Volume 2 July 16, 1887

Page 1

 

A Further Statement From Dr. M’Glynn

Letters of the Propaganda and of Archbishop Corrigan, and a Talk with Dr. McGlynn

At the request of The Standard, Dr. McGlynn has consented to make public for the first time the letter of Cardinal Simeoni, prefect of the propaganda in Rome, repeating the summons to Rome, with the threat of excommunication if he should fail to obey. It was delivered to Dr. McGlynn by a messenger of the archbishop on the evening of the 22d of May, as the doctor was entering the Academy of Musicin Jersey City to deliver his lecture, “The Cross of a New Crusade.” Dr. McGlynn placed the letter in his pocket. to be read at a more convenient time, and up till now, wishing to keep his own counsel and leave to his clerical enemies and persecutors the work of publishing to the world his letters and his affairs, has neither acknowledged nor denied the receipt of it. The letter is in Latin. We give here the original, with a translation:

S. Congregazione Di Propaganda,

Segreteria. N. 2,041.

Rev. Dno. Eduardo MacGlynn, Presbytero Neo-eburacensi: Reverende Domine—lis quae inm culpa tua contra auctoritatem archiepiscopi Neo-choracensis adiniseras, deplorandus nobedientia actus accessit, quo ipsi venersandae Summi Pontificis iussioni diei 17 Januarii 1887 morem gerere vanis excusationibus detrectasti. Quod licet instam pracberet, causam illico in te puenis animadvertendi; tamen benigne ne misericorditer tecum agendo per prasesentem unicam monitionem, loce trinae habendam, praefigitur tibi peremptorius quadraginta diorum terminus a dio receptionis harum literarum compa tandus, quo Romani advenire et corain hac Sacra Congregatione te sistere omnino debeas, sub pocna excommunicationis ipso facto et nominatim secus incurrenda. Spem fovet Sacra Congregatio te officii memorem monitioni huic dociliter obsecuturum, et opportunum auxilium tibi adprecatur a Domino.

Datum Romao ex aedibus S. Coug’nis de Propaganda Fide, die 4 mensis Maii anno 1887.

[Seal] Joannes Card. Simeoni, Praefectus,

D. Archiep. Tyren, Sec.

Translation.

To the Rev. Mr. Edward McGlynn, Priest, of New York—Reverend Sir: To those things which through your fault you had committed against the authority of the archbishop of New York has been added the deplorable act of disobedience, by which you, with vain excuses, have refused to do as you were ordered even by the venerable command of the supreme pontiff of the date of the 17th of January, 1887.

Although this would have given just cause to inflict penalties upon you without delay, yet, dealing with you benignantly and mercifully, by the present single monition, to be held as it’ ii were the triple one, a peremptory term of forty days, to be corrupted from the day of the receipt of these letters, is prefixed for you, within which you must by all means come to Rome and present yourself before this sacred congregation, under pain of excommunication, to be incurred by the act itself, and also by name, if you should fail.

The sacred congregation cherishes the hope that, mindful of your duty, you will with docility obey this monition, and bogs for you from the Lord the opportune assistance.

Given at Rome from the building of the sacred congregation de propaganda fide, on the fourth day of the month of May, in the year 1887. John Cardinal Simeoni, Prefect. Dominick, Archbishop of Tyre, Sec.

A representative of The Standard asked Dr. McGlynn if he would make any comment upon the letter. Dr. McGlynn said that the letter contained several perversions of fact and calumnies against him, which it was a sad thing to see in a document coming from one of the highest representatives of that see which is called the chair of truth.

“The first words,” he said, “imply a calumny, when the letter speaks of those things which through your fault you had committed against the authority of the archbishop of New York. Now,” continued Dr. McGlynn, “the only thing that I could, with any show of truth, be said to have done against the authority of the archbishop was my attending and making a speech at Chickering hall on the first of October last, although he had the day before, by letter, positively forbidden me to do so. As appears from my statement in The Standard of Feb. 5, I gave him in a letter several grave reasons why I should keep that engagement, and while in my own mind denying his right to forbid me, to avoid a conflict I consented to make no more speeches during the canvass. The reasons assigned by me were that, as I had made the engagement before receiving his letter and had been very extensively advertised to speak, my failure to keep the engagement would precipitate a public scandal and be of grave injury to the cause, and would be in the nature of a breach of contract, which I did not feel at liberty to make, and something very different from what would have been if I had simply declined, when invited, to attend the meeting. While I still deny the right of the archbishop to forbid me as he did, I have to say that the technical offense of disregarding his positive prohibition was punished by a suspension from my ministry for two weeks, which was seat to me by letter the very next morning. I respected the suspension, and only at the end of the two weeks did I resume the exercise of my ministry. Now, it is a wise Italian legal proverb which says, “An offense punished is an offense pardoned,” and therefore it were hardly fair of Cardinal Simeoni, if this is what he alludes to, to complain of the things which. I have ‘committed against the authority of the archbishop of New York.’ But, of course, the one-sided and numerous letters against me to Rome from Archbishop Corrigan must have filled Cardinal Simeoni’s mind with impressions of all manner of acts of disobedience to the archbishop and want of respect for, and even contempt of, his authority on my part I confess that as I could not admit the right of the archbishop to inhibit me as he did, I was not called upon to give any but the narrowest technical obedience to the letter of his command, and that only from the prudential reason of avoiding a scandalous conflict. I therefore freely gave interviews to newspaper writers, and to counteract the effect of the political manifesto addressed by the archbishop’s vicar general, Monsignor Preston, to Joseph O’Donoghue of Tammany hall, and scattered broadcast at the doors of Catholic churches the Sunday before the election, and also as a protest against the denunciations of Mr. George and his party from Catholic altars, and against the abuse of the confessional to coerce men from attending their meetings, I visited in an open barouche with Mr. George many of the polling places on election day. This latest letter from Cardinal Simeoni, which I am now considering, again grossly misrepresents me and distorts the facts when it speaks of ‘the deplorable act of disobedience by which’ I, ‘with vain excuses have refused’ to obey the the ‘venerable command of the supreme pontiff, of the date of the 17th of January.’ This command was a n order sent in the name of the pope by Cardinal Simeoni, directing me to proceed to Rome at once, but it must be remembered that the very day before a telegram had been sent by Cardinal Simeoni, which was published by Archbishop Corrigan in his statement six days later, as follows: ‘Give orders to have Dr. McGlynn again invited to proceed to Rome, and also to condemn in writing the doctrines to which he has given utterance in public meetings, or which have been attributed to him in the press. Should he disobey, use your own authority in dealing with him.’ The command to retract the doctrine of the equal right of all God’s children to the general bounties of nature simplified my position exceedingly. I could not, without sinning against my conscience in retracting the known truth, and therefore sinning against the Holy Ghost, have obeyed this brutal command. I had given a final utterance on this subject in a letter to Archbishop Corrigan, on Dec. 20, in the following words: ‘My doctrine about the land has been made clear in speeches, in reported interviews and in published articles, and I repeat it here. I have taught, and I shall continue to teach, in speeches and writings, as long as I live, that land is the rightful property of the people in common, and that private ownership of land is against natural justice, no matter by what civil or ecclesiastical laws it may be sanctioned, and I would bring about instantly, if I could, such change of laws all the world over as would confiscate private property in land without one penny of compensation to the miscalled owners.’ Now, surely it is no ‘deplorable act of disobedience’ to any legitimate authority—that is to say to any legitimate use of authority—to refuse to retract a scientific truth, clearly perceived, when such retraction is demanded by people in authority who have never themselves condemned the doctrine officially, and who, at the moment at which they are demanding retraction of me, confess to others that they have never even examined the doctrine. Bishop Keane of Richmond wrote to me from Rome a letter dated the 17th of January, the very day of the receipt of this telegram of Cardinal Simeoni which I am discussing, in which letter Bishop Keane assures me that he learned from Cardinal Simeoni that he had never examined the doctrine. For me to go to Rome under the circumstances without obeying the positive order to retract, would have been to go on a fool’s errand. It must be borne in mind that up to that time I had never refused to go to Rome, nor had I denied, as in a statement some weeks afterward I did deny their right to summon me to Rome under the circumstances. All that I had done in the matter was to inf o rm Archbishop Corrigan, and through him the propaganda, in the letter of Dec. 20, of which the archbishop told me he had sent an accurate copy to Rome, that I found that I should not be able to go to Rome that there were several personal reasons, any one of which must be sufficient; that I had had reason to feel concerned about my health for some time, and that my physician ordered me not to undertake the journey; that I had not the necessary pecuniary means, and that several very young children of my lately deceased sister needed my presence and support. It may be well to remind the public that my physician was the eminent Dr. Shrady, and it may be permissible to state the fact that I was at the lime troubled with a very serious heart affection. In his answer to this Archbishop Corrigan, brutally ignoring the grave reasons which I had given, said, ‘Your note of the 20th inst. brought the painful intelligence that you declined going to Rome.’ To make more clear, if possible, the truth of the fact, which is now forgotten or suppressed by too many, that the retraction of economic .doctrines was the one essential condition of dealing with these people on any other footing than that of a mere criminal to be punished, it is well to quote from the same letter of Archbishop Corrigan of December 29. Of these doctrines he says: ‘In view of such declarations to permit you to exercise the holy ministry would be manifestly wrong. Unless you withdraw them, as I hope and trust you will, the censure now in force will be prolonged, ipso facto, until the receipt of the letter of instruction from Cardinal Simeoni, now on its way to this city.’ This letter of Cardinal Simeoni reproached me severely for my former utterances for the land league and for my public adherence to the doctrines of Henry George, which, be it remembered, he later confessed he had never examined. And so what this cardinal calls ‘vain excuses’ were the gravest duty of conscience to the truth, and the other grave personal reasons which it was monstrous to dismiss as vain and frivolous.

“I still deny, as I did in my statement of Feb. 5, ‘the right of bishop, propaganda or pope to punish me for my actions as a man and a Citizen in the late municipal canvass, or in other political movements. I deny their right to censure me or to punish me for my opinions in political economy unless they can show that these opinions are clearly contrary to the teachings of the Christian religion. This they have not shown, and I know that they cannot show it.’ I repeat what I said in the same statement, and in a previous letter to the archbishop, that ‘in becoming a priest I did not evade the duties nor surrender the rights of a man and a citizen.’ What I further said in the same paragraph of the quoted statement is so pertinent to the present subject that I think well to quote the remainder of it entire: ‘I have not appealed to Rome from the judgments of the archbishop, and I have no desire to do so. I deny the right of bishop, propaganda or pope to order me to Rome. The vow of obedience of the priest, of which so many absurd things have been said within the last few weeks, is simply a promise to obey the church authorities in matters concerning the priest’s duties of religion. It were monstrous to imagine that this promise has not clear and well defined limitations. My obligation, taken as a student of the propaganda, was not, as some seem to imagine, to go wherever and to do whatever that institution should see lit to command, but simply to return to my native place, and there devote myself to the ministry of religion.’

“Having long since publicly denied the right to summon me to Rome, I felt no scruple in disregarding even the last peremptory and threatening summons. Yet I have never positively said that I would not go to Rome, and, on the contrary, I permitted a clergy man to whom Cardinal Gibbons had written a message which the pope told him to write to me, urging me to go to Rome, to say that I would no doubt go to Rome as soon as I conveniently could if invited to explain a doctrine which they confessedly had never examined. but for teaching which I had already been brutally punished, and that it was not to be expected under the circumstances that I should go to Rome, whither the vicar-general had said I was summoned ‘not to be complimented but to be disciplined,’ unless the outrage which had been done me should be repaired by the removal of the unjust suspension by the authority or through the good offices of the holy see, and unless I were reinstated in my church, from which, in spite of all their quibbling, it is clear and notorious that the sole immediate occasion for my removal was my teaching in political economy and my action in politics.

“And now comes the last act in this—shall I call it tragedy, or what? Besides the publication in the newspapers last Sunday of a letter from the archbishop declaring me excommunicated, I have this day received front the Brooklyn postmaster a somewhat belated registered letter, which reads as follows:

452 Madison Avenue,

New York.

Rev. Edward McGlynn, D.D.—Rev. Doctor:

In accordance with instructions of the holy see, it is my painful duty to notify you that the term of forty days from the date of delivery to you of the monitorium of May 4, from the cardinal prefect of propaganda, within which you were required under pain of excommunication to be incurred ipso facto and nominatim, to appear at Rome before the S. congregation of the propaganda, has elapsed, and to declare that, as you have failed to appear before the S. congregation of the propaganda within the time specified, you have incurred by your act of contumacy the said penalty of excommunication nominatim.

I am, Rev. Sir, sorrowfully yours.

M. A. Corrigan. Abp. of New York.

New York, July 3, 1887.

“At the end of the letter I find, in the archbishop’s own handwriting, ‘I am, Rev. Sir, sorrowfully yours,’ and in the body of the letter he speaks of his ‘painful’ duty.

“The archbishop might well feel pain and sorrow, deep and unaffected and of a very different character from the pain and sorrow he would feel purely on my account, that his obstinate, vindictive, autocratic, crafty policy which prompted him to suspend a priest from his functions and remove him from his pastorship have but resulted so as to make very probable the utter ruin of the objects which he sought to promote. In a spirit strangely antagonistic to that of the Divine Master, in whose name he assumes to curse as well as to bless, to bind as well as to loose, to oppress and malign as well as to succor and console, to compel men to give him enormous revenues, even from the graves of their dead, and to support him in a marble palace, clad in purple and fine linen and faring sumptuously every day, while claiming to hold for vast multitudes of men the very keys of the kingdom of heaven, to say when they shall be absolved from their sins and when not, and while offering the eucharistic sacrifice of the body and blood of Christ, given by Christ himself as the memorial of His horrid agony, His breaking heart, His unrequited love, His infamous death, permits and requires men to bow and scrape to him, to bend their knees before him, and to the eve of an unbiased spectator witnessing the scene for the first time, to pay seemingly more adoration to him than to the divine victim on the altar—Archbishop Corrigan has, with fatal fatuity, leaned upon the arm of the flesh and affected to think that he could promote the best interests of Christ’s flock by fostering poverty—as if the Master had said: ‘Blessed are the poor,’ and as if in predicting the painful fact of the continued existence of poverty, the Master were enacting a divine ordinance that poverty should actually be fostered, and the attempt at the total abolition of it should be considered a sacrilege. It was because of His burning desire to have all men poor in spirit that Christ so earnestly desired to abolish poverty itself, knowing full well the greed, the cupidity, the hardness, and the heartlessness, the vice, the crime, and the despair that are the frequent result of abject poverty itself, on the one hand, and on the other hand of the more or less abject fear of poverty pervading all conditions of men.

“I can hardly believe that the archbishop’s pain and sorrow, merely on my account and because of the things that have happened to me, are very deep and persistent, since it was in his power to prevent these things by the exercise of prudence and charity, and by some surrender of his obstinate determinations, and by some curbing of that vindictive spirit, abetted by the malignant spirit of his chief advisers, Preston, Donnelly and Quinn, which made him say with extraordinary vehemence and bitterness to clergymen, time and again, that if the pope should order my reinstatement in St. Stephen’s church, he (Corrigan) would of course obey, but that his resignation as archbishop should go to Rome by the very next steamer. The pain and sorrow felt by the archbishop cannot, I think, surpass the pain and sorrow that I should feel for any spiritual detriment that may come to any one of Christ’s little ones from all this scandal; but my pain and sorrow are inexpressibly cheered by a comfort that, I fear, is not given to the archbishop. While I think I can see with clear vision that the smashing of the ecclesiastical machine, the overthrow of autocracy, the introducing, in the interests of the lower clergy and the laity, and thus of the masses of men, of more of the spirit of government of the people and for the people, will alone make possible, and at an early day, the spreading of Christ’s ‘kingdom of heaven’ over all the world, and the bringing of all men into the recognition and enjoyment of that brotherhood of men, under the fatherhood of God, which it was the one object of Christ’s mission to bring about, and for which He taught us to hope, to labor and to pray, in the prayer and prophecy of the ‘Our Father.’

“It can hardly be necessary for me to protest, yet it may not be amiss to do so, that in saying all this I am not making any new departure, or entertaining views that are new to me, or changing my theological conception of the mission of the Catholic church received from Christ through His apostles. So far from wishing to take even one soul from the Catholic church, I most ardently long for the millennial day when the whole world shall be truly Catholic, embracing and enjoying all the truths that Christ has taught, and all the precious sacramental graces which He has bequeathed.

“It requires no great prophetic gift to be able to see how, if the church were to go back, or to be driven by great providential cataclysms, to the humility, simplicity and comparative poverty of the first ages, she would easily repeat, and, on a much larger field, the magnificent triumphs over despotism, skepticism, sensuality and barbarism, which are the glories of her better days. Her bishops then were of the people, and elected by popular acclamation. They preached Christ’s gospel, and exemplified it in their lives. They were on the side of the poor, the slave, the oppressed, the lowly, the people, and feared not nor truckled to the rich, the oppressor, the proud, to emperors or to kings. If the Christian church is to hold her own, or to make new conquests; if she is to fulfill the prayer and the prophecy, and to obey the command of her Master that the gospel shall be preached to every creature, surely it can only be by imitation of His example, and by the same arts by which He, through His chosen ones, gained His earliest and His greatest triumphs.”

“In view of the fact,” said The Standard representative, “that you received the communication of the sacred congregation of the propaganda of May 4, wherein it is expressly stated that you would be ipso facto excommunicated in the event of your not appearing in Rome within forty days, how could you receive the sacrament on Sunday morning last?”

“Because my theology teaches me that an excommunication based upon errors of fact and judgment, when the individual is conscious that he has committed no offense, is for his conscience null and void.”

“Doctor, will you attempt to receive communion at any Catholic altar on Sunday next?”

“I would not be guilty of creating a scene in any Catholic church by going to communion where the priest would be likely to know me, and might feel it his duty to reject me from the communion rail; but if I could be sure that I was not known I to the priest, I would not have the slightest scruple about going to communion. There are no doubt very many priests who take the same theological view of this subject that I do, and who would gladly give me holy communion privately as often as it could be done conveniently and without public scandal, and, if the worst should come in that respect, and none other would give me communion, am I not myself a priest forever, and can I not consecrate the holy sacrament of the body and blood of Christ as validly as the pope himself, and in spite of all the suspensions and excommunications of bishop, propaganda and pope? No power on earth but my self can excommunicate me from God or disturb the calm of my conscience, which, I am happy to say, is perfectly serene. It may well be for me not only a serious, but a very practical, question, whether I, conscious of my rectitude in this matter, should continue for any great length of time to deprive my soul of that spiritual medicine and nourishment which, I firmly believe, is to be found in Christ’s holy sacrament, when, so to speak, I have but to stretch forth my hand to reverently and fruitfully partake of it.”

