Page:Popular Science Monthly Volume 52.djvu/528

510 same time. On the other hand, if it be assumed that the title to the farm is the property, and, as such, can be rightfully taxed where it (the title) is, then it stands to reason that the subject of the title, the farm in California, ought not to be also regarded as property and taxed in New York or England. In other words, if the title to the farm is property, then the farm is not really in California at all (unless the owner of the title resides there), but goes out of that State in the pocket of the individual who walks off with the title to it. We have all heard of such a concentration of meat that all that is valuable in an ox for food can be put into a quart can; but such a concentration of property as is here supposed is something much more remarkable; and admits of a man having a drove of oxen in his hand, ten acres of woodland in his hat, a church with a steeple in one coat pocket, and a four-story brick block and a mill privilege in the other.

To the Reader.—As the promulgation of ideas that are not in harmony with long-accepted lines of thought generally provokes controversy and expressions of dissent, which in turn often result in promoting self-education, the author, with a view of furthering such a result, would here ask attention to two letters, voluntarily written, when his views respecting the relations of titles to property were originally advanced by him (some years since) as a contribution to economic science; the first written by an eminent professor in one of the leading colleges of New England; and the second by an eminent merchant of New York, whose knowledge of economics was mainly the result of a long experience in practical business and financial transactions of great magnitude.

No. 1. ":

"You are misled by the term titles, and are not only wrong, but, what is worse, are wrong in a superficial way.

"The real question relates to the nature of credit.

"I buy a piece of land for five hundred dollars and give my simple note for value received. The title to my land is my deed. My note has thereafter no connection whatsoever with the land, but it has value nevertheless. The bank buys it as a piece of property and holds it till maturity for the sake of the difference between its face and its price—i. e., for the discount. Your philosophy does not account for this proceeding; mine does.

"Your assertion is that things of value must have a 'physical quality.' I deny that utterly; nothing has value by means of a mere physical quality. Does not my annual service to the college have a value? I get, at any rate, twenty-five hundred dollars a year for it. I render no 'physical quality' whatsoever.

"My note is worth nearly or quite five hundred dollars, but it is not a title to anything; it is a claim on me. So are all credits—claims merely, not titles at all.

"You say if such things are value we might multiply values indefinitely. No; because we can not sell them indefinitely. So far as we can sell we make values. Even land and merchandise won't sell notes, with all their physical quality. Physical quality has nothing to do with it. The only possible test of property is sale. The reason why credits are more limited in their use than commodities and services is simply that they relate to future time, which is less certain than past and present time.

With a desire to obtain an opinion on this interesting economic question from the merchant, the foregoing note was referred to his consideration by permission, and elicited from him the following rejoinder: