created  is  clearly  by  the  law  of  justice  a  public  fund,  not  merely,
because  the  value  is  a  growth  that  comes  to  the  natural  bounties
which  God  gave  to  the  community  in  the  beginning,  but  also,
and  much  more,  because  it  is  a  value  produced  by  the  community ­
  itself,  so  that  this  rental  value  belongs  to  the  community
by  that  best  of  titles,  namely,  producing,  making,  or  creating.
To  permit  any  portion  of  this  public  property  to  go  into
private  pockets,  without  a  perfect  equivalent  being  paid  into
the  public  treasury,  would  be  an  injustice  to  the  community.
Therefore  the  whole  rental  fund  should  be  appropriated  to
common  or  public  uses.
In  the  desired  condition  of  things  land  would  be  left  in  the
private  possession  of  individuals,  with  full  liberty  on  their  part
to  give,  sell,  or  bequeath  it,  while  the  state  would  levy  on  it  for
public  uses  a  tax  that  should  equal  the  annual  value  of  the
land  itself,  irrespective  of  the  use  made  of  it  or  the  improvements ­
  on  it.
The  only  utility  of  private  ownership  and  dominion  of  land,
as  distinguished  from  possession,  is  the  evil  utility  of  giving
to  the  owners  the  power  to  reap  where  they  have  not  sown,  to
take  the  products  of  the  labour  of  others  without  giving  them  an
equivalent.
Thus  it  should  be  clear  that  what  people  need  to  see
in  order  to  incline  them  to  the  single  tax  is  not  so
much  “the  wrong  of  private  ownership”  —a  phrase
which  often  both  violates  and  confuses  their  moral
sense  —  but  “the  wrong  of  the  private  appropriation
of  ground  rent”  —  a  phrase  which  does  neither.
It  does  not  necessarily  follow  from  this  characterisation ­
  of  a  doctrine  as  morally  sound,  that  what  is  right
in  principle  may  not  be  wrong  in  method.  As  to
method,  Dr.  McGlynn  was  in  accord  with  Henry
George  in  his  mature  conclusion,  given  in  his  own
words*  that  “we  can  only  accomplish  the  change  we  seek
by  the  slow  process  of  educating  men  to  demand  it.  In
the  very  nature  of  things  it  can  only  come  slowly,  and  step

♦  “Saratoga  Discussion, 1 ”  1880,  p.  78.