PRIVATE PROPERTY IN LAND 103
ownership of land, in the most positive terms; and he is right.
. . . To haggle about the difference between possession
and ownership of land is mere word-catching. But Mr. George
uses the term “ownership” (i. e., private ownership) in the
most positive way. Neither he nor myself sets up absolute
ownership. Therefore, it follows of necessity that the only
ground of difference between the advocates of the single tax
system, who concur with IV^r. George in admitting the absolute
necessity of private ownership of land, under suitable conditions,
to whiclr all shall be subject alike, is as to the conditions under
which that private ownership and possession shall be granted,
and under which peaceable possession through all time and
through all transfers shall be sustained by the whole power
of the State. . . . In the present discussion, it has appeared
that Mr. George and myself agree:—
1. That there is no absolute ownership of land under the
English common law. We agree that what individuals now
possess is “an estate in land,” which is subject to many conditions.
These conditions may be varied. . . .
2. We agree that the individual possession of land is necessary
to productive use, in order that humanity may be sustained;
in other words, that the land must be impropriated. ^
And so, with Henry George, we insist that the real
controversy in hand is not over the question whether
private property in land is right or wrong, but whether
in law and in morals private ownership of land should
or should not include the private appropriation of
ground rent, the annual value of the land and —if it
should —what ought to be the limit of such
appropriation.
The contention of the single tax advocate is that
this limit is to be found in the dictates of justice rather
than in the letter of any ephemeral statute. On this
Point, above the utterances of agitators and economists.