Hope to the Hopeless

Freeland, Pa., July 9.—I live in about the center of the anthracite coal fields, where perhaps the worst forms of land monopoly exist, and where tens of thousands of God’s images are doomed by the greed and grinding exaction of the coal barons, to toil unceasingly for a miserable existence. All newcomers should abandon hope when entering here, for of all the thousands who have mined coal for a living, very few have ever been permitted to enjoy the peaceful contentment of old age—the fruit of a life of toil. In any of the huge breakers of the coal region are to be seen boys from seven to twelve years of age, with bent backs and pale faces, picking slate from the coal for from 35 to 60 cents per day of ten hours, and side by side with them are prematurely old men, their fathers, perhaps, who are compelled by that poverty which the majority of the churches uphold to work for from 80 to 90 cents per day. The only hope of these men is to keep out of the county poor house until the end comes.

Occasionally, however, there is one, who, after telling for forty or fifty years, by rare good fortune finds himself able to build a little four-roomed house for his old age, and the operators, or their henchmen, hold him up that all may see how “any man who is industrious and economical may succeed in life.”

In our miserable mining villages are to be found more slaves to the acre than ever picked cotton or suffered the tortures of the overseers lash south of Mason and Dixon’s line. The coal workers are beginning to see that strikes, even when successful, do not go to the heart of the trouble, and that by allowing a few men to monopolize the land, the old conditions reassert themselves, and labor is, if possible, more hopeless than ever. “Progress and Poverty” and your other books and The Standard are being earnestly read, and .the outlook is so hopeful that we shall shortly organize a “land and labor club.”

W. B. Estell.

To Dr. McGlynn

From among the many letters of affection, sympathy and encouragement which he has been and is daily receiving, Dr. McGlynn has permitted us to select the following for publication—the outpouring of an overcharged and sympathizing heart:

—, Conn., July 6.

Dear Dr. McGlynn—Would that we could go forth unto you without the camp, bearing your reproach as you bear the reproach of Him in whose footsteps your bleeding feet are treading. Surely your offering is not made from that which. costs you little! Have you any idea of how many hearts you are nerving for hard duty and holy self-denial—how you are deepening the consecration of those who long since pledged themselves to the service of your great captain, and arousing as with a trumpet call those whose ears have been deaf to the calls of duty?

Let us, who have learned to scorn the poverty of our lives in view of the richness of yours, at least give you the assurance that to us God is more real and Christ more dear and duty more compelling because you have lived.

Dear friend and leader, the church which you so dearly love—that church, sanctified with saintly lives and anointed with martyrs’ blood, can never, in, its deepest sense, fail you. It were blasphemy, indeed, to imagine it in the power of the machinations of a political clique to sever your connection with the body of Christ. Before Him you are in and of it, and will so remain forever.

“Who hath the Father and the Sou may be left, but not alone.”

He has now indeed set you apart, and to what a holy calling!

God speed and help you as you go on your way, a co-worker with God. Go on to heal the sick at heart—-raise the dead in misery who have forgotten hope—cast out the devils of men’s raising that come between the Father and His outcast children. And as we watch you and listen to you, we will stir and rouse and try that our lives shall be less unworthy of such as yours.

You are compassed about with a great cloud of witnesses. You are never alone nor forsaken. Gratefully and reverently yours,

Margaret S.

An Ontario Clergyman Defends the New Crusade

The Rev. Dr. Wild of Parkdale, Ontario, preached a few weeks ago a sermon on taxation, from which the following extracts are taken:

Providence does not put a premium on idleness or wastefulness; neither should our government: but I am sorry that our government and all Christian governments do. They give a premium to laziness and tax industry; the very opposite to what God intended. For instance, let us suppose two men go and take up a homestead, with equal family and an equal amount of land. One of these men and his family are industrious, careful, saving, improving the land, and add to its resources, fence it nicely and build a very comfortable home. The other fellow idles away his time, and is not very particular about working; his land is not much improved; there are no fences upon his land, and but a poor little hut of a house. When they have both lived there for, say, ten years, the assessor comes around, and looking at the home of the thrifty one he sees that there is some good stock upon the land, and that it is in. good trim; so he says: “Your land is worth so much, and as we tax so much per dollar, your are taxed $90.” Then he goes around to the other fellow, who, he finds, has no stock, and whose land is not worth much more than it was in its virginity, and he says, “You are taxed $18.” . . . It is an injustice, and it is a sin against natural equity to allow a man to hold land and keep it in a nude state, through others’ effort, to sell it and make money out of the public. I am paying taxes alt the time on my improvements, and because he does not wish to improve his lot he can make more money by sitting still than I can by doing something.

The Landlord Owns the Water

Exchange.

Los Angeles, Cal., July 8.—The main occupation of the old gold prospector now is mining for water. The mining consists mainly in poking around and cutting away the bushes,. in sometimes blasting a rock, and once in a while doing some tunneling. The land in southern California is curious, it seems to have a big capacity for taking in water on one place and shooting it out in the form of a spring on another. So it comes that the man who runs a cross a good, living stream, strikes it rich, as he can pipe the water down and sell it at from $1,000 to $1,500 an inch. That means a stream of water flowing through a hole an inch square for all time.

“That,” said a miner, pointing to Pasadena, “is what water will do on a barren, treeless plain in ten years. Previous to that time this valley was covered with greasewood and scrub, infested with jack rabbits and gophers, and utterly worthless. Look at it now. There are groves that produce tens of thousands of oranges, vineyards from which tons of grapes are taken, walnut trees bearing what it would take twenty years to produce in any other country, a town of 5,000 or 6,000 inhabitants, churches, schools, a university, one of the finest hotels to be found in the west, everything to make life comfortable, and this summer we have got a railroad from Los Angeles. All this is water; water has done it in tea years: or, to put it in dollars and cents, land that could be bought- there below us for four bits an acre ten years ago is now selling for $1,500 an acre. That tolls the story. Water is king here.”

On the Sierras, opposite Pasadena, numerous trails can often be seen winding up over the hills almost to the top of the range. These are pipe trails where the iron tubing has been hauled up by horses. When the water is developed at a high point, so that it cannot be jumped, it is led into a reservoir or sand box, then into the piping, and so down over canons, under ledges, into the valley, sometimes six or eight miles, at an expense of $1,000 a mile. Once down in the lowland it is divided up into various screams by pipes that lead to each lot of land sold. The water is distributed in various ways. Some times water stock is bought with the land, which allows the owner to use so much. Again, the head of the family pays $1.25 per month water tax for himself and five cents each for the other members of his family and for each animal.

Misrepresentation Corrected

Burlington, Iowa, Evening Post.

One of the stumbling blocks that lies in the path of every man who has a new idea to give to the world is that vast multitude of people who always persist in misunderstanding him. Here now is the Keosauqua Republican, conducted presumably by an intelligent man, who says: “Henry George’s idea of government is that every poor man, every rich man, and every man or woman who owns a roof that they call home, or a foot of land in their own name,. should turn it over in one common heap and divide it out freely and equally to every lazy lout, dead beat and nincompoop who never owned anything, nor carried anything, or if he did was too worthless to keep it. It means that the man who is industrious enough and economical enough, to purchase a roof to cover the heads of his wife and children shall not be allowed to do it.” There never was a greater misstatement of any man’s case than this is. Whatever merit- there is in the George theory, it certainly will not be claimed, even by the more intelligent of its opponents, that its avowed results are not philanthropic. There is nothing in it that calls for “an even divide.” On the contrary, its prime proposition, the foundation upon which it rests, is that a few men shall not be given the power to rob and retard the many by giving them an undue advantage in the matter of land ownership. Under the present system it is next ta impossible for even the most economical and industrious poor man to acquire a decent home. All around, in the meanwhile, are vacant, unused lots. held and owned by dogs in the manger for speculative purposes. For every workingman’s home in Burlington that is paid for there are a hundred of these vacant lots, and their aggregate within the city limits is thousands of acres of unused land, with the taxes assessed against them down to such a nominal figure that their owners can hold them for a long series of years without feeling the burden. The mention of the name of Henry George in the presence of one of these lot speculators is attended with somewhat similar results as usually ensue when a red flag is flaunted in front, of a wild bovine, and yet, if they could only realize the fact, they are themselves as great sufferers as anyone from the system.

What the Single Tax Would Do for Minneapolis

C. Moeller in Northwestern Labor Union

As there is ten times as much land as we shall use, it will be a drug on the market as soon as its value for speculation is destroyed. Now then if the value of the ground on which Minneapolis is built is $100,000,000 that means that $8,000,000 must be drawn from the industries of this city to land owners as interest or rent on this capitalized amount that never was in existence—only in demand. Now all business men must pay interest on this or put up the amount himself out of his own capital. Again, if through any combination of real estate trade unionism this value could be boomed up to $1,000,000,000, the industries of this town must pay from $60,000,000 to $80,000,000 on it as interest or rent, or put up the capitalized amount—nearly three times the sum total of all the precious metals mined in the state of Colorado. As land value goes up it is evident that it is a restriction on industry, and destroys its reward or wages, and idle capital gets control of industry and labor. Now then, the single tax on land value will destroy this power, and trade and industry will get its reward, and if this could be got at the next election Minneapolis would spring so far ahead of St. Paul that the saintly city could not get on its feet again.

Who Will Have to Pay This $375 Per Front Foot?

St. Paul, Minn., Globe.

Gates Eros. sold the Palisade hotel foundation and corner for $75,000 to T. B. Walker, E. H. Steele and others. The value of the property has increased $575 per front foot within six months.

Considering the Connection Between the Two, We Think it is Not Surprising

New York Times.

It is not at all surprising that the forms and and processes of municipal politics in this city should resealable those of the Italian Catholic church. It would be surprising if they did not.

Is This Due to Ignorance or Mendacity?

From the Sun.

The government which Mr. George’s socialistic scheme would set up would be as different from the republic us the latter is from the government of Russia.

Page 2

 



Anti-Poverty

Dr. M’Glynn’s Manly Answer To The Archbishop’s Fiat Curse

Two Enormous Meetings, and Thousands Turned Away—“I Speak as I Do Because the Times Require It!”—A Clear Exposition of the Reason for the Excommunication—“The Mere Patter of Rain Drops Upon the Roof”—To Be Continued in the Next Chapter

When the doors of the Academy of Music were thrown open at 7 o’clock last Sunday night a great wave of humanity washed in, and in three minutes filled the house from pit to galleries. Long before the hour for opening the meeting the force of police in attendance were compelled to insist on closing the doors, so utterly impossible was it to restrain the eager thousands by anything short of a barrier of oak.

The executive committee of the Anti-poverty society, warned by the immense crowd gathered in Irving place before the opening, had engaged Irving hall, across the street; and when the Academy doors were closed the disappointed thousands were bidden to assemble there, with a promise that the excommunicated priest of the people would address them before the evening’s close. Then the rush for Irving hall commenced, and within a brief space it, too, was jammed with eager men and women, while thousands lingered disappointed in the street, hoping against hope for a chance of entrance, or went home cursing their own stupidity in not arriving earlier.

It is no exaggeration to say that New York bad never witnessed such a gathering before. Probably a majority of the audience in both balls were Catholics; but men and women of every faith and creed were there to give the support of their presence to the dauntless priest who dared to front the whole power of his church sooner than surrender one jot or tittle of his rights as an American citizen. And when the martyr of the new crusade appeared, treading over flowers strewn in his path, the enthusiasm of the vast audience burst all bounds and a rolling cheer of welcome went up that voiced the proud defiance of American citizens to foreign tyranny. It was a cheer that spoke the doom of priest-craft and hailed the advent of God’s kingdom upon earth.

THE MEETING

At 8 o’clock precisely, Chairman James J. Gahan stepped to the front of the platform and opened the meeting with a brief speech. “We have met here tonight,” said Mr. Gahan, “to remove the desecration from this blessed Sabbath day. Its dawning witnessed an awful crime wrought upon Edward McGlynn, but its evening closes with the victims triumphant vindication in this his native city. (Great applause.) We meet here tonight, so many thousands of us—many of us members of the church on which the career of Edward McGlynn has shed such luster (great applause)—in order that Rome may know (hisses and groans) that we repudiate her attempt to give official sanction to an interference in American politics, and also that our non-Catholic fellow Citizens may know that in matters purely political not one jot or tittle of our allegiance shall be diverted to any potentate or power on earth, but is given in all its fullness to the laws and the government of these United States.” (Tumultuous applause and cheers.)

Mr. Gahan then referred to the fact that the order excommunicating Dr. McGlynn had not been read in any churches, but had been made public only through the columns of the press. “When, at the approach of Lent, the Catholics of New York enter their churches, the regulations for that holy season are read from the altar, and we have not to open the pages of the Herald or the Times to learn them. But when those who occupy the high places in the ecclesiastical machine in this city attempt the ostracism of a man the latchet of whose shoe they are not worthy to unloose (applause), they commit the crime, not before the sacred altars of Catholicism, but through the columns of the very papers which persistently opposed all pretensions of Roman authority, until that authority enlisted with them to oppose the preaching of the gospel of truth to the working masses of America—the gospel of the new crusade.” (Applause, long continued and repeated.)

Mr. Gahan then pronounced a glowing eulogy upon Dr. McGlynn, speaking of the service he had rendered, not only to Catholics, but to lovers of freedom all over the world, by his manly stand for freedom.

The Concordia chorus, under the leadership of Miss Munier, then sang “The American Hymn” and “Marching to Freedom,” after which Mr. Gahan announced the hero of the new crusade, the Rev. Edward McGlynn.

Dr. McGlynn’s Speech

Mr. Chairman, Ladies and Gentlemen—It is a signal evidence of the wisdom and goodness of the God whom we adore, that amid the perplexities of life, the doubts as to the truth, the anxieties as to duty, the fears for the past and the future, the ruthless tearing of the heart strings as by a malignant fate, there is yet a clear and simple guide given to every rational being that shall lead him safely through the labyrinth to a perfect deliverance (great applause).

That guide is the voice of conscience, teaching men to apply to themselves a universal law that is written equally upon the hearts of all God’s children. This is a natural law that necessarily precedes all revealed law. If this natural monitor did not exist within the breast of each of us, then would revelation appeal to us in vain (applause). Our God is a wondrously merciful as well as a wise and loving God. and He will never condemn any one who has followed that guide, even though sometimes he may have mistaken the light.

It is the teaching of Christian philosophy, it is the teaching of Catholic moral theology, that be who follows his conscience, even though it be to error, is ever obeying the holy will of God. (Applause.) And it is the teaching of right reason, of natural religion, of Christian philosophy and of the theology of the Catholic schools, which I have learned under the very shadow of the Vatican, that the man who sins against his conscience sins against the Holy Ghost (great applause); and that if any power on earth, even though it be he who sits enthroned in the Vatican (applause) commands a man to do or say aught against his conscience, to obey even that man, were to sin against the Holy Ghost. (Uproarious applause.)

And so, even if high Roman tribunals shall summon a man before them for teaching a scientific truth that is more than scientific, that goes to the root of social evils, that shows man the pathway by which he may readily escape from the horrid doom of despairing poverty (applause): and if before they have examined, or begun to comprehend, or even to apprehend the teaching, they condemn it, and demand of a man who has seen with clear vision the truth of the doctrine, that he shall first retract it as a condition of his even getting a hearing from them—then it is that man’s duty to re fuse to retract. (Wild applause and cheers, continued for several minutes, accompanied by the waving of several flags in the gallery.) And if it were in their power, as it was once, and thank God is no longer (applause), to imprison the truth in dungeons, and to martyr it at the stake, in the persons of those who, through no fault of their own, have been cursed with the destiny of reading God’s truth, whether in the facts of society, or in the strata of the earth, or upon the skies—and if they should summon such a man and before summoning him, condemn him and demand of him to retract under penalty of imprisonment or martyrdom, it would be his duty, it always will be his duty, to rot in the dungeon, or to be burned alive at the stake (great applause) rather than commit an unpardonable sin against himself, against his manhood, against his conscience, against the truth, against the welfare of his brethren, against the Holy Ghost himself.

When an aged philosopher was put to that ordeal—when he was asked to retract the truth he had read in the book of the skies with as much clearness as the revealed word of God can be read in His written word—when because that clear vision of his seemed to clash with the stupid, ignorant interpretations of the advisers of a Roman tribunal, they condemned him to a dungeon during their good pleasure, we may feel every compassion for the weakness of that septuagenarian philosopher; and yet we, as philosophers, moralists and men feel that it was his duty to consent to suffer in the dungeon, even till his members should have rotted one by one, rather than submit, rather than retract the truth, rather than to place his hand on the holy gospels and perjure himself by repudiating what be knew to be true. (Applause.) And if, as he was dying, they had come to him and said that he must repudiate his heresy or die without the sacraments of the church, he should have refused the sacraments of the church (tumultuous applause) if the price to be paid for receiving them were to sin against the light of God in the inmost recesses of his heart. (Applause.)

And so it would have been a perfectly wise, and just. and philosophic, and Christian, and Catholic speech for that Catholic philosopher to have made if he had spoken thus: “I submit to your sentence while detesting your tyranny. (Applause.) I submit to it because you have, by accursed civil laws, the power to torment and to martyr God’s truth with your dungeons and with your constant nagging and persecution. I submit simply to the exercise of superior force. But my soul rides free above your dungeons and all your anathemas. (Tremendous applause.) Keep me imprisoned in your dungeons till I shall have died of their hardships, and I prophesy that another generation, whose love of truth shall be quickened by my martyrdom, will come to this very prison and tear it stone from stone and grind each separate stone to powder and east this powder to the winds or into the river, that no vestige may remain of that in which you thought to stifle forever the truth of God. (Uproarious applause.) And upon the site of your accursed dungeon they will plant green things and invite the birds to come and to gladden the hearts of the children of men with their melody, and in the choicest spot of that place so consecrated to nature they will erect a monument to tell how truth has triumphed through the very processes by which you thought to stifle it.” (Great applause.)

His modesty might have forbidden him so to prophesy—but it is not prophecy to us. it is an accomplished event!—that they would build a monument to his memory, and upon it write: “Galileo Galilei was imprisoned in the neighboring house for having seen that the earth revolves around the sun”—(great applause)—as if it were a sin for a man to see something that he can’t help seeing (laughter and applause), and as if it ever could be paying tribute to God, our Creator and our Father, to poke out our eyes by way of doing greater reverence to him. (Applause.)

The teachings of Christian philosophy as well as of Catholic theology are too of ten distorted, misrepresented, misapplied and subjected to all manner of perversion in order to suit the whim, the ambition and the lust for money of men who sit in high places. (Applause.) This Catholic theology, that is nearly always better than its professors (laughter and applause), teaches us that all truth is one, that no truth, in any part of the universe, in any infinitesimal moment of time, can ever clash with any truth in the remotest opposite part of the universe, or in any other infinitesimal moment of time, though separated by myriads of millions of aeons. (Applause.) It teaches that all truth comes from God, and finds its type and its ideal in God; that truth can never clash with truth; and that where, through the stupidity, the narrowness, the ignorance, the false interpretations of men, anything that is in the word of God seems to clash with a clearly ascertained scientific truth, you must either say that that so-called word of God is not the word of God, or that the interpretation that man has put upon it is false and erroneous. (Applause.)

