“You said something about a college of “Mundane prognostication,” you have on the moon where you study our affairs and forecast our future. I should be infinitely gratified to know what your learned college has figured out for us—if it is no secret.” “It is no secret at all,” he answered, “and I shall be glad to give you such insight in your future, as our profiles in their present condition afford.”
With this he drew from a receptacle something[71] like a pocket under his right lower wing, a cylindrical roll of paper three inches in diameter, and ten inches long, exactly resembling a roll of profile paper, such as civil engineers use in plotting the profile of a survey for a railroad. Familiarity with such things together with the idea that he intended handing it to me, caused me almost involuntarily to reach out for it, but he retained it in his own hands and began with great dexterity unrolling it, holding the scroll in his right hand, while with his left he rolled up again the unrolled end. As he held these two rolled ends in his front hands a yard apart with that length of the profile open between them, he used his middle pair of hands to point out the various marks and lines on the paper to which attention was directed. I could not help observing what a vast advantage one has with four hands instead of two. When we hold a profile thus, there is nothing left to point with, but the nose.
In plotting the profile of a railroad survey, the engineer uses paper several feet long and 8 to 12 inches wide, covered with fine horizontal lines, running the whole length of it and ruled so close together, that there are from 20 to 50 lines to the inch. Then there are other lines drawn across the paper at right angles to the first, and one-fourth of an inch apart. These last represent distances of 100 feet each; or “stations;” while each of the spaces between the horizontal lines is called a foot. Having the survey of a line of stations with the relative height of each, ascertained by a leveling instrument, the line is plotted on this paper so that[72] its distance from the lower edge of the paper at each station corresponds with the height of the ground at that station. The irregular line thus formed is a fac simile of the surface of the ground with its vertical undulations and irregularities. The engineer then draws a grade line on this profile of the ground, that indicates the position of the surface of the road bed, as he intends it to be when finished. In some places this line is above the ground line and this indicates that here is to be a fill. In other places it runs below, and this shows a cut.
Now the profile that the Lunarian Professor of “Mundane Prognostication” held in his multiple hands (I shall call him the Professor hereafter) very much resembled in appearance that just described, except that instead of only one there were several profiles on this one strip of paper, one above another. In each one there was the irregular surface line accompanied with the more or less straight grade line showing cuts in some places and fills in others. The professor explained these profiles to be graphic exhibits of the state of various human institutions and conditions as they appeared during a continuous term of time beginning in the past, and extending into a far distant future.
After examining these profiles a short time, I had little difficulty in getting the ideas intended to be conveyed by them. They will be readily understood without much explanation. Thus the line of “muscular development” is shown in the remote past as being almost up to grade, but as gradually falling below it in the course of time, then rising[73] again and coming almost to the grade line about the year 2500, but after that gradually falling away again. Selfish instinct, which has always shown heavy cutting, comes down nearly to grade, about the year 7200. While altruistic instinct that regards the common welfare and has been below grade, always, but at times higher than at present, is seen to rise and come to grade about the same time. Health has always shown a fill, often a large one, but gradually rises almost to grade about the year 2500. Crime has always been a cut, but disappears in the future about the same time as theology.
Peace, which is a condensation or composite of all the rest and the end for which they all exist, has always been a fill and always must be until human actions become absolutely instinctive and unconscious, which they never can do until men have been acted upon and molded by habit by every stimulation possible to their environment. Reasoned acts are those which arise from stimulations, that are new or unusual to us, and new stimulations will continue to come as long as knowledge increases or continues to be pursued, or to be thrust upon us. If the accumulation of knowledge should stop, actions would finally become instinctive, and unconscious. This would be complete absence of misery, and also absence of happiness, but perfect peace. So the grade line of Peace is a dead level. Above it is the ragged line of misery always a great cut, and below it is the line of happiness always a fill, somewhat lighter[74] than the cut above the line, and terminating in grade soon after it.
