.


SCI LIBRARY

Review of the Book:


Ground Under Our Feet: An Autobiography of Richard T. Ely
by Richard T. Ely

Robert Clancy



[Reprinted from Land and Freedom, March-April 1939. Ground Under Our Feet: An Autobiography of Richard T. Ely, published by The MacMillan Co., New York]


Richard T. Ely has been to the Georgeists almost as much of an "enfant terrible" as Hearst has been to the Communists. Perhaps a glance into the lives of our "enemies" would disarm us a little. For a biography and especially an autobiography reveals, after all, a human being with a typical human life-pattern. A perusal of Ely's account of himself in "Ground Under Our Feet" may dispose us more kindly toward him. For instance, he opens thus:

"I was born before the Civil War. I have witnessed a panorama of events which has thrilled, saddened, inspired and ever kindled in me a burning desire to set the world right. I have been guided in my efforts by the philosophy that "the beginning and end of all is man." In my youth I was branded a "radical" for saying things which are today commonly accepted. This does not mean that the problems of the days of my youth have vanished. On the contrary, the conflicts raging today are essentially the same conflicts; between labor and capital, between government and industry; but they are being fought on a different plane. Technological advances have brought into view the possibility of abundance for all. Yet we do not have abundance for all. Therefore the battle rages between those who have and those who have not. Technological advances have resulted in a growing interdependence of human beings. Our economic relations are more and more closely interwoven, and more and more it is "one for all and all for one." Failure to act on this means disaster. If we apply ourselves intelligently and sanely to the problems of today we can look forward to a future worthy of man. If we unleash the forces of hatred, selfishness and brutality, we can look forward only to destruction."

Ely evidently has been motivated by high-minded purposes. Perhaps we should be more tolerant. But on the other hand, how can this man who wants to set the world right, this specialist in land economics, the very title of whose book suggests a prepossession with land how can he dismiss Henry George's contribution to these problems so curtly?

"Because I was conscious of my own integrity, I could not see my way clear to advocate the Single Tax. For this reason, they thought that I must have lost my way; they suspected me of selling out to the interests, especially the real estate interests. The advocates of the Single Tax said, 'Here we have applied Christianity. Follow Henry George in his eloquent and moving plea for a new and better social order." Yet it seemed to me that the natural rights doctrine of Henry George was thoroughly unscientific, a belated revival of the social philosophy of the eighteenth century. I believed that the economics underlying Henry George's pleas was unsound."

Let us admit a high-minded purpose. Let us refuse to question motives. But that stereotyped professorial slam that's what rankles the Georgeists.

George's "panacea" was to Ely one of the many typical cases of "a false Christ who would arise, mislead the multitude and cause endless destruction."

Immediately after this "criticism" of George, Ely tells us that in casting about for wise guidance he found a great deal in the Mosaic legislation.

"In the Mosaic law, land was not to be regarded as a commodity, for the final ownership was God's. 'The land shall not be sold forever, for the land is mine.' It was to be used by the earthly owner for home and subsistence. Speculation in land, buying and selling for gain, was absolutely inconsistent with the spirit of the legislation. If poverty necessitated it, temporary possession could be given with widely extended rights of redemption."

[Sic/] Does George say more? But Ely catches himself in time: "Although these ideas are sound in principle (italics mine), they were never carried out. In modern complex society they could not be carried out any more than in primitive Israel [sic]. But, if we cannot apply these laws to the letter, we must aim at the spirit for which they stand. It will require our best brains, with all good will, and we must remember that 'the letter (of the law) killeth, the spirit giveth life.'"

What else is George's proposal to socialize the rent of land and permit the land itself to be used by individuals, but an application of the spirit of Moses to "modern complex society"? And how else would Ely prevent "speculation in land, buying and selling for gain?"

Ely's unsympathetic attitude toward George has its basis in his approach to economics. When he proposed the founding of the American Economic Association, in the 1880's, its central idea was to be "that the dogma of laissez faire should be abandoned by our leaders." His program "emphasized historical and statistical study rather than deductive speculation," which marked a decisive break with the classical school, and which he joyfully considered an "emancipation."

The written prospectus of the Association, however, did not suggest such a complete break, and Ely's colleague, S. N. Patten called it to his attention. Patten said, in effect: Why don't you admit it? We don't believe in the old-fashioned idea of freedom. "It seems to me that the very object of our association should be to deny the right of individuals to do as they please, and that of course is restricting trade." (Is this one of the things, radical in those days, but "which are today commonly accepted?")

Further on in the book, Ely tells us "I have always recognized that we do not have natural law in the economic world, and that economic laws are different from the laws of external nature." He groans at the slip he once made in comparing economic tendencies to the law of gravity. But he feels consoled because such great economists as Malthus and Walker also made the same mistake. Walker's error, it seems, was in considering Ricardo's law of the increase of rent a natural law. Ely informs us that as society grows "we have relative over-production, and we have a fall in land values and unearned decrements rather than unearned increments in the rent of land."

These assertions, I think, sufficiently explain why Ely does not feel favorably disposed toward George.

Later on, Ely founds the Institute for Research in Land Economics and Public Utilities. The motto is "Under All, The Land." In speaking of the aims of this Institute, Ely says, "The poverty that results from bad utilization of the land and that passes on from generation to generation is evident to every careful observer of what is taking place in city and country. Countless needless tragedies exist. They can be seen on every hand in the struggle of men who cultivate poor farm land and in every city in the efforts of men and women to pay for the land that in a generation will not be worth the price paid." (Unearned decrement!)

Apparently Ely sees no connection between poverty and bad utilization of land on the one hand, and a system that permits land monopoly and land speculation on the other. Still, the purpose of the Institute "is to join in the labors of those who are striving to abolish poverty and hope in time to achieve their purpose."

We earnestly suggest that Prof. Ely again read Henry George's works, with an unbothered mind; that is, forgetting for the moment that Georgeists and Ely do not mix, and keeping in mind that Henry George's works were undertaken for the same reason as his own, to eradicate poverty.

We hope that Prof. Ely will do this, and we will gladly hold our tongues the while.