And it is this constant distorting of the word of God, whether in the scriptures or in the traditions of the church, for the purpose of opposing rational liberty, or the development of nationalities, or the advance of science, that has driven millions of individuals and whole nations out of the church. (Cries of “Hear, hear!” and applause.) And the only way for the Catholic church. or for any of the other Christian denominations, to hold their own, or to convert multitudes to believe in the essence of religion, in the mission of Christ and in His divinity, is for them to show always and every where the perfect and beautiful harmony of reason and revelation, of grace and nature (applause); to teach men to respect with absolute obedience the voice of conscience and the dictates of natural religion: and to teach them that anything that claims to speak in the name of God as if by revelation, must produce its credentials to reason and to conscience before it can claim any right to speak at all. (Applause.)

All this is the plain teaching of Catholic theology, of Christian philosophy and of right reason. Grace presupposes nature. Revelation requires reason. A born idiot can never make an act of faith. A man who is not capable of morality is not capable of performing any act that shall have the grace and charm that come from that supernatural illumination of the mind and impulse to the will that we call the grace of God. Now, it is necessary that those whose hearts are hungering for religion, as the hearts of all right-minded men must naturally hunger, shall learn to distinguish between the abuse, the misconceptions and perversions of men, and the true essence of revealed religion, even in things that without being absolutely essential, are still great helps to the mind and great comforts to the will, no less than as regards the dogmas of the Christian church and the holy sacraments that we believe Christ has left to be the spiritual medicine and food for sick and sore and hungry souls.

Men must distinguish between the essence of revealed religion—its dogmas and its sacraments that come to us from Christ and His apostles—and the countless abuses, the errors, the stupidity, the cupidity, the blunders and the crimes with which every page of the history of the church has been filled for a thousand years and more. (Applause.)

And, though it is not particularly necessary for me to vindicate my consistency, I defy any man to stand up and say that I have ever defended a blunder or an abuse or a crime of the human side of the church. (Great applause.) I may have thought it the part of a devoted and ardently loving child to cover, if I could, with the cloak of palliation the deficiencies, the errors, the blunders and even the crimes of the human side of the church, that I might not seem to incur the malediction laid on that son of Noah who gloried in his father’s shame. (Applause.) I may have tolerated much of the human side of the church that I might be permitted peacefully to exercise that holy ministry which I have held to consist in preaching the gospel of Christ to His poor (applause); in teaching the dogmas of the Christian church to all who might come to listen, in administering the sacraments with frequency to all those who might hunger for them, or whom I was able, by my poor ministry, to teach to hunger for them. (Applause.) And if I now speak as perhaps I have not spoken in the past, there is no inconsistency in my action. I speak as I do now because the times require it. (Tumultuous applause.) I am compelled to speak as I do that I may say to you and to many who are not here tonight, but who will read or hear the report of what I am saying, to hold safe and fast your faith and love for what is divine in Christian creeds and sacraments.

It has become necessary to teach you to distinguish between the blunders, the stupidity, the cupidity, and the actual crimes of a mere ecclesiastical machine (shouts of applause) and that ideal church of Christ without spot, without wrinkle, the spouse of our Lord and Master, purchased with the terrible price of his blood, whose garments are washed exceeding white, whose teachings have fired the hearts and inspired the minds of saints and seers and sages, and have taken barbarous nations from the woods and from their rude huts to civilize them and make them the greatest nations of the world! It is necessary that we should learn to distinguish between men and Christ, between the allegiance that we owe to the Christian creed, the profound reverence that we owe to the Christian sacraments, and the very limited obedience that we owe to an authority whose only reason for being is that it may build up and not tear down (applause); that it may, in the language of Christian piety, edify and not disedify; that it may convert men to Christ and not drive whole nations from Him (applause); that it may exemplify in every land and age the humility, patience, charity, and self-sacrifice of the Master; that it may teach men in a selfish age to forget themselves; that it may fire them as did the Master with the divine enthusiasm of humanity; and that it may, in spite of the cupidity of perverted hearts, teach men to be unselfish, and in spite of the passions that disintegrate human society and separate man from man today, cause to prevail the magnificent gospel of the brotherhood of man and the fatherhood of God. (Applause).

It is a notorious fact that religion is vanishing fast from nearly every part of the world; that men who are naturally religious—as, in fact, all men are, naturally religious (“hear, hear,” and applause)—are being alienated from the churches, and perhaps more from the Catholic church than any other. (Cries of “hear, hear,” and applause.) In so-called Catholic countries you will find a peculiarly satanic hatred of religion—pope, bishop, creed and church that you will find scarcely any where else. (Applause.) In this favored land of ours the Catholic priest is, as a rule, an honored and influential member of the community. (Applause.) Men not of his communion treat him with respect and with deference. They respect him as a moral force in the community; they are of ten glad and thankful to be permitted to contribute to the building of his church; they are glad to have his influence in aid of peace, order, virtue and sobriety. Go to Catholic countries and you find that the gown of the priest is hated as something unclean. You will find that a priest can get all the room he wants in a railway carriage by simply exhibiting himself and his gown and shovel hat at the door of the compartment. (Applause and laughter.) It is not because of the great reverence they have for his reverence, but that they hate the mere sight of him, that men will crowd into another compartment or another carriage rather than be compelled to ride in the same one with him. I actually believe that the priest often profits by this hatred of himself by exhibiting himself at the railway carriage door (laughter). He takes the compartment and has room to stretch himself comfortably out in it. It is a remarkable thing that if you want to see real sincere devotion to the Roman Catholic church you must go to those countries where the church has been robbed of her benefices, where she has been impoverished, where she has been reduced to something a little nearer the primitive apostolic simplicity, and where she has been largely free from the influence of Roman cupidity, Roman domination, and Roman diplomacy. (Great applause.)

I have already asserted, as has been published, and I now reassert it here, that I know, on the authority of a most trustworthy bishop—an intimate friend of Cardinal Gibbons—that a German-American bishop of this country, whose expected reward for the service, 1 was told, was the archbishopric of St. Louis, went to Washington to negotiate to have some representative of the pope at the court of King Grover the First. (Hisses, groans, applause and laughter.) Now, I make haste to say that that utterance of mine about the Court of King Grover the First was by way of a little jest, for I would not insinuate for a moment that our most respected and honored chief magistrate has the slightest desire to be know if by the name of King Grover, or to do anything which might seem to have a monarchical tendency. But it is a wonderful thing that these Roman diplomats should want a representative of the pope at the seat of the government at Washington.

It is quite in keeping with the same policy that the pope has sent two Catholic prelates from Italy—they are at it now—to investigate Ireland. (Hisses and groans. A voice, “They can’t make much out of Ireland.”) An English noodle of a Catholic lord, one earl of Denbigh—and you can always trust an English Catholic lord to outdo any English Protestant landlord in his hatred of Ireland—said that the pope told him not merely of his affection and esteem for England and of his great desire to be of use to England, but of the actual manner in which he proposed to be of use to her. (Laughter and applause.) Of course it would be of great use to England if poor Paddy should be so obsequious as to do the pope’s bidding in English politics. An alliance with the papal cabinet would be worth millions to the English cabinet. (Laughter.) It would be money in the pocket of the English cabinet if they were to buy a few of those representatives of the pope with a hundred thousand pounds apiece. (Laughter.)

St. Bernard, seven hundred years ago, writing with extraordinary freedom and boldness to the pope, who had been his disciple in the monastery, among other things admonished him to be more solicitous about spiritual than about temporal affairs. “Do not, thou, apostle of Christ, desecrate and prostitute thy holy ministry by troubling thyself too much about temporal things. (Applause.) Get some honest man to attend to those things for thee, and then trust him implicitly; and if thou canst not find an honest man get some man anyhow, for it would be better for thee to be robbed by him than to be wasting thy time in temporal trifles.” (Laughter and applause.)

And another good bit of advice that St. Bernard gave to Pope Eugenius was this: “When you are sending your legates to other countries, try to get men who will not accept presents—euphemistic for bribes—and who will return as poor as they went.” (Laughter and applause.)

When I was in Rome ten years ago, I had the misfortune to become acquainted with a little fellow named Monsignor Agnozzi. He was the monsignor secretary of the propaganda—a quarrelsome little fellow that the republic of Switzerland had kicked out; and the ecclesiastical machine, not knowing what else to do with him, had thrust him into the secretaryship of the propaganda. Even there they had to get rid of him, and they found a berth for him in the republic of Colombia in South America, where, after the usual quarrel between church and state, they had gone to work to build up religion again, asking nothing from the state but simply to be let alone, devoting themselves to building churches and seminaries, and really beginning to build up religion so that it was commencing to flourish, as it does in the United States of America. Now, however, they have sent out that little man, Monsignor Agnozzi (laughter), and he has already begun to bedevil things generally, and to ruin religion by making concordats with the rascally government, and thus enslaving the church.

And it was with a good deal of knowledge of the machinery of the church that I said to a correspondent of one of the New York papers in Buffalo, a few weeks ago, that the presence of a representative of the pope in Washington would be the beginning of corruption and slavery to the Catholic church in America. (Great applause, and a voice “We don’t want any of that.”) I said substantially, in the same interview, in answer to a well meaning and by no means unfriendly Catholic lawyer, who had written a letter to the Herald about my affairs, that with the knowledge I had of Rome I found his fancy sketch of the hearing I should get in Rome extremely laughable. I did say, and I repeat it here, that the best way to get anything out of the Roman machine is to show your teeth to it, rather than to be too humble before it. (Tumultuous applause and cheers.)

Bismarck and the czar of Russia (hisses and groans) understand that perfectly well; and it is largely because they have defied the pope and persecuted the unfortunate Poles in Russia and Germany, interfering in all manner of ways with the general liberty of the church, that when they are willing to make any kind of a half concession the pope is delighted with this small installment of the loaf, and has actually fallen in love with Bismarck (laughter); and Bismarck has been flirting a little with his holiness (laughter). They have gone so far actually as to exchange portraits! (Laughter and applause.) And the pope sent one Monsignor Gulinberti to compliment Bismarck and his aged master; and he was the author of the letter of the pope’s secretary of state, Jacobini, instructing the people of Germany and their heroic patriotic representatives in parliament that no representative should be returned to the new parliament who would not consent to acquiesce in the despotic measures of Bismarck (hisses). That is the way those heroic German Catholics have been treated by the pope. They were slapped in the face in order to please Mr. Bismarck.

As long as the Catholic people, whether of Ireland, or of America, or of Germany, or of Poland, practically give the pope to understand that he can do what he pleases, not merely in the way of defining the doctrines of the church, where,he speaks by the authority of God (applause), but in the way of interfering in their policy and politics, and pulling the strings; sometimes, as in Germany, allowing priests not only to take an active part in politics but to sit in parliament, or, as in France, allowing cardinals, bishops and priests to sit in the assembly and to become permanent members of the upper house; and again, when it suits him, permitting an archbishop to dare to say to an American citizen that he must never in the future make a political speech of any character whatever (uproarious applause) or to attend any political meeting whatsoever without the permission of the sacred congregation of the propaganda (laughter), an Italian institution some thousands of miles away, run by men who do not know but that Florida is a suburb of New York, or Mobile the name of a street in San Francisco (laughter); as long, I say, as the Catholic people of Ireland, of America, of Poland, or of Germany consent to let the Roman machine, of which the pope himself is but a mere puppet (applause), do all that, so long will this Roman machine, with the pope at its head, continue to use poor Paddy, and the poor American Catholic, and the poor Polish fool, and the poor German fool as so many pa w us on the political chessboard, to be sacrificed at any time for whatever can be got in return (applause).

The whole of this policy is largely prompted, instigated and animated by the frenzied desire for the restoration of the pope’s rotten old temporal throne, that everybody but a fool or a member of the Roman machine sees clearly is as dead as Julius Caesar. (Applause.) And so they are selling out the precious liberties of the people, the Catholic people, who have been most faithful to the spiritual side of the church, the Irish and Germans and Poles. (Applause.) They are selling them out in order to get in return the diplomatic aid of Bismarck and the czar and the English cabinet toward the restoration of the temporal throne of the pope in the land of Italy, to make the Italian people curse, if possible, more than they are cursing today, the thing that they hate with all the energy of their being, the monstrous interference, in the name of Christ, of the pope and the pope’s men in the politics of their country. (Applause.)

If this interference in politics were to be in the interest of justice, liberty, national unity and independence, then nations would rise up and call these men blessed and thank God that revealed religion had come to the aid of their own consciences and the teachings of natural religion. But when they find that that interference is simply against the liberty and independence of their country and against the natural and rational aspirations of men, then they must necessarily resent such a sacrifice of true religion to lust for money and power. (Applause.) It is this condition of things that has ruined the religion of Italy, of France, and of every so-called Catholic country. And not satisfied with their horrid work they are now anxious to bedevil the Catholicism of Poland, Germany, Ireland, America and all the English speaking countries so that they may be brought to the same wretched condition of irreligion, of hostility to the church, and of satanic hatred of the every name of God. (Applause.)

I admit, dear friends, that this is hardly such a sermon as I should have preached in the pulpit of St. Stephen’s church. (Applause.) And I cheerfully acknowledge that if I had preached such a sermon as I am preaching now, in the pulpit of St. Stephen’s, it would no doubt have been the first and the last sermon of the kind that I would have ever preached there. (Laughter.) But you see that the machine has made something of a mistake. For they have liberated me! (Uproarious and tumultuous applause, men and women rising and waving handkerchiefs and hats. A voice, “You are incommunicated tonight.”) I say they have liberated me! By their incredible blindness, ignorance and folly they have brought about such a condition of things that I am not merely liberated from those ordinary considerations of prudence that men of the world might think would affect me, such as danger to my position and loss of salary, and they might even say forfeiting my chances of preferment and promotion (laughter), but they have liberated me in a much higher and more important sense. (Applause.) It is a poor business for a man to be blowing his own horn. It is poor business for a man even to be defending himself or apologizing for himself. It is work that is not over congenial for me; and so I have tried to avoid it as much as I could, and have let people say a good deal, both in private and in the newspapers, preferring to remain passive and apparently indifferent to the whole thing, and allowing a great many things that might have been contradicted to go uncontradicted. And I am not tonight at all anxious to apologize for or to glorify myself, I think I can safely say. But while they have liberated me from what might have seemed ordinary prudent considerations as regards my position—considerations which were at no time of much weight with me—they have also liberated me in a much more important sense.

It is true that for many years I have not been blind to the many things I have said tonight. But so dear to me are the truths of which the Catholic church is the custodian, so inexpressibly dear to me are the sacraments of the Catholic church (applause), that I have, as far as I could, repressed myself. Where I could not approve I have remained silent and spoken no public word of criticism or disparagement, in order that I might be peacefully permitted to preach the gospel and to bring such souls as might come within my influence to appreciate the ineffable benignity and humanity of Christ, our Savior; to feel the blessedness of communion with Him; to feel the magnificent liberty of the sons of God; to realize the fulfillment of His words, “If the Son of man shall set you free, you shall be free indeed.” (Applause.) I was willing to suffer almost anything except the sacrifice of my conscience so I might be permitted to bring men to taste the ineffable sweetness that comes from the holy communion with Christ to men who are emancipated from the lusts of the flesh, from the cupidity for mere earthly lucre, and who have learned with the love of Christ and the holy medicine and food of his sacraments to deny themselves, to resist the allurements of the flesh, and to walk in the midst of a corrupt world with the unspeakable freedom of the sons of Light. (Applause.)

But while trying to do this, and because of my desire to do it, on one or two occasions I went forth on some semi-political platform (attracted to it only because of the humanity and the religion that were in it) (applause), to show men that a minister of Christ, intensely wedded to His spiritual doctrines and entirely devoted to the ministration of His holy sacraments, could sympathize and take some active part in the work of emancipating the masses and helping the starving, evicted poor of our mother Ireland. (Applause.)

They slander me grossly who call me a politician, who, putting the cart before the horse, because I am now going around the country preaching, not so much politics as the fatherhood of God and the brotherhood of man (applause), complain of my having abandoned the pulpit for a political platform. These fools seem to forget that I never appeared upon a purely political platform, I may say, in all my life. They simply calumniate me when they say I took the stump for Mr. Cleveland. It is a lie. Where did I ever take the stump for Mr. Cleveland ? When newspaper men came to me with that irresistible courtesy of theirs, and sometimes betrayed me into talking almost in spite of myself, I said some few words to them in favor of Mr. Cleveland. The nearest I ever got to talking for Mr. Cleveland was when I sat in a box in this house at the reception to my friend Mr. McSweeny, when some one spied me and got me to go upon the platform and make a speech that was partly in favor of Mr. McSweeny and partly squinted at Mr. Cleveland (laughter). My action then was what it was largely because certain Catholics were slandering Mr. Cleveland and making a religious question of the election; and I felt that this eternal drugging of the religious question into politics was to the serious detriment of the Catholic church. (Applause.) They tried to make religious prejudice against Mr. Cleveland, because in the honest exercise of his judgment he once vetoed an appropriation of twenty-five thousand dollars to the Catholic protectory. And I said in an interview, that if I had been in Mr. Cleveland’s place, Catholic and priest as I am, I should have done precisely the same thing. (Applause).

And when I went on a semi-political but altogether moral and religious platform, in Chickering hall on the first of October last (applause) I went there chiefly because of the morality and humanity and religion that were in that platform. (Applause.) And when a certain gentleman here in New York took it on him the day before to positively forbid me to keep my engagement, I thought it my right and duty as a man to keep my engagement, and I kept it. (Applause.) And so far was I from being anxious to throw off my gown and travel around in the jacket of a politician (laughter) that I sent an olive branch of the biggest kind, a whole olive tree, in fact (laughter), to that gentleman, the very night I went to Chickering hall, going as to an execution, feeling as if I would have to go behind the scenes afterward and lay my head on the block and have it cut off. In a letter that I sent ten minutes before starting to the place of execution in Chickering hall (laughter), I stated that all sorts of considerations, honor and good faith, would compel me to keep that engagement; but that afterward I would keep still and respect his prohibition during the rest of the campaign. But so eager was he to cut my head off, or to have a whack at me, that he sent bright and carry the next morning a suspension for two weeks. (Terrific hisses and groans.)

That famous or infamous letter forbade me to take any part in political meetings or to make any political speeches in the future, without the permission of the sacred congregation of the propaganda. (Hisses.) And then because of a newspaper man’s talk about me in the Tribune he sends me another suspension. I have nothing to say against the Tribune, but I am merely stating a historical fact, that the Tribune had a nice young man who betrayed me into speech. Well, the archbishop suspended me until the end of the year for it. (Hisses and groans.) The substance of it was that I thought that God was the father of all His children, and not the stepfather of any. (Laughter and applause.) And the little archbishop took it into his heart that those words of mine were terribly disrespectful to our holy Father Leo XIII. When I got his letter I said what is there disrespectful to Pope Leo in that interview? I didn’t allude to him or think of him. And Dr. Curran consented to go with a letter of mine to the archbishop, in which I protested that I had never even thought of the pope. The pope was not even mentioned in the newspaper interview, and Dr. Curran and I were completely at a loss to know what the little man meant. It appears that the pope had written a letter, which was quoted in the archbishop pastoral; but we were taking such a languid interest in pastorals that we had not read it. The joke of it was that the pope had actually sent a letter about charity, in which he talked about putting plasters on sores instead of abolishing poverty. And it was only after that unfortunate interview that we hunted up that pastoral letter, in which the pope, as quoted, magnified what the Catholic church had done in building up poorhouses, etc., as if it was not the poor beggars themselves who had paid for the poorhouses fifty times over. (Great applause.)