I inquired of the Professor, the principle, upon which predictions of the future were worked out. He replied, that the principles were exceedingly simple, although the actual working out of any scheme of the future involved the consideration of such a vast number of details and conditions, as to render it a labor of magnitude. “Prediction,” said he, “is only past history, projected forward. If we know precisely what happened in the past, our knowledge will include the antecedent causes of the events. Events beget events, and they succeed each other as one generation succeeds another. Knowing the character and condition of one generation and the modifications that have been made in it by its environment, we have the principal data for estimating the character of its successor and so on. The principal uncertainty we encounter, is in the prediction of changes in the environment itself. Thus the invention of a self portable power like steam made the invention of railroads possible and the construction of railroads completely changed the environment of the succeeding generations.
“Now it is difficult to forecast just what particular turn invention will take, but it is not impossible, because inventions constitute a race with generations one begetting another. Knowing all that is known to-day makes it possible to see what this knowledge will lead to to-morrow. The trouble is for one to know all that is known. As I have already mentioned, our own Lunarian history[75] greatly aids us in our study of your future, for we have passed through an experience, which, while it is different from what yours has been or will be, is parallel and comparable with it. And making due allowance for the difference in physical structure of the two races and considering that we are 500,000 years older than you, we have only to consult our past in order to get your future, or something much like it, for many generations to come.”
“These profiles of yours, Professor,” said I, “are evidently the result of much learned detail work and they are of extreme interest and value to the philosophical and scientific student. But to common people the details themselves are more interesting, because they are more easy to be understood and come nearer to the common life. Could you not favor me with some of the future history of our planet and especially of the United States and of the State of Minnesota. Any of the facts that you have prognosticated and from which you have deduced the generalizations that you embody in your profiles, would be of great interest.”
He seemed a little disappointed at this request, as no doubt his habits of thought had made him familiar with and attached to the comprehensive and wholesale treatment of these questions, and he looked upon the detailed story as a means to an end and containing but little interest in itself. But it is easier to generalize from details, than to construct the details. However he complied, observing that he would be compelled to get these details in part from his memory, which however[76] would be prompted and refreshed by the general profile he held in his hands.
“I will take my stand,” said he, “at about the year 2,000 of your era, and then by looking forward and backward along these lines, I think I can recover the principal factors that have entered into their make-up. This will also allow me to give you the descriptions in the past tense as events that have been accomplished up to that time and from that date we will also look forward, for the events subsequent to it.”
It occurred to me that he must be tired of holding the profile so long between his outstretched hands and so I offered to hold it for him awhile, or at least hold one end of it. At that he shifted the rolls from his front to his middle pair of hands, by which maneuver he gave me to understand that he had abundant resources for resting himself without outside help. How I did envy him that extra pair of hands.
He then began as follows:
“The close of the 19th century, was remarkable as being a turning point in American affairs and the beginning of a new era. Previous to that time the United States had been a nation very much to itself. It had kept aloof from the politics of the rest of the world and had no policy in regard to it except to prohibit European nations from meddling in affairs of the western hemisphere or acquiring any further possessions in it. But before the century was out public opinion was accustoming itself to the idea that the foremost nation of the earth ought to take a more active and[77] influential part in the general affairs of the world. The first thing designed to give weight to the influence of the country was the development of a powerful navy. It is power that inspires the consideration and respect of others. It was a favorite idea with many of the leaders of political thought that arbitration might become the last resort in the settlement of international disputes instead of the ancient plan, by which the contestants temporarily laid aside such civilization as they might have acquired, reduced themselves back to barbarism in murdering each other, destroying property, plundering commerce, and often spending more money several times over than the matter in dispute was worth. But even these statesmen saw that a plan favoring peace would come with much more force and authority from a nation having power to enforce it by war, and so all were glad to see the great navy built.
“As the public lands became transferred to private ownership and prices steadily went up, attention was turned to the sparsely settled territories of neighboring countries, and the elements of a great party in favor of their annexation were developed in the ranks of all the parties, at the same time the theories of the land tax advocates received additional attention, especially from mechanics and the manufacturing classes. They reasoned that the increase in the value of land ought to belong to the state instead of to the people who had bought the land, and if the state had that increase, the interest on it would support the government and taxes could be abolished. The[78] enormous amounts raised by taxation came at last from labor, they said, part of it in the way of tariffs on goods imported and consumed by workers and part by direct taxation on the products of labor and even on the means and appliances—tools shops and factories—by which wealth was produced. This mode of taxation they said was, as far as it went, a ban placed upon industry and a penalty upon the creation of wealth. They proposed therefore to take all the taxes off from the products of labor and seize the rents of land or so much of them as might be required for the support of the government, in that way getting the interest on the increase in the value of the land that had taken place since it passed into private hands and which they denominated “unearned increment.” This agitation began in your day—you must remember it.”
