nd to prevent them
from being monopolized for the benefit of a few.

The fact maybe alluded to, that even under widespread competition the
holders of the most favorably situated and richest lands, mines, etc.,
receive a benefit which in absolute equity should be divided among all
men. But the vastly more important matter of the monopolies which
prevent the public from obtaining the benefit of the natural resources
to which it holds an inalienable title, so overshadows such trivial
injustices that they may be neglected. So much attention has been called
of late, however, to the fact that land as a gift of Nature should, if
absolute justice were done, have the benefit from its use equally
divided among all men, that something further on this subject may be
said.

Let us first note the fact, which no one will dispute, that the title
held by the public refers only to the "site value." The value of all
improvements which are the product of labor belongs to the owner by
natural right. Now it is conceivable that of the total value of
$10,197,000,000 at which the farms of the United States were valued at
the last census, $7,000,000,000 may perhaps have been the value of the
land apart from the value of the buildings and improvements made since
the country was settled. In 1880 there were at least 3,500,000 farmers
who owned agricultural lands. It is a well-known fact that the holding
of agricultural land in large parcels is the rare exception. We may
reasonably conclude, therefore, that the "site value" held by each
farmer was about $2,000. This is the sum which in absolute equity is
said to belong to the public at large. But let us reflect that each
farmer has only received a small proportion of this $2,000 through the
increase in the value of his land. The fact is that the land which at
first was actually valueless has increased in value with each
generation, and it is this increase alone, apart from the increase due
to the betterments, after which the public has any right to inquire.
Remembering the number of sales and changes in the ownership which take
place in this country, how often the benefits which have accrued to a
single property are divided up among a number of heirs, and that each
owner represents on the average a family of three individuals, it seems
reasonable to suppose that this increase in the "site value" of each
farm may have been divided among twenty different persons. Thus, while
the statement may be mad