“Well.” said the little archbishop to Dr. Curran, “I have already sent a letter with the clipping to Rome. Dr. McGlynn can send a letter in the same mail, and explain the matter.” “But he has nothing to explain,” said Dr. Curran, “and you have suspended him by a mistake, and you ought to reinstate him,” “Oh, no, no, it is my duty.” (Applause and laughter.) The poor little archbishop had been pulling open a little drawer containing letters five years old to Cardinal McCloskey about my preaching substantially that God is the father and not the step-father that the land of Ireland belongs to the people of Ireland, and that landlords in Ireland are blackguards and thieves. (Applause.) Those old letters from Simeoni (hisses), who knows as much about the geography of this country as does the man of the moon. censured me because while I was speaking of the famine-stricken people of Ireland I showed a great propensity to sympathize with the “Irish, revolution.” (Laughter.) The Irish revolution—which consisted merely of this milk and water effort of Parnell and .his brethren, many of whom are landlords at heart.

So the archbishop made this excuse for suspending me to the end of the year, in order that before the end of the year he might get further letters authorizing him to club me. (Laughter.) In his published statement he said that if I had only retracted the doctrine about the land—which I could not retract, and would rather be burned alive than retract (applause—there would have remained no further cause for suspension; while out of the spirit of vindictiveness and malice and all uncharitableness » that pervaded him and his vicar general and not a few of his councilors—the spirit, not of Christ, but of the Sanhedrin that condemned Christ to be crucified—he was resolved to punish me and make an example of me, and therefore he was determined, come what might, to drive me out of St. Stephen’s church.

But at the same time, while he would make out that I was not worthy to rule at St. Stephen’s, he was willing that I should be the pastor of the poor souls of the village of Middletown. (Applause.) Now, logic is logic. I say I would consider it an exceeding great honor to be the shepherd of any portion, the poorest and the lowliest, of the flock of Christ. While satisfying his desire and that of his councilors, to punish me and make an example of me, and as far as possible to impair my influence in the community; he was yet prepared to appoint; me the shepherd of souls, the teacher, the guide, the father, the spiritual director of a portion of the souls of his own very flock. And I have it in black and white in his own handwriting! (Tremendous applause.) And I say that these two points, both made in a printed statement by Archbishop Corrigan, give me, so far, a pretty clean bill as to ecclesiastical character, (Applause.)

And now, there is an old buffoon who has a church over in Brooklyn. (Hisses, groans and laughter.) This old fool is reiterating a charge that appeared in some newspaper. The bishop of Brooklyn tolerates this man. He tolerates this buffoonery, and if anything encourages the blackguard.

And do you know what that charge is? That the real trouble in the whole thing is that Father McGlynn wants to take a wife. I think you will be very much aroused to hear her personal description., I knew nothing about the matter until just now the clipping I am about to read to you was handed to me on this stage. This same old fool has a great grudge against the women. (Laughter.) He was particularly indignant against the good women of St. Stephen’s—“Dey vas all like dat olt dramp, Efe, in the garten of Eten. She hat blendy of abbles to eat, more dan she kud holt, ant she vouldn’t eat dem abbles, but vanted shust dat abble vich Gott Almighdy dolt her nod do eat. Ant dat is de vay vid all dose vimens. Now, if I tolt you not to reat dat baber dat de bishop vanted to eggskomunicate, you vould go home ant dell your vives, ant de vives vould go oudt ant buy dat baber and reat it shust oudt ov sphite.” (Great laughter.)

This old fool had to blackguard Dr. Curran because the ladies of St. Stephen’s made a handsome present to him of a chalice. And the bishop of Brooklyn tolerates that buffoonery Sunday after Sunday, and if anything probably encourages it.

And so the men and women who go there full of religion to worship at the holy altar of Christ are compelled to have their ears outraged by such talk. This is the delicate sense of this preposterous bishop of Brooklyn who was scandalized that I was to speak in the Academy of Music in Brooklyn at a meeting to promote temperance and to protect little children from wickedness, because it was presided over by that great American, Henry Ward Beecher (applause), and who was too horrified that a Catholic priest should consent to sit on the same platform with Henry Ward Beecher. And now this paper comes out with the terrible story which I have just alluded to. We have been so serious the whole evening that it is well to have some fun now. (Great laughter). This is the clipping:

I am told, but I in no way vouch for the truth of the statement, and doubtless many Roman Catholics will even resent the suggestion, though it is from Catholics I hear the rumor, that there is in this case the element that is said to be present in all trouble, the female. In plain words, a woman in the case. No definite information can be got at, and the priest’s friends will not even talk about it, but nevertheless the report is persistent that the apostle of the new- crusade will, after his excommunication, which render him no longer a priest, marry very shortly. The gossip on the subject goes on to detail that the woman in question is a widow, an Irish woman and overweeningly ambitious. It was she who fired the priest with a keen interest in the effort for Irish independence, first persuaded him to read and accept Henry George’s theories, and has prompted his subsequent resistance to church authority. Lastly, the story goes, she convinced him that the tenet which forbids a priest to marry was an unwise one and that Pere Hyacinth’s example contained precepts and suggestions for himself. There have been so many conflicting rumors about the churchly rebel that one hesitates to give them credence, and this one has a romantic ground which does not add to its probable veraciousness.

Now I am going to tell you who this widow is, as far as I can guess. (Great laughter and applause. I assure you that at first I could not imagine who it was, but it dawned on me while reading in this newspaper about the widow who first got me to read Henry George’s book. She is not an Irishman. (Laughter.) She is one who, like myself, was horn out of his native country. I believe that this Irish widow was born in Canada, but has been for some time a resident of New York. I forget the first letters of her name, but the latter part of her name is Steers; and there are all sorts of obstacles to my marrying this widow; for this widow Steers happens to be a man. (Laughter.) And Mr. Steers is not even a widower; he has a wife and children.

Page 3

So that is the widow who first gave me Henry George’s book and begged me to read it. And I am blessed if I can think of any other widow. The person who got me to read Henry George’s book was Mr. Steers, any dear friend, and an associate of Henry George, who is very well known to many on this platform. And now I swear that if I ever marry any widow at all it shall be none other than Mr. Steers. (Laughter.) I now state that I shall never marry any woman, whether widower maid.

And now it is well to take this bull by the horns or to knock all such slanders on the head. The one reason why I was suspended by Archbishop Corrigan (unless he is a fool or a liar) is that I taught the doctrine that God made the land for the people, and that I refused to retract it. I do refuse to retract it! (Tremendous applause.) And I was suspended from my ministry for that and for no other reason, and would have been restored toil immediately if I had sinned against the Holy Ghost and thereby rendered my self eternally unworthy of exercising my ministry. Thea I would have been readmitted to the Catholic altar when I could only have hated and despised myself for purchasing the privilege at so infamous a price. (Applause.)

But there is a distinction between being suspended from your ministry and being knocked out of St. Stephen’s church. I know there is. If Archbishop Corrigan had in the ordinary course of administration, no matter how unjustly, removed me from St. Stephen’s and ordered me to go to the remotest church of his diocese, I should have gone instantly, unquestioningly. 1 should have obeyed. I should have sacrificed even my dearest lies, the very altars, the paintings, and the very ceiling, every portion of which bears in some sense the mark of my hand, in the church to which I devoted my youth and manhood (great applause), the church to which I was wedded with as tender and as true an affection as any man could be wedded to a pure and innocent bride in holy matrimony. I never desired any other wife, and I desire none other today. (Applause.) Great as would have been the sacrifice I should have made it instantly, uncomplainingly, unquestioningly. And the people of that parish might have grieved, and I would have been the first to soothe them and give then the example of perfect obedience to a command, no matter how unjust or how unreasonable. But when it was demanded of me that I should retract God’s truth, when it was demanded of me that before going to Rome I should condemn in writing for publication what I know to be the truth, what I know they have never examined, what they themselves, four years after condemning it, confessed to an American bishop in Rome they had never examined, I refused to retract ! I refuse now! I shall continue to refuse forever! (Applause and cheers.) I was suspended without a hearing; and when some of the less unfriendly and less unreasonable members, one or two, of the archbishop’s council, suggested that it would be but the proper thing to send for Dr. McGlynn and give him a hearing, the archbishop and Preston (hisses) and the great majority of his council poohpoohed the thing and voted it down as preposterous. And that is justice, done in the name of the holy church of Christ, and in the name of Kim who is the synonym of justice! (Great applause and cheers. A voice: “They will have to do you justice yet.”)

But there must have been other reasons besides that for wishing to remove me from St. Stephen’s, for the archbishop’s letter shows that oven if I had retracted it was still his determination to remove me to another parish. First, they wanted to make an example of the man who kept his engagement in Chickering hall, so that all priests might kn ow that no man among them might make a speech without the permission and consent of the archbishop, so that the archbishop should have the unquestioned control of all his priestly “subjects.” It was a precedent that would diminish the value and the quantity of the goods that he might occasionally wish to deliver to one or another political party. (Applause.)

It is told on unquestioned authority that the archbishop was eager to send for a prominent democrat to assure him that Dr. McGlynn had been inhibited from making speeches during the political campaign. It is a matter of public record that his vicar general, Preston (hisses), wrote to Mr. Joseph O’Donoghue (hisses and groans, long drawn out) a letter which was distributed before the doors of churches; and poor fools of Catholics who read it said: “Oh, I was giving to vote for George, but that won’t do now; that is going against the church.” (Terrific groans. A voice, “That is played out now.”)

Before election several of the priests, with their vestments upon them, were guilty of the sacrilegious outrage of denouncing Henry George. No man has more rigorously distinguished between politics and the church than I have I went upon the Irish land league platform. At that very moment I was telling my friends who were asking me for the use of St. Stephen’s basement in which to hold land league meetings: “I will give you all the money I can afford to hire a hall, but you must allow me to draw firmly the line of demarcation between religion and politics.” (Applause.)

Well, the next charge was McGlynn wouldn’t build a parochial school. (Applause.) One of the councilors had the charity to speak up and say: “Has Dr. McGlynn ever been asked or instructed to build a parochial school?’ “No,” said the archbishop; “no, he shouldn’t be allowed to build one; he is not methodical enough; he shouldn’t be allowed to build one.” (Laughter.)

Then the next charge was general financial failure. That charge came about four years too late. (Laughter.) I confess that I never did take the view of the priesthood, that the impersonation of all the cardinal and theological virtues in one was the ability to squeeze money out of the people (applause); but to a large portion of these ecclesiastical gentry the sum of all virtues today is to be called a financier; the one merit that makes a pastor, a vicar general and an archbishop. It is a strange thing that St. Paul, who names about a dozen virtues which should characterize a bishop, actually omitted financiering. (Laughter.) St. Paul never was a financier.

But the late not very much lamented Vicar General Quinn was nagging me to worry me out of St. Stephen’s, and get a friend of his in. “There is a great debt on the church,” h e said, “and I know a man who can pay it off.” I said: “Well, perhaps it is about time we paid this debt oil.” We can do it in a few years and then spit upon it and say, This debt paying is not the sum of all the apostolic virtues.” In four years’ time we paid off $142,000 of the debt. (Applause.)

And then that terrible sockdolager (laughter) that Archbishop Corrigan was to administer when he got back from the Bahamas. The terrible sockdolager was that we expended come $58,000 of the money of St. Stephen’s for St. Stephen’s home for destitute children. And we kept a separate account of it! And I actually kept that separate account by the advice of Cardinal McCloskey. (Laughter. \ And this same thing was raked up by Quinn in trying to humiliate me; but he overreached himself. “The wrath of man worketh the will of God.” (Applause.) And it would have been not only a permissible, but a lawful stud beautiful thing to spend three times that much money upon a sham humbug parochial school! (Applause and laughter.) If the worst comes to the worst, St. Stephen’s home for destitute children, with six hundred children in it in town and country were getting their schooling; and it certainly did not detract from their schooling that they also got their board and clothing and washing. (Applause.)

Then there was the charge of general unpunctuality and irregularity in St. Stephen’s parish. There are a few people who will bear me out when I say that, except in the minds of some jealous priests, St. Stephen’s was the church of all churches in the city where they were best able to get, at every hour and on every day in the year, all the facilities to practice their religion. The church. Was wide open, every door on every street—three doors on Twenty-eighth street, four doors on Twenty- ninth street—like Christ standing there with outstretched arms inviting the weary wayfarer to come in and refresh himself. (Applause.) It was actually made a criticism that I kept the church open all day to be the resort of tramps. (Laughter.) They excoriated me for allowing tramps to come in and make St. Stephen’s their home. I say there is pathos it it, that it was a place where tramps could go in and feel that there was one spot on earth not yet denied to them—one spot of land still common to God’s children, and that is the floor of the house of God. (Tremendous applause.) That was another of my crimes—general irregularity. The church open from 5 in the morning until 9 in the evening every day in the year! A high mass at 9 o’clock every week day in the year! All sorts of excuses and occasions for throwing open the church and having music and prayers and services. Some of them were furiously jealous of that—too much religion for them. And they were furiously jealous at finding that their own people from neighboring parishes had to go to St. Stephen’s church to get religion. (Applause.) If you go to the bottom of it, a large reason of my being clubbed out of St. Stephen’s church was that there was too much religion there. (Applause.) Now you think that is a joke, but I am going to prove it to you.

Another of those terrible facts from Mon signor Preston. (Hisses.) I am concealing nothing from you. (Applause.) This puritan Preston—this man who was born just two hundred and fifty years too late (applause)—this man who should have been born in his own native New England just about two hundred and fifty years ago when they were burning witches, and who would probably have paid a big premium for permission to set fire to the faggots—this Preston, masquerading as the vicar general of this great diocese of seven or eight hundred thousand Catholics, had the hardihood, the infamy, to dare to say, “Besides, I would almost doubt whether Dr. McGlynn has really proper faith in the blessed sacrament (hisses and groans), because if he had he would have more respect for it and he would not be sending people to communion as often as he does.” (Groans.)

“Now, I was actually told by Miss Cornell,” said Monsignor Preston at the council board of the archbishop, and the archbishop and all his councilors were listening to it, “I was told by Miss Cornell that she actually saw an old woman going up to the communion rail in St. Stephen’s church with her bundle.” (Sensation and applause.) And the logical conclusion from that was, ergo, therefore, Dr. McGlynn must be kicked out of St. Stephen’s church.

Now I ask you, was it the Holy Ghost or the devil that inspired those accusations. (Cries of “The devil!”) Isn’t it enough to make our Catholic blood, that we may say we have inherited from fourteen centuries of Catholic ancestry, boil to hear this witch burner say of me that he would almost doubt if I had faith in the blessed sacrament. That is the man whom this degenerate son of an Irish father and mother makes vicar general of all this Catholic diocese! (Hisses and groans. Many voices: “The son of a rum seller!”) It is quite in keeping with that excellent appointment that now that he has had a chance to appoint a second vicar general, he has appointed that eminent financier, the Rev. Arthur Donnelly. (groans.)

Now you have heard all the charges that I my self have ever heard. Those are the charges upon which I was knocked out of St. Stephen’s church, and I never even heard them except by whisperings from the poor old leaky gossips of the archbishop’s council. (Laughter and applause.) And the only charge that has ever been communicated to me was that I had talked against the pope, when I never had even thought of him; and second, that I had talked of this doctrine of the land for the people. I confess that great sin, and 1 would die this night repeating that sin. (Tumultuous applause and cheers, the whole audience rising and waving handkerchiefs and hats.) I would die this moment, so helping God, repeating that sin, and with my last faint breath declare that God is the father of all His children and that all are equally brothers, and therefore that He has given to all of them equally His natural bounties. (Great applause.)

And this is my faith. This is my philosophy. This is a part of my belief in Christ my master. (Great applause.) And with this confession of faith, I die peacefully with my conscience as clear as that of the babe which is washed in the layer of baptism. (Applause. An old woman in one of the front rows: “We will all die with you.”)

So now they say they have excommunicated me! There are only two beings in all the universe that can separate me from God. One is infinitely wise and; good and merciful, and He can do it, but He never will until I shall have consented first to separate myself from Him. (Great applause.) And there is only one other being in all the universe who can separate me from God, and Edward McGlynn is his name. (Applause.) I am conscious that the human will is weak; but at the same time I am intensely conscious of my absolute desire to do in all things the holy will of God. I would, with all my human weakness, trusting to this infinite power and goodness that has made it possible for millions of men and weak women and even little children to go smiling to the block, to the stake, to the faggot, also go personally to suffer perpetual imprisonment, to be burned at the stake, to suffer all that human malignity could suggest, rather than permit myself for one instant or by one hairsbreadth to be turned from the holy will of God my Father, my Maker and my Master. (Great applause.)

Conscious with intense clearness. even with a perfect conviction of the rectitude of my course, all their efforts, all their suspensions, all their excommunications, seem to me but as the idle patter of the rain drops upon the roof. (Applause and cheers.)

When I took up the pa per this morning I so absolutely forgot that I had any case at all, and I became so intensely interested in what first fell under my eve—the account of a presentation to Mr. Gladstone (applause) of a testimonial yesterday—that I kept reading for nearly a quarter of an hour, when somebody came along and said, “I congratulate you.” “Upon what?” “Upon your excommunication. Haven’t you been reading it! The papers are full of it.” “Are they?” Then I locked at another column, and I saw in big type, “McGlynn excommunicated.” (Laughter.)

The story got into some of the papers that the archbishop had sent me a registered letter on the Saturday of the week before last. I had not received any such letter, and I never dreamed that it had been sent. It was only this afternoon that the admirable managing secretary of our land and labor committee at Cooper union told me that, by the by, it began to dawn on him that among my mail of dozens of letters that had come to me there was an official card from the postmaster stating that there was a registered letter for me, which I shall probably receive to morrow. I now begin strongly to surmise that that letter will contain a communication from the archbishop about my excommunication. I went to a certain church this morning, bright and early at half-past seven mass, and went up to receive with perfect faith the holy communion (great applause). Here was the extraordinary spectacle of an excommunicated priest, in perfect simplicity and good faith, receiving the holy communion (laughter). I suppose if I should go to that same church next Sunday morning that a priest would be prepared for me and drive me away from the communion rail. (A voice: “They can’t do it.”) Here is a man says they can’t do it. He reminds me of the story of an unfortunate fellow who got into jail and sent for a clever lawyer. After hearing the prisoner’s statement of his case the lawyer said: “They can’t put you in jail for that.” “But I am here all the same, Mr. Lawyer,” said the prisoner. (Laughter.) He says they can’t do it, but I say they will.

“But, Father McGlynn, what are you going to do about it?” After a pause, and with a humorous expression of countenance, Dr. McGlynn answered his own question by saying: “To be continued in the next chapter.”

A SHORT ADDRESS FROM HENRY GEORGE.

The significant conclusion of Dr. McGlynn’s address was greeted with a storm of cheers, accompanied with the enthusiastic waving of handkerchiefs by the ladies. Loud and continued calls were then made for Henry George, whose appearance was the signal for a fresh demonstration. Mr. George spoke very briefly as follows.