The expression “in your day” had at first a singular effect on me. I had quite unconsciously but thoroughly entered into the spirit of the Professor’s method and had gone forward with him to the year 2,000 and followed closely his discussion of things that happened 100 years ago—from that standpoint. The sudden realization that my day had gone by, was startling—“Yes,” I said to myself, “that is so, ‘my day’ has gone by, my existence has been continued over a space during which I have not lived. Memory has nothing to say of it. It is as if I had slept it away. Well if one is asleep, one day to him, is as 1,000 years—aye, eternity!
[79]
“What can hurt him who is asleep? Nothing, unless it wakes him up.”
All this flashed through my brain in an instant and then my attention suddenly returned to what the Professor had been saying. “Remember it? Yes I remember it well. In my day there was a society in Minneapolis called, I think the Single Tax League, devoted to this agitation. Their ideas were those of Henry George, as set forth by him in his able book called: ‘Progress and Poverty.’”
“Yes, well, to the labors of this persistent and aggressive society are to be attributed in a great measure, the radical change in ideas of political economy that soon came about. After much discussion, petitioning of the legislature, agitation in the newspapers, the organisation of auxiliary societies, the presentation of the subject in labor associations etc., the working classes in the cities and even the landless laborers on farms were persuaded that their interests lay in the abolition of all taxes, except those on land. It was not long before these classes constituted a majority by reason of the rapid growth of the cities. As soon as they found themselves in power, they proceeded to get the constitution of the state amended to enable the legislature to release all classes from taxation except those who possessed land. In your day, about half the taxes had been raised from land and the other half from the buildings and improvements on the land and from personal property. It was estimated that relieving the latter half, would simply double the tax on land and so make it about four per cent on its valuation. It was argued that[80] the farmer would experience no change at all, because the additional tax put upon his land would no more than equal that taken off his houses, barns, stock and tools. The only persons who would lose by the single tax would be the speculators, who held unimproved land and were waiting for the labor and improvements of their neighbors to raise its value, so they could sell out and get an increase in value which they had done nothing to earn. As these people were looked upon as a sort of parasites, they were not regarded as having any rights in the matter that need to be respected. All that was necessary in their case was simply to out-vote them. The benefits of the new system it was expected would fall upon the industrial classes especially and directly, but would be shared by all. Manufacturing industries relieved of the repression of taxation, would bound forward like a spring suddenly released. Nothing would any longer artificially limit the production of wealth and the great stimulation it would receive would result in making even articles of luxury so common as to place them within the reach of everyone.
“The land speculating class, while admitting that the rest of the people would be benefitted by the single tax, claimed that it would be done at their expense and unjustly. They had bought the land and paid for it and the state had got the money. With this money, and the interest on it, the state had built the university, the state capitol, the penitentiary, the charitable institutions and innumerable school houses. In other words, they had given the state the interest on their money and taken in[81] lieu of it the anticipated increase in the value of the land. Moreover, they had paid taxes on the land as they would have done on the money, if they had retained it. And so they maintained that the increment in the value of the land was not unearned. It was simply the interest on their money which would have brought a like profit if it had been invested in mining manufacturing, banking or steamboating. They admitted that in some cases this profit had been greater than that derived from other sorts of investments, but in many cases it was far less. They said the single tax meant a confiscation of the land and the resumption of it by the state that had once sold it; because it would very soon, if not from the first, take the entire amount of the rent which would make the fee of the land worthless to the owner. It would no longer be possible to mortgage it or to sell it and the owner would lose his investment and be reduced to a mere tenant, who could hold it only as long as he paid the rent to the state the same as any other tenant, and if it were unimproved, the owner would have no inducement to pay the rent and would simply abandon it. In view of that, they said, that the state should at least pay back the purchase money it had received with interest at the rates prevalent during the time that she had possessed it, or failing that, she should postpone so radical a change or make it gradual by annually increasing the assessment upon land and diminishing it upon other property, and thus consume at least thirty years in making the transfer complete.
