APPENDIX B 
169 
ance upon the land question. In it Is declared his belief that 
the greatest of all iniquities is the private ownership of land, 
together with his explicit endorsement of the single tax doctrine 
of Henry George. 
The utterances of this world-famous man, heralded far and 
near, are likely to foster the misapprehension that the aim of 
both Henry George and himself is the destruction of private 
property in land. 
I, therefore, beg, with only a word or two of comment, to 
call critical attention U> one of Tolstoy’s statements, leaving it 
to the reader to make his own interpretation of its meaning. 
Notwithstanding Tolstoy’s unequivocal declaration that “the 
soil must be restored to the people,” and his reiteration of “the 
wrong of private property in land,” the conclusion that he 
would destroy the private ownership of land must be, it seems 
to me, a mistaken one, and out of harmony with both his text 
and context. Henry George specifically arraigned the institu 
tion of private property in land, as it now exists. He con 
demned that feature of land tenure which necessitates the inva 
sion by taxation of the otherwise sacred right of private property 
in the products of labour in order that ground rent may con 
tinue to inure mainly to private benefit. Hence, it must be 
submitted that what Tolstoy had in mind was private property 
in land “ as now existing.” The length and breadth of George’s 
proposed remedy, to which Tolstoy gives full endorsement, was, 
in Mr. George’s own words, “I do not propose ... to con 
fiscate private property in land. . . but to appropriate rent 
by taxation.” (“Progress and Poverty,” Book VIII, Chapter 
2). In the enjoyment of every other “right and privilege” of 
tenure, the right to “own, possess, buy, sell, devise and 
bequeath” excepting only the one privilege of the private 
appropriation of rent, Mr. George’s specific declaration was 
that the land owner should be left undisturbed. The following 
paragraph is from Tolstoy’s “A Great Iniquity”: 
“A member of the English Parliament, Labouchere, could 
publicly say, without meeting any refutation, that ‘he was not