“My friend (applause) needs no defense. Dr. McGlynn is his own defense. I am glad, however, to see tonight such an outpouring as has been witnessed here and in the hall across the street, and which would have easily sufficed to fill two or three more such halls. It is a sufficient answer to the message that has come from Rome—the message of the excommunication of an American citizen because he has insisted upon his rights as a citizen; because he has refused to take his politics from Rome; because he has stood upon the broad platform of the fatherhood of God and the brotherhood of man. (Great applause.)

“This marks another step in a great movement.

“Rome has excommunicated McGlynn. Now let us see what they will make by that excommunicating. Not merely from the Catholics of New York, but from all over the country, the same answer will ring out that went back from Ireland: ‘All the religion you please from Rome, but no politics.’ (Deafening applause.) And in attempting to put down this movement they but force it on.

“The standard of the new crusade that Dr. McGlynn has raised will go forward all the quicker for what has been done today. The truth never can, never has been, put down by such means. (Applause.) It will end in the triumph of the right.” (Great applause.)

The Irving Hall Meeting

The overflow meeting in living hall was no less enthusiastic than that in the Academy ofMusic. The house was crowded to its utmost capacity, even every inch of standing room being occupied.

Mr. John Feeny, who has so ably presided at the numerous meetings of the St. Stephen’s parishioners, occupied the chair. John J. Bealin opened the proceedings with a vigorous speech, in which he gave a clear presentment of the issue as between the papal machine working through Archbishop Corrigan and the vast body of American Citizens of the Catholic faith. Addresses were also delivered by Dr. Coughlin, Henry George, James J. Gahan, George Smith, Frank Ferrall and others, all of which breathed a spirit of defiance to papal aggression, and were received with vehement applause.

Soon after 11 o’clock Dr. McGlynn appeared upon the platform and was received with an ovation as earnest and vigorous as that which had greeted him at the Academy. In his address the doctor went over the same ground as in his Academy speech, though the lateness of the hour and his own evident fatigue compelled him to omit some of the most. eloquent passages. The speech was received with wild demonstrations of approval, and punctuated with approving and supporting voices from all parts of the hall. It was after midnight before the meeting came to a close.

The collections for the evening in the two halls amounted to $432.

During the progress of the meetings the following telegram was received from the land and labor club of Vincennes, Ind.:

At a special meeting of the Vincennes land and labor club today the following was adopted:

Resolved, That the action of the Roman machine in the case of Dr. McGlynn was an insult to American citizenship, a brutal revenge wreaked on an inoffensive and defenseless philanthropist, and a fair warning to labor that it must count the Italian hierarchy among the deadliest foes.

Resolved, That in this great trial Dr. McGlynn has our undivided sympathy; that in his virtue and sincerity we have the most unwavering faith, and that his high courage and unflagging zeal command our profoundest admiration.

W. W. Bailey, Cor. Secy.

How the Servants of the People Make Out

New York World.

Secretary Whitney has sold “Grasslands,” his country place on the Tenallytown road, above Georgetown. It, is understood that he has leased it for two years, with the privilege of a third, having reserved that right when making the sale. In the spring of 1885 Secretary Whitney purchased this place, which contained 100 acres and a large house, for $300 per acre. He subsequently sold twenty-five acres at $1,500 per acre, and Has now sold the remaining seventy-five acres for $75,000.

Secretary Fairchild has purchased for $50,000 a residence at the intersection of New Hampshire avenue and Twentieth street, adjoining the house built by Congressman S. S. Cox.

He Was a One-Member Anti-Poverty Society and Didn’t Know It

Chicago Tribune.

Arizona road agent—Hands up in this stage coach! Lively now!

(Intermission of a few moments, during which considerable business is transacted.)

Sarcastic passenger—You’ve got about everything except our boots. Hadn’t you better go through us again?

Road agent—I never take up two collections from one crowd. I’m no anti-poverty society.

Rome Looks Upon the Whole Matter as a Joke

Cable Dispatch from Rome to Brooklyn Citizen.

People have been much amused here by the position taken by some American journals as to the real status of Dr. McGlynn. I assure you that the pope scarcely knows of the existence of this redoubtable doctor. Your own Very Rev. Father Keegan is a hundred times better known than Dr. McGlynn.

The “Star’s” Pen Slips, and It Stumbles on the Truth

New York Star, July 18.

It is political economy, and not religious doctrine, that lies at the root of Dr. McGlynn’s affair.

 



Queries And Answers

Exploiting Labor

New York City.—Will the abolition of private property in land enable employes of capitalists to share in the product resulting from their labor? Suppose a capitalist engages in business. So long as he alone labors with his capital he is entitled to the entire product of that labor and that capital, and no one else can rightfully claim a share in it. But if the capitalist employs others to assist him—as the law would stand even after the emancipation of the land—the employes would get only the market value of their labor, while the capitalist would get the balance of the entire net profits or product.

A.

When a capitalist labors alone with his capital, he is, as you say, entitled to the entire product. That product is in part wages and in part return to capital. When he employs others to assist him they, having no capital, get wages only. Under existing conditions the wages are regulated by competition for opportunities to work, and as opportunities are restricted while workers increase, wages decline, and he who can control an opportunity to work gets a surplus over wages and return to capital. But if land values were taxed away, opportunities to work would be practically unlimited, and there would be no competition for them. There would be, instead, competition for workers. In that case wages would be determined by the productiveness of the labor, and the capitalist would get nothing but his wages and return for his capital when he employed men, just as when he labored alone with his capital. His wages might be higher, because his work would be more valuable, as a foreman’s wages are n ow higher than a journeyman’s , but they would be wages as before.

It is impossible to “exploit” men to their injury when they are free. It is only the helplessness of men who have only labor to offer in exchange for opportunities to produce that makes them victims to capital. Paupers will saw wood half a day for a break fast, but no man will who knows he can get his breakfast on better terms.

Poor Landlords and Foreign Ministers

Minneapolis, June 27.— Will you please answer these questions in your paper?

(1) Supposing I owned a lot with a $300 house on it, and I was poor; and two other men that were wealthy should own the lots adjoining me on either side, with $10,000 houses on them. Would it be right to tax me as much as it would them, the lots being equal?

(2) What are the duties of our foreign ministers, and what are their salaries?

W. D. Morrill.

(1) Yes; you would be appropriating the same natural and social advantage, the property of the whole community, and ought to pay the same price for it to the community.

We have fully answered so many questions exactly like this, in which it is supposed that a poor man owns a cheap house on very valuable land alongside of a rich man with a palace, that we must decline to answer any more. When an actual case of this kind is stated we will give it attention.

(2) Mainly to eat state dinners and introduce American snobs to foreign potentates. Their salaries are comfortable.

Texan Curiosity

Auburn, Tex.—In your paper of the 25th ult., in answer to O. J. Sutton’s question. whether under the tax reform the capitalist would monopolize all the land, as they do now, you say: “If he took up all the land, rent would be so high that the poorly paid laborers could live on their share of the rent without working.”

(1) Now how could they live off rent paid by others? Do you propose a division of rent’ How would the poor get it?

(2) This question is often asked: Would it not be more just to buy the land of the owners at a price given by a bureau appointed for that purpose than to tax it so heavily the owner will have to quit claiming it?

(3) A great many Germans and Bohemians have settled in the southern portion of this state, and the native Texans have moved to other portions of the country. They can’t associate with the foreigners. Now they say to me, if the land was made free these foreigners would come and take our land, and we would have to emigrate. Now, would you favor foreign immigration until the other nations should make their land free?

J. T. Lake.

(1) If the public income from land value taxes were greater than was required for public uses we should favor a distribution of the surplus among the natural owners of the land—the people. That is done in some of the communes of Europe where the land has been retained by the people, and it works remarkably well. There are no loafers or paupers there and the inhabitants do not emigrate.

(2) To buy the land of the owners is to put the burden of rent on producers in another form. It would do no good to the small land owner; indeed, it would be an injury to him, for while he would not get enough compensation to live on, large owners would be as comfortably situated as now. The interest on their bonds would give them great incomes, which small owners and working people generally would have to pay. Suppose the negro had been freed by requiring him to give to his owner a n interest bearing bond on his value and making that bond an obligation of his descendants. What would have happened? The price of negroes would have gone up at once and the negro race would have been in bondage as long as the bonds were unpaid.

(3) The foreigners could not take the land occupied by native Texans without buying it of the native Texans, and so long as there was plenty of good Texas land to be had for nothing the foreigners would not be willing to pay a price for the privilege of associating with native Texans. It is Texas land not Texan society that the Germans and Bohemians want.

Confusing Value With Utility

Rockland, Mass.—I was surprised to read from Mr. George that there was no such thing as intrinsic value. I was more surprised to read your defense of his statement in your reply to Samuel Toller’s letters, published in your issue of the 2d inst. While open to conviction, I beg leave to criticize. Though this may be a mere quibble of words, I have already found one other reader of The Standard who is puzzled at your position, we have the word intrinsic. What are we going to do with it? The dictionary defines it as “appertaining to the thing itself.” Value is also defined as “that property of a thing which enables us by its use to satisfy our wants.”

Adam Smith says that “we should carefully distinguish between value in use and value in exchange.” You wholly ignore value in use when you say “value is a factor of exchange.” However true that may be, it is no definition of the term value.

You also say “none of Robinson Crusoe’s things had a value because there was none with whom he could trade.” If you recognize only exchange value, which is better expressed by the word price, true; but as long as Crusoe valued his life and wished to prolong it, his things were valuable to him. Again, you say “value is a term which describes a relative quality;” and, of course, if you recognize only exchange value or price, it would be absurd to speak of the intrinsic price of a thing, but it seems to me that the quality possessed by a bushel of wheat which sustains life is a positive quality, and it is that quality which gives wheat value. You may say that if there were no men to get a living, wheat would have no value, but that would be a sophism, for we have the men, and that is why we read The Standard.

As this life sustaining quality of the wheat appertains entirely to the wheat regardless of price, why not call it the intrinsic value?

J. A. Killings.

The dictionary definition of value as “that property of a thing which enables us by its use to satisfy our wants” is wrong, and Adam Smith’s “value in use” is better expressed by the term utility. “Exchange value,” as you call it, is not better expressed by price, for “price” expresses the relation of products to money, while value expresses the exchange relation of products generally.

It makes no difference what terms we apply to things, provided we never confuse the terms, and respecting the subject of your letter there is no liability to confusion if we describe the intrinsic usefulness of an article as its utility, its relation to other articles in exchange as its value, and its relation to money as its price.

Some Definitions

(1) I would like your definition of the words “profit,” “interest,” “dividend” and “rent.”

(2) The definition of the word “capital.”

(3) The definition of the terms “value” and “value in exchange.”

(4) You say the land was given by the Creator for the use of all men, and under the term “land” you mean everything “from the center of this globe to its surface.” Therefore all materials hidden in the land, such as gold, iron, etc., must belong to the people at large, and if it is immoral to own land it must be immoral to own things dug from the land.

(5) Is not public ownership of machinery as important as public ownership of land?

(6) Is it any more necessary to resist the landlord than to resist the wagelord?

Hermann Strelitz.

(1) “Profit” is excess of revenue over expense; “interest” is return from the use of capital; “dividend” has no special economic meaning, but in common use it signifies that proportion of the profits of a, joint undertaking which goes to one of the parties to it; “rent” is that part of production which goes to the owners of natural opportunities by virtue of their ownership, exclusive of anything received by them on account of buildings, improvements, etc.

(2) “Capital” is wealth used in production; or perhaps it may*be still more clearly defined as wealth in course of exchange or transmutation, since production includes not merely the making or bringing forth of things, but also the bringing of them to the final consumer. Land, labor and capital are the three factors of production; hence neither land nor labor can be capital, though their possession may sometimes be equivalent to the possession of capital. For a fuller explanation of these distinctions, which are all important to clear thought, see chapter 2, book 1, “Progress and Poverty.”

(3) “Value” is the relation of one thing to another in exchange. There is no distinction between “value” and “value in exchange.” The proper English word for what is sometimes called “value in use,” is utility.

(4) There is a vast difference between owning the land and owning things dug from the land. No one produces the land; some one does produce things dug from the land. Ownership of things dug from the land does not interfere with digging more things; but ownership of the land does. Land exists without labor; things dug from the land would not exist in that form without labor. There is as much difference between gold in the bowels of the earth and a wedding ring as there is between sunlight and a photograph. Vanderbilt might paper his walls with photographs without harming any one. Indeed, it would be a good thing for photographers. But if he had a corner on sunlight it would be a bad thing for everybody.

(5) You might as well ask if ownership of a cow’s milk is not as important as ownership of the cow. When you own the cow, you can get her milk if you work for it.

(6) There can be no “wagelord” without a landlord.

Notes

R. C Marsh, Troy, N. Y.—Judging from your letter you understand the question well. In taxing mines we would not tax the hole in the ground, for that is a product of labor; but we would tax the opportunity to make the hole, if that opportunity had a market value.

Samuel Toller, Davenport, Ia.—Your discussion about intrinsic value is fruitless. Your last letter shows clearly that by “intrinsic value” you mean utility, and if you will always use the term “intrinsic value” in that sense, and the person to whom you address yourself will always so understand it, we have no quarrel with you. What we insist upon is, that you are less liable to be misunderstood if when you mean utility you say utility than if you say “exchange value” or “intrinsic value.”

Information for Brooklyn from New York via Rome

Cable dispatch from Rome to Brooklyn Citizen.

It is understood here among the Americans, who naturally are eager for private information about the inside of American affairs, that Dr. McGlynn has been subsidized by Mr. Blaine. Before he left for Europe, Mr . Blaine, Henry George and Dr. McGlynn had a private conference in a restaurant in New York, and it is understood that a plan of campaign was arranged. The proprietor of the restaurant, who is a Spaniard, is responsible for this assertion which he telegraphed to my informant.

 



Society Notes

The Newport season of 1887 is fully opened, and all that is now wanted to make it a success is an influx of guests at the hotels, which are far from being full. The weather has been all that could be wished for. All the cottagers have arrived, and they are quietly enjoying the delightful breezes. The heat has been intense, but the breezes invariably come to hand early in the afternoon. The principal events of the week included the visit of the members of the Rev. Dr. Talmage’s church of Brooklyn; the annual meeting of the Rhode Island society of the Cincinnati, and a quiet and modest celebration of the national holiday.—[New York daily paper.]

Mr. R. W. Tailer has arrived at Richfield Springs on his four-in-hand drag, spending1 the hottest week of the season on the roads from New York. His party were Mrs. And Miss Tailer, General and Mrs. H. L. Barnett, Miss Grace Johnson and Edward and Lee Tailer They pronounced the drive and accommodations along the route comfortable, but the roads through the valley via Saugerties Phoenicia, Stamford and Cooperstown “horrid.”

Of the 1,276 deaths in the city last week, fully sixty per cent were said to be deaths of children under five years of age, and most of those children had been living in tenement houses. “We need no further proof of the heat than those figures, which also show that there were $35 deaths in tenement houses during the week,” said a chief inspector of the sanitary bureau yesterday. There were over three hundred deaths from cholera morbus and cholera infantum during the week. In every tenement district the sight of an undertaker’s wagon with a small coffin on it has been too common since the hot weather set in.—[New York Tribune, July 10.]

During the last four years the number of churches of various denominations has increased by 15,325, which is at the rate of 3,831 each year, or 10 1-2 each day. It surely must be a pleasing thought to the yearning Christian as he winds his watch upon retiring to rest that, during the twenty-four hours since he wound it the night before, over ten churches have been organized, and are now carrying forward the blessed work of converting sinners. Nor is that all. No less than 408,000 mortals have each year been awakened through the call of God by His church to a sense of their immortality, and have stood up to own Jesus before the world as their only Master and Redeemer. In other words, 1,117 sinners every day, for forty-six every hour are found joining the great procession of those already on the march to the New Jerusalem.—[Christian at Work.]

Elliot F. Shepard of New York and a party of twelve relatives and friends are now in the Yosemite. Mr. Shepard’s party travel in a private car, and expect to remain several months in southern California.

Grace church, which has the wealthiest congregation of any in New York, has just been newly decorated in Byzantine style. The most striking features are the fresco of the nave and the paneling of the walls, the rich oriental borders and the lavish gildings.

The practice of keeping fires in tenements where children are at play is necessary so long as the mothers are obliged to do laundry work in order to help support the families, a child which has lived in such stilling atmosphere for months is likely to die suddenly from cholera morbus. The number of deaths from that disease among children has been so much greater than usual in the last fortnight that Dr. Taylor, who has charge of the investigation of contagious diseases. has been looking into a number of deaths to make sure that they were not caused by Asiatic cholera.—[New York Tribune.]

Ferdinand Ward’s cell in Sing Sing is decorated with a collection of photographs and stereoscopic views. Ward spends his days in his little printing office alone. He has gained twenty pounds since he entered the prison. He says his labor is not severe, and serves as a means of diverting his mind.

The Rev. Dr. R. R. Meredith of Boston soon to be of Brooklyn, is greatly enjoying his visit to England.

Round cluster diamond pins are in fashion.

There were 60,636 births in Paris last year, of which more than 17,000 were illegitimate. The Rev. Dr. Henry J. Van Dyke, Jr., pastor of the Brick Presbyterian church of this city, who is now resting at Newport, will sail in a few weeks with Henry Marquand and others in the yacht Ruth on a cruise to Labrador in search of salmon. All the party are enthusiastic fishermen.

At a sheriff’s sale in Limerick lately Mr. Hutchins, the chancery receiver, bought in two farms from which tenants had been evicted. The purchase increased the friends of the evictees, and they attempted to moll Mr. Hutchins. He fled and took refuge in. a police station, whither the crowd followed him and refused to disperse. The police there upon charged them and made live arrests. Collector Magene of this port made a sensation recently by ordering all importation of gold and silver to be sent to the appraisers office for examination. Bullion is duty free, and it was found that some bankers were taking advantage of this face to smuggle watches in their bullion packages.

A laborer employed by William H. Kirk & Co. of Newark found a pocketbook containing $162 on the railroad track at the Market street station of the Pennsylvania railroad one day lust week, and reported his find to the property clerk next day. An engineer owned the wallet and had dropped it while oiling his engine. He missed it almost immediately, and telegraphed to Newark from New Brunswick asking the depot master to hunt for it. The engineer sought out the tinder of the book after he had secured his money, and tendered him a reward. The reward was ref used.—[New York Sun.]

Professor Elisha Gray, who is at the Murray Hill hotel, is one of the contestants with Alexander Graham Hell for the honor of telephone invention. The professors patents in telephony is capitalized in a stock company at some $l0,000,000.

Says a court dressmaker in the Pall Mall Gazette: “The making of a court dress is quite a work of art, and in order to succeed you must be an artist, as well as a dressmaker. As a rule, ladies leave the arrangement to me, and very often they do not even choose the color. It is only now and then that a lady comes with her mind made up about the color, but generally we have to think and compose and propose as well as to execute the actual work. Of course fashions vary as much is court dresses as in any other costumes; this season light colored velvets are very much. worn. They are mostly lined with another thinner material: but I always advocate good lining, because it will make an elegant costume afterwards. We have lately very often used violet as the lining for the train; the effect ii very good, and the velvet is always useful afterwards. In order to preserve this costly lining we put a thick ruche inside the train.