“The impatience of the tax reformers would not[82] allow any such postponement as this. They said they did not propose to wait a whole generation to have this wrong made right.
“They said the state never had any right to sell the land in the first place. The people’s ownership therein was inalienable and any pretended sale was void the same as the sale of the property of a minor for taxes, or the sale of a stolen horse. The real owner had a right to take his property wherever he could find it, without compensation to the pretended owner who happened to be in possession as a party to a fraudulent sale. So they held that the people could take possession of their land if they saw fit, but they agreed that it would be better policy, to leave the claimants in possession and merely take all the rents except a small percentage to be left in the hands of the claimants as compensation to them for collecting and paying over said rents to the state. These rents moreover were to be called taxes instead of rents.
“The majority having without serious effort brought about a reconciliation between their logic and their interests, proceeded to put their conclusions into operation. The constitution of Minnesota was amended in due course and the new plan put into execution with much growling and protest on the part of the land owners, but without violence or serious trouble, all the rest of the country looking on with great curiosity.
“The effects very soon began to show themselves. Nearly the whole tax being removed from shops and factories, profits and manufacturing became at once very considerably enhanced. This induced[83] numbers of manufacturers to emigrate from other states and from Europe to Minnesota, and so the population and wealth of the cities increased with unexampled rapidity. By the year 1925, the population of Minneapolis had reached 1,780,000 and that of St. Paul, was over half as great.”
“Then,” said I, “the cities must have grown solidly together and formed a continuous town.”
“Not at all,” he replied, “University and Como avenues, became continuous streets, with good residences. But both cities became compactly built up with tall and substantial buildings for offices, dwellings and factories. Nearly everybody that paid rent lived in flats. These buildings were ten to 16 stories high, fire proof, furnished with elevators, electric heat and light. In connection with many of them, were cook shops, in which the tenants could get their provisions cooked at cheaper rates than they could do it themselves, and save their own time for other employment. A great many women who in your day, would have been kept at home all day to cook the meals for a small family were enabled to seek profitable employment in various kinds of shops factories and offices, or had their time for recreation or leisure.
“Cooking became a regular profession and people no longer cooked for themselves to any greater extent than they doctored themselves. Kindergartens were likewise attached to these great co-operative dwellings, in which those too young to go to school, were looked after in the absence of their parents.
“As mechanics and people of moderate incomes[84] could live not only cheaper, but far better in these buildings, than in separate homes at long distances from the business and industrial centers, as well as enjoying far better opportunities for society amusement etc., they soon came to adopt that sort of life exclusively and separate residences continued to be maintained only by the rich. The growth of the cities continued for many years to be confined to the large spaces that in your day were left vacant far within the corporate limits. People owning such property, were anxious to get it improved so as to get their taxes back in the rents of buildings. Those owing suburban lands and lots soon found that it would be useless to improve them as people would not occupy them till all the more central lots were occupied. Much dispute arose as to the way in which such property should be taxed. At first the assessments of valuation on the lands were as high, as they had been before the adoption of the single tax plan. But it was soon found that the land no longer possessed such value. The value had been prospective or speculative, and people had paid as tax far more than the land would rent for, and held it and paid taxes on it for what it was expected to bring in the future. But now so much of the speculative value was taken out of this suburban land that the owners refused to pay the taxes in many cases, and nobody would buy it at the tax sales because the tax was more than the rent for agricultural purposes, and to buy for the future was like leasing property and paying rent on it for some years before occupying it.”
[85]
“But,” I interposed, “the single tax people in Minneapolis disclaimed the intention of taking a full rental of the land in the way of taxes, but only enough to support the government, and thought that four per cent of its value would do that. As money was then worth 6 per cent and rents would average about the same the owner would clear 2 per cent. This they said would be sufficient to make the owner retain his interest in the property.”
“Yes,” he answered, “that was their notion, but the events turned out very differently.
