WHETHER it meets approval or not it is quite evident that the Georgeist movement has left the apostolic stage and, at least in one phase of its development, has entered into what somewhat resembles the higher criticism. In other words an attempt is being made to apply the scientific method of investigation. There is a conviction among the followers of Henry George that, in his treatment of land, he laid the basis of a true Science of Political Economy and it is reasonable to expect that it will be so accepted when a sufficient amount of proved data is furnished. Another closely related viewpoint is that the movement has not progressed, that it has made little impression upon scholars and business men and that this may be due to some inherent defect of presentation. Whatever the reason or motive there are many forward-looking minds who are carefully, and we believe impartially attempting both appraisal and analysis. Is there any possible justification for doing other than approve these efforts?

In Progress and Poverty Henry George says: "I pro- pose in this inquiry to take nothing for granted but to bring even accepted theories to the test." This of course referred to the theories of others accepted at that time. Would he deny to those who came after him the same right to test his theories? Again he says: "I propose to beg no question, to shrink from no conclusion but to follow truth wherever it may lead. Upon us is the responsibility of seeking the law." Shall we, his followers, close our minds on account of our convictions? What are our responsibilities? In our reading of Henry George and in our thought of him we feel that had he lived, he would have gone on, and with his marvelous mind, would have given us a higher criticism which now must be furnished by others. If we have what we feel is an understanding of the man he would have begged no question even if his most carefully thought out principles were subject to examination.

However, within the movement, there is no criticism of the philosophy of Henry George. If Georgeists do not stand for equal rights to the use of land then nothing developed from this concept is to be considered.

Any such criticism would be like amending the purposes of the Constitution, as such an amendment could only do away with the instrument itself. Nor, without the same result could Georgeists eliminate his fiscal measure, "A Single Tax on Land Values." The wording may be open to criticism but not the idea. We are aware that the Single Tax is not a single tax and technically it might be better expressed. We prefer to advocate "The Payment of Rent for Public and Social Services." Nevertheless this expression and such expressions as "No Taxes" or "No Taxation" connote something entirely different to the public mind. Calling the Single Tax a misnomer only confuses and is negative in its effect. The words "A Single Tax on Land Values" convey an accepted meaning which has had its place for sixty years. We have never been offered a real improvement on this phrase, and if one is ever offered there will be a question of its value when it is realized that the public must be educated all over again to the same idea.

There can be no question then among Georgeists as to his basic philosophy or his fiscal measure. There may be differences of opinion as to ways and means of carrying out or applying his principles and it may be of utmost importance that a correct appraisal of the effects of land value taxation be determined as far as possible. We cannot adhere altogether to methods of the past. The Henry George School as a development of the educational method is an evidence of this. The present may need even different treatment and the future still new ways.

The fiscal reform is not so self evident as is the philosophy and there should come a clarification as to how that which we stand for can effectually be applied. We are forced to admit that there is much confusion as to the mechanism of the payment of ground-rent and also the nature of ground-rent itself. Much has been written but the subject needs simplification. Our higher criticism would be well within their field if it were explained to the layman wherein fertility enters into ground-rent. This will be of particular interest to the cultivator of the soil who knows that fertility must either be written off each year or replaced as an operating expense.

Our higher criticism might also straighten us out on Interest. We know that this has become a subject taboo among certain Single Taxers notwithstanding the fact that George says: "The returns are Rent, Wages and Interest." Some seem to think he said rent, wages and the rate of return on loans. We have an idea that this interest which George says is a return, has nothing directly to do with loans and nothing whatever to do with loan rates. Some dismiss the subject saying that when the Single Tax is in full operation interest will "tend to disappear or disappear altogether." We hope they are not right in this because we feel that if this is so capital will disappear also, and wages will then surely tend to a minimum.

Our higher criticism might also tell us the difference between government ownership of land and government empowered to collect 100 per cent of ground-rent. At present the individual owns land only to the extent of title in fee and this is not absolute ownership. By what process may society, even with its authority, endow its creation, the state, with rights, inherently denied to any of its members. We are told that when land is "free" the ground-rent will be determined by the higgling of the market, that is by the bid-and-ask method. In this case we ask who will make the proffer, and it is somewhat incongruous that under this freedom the government should levy on ground-rent. Incidentally, in a free market, what will be the duties of the assessor?

THOSE who believe in the Science of Political Economy may need enlightenment and those whose business it is to administer the public revenue not only now but in time to come will need a clear understanding of the fiscal side of what Henry George so clearly outlined in principle. In his preface to Progress and Poverty George says: "What I have most endeavored to do is to establish general principles, trusting to my readers to carry further their application where this is needed."

Over the doors and in the literature of a large public service corporation we find the following:

"Progress is assured in this system by a large group of scientists and experts devoted exclusively to ways and means for making its service better."

In a spirit, not of controversy but of true research we feel that Georgeists should welcome the higher criticism.