Alfred Allen, a respectably dressed man, was charged with attempting to commit suicide. The prisoner, when rescued from the river, exclaimed to the policeman who took him into custody: “Why did you not let me do it. I have a wife and eight children. I went home last night and found my wife fainting at her needlework and the children crying for bread. I could see nothing in front of me but death. I worked at Becton gas works for twelve years, and while there, I met with an accident from an explosion and lost the sight of one eye. I was discharged I have been out of work for two months.”—[London Times.]

Poor Citizen McGlynn!

Chicago Tribune.

What now remains of Citizen McGlynn? He is unfitted for practical business. What career hes open to him? And what direction will he take? There is no place fur such as he in the republican party. The democratic party has no use for a man who advocatesrobbery. And if he should attempt to put his principles into practice and find himself in the clutch of the law, with the penitentiary in view, will he not mournfully reflect that the pulpit of St. Stephen’s would have been more desirable? Will it be any consolation to him that he has no one but himself to blame?

Page 4

The Excommunication

The decree promulgated from Rome on the Fourth of July has at last been executed in New York, though in sorry and timid fashion. The effect of the Roman telegram has evidently been such as to reveal, even to Archbishop Corrigan, something of the direction and strength of the current of Catholic opinion. Instead of performing the act of excommunication with all the ceremony befitting its importance, he has contented himself with a notice, which was not even ordered to be read in the churches, or sent, as has been the archbishop’s wont with less important documents, to the daily papers, but was given, as though to hide it, to an obscure Catholic weekly.

However, the dailies found means to disentomb the notice and lay it before their readers on Sunday morning, and the excommunication, it is presumed, is just as valid as though the full text of the ancient curse had been recited in the cathedral with bell, book and candle, and a hundred priests crying “fiat! fiat! fiat!” Though by this time doubtless familiar to all the readers of The Standard, the document itself is worth reprinting as a matter of record:

To the Very Reverend and Reverend Clergy and the Faithful Laity of the Arch-Diocese of New York: Be it known that on the 4th day of May, 1887, the sacred congregation of the propaganda admonished the Rev. Dr. Edward McGlynn, late rector of St. Stephen’s church in this city, that he had already rendered himself liable to ecclesiastical censure by disobeying the positive command of the Sovereign Pontiff given January 17. Wishing, however, to deal leniently with him, the sacred congregation ref rained from inflicting censure, and offering him a further opportunity to be heard in his own behalf, gave him a final and peremptory order to present himself in Rome within forty days from the receipt of the letter containing such order under pain of excommunication, to be incurred otherwise ipso facto et nominertim. This letter was duly delivered to the Rev. Dr. McGlynn, and as he allowed the days of grace to pass unheeded, it became our sad duty to notify him that he had incurred by his own act this penalty of excommunication, by name, whereby he is cut off from the communion of the church, from its sacraments, and participation in its prayers, and, should he persevere in his contumacy, deprived of the right after death to Christian burial. It has become also our duty to declare to the clergy and laity of our charge, which we do by these letters/that the Rev- Dr. Edward McGlynn is excommunicated nominatum with all the penalties attached to this censure by the canons of the church.

Michael Augustine,

Archbishop of New York.

C. E. McDonnell, Secretary.

New York, July 8, 1887.

In this is to be noted that Archbishop Corrigan does not, as he was authorized and expected to do, excommunicate Dr. McGlynn’s supporters. This cannot be from any consideration of the falling off in burial fees likely to follow wholesale excommunication. It is semi-officially intimated that it was to give them opportunity to withdraw. But it is an opportunity that they do not seem disposed to embrace.

On the contrary, the effect of the excommunication, it is already clear, is but to widen and strengthen Dr. McGlynn’s support No such series of meetings as those held by the Anti-poverty society has ever before been seen in this city; but that of Sunday night surpassed all before. The crowds that long before eight o’clock of the midsummer evening had filled every available inch of space both in the Academy of Music and in living hall were small compared with the crowds that were turned away. But in spirit and enthusiasm these meetings were even more remarkable and significant than in numbers. No one who saw them and felt them could mistake the answer of the popular heart to the excommunication of Rome. No man ever received a more spontaneous and heartfelt demonstration of affection and support man did this “isolated,” this “excommunicated,” priest And no orator ever drew closer the bond of sympathy between himself and his audience than did Dr. McGlynn in the unstudied words in which, with the candor of a friend among friends, he addressed those great audiences—now rising to the heights of solemn eloquence, and again, with the abruptness characteristic of his blood, rousing to indignation or yielding to the sense of humor.

Thus does the first act in a very important drama come to a conclusion. The whole power of Rome has been called in to effect what Archbishop Corrigan thought at first to effect by a simple suspension. And though something of the same chorus goes up now as went up then, the declarations that Dr. McGlynn has been shorn of his influence are much fainter and very much less confident. The declaration of the priest who said that, as Archbishop Corrigan had made suspension respectable, so now Rome was about to make excommunication ridiculous, begins to be justified, even in the comments of the press that have steadily urged the ecclesiastical authorities on, and journals that most dislike all that Dr. McGlynn stands for, cannot refrain from a little sly ridicule of an excommunication that falls so harmless.

But that the heaviest thunder of Rome has in this so hollow a rattle proves the real importance of the case and reveals the magnitude of the forces that are behind Dr. McGlynn. Had Archbishop Corrigan been dealing merely with an individual priest he might ere this have crushed him—have crushed him as easily as many another priest has been crushed by episcopal tyranny and ecclesiastical bureaucracy. But what he has brought on is not a contest between ecclesiastical authority and a “rebellious subject;” it is a conflict between the spirit of despotism and reaction and the spirit of liberty and progress. He has succeeded in getting the “machine” that has usurped control of the organization of the church to pit itself against the soul of Christianity.

In Archbishop Corrigan’s notice the cause of the excommunication of Dr. McGlynn is declared to be his “disobeying the positive command of the sovereign pontiff, given January 17,” that command being:

The pontiff commands the alumus to proceed to Rome at oncea command that immediately followed the following command from Cardinal Simeoni:

Give orders to have Dr. McGlynn again invited to proceed to Rome, and also to condemn in writing the doctrines to which he has given utterance in public meetings or which have been attributed to him in the press. Should he disobey, use your own authority in dealing with him.

Curiously enough, the Tribune, which heads its copy of the excommunication notice “Official,” makes the archbishop declare the cause of the excommunication to be “disobeying the positive commands of the Foreign Pontiff.” This is, of course, a slip, either of transcriber or of printer; but it is nevertheless a singularly appropriate one. The ostensible reason for Dr. McGlynn’s excommunication is that he has disobeyed the order of a foreigner to come to a foreign country to be punished for his action as an American citizen. In its very form, this notice of excommunication is a renewed assertion of the claim made by Archbishop Corrigan and his backers in Rome that the Catholic is bound to absolute obedience, not merely in matters of faith, but in all other matters as well.

There can be no pretense that there is in the vow of the priest anything that obliges him to come to Rome whenever the “Foreign Pontiff” may chose to order him, any more than there is in the baptismal or confirmation vow of the lay Catholic. The pretense that the Catholic priest is obliged to come and go to any part of the world that the pontiff may order him is without the slightest warrant in dogma, decree or canons. Its only support is in a vulgar superstition, scouted by intelligent Catholics, that the pope is a sort of God on earth, instead of being merely the chief bishop of the church. Under the laws of the Catholic church the pope has no more authority to order a Catholic priest to Rome than he has to order a Catholic hod carrier, or printer, or general, or judge; and to grant him the authority that is claimed for him in Dr. McGlynn’s case, would be to grant him authority to order every Catholic nationalist to emigrate from Ireland, or to order every Catholic in the French army to report to Bismarck in Berlin. The Catholic bishop is indeed obliged by his consecration vow to present himself in Rome at certain intervals, and the members of various Catholic religious orders take an obligation of obedience which includes that of coming and going at the command of their superiors. But the Catholic priest is no more bound to go to Italy when the pope orders than he is to stand on his head at the papal command; and excommunication for disobedience of the one order is no more valid in Catholic teaching than would be excommunication for disobedience of the other. The implication in the assigned reason for the excommunication of Dr. McGlynn is that the Catholic is bound to obey the pope in anything and everything, and may be cut off from the church, deprived of the sacraments and of Christian burial and consigned to eternal perdition if he refuses.

Is it to be wondered at that American Catholics repudiate such a doctrine and defy such an excommunication ? If they were to admit it it would be to justify all that the bitterest know-nothing has ever said of the utter incompatibility of Catholicism with free institutions. And in denying and defying an excommunication based on such a ground, they are standing up no less for the purity of the Catholic faith than for the rights of American Citizens.

But the real cause of the summons to Rome, the real cause of this excommunication, the real reason why Protestants and atheists are applauding archbishop and pope, and are seized with such a sudden sense of the duty of absolute obedience in Catholics, is that the priest against whom the heaviest bolt of Rome has been hurled has dared to preach the gospel of his Master; has dared to apply to the social institutions of the present day the essential teachings of Christianity; has dared to proclaim the equal fatherhood of God and the equal brotherhood of man; has dared to assert and has refused to retract the truth that every child who comes into the world is equally entitled to a share in its Creator’s bounty. Instead of accepting the blasphemous doctrine that an all-wise and all-merciful Creator is responsible for the shocking inequalities that prevail on earth today; instead of prostituting the consolations of religion to stilling the consciences of the rich and to imbuing the poor with a slavish submission to their lot; instead of teaching that God makes some men for hard toil and bitter want and other men to enjoy luxurious idleness, he has dared to point out that primary wrong in human adjustments which divides men into working classes and enjoying classes; which denies to the many the first essentials of full and healthful human life and gorges the few to satiety and demoralization; which sets up the golden calf in temple and market place, and turns into curses what ought to be blessings. He has dared to proclaim the possibility of a kingdom of justice on earth in which none need want and none should be overworked, and none should be driven to grasp what was not rightfully his due, and all should have opportunity to fully develop body and mind. Instead of preaching that the poor must always remain in the world in order to give the rich an opportunity to dole out alms, he has declared that in this rich world there need be no beggars i f men would only act justly toward one another, and he has proclaimed a crusade against the wrong that is the cause of poverty.

This is the reason that Dr. McGlynn is excommunicated, and this is the reason that such men and women as those who filled the Academy of Music and Irving hall last Sunday night stand by him and will stand by him no matter ho w many excommunications are hurled.

The great point in issue is whether the forms and organization of Christianity are to be used to put down the aspiration for liberty and justice; whether the religion of the Carpenter of Nazareth is to be made the defender of spoliation and in justice. The society saviors of New York called upon the archbishop to silence the priest who declared that every child born in this broad land was a child of God, and an equal inheritor not only of the possibility of a future heaven, but of his Creator’s bounty in this world. The archbishop called upon Rome. Rome ordered the priest to recant the truth he had uttered and come to Italy. The priest refused, and now he has been excommunicated. Thus the issue is made. It is the beginning of a world-wide conflict.

So far from religion being injured, it is only superstition that will suffer. In the anti-poverty movement that has begun in this city, an is destined to spread far and wide, is the strongest and deepest religious sentiment. There is no inconsistency in such Catholics as Dr. McGlynn rebelling against the ecclesiastical machine while holding firmer than ever to the essentials of their faith. And it is as natural for those who have grown weary of the husks offered for bread in Protestant churches, and for those who, in their reaction from the deification of injustice, have turned away from all creeds to join them under the cross of the new crusade, as it is for the upholders of “vested rights” to rally under the banner of the Roman machine. The plowshare of a vital principle is driving through the crust of dead dogmas as it is through that of political distinctions that have lost their meaning. Archbishop and pope and pro- poverty press might as well hope to stop with anathemas the rising of the tide as that of the great movement of thought which is now beginning to find definite expression.

In another column will be found the letter of a Catholic priest, reprinted from the Tribune, which like many other letters which have been from time to time published in The Standard, shows that there is among the Catholic clergy a strong feeling that Dr. McGlynn has been subjected to the grossest persecution. This feeling exists with many who pass no opinion upon the doctrine which he advocates, while there are still many others who believe in this as he does. The power of the hierarchy, however, can be exercised with such terribly crushing effect, and with such absolute evasion of accountability or explanation to its victims, whose very appeals for justice would be held but to aggravate their offenses, that these priests feel compelled either to a shameful silence or to a scarcely less painful concealment of identity. As was said by a Catholic priest in The Standard last week:

There are now in the United States more than a thousand priests—called in classic language sacerdotes vagabundi—who are wandering about in America, deprived of all honors and even of their livelihood. These men were thrown on the streets by the arbitrary acts of bishops—that is, without a hearing or trial. . . . And the reflection is sad, indeed, that the more unselfish and faithful the priest the worse he finds his condition when placed under ban and censure. If he has served God and hated Mammon; if he has not hoarded the filthy lucre, but has kindly shared his possessions with the fatherless and the afflicted, he is for that the worse off when difficulties and misfortunes are put upon him. This result is teaching a terrible lesson to the priesthood—the lesson, namely, to be wise in their generation, like the unjust steward, and not to trust in the equities of their sacred profession.

There is one priest, however, whose special duty it is at this crisis to come out and stand by the side of Dr. McGlynn, and that is the influential rector of a large parish who recently sent for publication in The Standard, a transcript of the adjuration extorted from Galileo, and added this to it:

An old man of seventy, weakened by years of persecution on the part of bigots and ignorant pretenders to religious purity, denounced as a disturber of society, as an enemy of order, was thus coerced to condemn truth, to violate his conscience, to forswear as heresy what is now taught as truth all over the world. Of course the church, as a teacher of revelation, is not guilty of this crime. Those Roman cardinals who represented the disciplinary power of the church must bear the odium. They have their successors.

But more disreputable still than they was the old man who, at their inquisitorial demand, violated his conscience by conscious per jury.

Dr. McGlynn has, as he was thus adjured to, refused to deny the truth, and has suffered excommunication. Will the priest who thus adjured him now stand forth to testify to that truth, and share the penalty?

Henry George.

The New York Tribune is perplexed. It can’t account for things. The whereforeness of the is, so to speak, stumps it.

To begin with, here is an English statistician, Mr. Mulhall, asserting that this country is gaining in wealth yearly about as much as Great Britain, France and Germany combined; and here are “capable journals in various trades” asserting that—

About $100,000,000 has been spent during six months in building railroads; fully as much more in developing mines and manufactures in fourteen southern states, exclusive of the cost of building; probably at least as large a sum in the remaining states with double the population, and about $400,000,000 in building during the same six months.

The Tribune, of course, doesn’t pretend to dispute these facts. It understands perfectly well that the country really is in a condition of unprecedented prosperity. Even if all other proof of this were lacking, it would only be necessary to point to the success of the Tribune’s own fresh air fund, and to observe with how little difficulty people are induced to contribute to the partial relief of that immense class of American Citizens who live in tenement houses, and otherwise have a hard time. The Tribune doesn’t question the existence of the prosperity any more than King George of blessed memory doubted the actuality of the apple inside the dumpling. What bothers it, as it bothered the monarch, is the question, “How the devil the thing got there.” If all this money has been spent in railroad building and mine developing and so on, where, in the name of all that’s impossible, has this vast sum of money come from?

About $64,000,000 of the three per cent bonds have been redeemed since Jan. 1, and the money collected by duties and paid to bondholders may have been invested in improvements. But that is not a large part of the sum required. The statistics of foreign trade indicate that a considerable sum may have been transferred to this side by foreign capitalists, but at the utmost this cannot have been more than about $50,000,000.

It is commonly reasoned that the production of wealth, m excess of the consumption, can be applied to building, railway construction, the opening of mines and the establishment of manufactures, and other forms of development, In a time of unusual prosperity the production of wealth is greater than usual, and so the sum applicable to improvement is greater. But the fact must not be overlooked that expenditures are also swelled in a time of great prosperity. Liquors and wines, laces and silks, yachts, fast horses and showy equipages, all take more money from those who are making money fast than from the same classes when business is depressed and speculation dull.

There was once a little boy—this is not a true story, but really it would be impossible to find a true story to fit the Tribune’s case—there was once a little boy who was puzzled to account for the existence of a hundred bushels of grain in his father’s barn. There was the grain, of course^— he couldn’t deny that, because he could see it. “But, dod blame it!” said this logical little boy, “there hain’t but one bushel measure on the hull farm.” The Tribune reminds us of that little boy.

It is useless to ask the Tribune to think; while it probably has the capacity, it certainly lacks the willingness to do so. The Tribune’s mission is not to think, but to talk. But the Tribune’s readers are differently situated; and it may not be amiss to point out to them that what produces wealth is not the application of money to laborers, but the application of labor to natural opportunities; and that what hinders the production of wealth is not the lack of money to pay wages with, but the inability of men who are willing to work to obtain access to natural opportunities. To produce wealth in the shape of coal, nothing is needed but a bed of coal and a man—to stop the production of wealth in the shape of coal, it suffices that the coal mine should have an owner, privileged to say to the man: “You musn’t produce coal.”

It is true, as the Tribune sagely remarks, that “in a time of unusual prosperity the production of wealth is greater than usual.” To put it in another form, when the quantity of coal a man has is increased, the man has more coal than he had before. It is also true that when the favored ones of the earth are making more money than usual, they can spend more for “liquors and wines, laces and silks, yachts, fast horses and showy equipages.” But in attempting to trace the connection between these self- evident facts and the problems of wealth production, the Tribune halts pitiably in its logic. Other conditions being unchanged, it would make no difference in the prosperity of the country if the wealthy classes should devote all their money to the opening of mines and the erection of factories, and the payment of wages to operatives, instead of spending it in “liquors and wines” and other forms of luxury. The tenement houses would still steadily increase in number, the army of tramps would still gain fresh recruits, the misery and squalor in which the mass of the American people are plunged would suffer no diminution. Labor would still be bought and sold in open market, and only the direction of its application would be changed. The same paralyses of trade would be periodically felt. Coal mine owners would find themselves compelled to limit the supply of coal because the people who might be shivering for want of it would be unable to pay for it. Shoe factories and cloth mills would have to shut down, because shoeless and naked people would be without the means to buy shoes and clothing. In a word, the evils of what the Tribune calls “over production” would be just as keenly felt as now. And the reason for trade paralysis and stagnation would be then as it is now, not that too much wealth would be produced, but that the man who produced any form of wealth would be robbed of so much of his product that he would have nothing left to offer in exchange for other forms of wealth of which he might stand in piteous need.

Here is a little series of facts for the Tribune readers to consider: In the town of Summit Hill, in the Lehigh valley, a barrel of flour is worth something less than two tons of coal; a pair of shoes is worth a single ton of coal; a decent suit of men’s clothes is worth about four tons of coal. Yet to get a barrel of flour the miners and laborers of Summit Hill must produce to the surface of the earth and load on the same railway which brings the flour nearly twenty tons of coal; to get a pair of shoes about ten tons of coal; to get a suit of clothes about thirty-five tons of coal. And to get a ton of coal for their own burning, the same miners and laborers must dig from the bowels of the earth and add to the pile from which they take their ton, fully ten tons of coal! Let the Tribune readers study facts of this kind and they will learn to take the Tribune’s flatulent preachments at their proper value.