“When the tax was two per cent and the rents, six per cent, the owner got clear the equivalent of six per cent on two thirds of the value of the property. But when the tax was increased to 4 per cent, he got the equivalent of six per cent on only one third of it. Thus his net income being reduced to one-half of what it was, the selling and buying value of the land was likewise reduced one-half. This made no difference to the tenant paying rent, he still had to pay the same, but, two-thirds instead of one-third now went to the state. But within the corporate limits of Minneapolis, St. Paul and other cities, there was a great amount of unused land, that produced no rent. This unused land constituted about three-fourths of the total areas of those cities and represented one-third of their total land valuation. The very first assessment of the new tax was the signal for the reduction in the value of all this property, fifty per cent or more at once, and every acre was immediately thrown upon the market. By the time of the next[86] assessment the assessors were obliged to recognize this depreciation, and so all this land was returned at half or less than half of what it had been. The loss of tax money thus sustained had to be made up by a higher rate, and the second levy was placed at 5 per cent instead of 4 per cent. This worked a further reduction in the values of unoccupied lots and by the time of the third assessment these lots were estimated as having only the value of farm or garden lands; and so it became necessary to still further increase the rate of taxation, which was now established at six per cent.
“In the meantime it began to be discovered that the owners of improved lots had lost all the money they had invested in them. A certain person who had bought a lot on Nicollet ave., for $40,000 and erected a building on it at a cost of $40,000 more, did not for two or three years discover any great difference in his tax, because although it was transferred from the building to the lot the whole amount was nearly the same. But after the tax assessment reached six per cent, the building was burned down just after the expiration of the insurance policy. The gentleman thought he had lost half of his property by neglecting the insurance, but in reality, he had lost it about all. He could not mortgage the lot for enough to build a house, nor even for enough to pay one year’s tax. Nor could he sell it for one-tenth of what he gave. It was his only on condition that he continued to pay a full rent for it and this he could not do unless he could rebuild. Even if he rebuilt, his net income would be only the interest on the cost[87] of the building, he would get no return for the lot, or at best, but little. Thus the owner found himself no better off than a lease holder. He simply had the first right to pay the rent for his lot in the way of tax. And so it came about that if an owner could not immediately build something on his lot that he could rent to advantage, he simply defaulted on his taxes. The selling of vacant property for taxes became impossible except those lots wanted for immediate improvement, and not even those if several years’ taxes were in arrears. So the collection of back taxes became impossible on all vacant property.
“The effect of the single tax on farming land was much the same. Not over seven-tenths of the arable land in the state was under actual cultivation. Large tracts were held by nonresident speculators. When the increased tax came to be levied, these lands were all thrown on the market. The depreciation in prices of these lands at first brought a considerable access of population, but this soon became checked, because the farmers found that on account of the loss of taxes on these lands, the rates had to be increased and the additional burden fell on the resident farmers. These in almost all cases owned considerable land they did not cultivate, but were saving for speculation or for their children. Often a farmer owing 160 acres, cultivated, but 40. As the burdens fell heavier on this class, they commenced throwing up the uncultivated parts of their farms, so that from these various causes in a few years almost three-fourths of the arable land was without claimants,[88] and of course yielded no taxes. The farmers, then found themselves greatly reduced in wealth, the lands they had counted on as belonging to them, now being thrown out as commons; and even for the acres they cultivated they paid more in the way of taxes than would have been considered a fair rent in Wisconsin or Iowa. Their net wealth was in fact reduced to their buildings, live stock, and tools.
“The lands themselves, they could neither sell nor mortgage. It was not practicable under these conditions to compete with the farmers in adjoining states, and so in a few years, the markets of Minneapolis and St. Paul came to be supplied chiefly from adjoining states. Many of the farmers ruined and disgusted, gathered up what they could and left the state. Others moved into the cities, which were booming, and went into other business.
“There now began to come into the rural districts of the state, two classes of settlers or rather occupants of a different character. The first of these were drovers with herds of cattle from adjoining states. They drove their cattle about from place to place, over the abandoned lands, but never settled anywhere and as cattle were not taxable, and they claimed no land, they paid no taxes. They also escaped taxes at their legitimate homes in other states, because their cattle were conveniently away at assessing time.
