provided it does not take the whole or a large portion of the increase, imposes little burden upon the landowner whose land increases in value. Such is in some ways like the inheritance tax, which imposes little burden upon the heirs because the means of paying the tax is in the nature of things already furnished. Leaving aside the question of an absolute rule or norm for taxation, and saying that no such norm exists, such a tax comes under the statement sometimes made that taxation is not exact but only a question of pulling the feathers with the least amount of squawk from the bird.

An additional merit of such a tax is that it cannot be shifted but must be paid by the landowner. This may not be apparent, because rents advance because of the increasing demand for land. Says Seager:

"If the land tax is small, the rise in rent-which would have occurred in any case-may reimburse landlords for the tax and give them the impression that they are shifting it to their tenants. What they are really doing, however, is paying it themselves by foregoing the larger increase in the income they derive from their

land, which would have been theirs had no land tax been imposed. The conclusion to which we are brought, therefore, is that a land tax must be paid by landowners because it tends neither to increase the demand for land nor to reduce the supply, and it is only by increasing the demand or reducing the supply that the tenants generally can be forced to pay higher rents."

In conclusion it may be said that, unlike the proposed single tax, the tax on increased land values is not a single one, but is accompanied, as it should be, in both Germany and England, by other taxes. This tax, also, does not lay the entire burden of the expense of government on the landowner in the interest of reform. Neither does it confiscate nor abolish the right to private property -that incentive to work and saving which is said to change sand into gold-an institution which, whatever its shortcomings, has, on the whole, made for progress. The tax is in the same category, leaving aside the question of the unearned increment for a moment, as the income tax and the inheritance tax, being based, as they are, on the ability to pay. Then on the side of the unearned increment it is based on realized gains; it has both financial yield and social justification, for the state takes only some fraction of a gain to which itself has contributed.

The experiment across the water will bear watching and, if successful, the fact of being

"made in Germany" should be no bar to its adoption by us.

Since the above paper was written, in the spring of 1914, many changes have taken place in the world. The tax on the increase in land values, like many other things "made in Germany," has gone by the board. In England the enforcement of the land-value laws met with determined opposition. The attempts to proceed with the valuation of land and to enforce the laws were discontinued in 1920, on the ground that the expenses of administration exceeded the revenue. The cost of valuation was about double the revenue received. Whether this tax will be revived in England is a question. The need for more revenue, however, is a marked feature of all governments the world over. The tax on the increase in land values is based on ability to pay; it cannot be shifted; and, unlike the single tax, leaves the owner of the land the larger part of the increase in value. These reasons, and the further fact that increase, especially in cities, is largely due to social factors, point to the future use of a tax on the increase in land values.

VIII

THE STEEL STRIKE REPORT

N important document and, because of its

AN

source, a unique one, is that entitled The Interchurch World Movement Report on the Steel Strike of 1919 (New York: Harcourt, Brace and Howe. 1920. Pp. 277). The data for the report were obtained by and for the Commission of Inquiry, consisting of Bishop F. J. McConnell, G. W. Coleman, Alva W. Taylor, Mrs. Fred Bennett, D. A. Poling, Nicholas Van Der Pyl, John McDowell, and Heber Blankenhorn. Bishop W. M. Bell and Bishop C. D. Williams acted in an advisory capacity, and although they did not take part in the active field investigation, signed the report after full examination of it and the evidence on which it was based. The number on the committee and the fact that all signed the report ought to give it some validity.

Concerning the investigation, it is said that those parts of the evidence obtained directly by the commission were secured through personal observation and through open hearings held in Pittsburgh, supplemented by inspection trips in western Pennsylvania, Ohio, Indiana, and Illinois. More technical and detailed data were obtained by a staff of investigators working under a field director from the Bureau of Industrial Research, New York. Other evidence was obtained directly by the Bureau of Industrial Research, by the Bureau of Applied Economics in Washington, by a firm of consulting engineers, and by various other organizations and technical experts working under the direction of the commission. The results are presented in a main report with subsidiary supporting reports. Pertinent phases of other investigations and surveys, including government studies, the recent findings of the Senate Committee on Labor, evidence on the limitation or abrogation of civil rights before and during the strike, were collected and analyzed. The relation of "welfare work" to the workers was determined, chiefly by the analysis of available statistics. A detailed analysis was made of the relation of the press and of the pulpit to the strike, fields hitherto neglected; and a similar analytical study was made of companies' "under-cover men" and "labor detective