Marion Harland laments the wrongheadedness of the nurses and maid servants who object to wearing a cap or other badge of servitude. Yet the maid servants follow a truly American instinct in thus objecting. The whole system of liveries is a sign of the loss of self-respect among poor people condemned to a wretched struggle for the privilege of earning a living. It is also a sign of the growth of an un-American spirit among the rich; of a desire to perpetuate and mark caste differences. The truest democracy prevailed in New England in the early days of our nation’s existence. Hired men and hired women were not then unknown, but their position was one arising from their pecuniary condition and not from any class distinction. Any attempt to impose a badge of servitude on “the help” of a New England housewife in the olden times would have not only been promptly resented by “the help,” but would have been ridiculed by the whole community. The “help” knew that she was just as likely as not to become a mistress of a household employing “help” herself, and she would have scorned the suggestion that she should wear a badge of servitude indicating that she belonged to a caste distinct from that of the woman she worked for. As it was with the women so it was with the men hired to assist in farming operations or other work. Such men then had a reasonable hope that they would some day farm land or conduct a business of their own, and they would have laughed at the suggestion that they should don a livery that would distinguish them from their employers as members of an inferior caste. And as it was then, so it shall again bewhen the reopening of natural opportunities to all men shall have restored that measure of equality without which republican institutions cannot live and thrive.

All of this will sound very dreadful to the ears of the new aristocracy of wealth that is arising in our land, but nevertheless, it is true. Doubtless in this new era men and women will still be hired to render to others such services as the latter are ready and able to pay for, but the opportunities to employ themselves else where will be such that not only will liveries and maid’s caps disappear, but the modes of thought and feeling that inspire the attitude of those demanding such things toward “the class below them” will have to be abandoned if such people would retain help on any terms. The problems of domestic economy over which such writers as Marion Harland rack their brains will in the future assume new difficulties, and the sooner such writers turn their serious attention to the habits and customs of the noble race of New England women, who adapted themselves cheerfully to the conditions of their times, who were the true helpmeets of the pioneers of liberty and the worthy mothers of a race of robust freemen, the nearer they will come to a conclusion that will be useful in the era of restored and applied democracy.

The flippant carelessness with which the religious journals discuss the grave problems of social reform now so urgently pressing for solution, is aptly illustrated in the editorial columns of the Church man (the leading Episcopal paper) of July 9.

In that issue the Churchman gives an editorial account of the “city mission of Philadelphia,” an institution whose design is—

To make practical the remedial and elevating principles of our holy religion, by bringing them in direct contact with the hearts and minds of those who have few, if any, religious privileges; to visit such poor and sick persons as have no recognized pastors, and to give them, as occasion may require, temporal as well as spiritual help and comfort; to keep up a regular series of the services of our church in such public, charitable, reformatory or penal institutions as may admit us within their walls.

As to all of which the Churchman remarks:

Such work is of interest not only to religious people, but to all who are intelligent enough to study the signs of the times. It suggests the only method of reconciling and elevating the rich and the poor, and will do more to banish poverty from the lives of both rich and poor than all the devices and all the dreams of the so-called Anti-poverty society.

Having thus incidentally paid its respects to the Anti-poverty society, and dismissed with a mild sneer its earnest efforts for radical social reform, the Churchman proceeds to the editorial consideration of Father Huntington’s article on “Tenement House Morality,” originally printed in the Forum, and recently reprinted in The Standard:

An awful recital it is of human lives so crowded, so jammed together that none of the sacred privacies of home can possibly be secured nor any of the self-respecting safeguards of family life be practiced; of sexes, ages, nationalities, moralities all so jumbled together in a confused mass that the evil characteristics of the bad corrupt and poison the whole. That these facts are already known is no reason that they should be tolerated. If our civic development, our American civilization or our churches can return no answer to this foul state of things but “what can’t be cured must be endured,” then we had better confess failure at the start. But just such men and reformers as Mr. Huntington do not propose to endure this. They insist upon a cure.

Put these two utterances together and consider their meanings. In the first the Churchman tacitly gives its readers to understand that it has examined the objects and methods of the Anti-poverty society and finds them unworthy of support; while in the second it speaks approvingly of the objects and methods of a priest who is one of the most earnest supporters of the anti-poverty movement—who has several times spoken at the Antipoverty meetings—and who has put on, record the statement that the hardest workers in the cause of philanthropy are beginning to question whether such institutions as the city mission of Philadelphia do not do more harm than good in extending “temporal help and comfort.”

If the aim of the “city mission of Philadelphia” were to encourage auricular confession as a saving means of grace, and the object of Father Huntington’s life were to oppose the same, the Churchman, would have every detail of the controversy at its fingers’ ends. But when the matter for discussion is merely the bringing of God’s kingdom upon earth by lifting the curse of poverty from poor and rich alike, the Churchman has only a careless sneer for those who venture to believe such a thing possible, while it throws a word of ignorant approval to the zealous servant of God, who is doing what in him, lies to aid the cause which the Churchman contemptuously condemns.

The published letter of Judge Barrett to the foreman of the Sharp jury is, to say the least, remarkable. “Your verdict did honor to your clear head,” says the judge to the juror. Such. a statement from the judge who is to judicially determine whether that verdict is justified by the evidence, made prior to the pending motion for a new trial, exhibits a disregard of the nature of the judicial office which would be regarded as little short of indecent if public opinion had not already determined the guilt of the prisoner. Judge Barrett also declared in effect in this letter that he intended to impose imprisonment as part of Sharp’s penalty. Inasmuch as he has yet to listen to appeals to his discretion in the matter of punishment, this public announcement of his purpose in advance shows that the judge has prejudged the question of punishment as well as the question of sufficiency of evidence. The fact, so cl early exposed in recent notorious cases, that our criminal courts are in great degree affected by public opinion, is to be deeply deplored.

In another column will be found an article by Judge Maguire of the superior court of San Francisco which silences all serious criticism of the land value tax as an invasion of vested rights. Frequently, when objectors are forced to acknowledge the radical distinction between land and products of labor as subjects of private ownership they take refuge in the declaration that society has, however unjustly, recognized land as property and suffered it to be bought and sold as such and that it would be dishonest now to abolish property m land without compensating those who have invested their money in land. But Judge Maguire clearly shows, as matter of law, that society in recognizing property in land has always reserved the right to tax it to its. full rental value. As Chief Justice Marshall expressed it, “The power to tax involves the power to destroy.” Society has never surrendered its taxing power» and in a democratic country like this the people may at any time impose taxes so high as to destroy the value of any kind of property. It would be unwise, though perfectly legal, to tax products of labor to the point of destruction, for we want all the products of labor we can get. It is unwise to tax them at all. But it is not unwise to tax land values to the point of destruction, for there would then be just as much land as ever; it would be just as useful as ever; and it would be far easier for every one to get some of it to use.

And while Judge Maguire shows the legality of the land value tax, the Rev. Edward P. Foster of Cincinnati, in a sermon to his congregation which is also published in this week’s Standard, shows that our present land tenure system is flatly opposed to the teachings of scripture. “The land shall not be sold in perpetuity,” says the Bible, and yet every title deed assumes to convey land to the grantee, his heirs and assigns forever. Mr. Foster is another of the growing galaxy of brave and honest apostles of the Nazarene carpenter that are attracted by the cross of the new crusade.

The McGlynn Fund

The publisher of The Standard acknowledges the receipt of the following sums for the fund for Dr. McGlynn: Five dollars from Thomas J. Henry of New York city; $5 from George Meacom of Chelsea, Mass., and $2 from E. R. Crowley of Boston.

Page 5

 



“The Court Awards It”

Judge Maguire Of San Francisco States The Law Of The Land

Every State in the Union Has a Reserved Right to Take at Any Time the Entire Rental Value of Land by Taxation—Revenue Is Not the Only Purpose of Taxation—Landlords Have No Sacred or Vested Rights in the Privilege of Robbing

The more intelligent defenders of landlordism acknowledge, with Herbert Spencer, John Stuart Mill and William Blackstone, that there is nothing in the law of nature or in Christian morality which gives either authority for or sanction to the institution of private property in land, and that its sole defense lies in the human ordinances and prescriptions by which and in which it had its foundation.

They are entrenching themselves in the last ditch—“vested rights”—wherein all moral wrongs have in the past found shelter and comfort, and whence they have all growled their final defiance to the invincible hosts of truth and justice. But in this instance, at least, constitutional rights harmonize with the gospels of Christ and with the law of nature.

It may surprise some of our opponents to learn that private property in land is one form of social injustice which finds no protection in the doctrine of vested rights; but it is the settled and unquestionable law of our land that each state in the Union has a reserved right to take, at any time, the entire rental value of land by taxation for public uses. This reserved right, like every other legal rule affecting real property, has been incorporated, by operation of law, in every deed which the government or any private individual has ever given to any land lying within the United States. All private lauds in our country are held subject to that reserved right, for the reservation of the right has always existed as matter of law; every man is presumed to know the law and to contract with reference to it, and every provision of law relating to the subject matter of any contract is to be construed as part of the contract itself. These are elementary principles of “text book law.”

No lawyer will question any of the last three propositions; but the first, being new to general discussion, may at first blush be challenged, and I therefore deem it well to cite a few authorities in support of it; but first let me state a few elementary and almost self-evident propositions which may aid the general reader in applying the authorities:

1. Whenever the grantor of a deed or the maker of any contract legally reserves to himself a power, to be exercised at his discretion over the land or other subject of the contract, that power is a legal right.

2. The highest private title to land held by any person in the United States is a tenancy in fee simple.

3. One of the conditions upon which all private lands were granted, and are now held, is that the owner shall pay such lawful taxes as the state, county and municipality within which it is situated shall, from year to year, or from tune to time, impose.

Assuming these propositions to be unquestionable. I cite no authorities directly in support of them, although several of the authorities cited do incidentally support the third proposition.

THE RESERVED RIGHT OF TAXATION.

The right to take private property for public use (either by taxation or eminent domain proceedings) “does not spring from laws or constitutions, but is an inherent incident of governmental sovereignty- . . . This is a right inseparably connected with sovereign power, with or without its recognition by the constitution.”—Supreme Court of Pennsylvania in Extension of Hancock Street, 18 Pa., St 30.

Speaking of the same governmental right, the supreme court of the United States says: “Such a power resides in the state government as part of itself, and needs not be reserved when property of any description is granted to individuals or corporate bodies.”—North Missouri R. R. vs. Maguire, 20 Wall., 60.

EXTENT OF THE RIGHT AND POWER OF TAXATION.

Justice Cooley in his great work on “Taxation,” which is now the standard legal text book, and which is recognized by the United States supreme court as a standard, authority on the subject of taxation, says:

“The power of taxation is an incident of sovereignty, and is co-extensive with that of which it is an incident. All subjects, therefore, over which the sovereign power of the state extends are. in its discretion, legitimate subjects of taxation; and this may be carried to any extent which the government may choose to carry it. In its very nature it acknowledges no limits.”–Cooley on Taxation, pp. 8-4.

The supreme court of the United States, in an opinion written by Chief Justice Chase, says: “’The judicial cannot prescribe to the legislative department limitations upon the exercise of its acknowledged powers.

“The power to tax may be exercised oppressively upon persons, but the responsibility of the legislature is not to the courts but to the people by whom its members are elected.” —Veazie Bank vs. Feimo, 8 Wall., 548. See also Perham vs. Justices, 9 Geo., 341-352. The supreme court of the United States, in an opinion by the illustrious Chief Justice Marshall, says: “The power to tax involves the power to destroy.”—McCullough vs. Maryland, 4 Wheat, 427-8. And the same court, through the same chief justice, also says: “If the right to tax exists, it is a right which in its nature acknowledges no limits. It may be tarried to any extent within the jurisdiction of the state or corporation which imposes it which the will of such state or corporation may prescribe.”—Weston vs. Charleston, 2 Feters, 465-6.

THE RIGHT TO CONFISCATE BY TAXATION.

Every state has the power to take private property for public use under what is known as the right of eminent domain upon making just compensation to the owner, but this is a right entirely different from and unconnected with the equally complete right of the state to take private property for public use by taxation without compensation. The right of eminent domain is exercised against individuals singly, while taxation bears in equal proportion upon all individuals within the state or community. Hence, when the property of one individual is taken for public use while the same kind of property belonging to other members of the community is not taken, he should not bear the burden a lone for the benefit of all, and it is manifestly just treat it should be home in equal proportions by all who occupy the same relation to the public; but where the burden is general, of course there should not be and cannot be any such thing as compensation.

Besides, eminent domain takes the property absolutely, while taxation does not, even when it exceeds the market value of the property taxed; for by paying the tax the owner is always privileged to retain the property. For these reasons it has been uniformly held by the courts that the provision of a state constitution “that private property shall not be taken for public use without just compensation, has reference solely to the exercise of the power of eminent domain,” and that “the levying of local assessments (for municipal improvements) is not taking private property for public use under the right of eminent domain, but is the exercise of the right of taxation inherent in every sovereign state.”—People vs. Mayor of Brooklyn, 4 Comstock, 419; Allen vs. Drew, 44 VU, 187; White vs. People, 94 Ill, 611; Cooley’s Constitutional Limitations, 497-8.

SUBJECTS OF TAXATION AND RIGHT OF STATE TO DISCRIMINATE.

Every state has the reserved power and right to select the subjects of taxation, the only limitation upon this right being that all persons of the same class and all property of the same class shall be equally taxed or equally favored.—Kentucky R. R. Cases, 115, U. S., 337; State R. R. Cases, 93. U. S., 576; Tennessee vs. Whitworth, 117, V. S., 129 and 139; People vs. Coleman, 4 Cal., 47; Lexington vs. McQuillan’s Heirs, 9 Dana (Ky.) 517-18.

Upon this subject Justice Cooley says: “The general right to make exemptions is involved in the right to apportion taxes, and must be understood to exist wherever it is not forbidden.”—Cooley on Taxation, p. 145. In some states, as in California, the power of the legislature to make exemptions and discriminations between classes of property is either limited or withdrawn by state constitutional provisions, but the power and the right to select the subject or subjects of taxation still resides in the state, to be exercised by the people instead of the legislature. “It is an inseparable incident of sovereignty.” See cases above cited.

OBJECTS OF TAXATION

On this subject Justice Cooley says: “Revenue is not the only purpose of taxation. . . . In levying taxes other considerations not only are, but ought to be, kept in view; the question being always not exclusively how a certain sum of money can be collected for public expenditures, but how, when and upon what subjects it is wise and politic to lay the necessary tax under the existing circumstances, having regard not merely to the replenishing of the treasury, but to the general benefit and welfare of the political society, and taking notice therefore of the manner in which the laying and collection of the tax will affect the several interests in the state.”—Cooley on Taxation, pp. 9 and 10.

Neither is it necessary that the object of the tax should benefit the party who is required to pay, “e. g., a tax for school purposes levied upon a manufacturing corporation.”—Amesbury Nail Factory vs. Weed, 17 Mass. 52.

The foregoing is a brief review of the legal and constitutional questions involved in the reforms proposed by the land and labor party in the matters of land and taxation. The authorities are selected from a very large number, all of which tend to support the same conclusions, and in the course of my investigation I have found no decision which is at variance with the views and conclusions herein stated.

I therefore confidently assert that the following positions are established beyond controversy by the highest judicial authorities in the United States, namely:

1. The highest legal title to land in the United States is a TENANCY in fee simple.

2. That title gives the owner and his successors a perpetual legal right to the possession of such land, with certain exceptions which need not be mentioned, subject, however, to the condition that he or they shall pay such taxes as may be levied by the state and minor political authorities within whose jurisdiction such land is located.

3. Such taxes are entirely within the discretion of the state, as a political sovereignty, and may be at any time increased to, or above, the full rental value of such land, the only limitation being that all land in the same taxation district shall be taxed in the same proportion.

4. That each state has a reserved constitutional right, at any time, in its discretion, to exempt all other kinds of property from taxation, and to raise all revenue for public purposes by a single tax upon land values.

5. That taxes on land are not required to be limited to the amount necessary for public revenue, but that the amount to be raised therefrom may be fixed by other considerations, and is in the discretion of the state.

6. That all purchasers of land are conclusively presumed to have known the law and to have purchased subject to the rights and powers of the people, as above stated.

7. That all of the rights and powers above enumerated are fixed and reserved by covenants incorporated by operation of law in every deed passing to or between private land owners.

It follows conclusively from the foregoing considerations and authorities that the people have the same reserved right to take the entire rental value of land, by taxation from present owners, that a landlord has to raise the rent of his tenant under a covenant incorporated in his lease, either expressly or by operation of law. No complaint has ever been heard of the invasion of vested rights by landlords in enforcing this covenant against their tenants. If a tenant should claim that an increase of rent would be an invasion of his vested rights, his landlord and the courts would promptly answer: “You have no vested rights to invade. Your lease does not fix your rent, and you were bound to know the law which gave your landlord a right to raise it.” That answer is conclusive as against the tenant, but it is just as conclusive against the landlord when asserted by the people. If the landlord should object to giving up the rental value of his land for public use, let the people answer: “Your deed does not, and cannot, fix the amount of your taxes; and you, in purchasing the right of possession, were bound to know the law which gave the people a right to increase your taxes to the full rental value of your land; besides, you do not produce the rental value which you collect from your tenants, and you have no moral right to it, while the rental value which we demand from you is produced entirely by the general industry and enterprise of the whole people, and as a matter of natural justice, as also by the law of the land, it belongs to us.”

Could demonstration go further than the highest courts of our nation have gone in maintaining and proving the right of the people to take for public purposes the rental values which they create? I think not, and I doubt if any man who does not wear a miter will be foolish enough to undertake the task of proving that the courts are wrong.

At any rate, the people will soon realize that landlords have no sacred or vested right in the privilege of robbing them. God speed the popular awakening.

James G. Maguire.

San Francisco, June 28, 1887.

Converted to Believe in God

St. Louis, Mo.—I am glad that the addresses delivered before the Anti-poverty society by Dr. McGlynn and Hugh O. Pentecost are being published in full in The Standard. I am not ashamed to say, aye, I am proud to say that they have compelled me to realize that there is a just God who is our common father, a fact that for years I have denied.

K. Perry Alexander.

 



Corrigan’s Curse

With apologies to the “King of the Cannibal Islands.”

Take notice, friends of Dr. McGlynn, we’ve excommunicated him

Ipso facto, et nominatim. (That’s Latin for “let him down aisy.”)

Ye’ll understand we might do worse, but the law says a dollar for iv’ry curse—

Too much of a hole in an archbishop’s purse; so we let the man down aisy.

CHORUS.

For Justice Duffy might do worse than fine us a dollar for i v? ry curse;

‘Twould make a hole in the Corrigan purse, so we’ll let the man down aisy;

So me and ould Eyetalian Sim, we’ve excommunicated him

Ipso facto, et nominatim. (The Latin ‘ll send ye crazy.)

Sure, didn’t we tell him, g o to Rome; an’ didn’t the man stay here at home?