“The other class of new occupants that came in, were poor squatters. These brought little or no capital, and no enterprise or ambition beyond enough to supply the essentials of existence. A[89] family of this kind would alight on an unoccupied spot, construct a cabin or a dug-out, cultivate four or five acres of grain and potatoes, and eke out the rest of a living with a few cows and pigs. Little or no tax could be collected from them, and of course little or no public improvements, such as schools, bridges, roads etc., were accomplished where they squatted in any considerable force. In short, it gradually came about that the inhabitants of the rural districts did but little more than sustain themselves. And the state ceased almost entirely to be an exporter of agricultural products. The cities however suffered nothing on this account. They got their supplies largely from the neighboring states, and they became large producers and exporters of manufactured articles, competing in that respect with some of the famous manufacturing towns of Europe; and they became enormously wealthy.
“The question of taxation was however always a difficult one. The lands near the centers of the towns of course were the most valuable. But lands were never sold—only the buildings—and any given lot came to be valued by the kind of building and the amount of business on it. So assessments finally had to be fixed by an arbitrary rule—the rates decreasing at a fixed ratio according to distance from the center of greatest business activity. The rule had a tendency to verify itself by compelling the most valuable business to be done in the places subject to the highest rates, since the less valuable could not afford it. By this rule the rates in the suburbs were low, and since the buildings paid no[90] tax, it often happened that a millionaire living in a $100,000 house paid little, if any more than a laborer living in a $300 shanty. But in the course of time it came to pass that notwithstanding the general prosperity, there were many who were wretchedly poor, made so by bad management, extravagance, indolence, ill health, dissipated habits, disappointment and ill luck. These became squatters in the vacant lands around the outskirts of the cities. They paid no rent and no taxes. It was found that it was useless to evict them as nobody could be found with money who could gain anything by paying their taxes, as long as there was plenty of unoccupied land. There also came to be a positive sentiment against eviction of the poor and so this non tax-paying class constantly increased and finally included many who were able to pay, but who shirked out, satisfying their consciences by the plea that the government had no right to discriminate, and exempt some and not others. These ideas expanded and finally crystallized into a political creed to the effect that a poor man ought not to be taxed for a spot on which to exist and bring up his family. Thus it came about that neither the very poor; nor the very rich whose property was chiefly in fine buildings, stocks, bonds and other personal effects, paid any considerable amount of the taxes.
“The taxes were paid by such of the farmers as had still too valuable improvements to justify their abandonment, and by the mechanics and merchants whose business and whose residences[91] were packed in tall buildings on small areas of ground in the cities.
“The great stimulation of the growth of the Minnesota cities, and their apparently great prosperity, attracted the attention of the whole world and aroused the spirit of emulation in the cities of the United States and of the northern states in particular. In most of the northern states, the city populations controlled the politics of the states, and there developed a violent mania for following the example of Minnesota. There was much opposition from the conservative classes, and the people were warned that a policy that might benefit a small section of the nation, was not necessarily good for all. But it was held by many to be simply a measure of self defense for cities to compel their states to adopt the single tax, since those where this was done, not merely flourished, but flourished at the expense of those who remained under the old method. For they attracted from them, their manufacturing establishments and this was naturally followed by their wholesale trade. The result was that in a few years, all the northern states and several of the southern states adopted the single tax. The effect was not so marked in those that came into the plan among the last; but the first experienced much the same stimulation and rapid growth that distinguished the Minnesota towns, so that in a few years the majority of the population had crowded into the cities. This effect was brought about by the action of two causes. The first cause was the superior attractions of the cities as places for profitable employment and as[92] places for the enjoyment of life. The cities rapidly became socialistic in their policy, and constantly extended the scope of the functions of the government. The municipality soon acquired the ownership of the lighting plants, the water works and street car lines. These were run at first as speculative enterprises, the cities selling light and water to private individuals, but the people soon demanded that these things should be free as the public libraries, schools, university and parks, were in your day. And this was gradually brought about, the cities furnishing at first so much water and so much light and so many street car rides free to each person, and at last taking off all limits, only making the citizen responsible for unreasonable waste. Then the populace demanded free amusements and entertainments and these were provided in the form of the concert, lecture, theater, circus etc. All these things cost money and the tax rates kept getting higher and higher. These were paid in the form of rents on the land, the buildings stood on and of course at once transferred to the rents paid by tenants for rooms, flats, shops, stores etc. Rents soon became higher than they had ever been known before the adoption of the single tax. To lighten these rents in the cities, it was now proposed to increase the rents of lands in the country.”