And didn’t we say the curse wud come av he didn’t stop his spakin’?

So we’ve excommunicated him ipso facto, et nominatim

(Our Latin’s gittin’ mighty slim), to set the ‘arth a quakin’.

Chorus.

And that’s to make ye understand that this is now a Christian land,

And divil a Yank can raise his hand widout OUR high permission;

‘Twas Simmyony made the plan, that wonderful great Eye-ta-li-an;

‘Tis notice sarved on ivry man, yez all have changed condition.

Chorus.

Ye used to think ye all were free, till Simmy he made the plan wid me,

To show ye that yer libertee is all a mere delusion;

And hinceforth niver a Yank shall dare to shave his chin or cut his hair

Av Simmy he puts his veto there, or else ye’ll have confusion.

Chorus.

‘Tis time to make this Uncle Sam, that used to bully the sons of Ham,

Shut tight his mouth, like a Jersey clam, and let US do the talkin’;

And divil a wan of yez need hope to get a chance to see the pope,

For Simmy and me we hold the rope when we take him out a walkin’.

Chorus.

And here’s the reason why, d’ye see, wo’re purely parliamentaree,

To let y e know what the curse might be, av we got mad and tearin’;

We’d give Phil Sheridan’s seif a rub, an’ Captain Williams wid his club,

An’ Sullivan, slugger from the Hub, av we should take to swearin’.

Chorus.

But sure the candle, book and bell, in Yankee land they’d not look well,

And wicked boys bad tales might tell of brimstone blue a burnin’.

So we’ve excommunicated him, ipso facto, et nominatim,

An’ that’s the last ye’ll hear from Sim and his Eye-ta-li-an learnin’.

Chorus.

Excommunication is Getting Fashionable

New York. July 11.—“Excommunicated! Outside the pale of the church! Cut off from its communion! Debarred from its sacraments! Deprived of the right of Christian burial! A penalty that many Catholics consider more terrible even than death” says the New York Herald in reference to Michael Augustin’s Fourth of July declaration of dependence, issued yesterday to the American priesthood.

Now, as a Catholic, believing with Dr. McGlynn in free thought, free speech, free land, anti- theft, anti-poverty and other fundamental principles of right and justice, I desire to be excommunicated, too, being convinced that excommunication from a church that has for its aim politics and diplomacy first and Christianity last can only tend to the salvation of the excommunicated. The “ceremony” will suit me at their earliest opportunity, and with or without “book, bell and candle,” just as they please. Inclosed please find a further contribution of $1 for the Anti-poverty fund.

L. Cambensy,

201 West Sixty-ninth street.

A Paterson Anti-Poverty Society

Paterson, N. J., July 11.—I have talked and argued anti-poverty for the last five years, and now it seems as though the clouds of misapprehension and willful ignorance are breaking away even here in this hide-bound conservative place, and it gives me great pleasure to announce that the Paterson Anti-poverty society will hold its first meeting on Thursday evening of this week, (14th inst) A number of my friends are interested and will give all the support they can. “Silver and gold have I none, but what I have I give unto*’ the cause. We will shortly forward some money for tracts.

E. W. Nellis,

89 Main street.

Not in Earnest, Eh?

Toronto, Canada, July 10.—“No one will believe that Mr. George and Dr. McGlynn are in earnest.” What, no one? Not even the tens of thousands of people who paraded the streets of New York only a week or two ago to show that they did believe in Dr. McGlynn and Mr. George. Not m earnest, indeed! Why, it is because they are so much in earnest that these gentlemen of the current class are so vituperative and alarmed.

R. T. L.

The Terrible Distress of Charles A. Dana

New York Evening Sun.

No more distressing spectacle than this emancipation of Dr. McGlynn has in a long time occurred. He is terribly misled. He is no longer the beloved pastor, endeared to his flock, respected of all, and he does not know the new man that he has put on, nor the penalties of the disillusion that awaits him. We repeat it, he is terribly misled. He does not know what he is doing, and he does not know the people whose frantic applause is so sweet in his ears, or that they will be the first to drop him when be is no longer a Sunday evening novelty in a theater.

The First Martyr

Vincennes News.

Dr. McGlynn is not a rebel against the laws of his church. He is simply the first martyr of the new crusade. He was kicked out of his pastorate because he refused to submit to unwarrantable dictation as to what he should do and believe as an American citizen; and he would have been less than the great and noble man that he is had he permitted the splendid truth in his heart to be suppressed by a man who lives in a marble palace and sympathizes utterly and undisguisedly with those saviors of society who live off the labor of others.

Man’s Natural Rights

Vineland, N. J., Industrial Advocate.

Henry George in his propositions has hit a fundamental truth, that all the fine theories and scathing, cutting allusions cannot refute, and that is the fact of every man born into the world has a natural right in the soil, or enough of it to sustain human life and administer to his well being. That any system that allows class or individual to monopolize land unused and unoccupied, when the masses of the people need it for their sustenation and comfort is a violation of a fundamental law of nature, and should not be allowed to exist.

No!

Bloomington Eye.

Here in Bloomington among our most influential citizens are Roman Catholics: they bold responsible offices; throughout the state and country Catholics are clothed with high official power. They are identified with all our American enterprises, and in many cases the integrity of our institutions are dependent upon adherents of the Roman Catholic church. Are we to understand, then, that the opinions of these men upon temporal questions are to be governed or even influenced by the pope?

True Enough

Boston Post.

The taxation of land to its full value cannot be called a religious or anti-religious dogma, and the papal infallibility, even in the view of the most ultra-montane Catholic, extends only to questions of religious faith.

Becoming a Great Power

London Church Reformer.

It is plain that the Anti-poverty society is becoming a great power in New York. The following notes are from a private letter from a member of the guild of St. Mathews, who is now in New York:

“It does seem as if at length the truths for which our Savior died were beginning to be incorporated in human life, I wish every Sunday that you were here to go to our antipoverty meetings. No report can give any idea of the intense enthusiasm. I have never seen any thing like it—it even exceeds the enthusiasm of the anti-slavery meetings in our war times. . . . Father McGlynn is a wonderful orator, his voice clear and musical. But whatever power he has, it is all consecrated to doing the Father’s will and bringing the kingdom upon earth, and no one who hears him speak and sees those upturned f aces looking upon him and glowing with the spirit of hope and courage that be inspires all listeners with, can doubt that the kingdom is coming, and that Father McGlynn is one of the Lord’s chosen who are helping to bring it. It is worth crossing the Atlantic to hear him and to see the people that flock every Sunday night to the Academy of Music and pack it from floor to ceiling. ‘The poor have the gospel preached to them.’”

The Boom and the Recoil

Dakota Bell.

This is a town as dead as the tomb; it died from the cause of too much boom! It was boomed by the papers and boomed by the people, till prices were hoisted as high as a steeple. They plastered the land with mortgages deep, and burdened the town with taxes so steep. They paid a big bonus to build a new road, and laid for the suckers on whom to unload. But the cash they sneaked in from their victims so rank was all gobbled up by the “three per cent” back. The officers skipped while the boom was still high, and left the poor victims to suffer and sigh!

But alas! for their hopes, they sigh in vain; they will never look on their like again. The boom has flattened and left them “broke,” and the Canada trip is a sorry joke. And the mortgages stick to that fated town, for that which goes up must surely come down. And though they may brag off their excellent “park,” the suckers fight shy of the real estate sharks. And the ad in the paper has had its day, for the agent who wrote it omitted to pay. And the grass grows high where the train once run, to the town which the boom has all undone.

Broad Enough to Take in All Classes of Reformers

“Cato” in Chicago Labor Enquirer.

In the Anti-poverty society recently founded in New York by a few of the followers of Henry George, we can find the opportunity for harmonious action. It is broad enough to take in all classes of reformers, its platform, which is embraced in its name, is simple and will not trammel the liberty or individuality of any one. Anti-poverty; that is, no poverty; the absolute absence of poverty the abolition both of want and the fear of want. What a glorious doctrine! what possibilities does not its fulfillment open up to the human race? And it is practicable. Here are fully 75,000 people in this city who would subscribe to such a doctrine even now. In six months from now that number should and could be increased to 100,000.

A Crash Must Come

Bankers’ Monthly.

Attention has been called to the fact that the extravagant real estate speculation which has been carried on all over the country for months has created a large amount of new and additional debts in the form of first, second and third mortgages, which multiply rapidly as prices are marked up. It is a very moderate estimate to say that the average prices of real estate in the most prosperous towns and cities of the United States have been marked up at least fifty per cent in the last six months, some of it two or three times, and the lessons of history tell what must be the final result of such reckless and dangerous inflation.

The “Trust”

Bankers’ Monthly.

What Mephistophelean subtlety is this? The climax of enlightenment in the nineteenth century and the hidden mystery of the dark ages have verily met and coalesced in this commercial “What Is It?” a modern trust company. Headless, heartless and bodiless, it reaches out its invisible, octopus-like antennae of power, and rakes m whatever it likes; but, should an unwilling victim resist or wish to strike back, to and behold, it proclaims itself a legal nonentity. Virtual and real in its acquisition, merciless and deadly toward opposition, but inaccessible for purposes of attack.

Why the Irish Are Poor

Scottish-American Journal.

In 1854 Sir W. Mackay, seed merchant, Dublin, purchased a property in the county Cork. The rental at the time was £205 16s. In 1856 he increased the rental £265, in 1870 to £352, and by making use of notices to quit and ejectments this gentleman has succeeded for some years past in raising the rental to £510. The unfortunate tenants struggled under the increased burden as best they could, getting deeper into arrears each year: and now ten of their number have been served with writs of ejectment because they cannot pay impossible rents, and in all probability the forces of the crown will shortly be called upon to assist in turning them and their families adrift on the world.

 



A Priest’s Ringing Words

He Shows Corrigan To Be Thoroughly In The Wrong

The Archbishop Stultifying and Falsifying His Own Handwriting—Dr. McGlynn Stands Today, in the Eyes of Every Well Informed Bishop, Priest and Layman and Innocent, Persecuted Priest!—Let Corrigan Retrace His Steps

New York Tribune, July 10.

That Dr. McGlynn’s case has excited attention among Roman Catholic clergymen in all parts of the country, and that he is not without support among them, is shown by the letter given herewith. It was written by a priest of the Roman church who has made a deep study of the canonical law of the church, and is thoroughly familiar with it. He is an author of no slight reputation in the church, and his present station is in the west. The letter was written before it was known that the order of excommunication had been prepared. It is as follows:

I think the present an occasion when every priest and bishop of the land should raise his voice in the McGlynn-Corrigan controversy, and .demand, in the name of the holy Roman Catholic church, that the scandal given thereby to the world at large, and to the faithful in particular, should come to an end. It has now assumed too great proportions, and too many poor souls have been scandalized already, and will suffer spiritual loss in the future, for any true Catholic, be he priest or layman, to remain any longer indifferent to it. Not only the loss of souls is imperiled in this unnatural and uncatholic controversy, but the very influence of the church in these United States over her uncatholic fellow citizens is jeopardized. We, as bishops and priests, must sometimes for the good oi the church and of the human race, exercise our influence and rights as citizens to counteract the false theories of ten put forward in politics and the unjust legislation preached and sometimes enacted in our legislatures inimical to the welfare of the church and society. But if a priest is summarily condemned and east forth from his parish, and branded as a suspended priest, because he simply expresses his individual views in a political meeting, with what face, I ask, can Archbishop Corrigan or any bishop or priest in the United States ever again raise his voice to protest against the most iniquitous proceedings of a political party, whose object would be to injure or crush the church? or how protest even against the most glaring injustice by the state toward his fellow Catholic citizens? .As a gentleman said to me the other day: “Never in the history of the church of America has such a blow been given to the influence of the American hierarchy as that given by the Most Rev. M. A. Corrigan when he suspended and deposed Dr. McGlynn for the honest expression of his political opinions.” It behooves, therefore, every bishop and priest in the United States to help settle this controversy and to use his influence, that it militate not against the welfare and the sublime mission of our holy mother, the church.

And why should it? There is no need of these meetings, parades and petitions on the one hand and a prelate of the Catholic church on the other vindicating himself in the secular journals of the land and a servile Catholic press condemning and holding up to execration and re probation one who, however he may have erred, has as yet not been found guilty by any recognized civil or ecclesiastical tribunal on earth. “Fiat justitia mat cælum.” Let a regular, constituted, ecclesiastical court take cognizance of Dr. McGlynn’s alleged unorthodox politics and settle the matter once and forever.

The treatment of Dr. McGlynn is appalling or astounding from the fact that never before in the history of the Catholic church was ecclesiastic of hers, not even Martin Luther, legitimately or justly condemned or punished without a hearing; without a fair and impartial canonical trial and every reasonable means given him for his defense. And yet here, in these United States, almost at the conclusion of the third plenary council of Baltimore, when the ink of its approval by Rome was scarcely dry. is a prelate who, with his own hand, subscribed the decrees thereof, and then, implicitly at least, swore to observe them, casting them to the winds, stultifying and falsifying his own handwriting by condemning and punishing a priest whose name was irreproachable and whose honor was unstained, who for over twenty-five years reflected credit on the church and its priesthood—condemning him without any chance of defending himself—condemning him without first ascertaining by an impartial canonical trial, according to the rules which he himself helped to frame, and to which he solemnly subscribed, whether he had done any wrong, and if so, to what extent.

Whatever, therefore, may be his merits or demerits, one thing is certain, that in the glaring light of this indisputable fact, viz: that he has been condemned and punished uncanonically, without even the semblance of a canonical investigation, Dr. McGlynn stands today in the eves of every well-informed bishop, priest and layman an innocent persecuted priest. He is, and must be considered such by our holy father rightly informed, by the college of cardinals when they lend their ears to hear both sides of the question : in a word, by the whole Catholic world, in whose minds his case is not prejudged. Aye, and he must and will be looked upon as an innocent, persecuted priest, until such time as he is proved guilty by irrefragable evidence brought before a canonically instituted ecclesiastical tribunal. That tribunal is not in Rome. It is in New York. It is presided over by Most Rev. M.JA. Corrigan as judge. The cause of Dr. McGlynn, therefore, should have been brought before this local ecclesiastical tribunal, and if it could not be settled by such local tribunal, then there was the right of appeal to a higher ecclesiastical tribunal, or to another disinterested court, and ultimately to Rome. This is the teaching of the third plenary council of Baltimore, whence his grace A. M. Corrigan has recently returned, and to which he subscribed.

But, as the most reverend archbishop of New York has, by his uncanonical proceedings, rendered himself objectionable and incompetent to preside over a court for the trial of Dr. McGlynn, being himself now so deeply implicated and interested in the issue, why, if he sincerely loves the church and has her welfare at heart, does he not ask one of his illustrious colleagues, the learned Archbishop Hein of Milwaukee or Archbishop Elder. of Cincinnati or the cardinal archbishop of Baltimore, to summon a canonically constituted ecclesiastical court, and give Dr. McGlynn a fair, impartial trial in the diocese, and under the bishop or archbishop he may select? True enough then, if the doctor proves himself to be recalcitrant or contumacious, for Catholics to condemn him. Time enough then for sycophantic Catholic journals, some of which seemingly would follow a dignitary into open heresy, to judge and condemn and hand over to perdition a priest whom the church has not yet condemned, and whose only offense so far is to stand by the rights and privileges which the holy mother he serves grants him.

I am not defending Dr. McGlynn. He may be guilty of heresy in politics, according to M. A. Corrigan, or errors contra pelam, for aught I know. As great, if not greater, than he have erred. But he is and must be considered innocent by every civil and ecclesiastical law until he is proved guilty by an impartial, canonical ecclesiastical court, whether it be at Baltimore, Cincinnati, Milwaukee or Rome. Therefore the contumely heaped upon him by individuals, his condemnation by some of the Catholic press, is eminently unjust and unchristian. Dr. McGlynn might, indeed, have humbly submitted to wrong and injustice, and thereby gained infinite merits for heaven, but he was not bound to do so. He might have meekly walked to .Calvary, there to be crucified, but no law’ of God or man obliged him to do so. He might have silently drained the bitter chalice placed to his lips by his ecclesiastical superior, as many a priest in this land has done, and many a one will yet do, if arbitrary power in those”placed in authority is still to usurp the place of the general laws of the church, and of the particular laws of the third plenary council of Baltimore, but he was under no obligation of conscience to make the sacrifice.

I say therefore, and I defy contradiction from bishop, priest or layman, that so long as Dr. McGlynn does not get a fair, impartial, canonical trial, he is and must be looked upon as an innocent, persecuted clergyman. No one even in the civil order, and this is due to the clemency and justice of the church influencing that order, can be condemned, even though he he accused of the vilest crime, until he is clearly proved guilty by that process of law. Give Dr. McGlynn, therefore, the benefit of a fair, impartial, canonical trial by a jury of his peers, and in accordance with, the methods laid down by the canons of the church and of the council of Baltimore; then if he does not abide by the ruling of that tribunal, or in case of appeal to the higher one in Rome, no Catholic can or will sustain him for a moment.

For no true and genuine Catholic will stand by a contumacious subject, be he bishop, priest, or layman. But on the other hand, no man is or can be deemed contumacious while he ostensibly and persistently condemns the ruling of a “properly and canonically constituted ecclesiastical” tribunal. Dr. McGlynn has had no trial. No ecclesiastical court took cognizance of his alleged offense, and therefore Dr. McGlynn is not, and cannot be considered contumacious in the strict and canonical sense of the world.

Let the Most Rev. M. A. Corrigan, therefore, retrace his steps and stand by the decrees of the third plenary council of Baltimore, to which he subscribed with his own hand, and then end this scandal, which has arisen and is entirely owing to these decrees having been set at naught, and give Dr. McGlynn a fair canonical trial. Friends and enemies will then be or ought to be satisfied. If he is unwilling to do this, let the cardinal archbishop of Baltimore ad vise the prefect of the propaganda to summon to Rome both the archbishop and Dr. McGlynn, there to settle their fight, for great men as they both are, neither of them is so great and distinguished as to set the Catholic world by the ears with a controversy which could and would have been settled in one day by a properly constituted ecclesiastical court.

Straws Which Show The Wind

The way to defeat Henry George is to answer his arguments.—[Ocala, Fla., Banner.]

The speculative booms have nearly all culminated, except in real estate.—[Bankers’ Monthly for July.]

The present system of taxation should be made odious by strictly enforcing the tax laws.—[Vincennes News.]

The real estate transfers since January 1 amount to nearly $62,000,000. That is more dollars than there are people in the United States.—[Kansas City Star.]

An anti-poverty party left New York for Europe on Saturday. Gross receipts for fourteen months. $1,000,000; profits, $500,000; leader’s share, $300,000. Name of leader, Sara Bernhardt.—[Riverside, Cal., Enterprise.]

No one can say that books have lost their practical power in this day and generation. Out of one book by Henry George, “Progress and Poverty,” has come a new political party and an international crusade.—[The Churchman.]

At the commencement of the Pittsburgh high school Henry P. Ashe, a young man not more than seventeen years of age, delivered a carefully prepared oration on “The New Revolution.” He spoke of the Henry George theory.—[Pittsburgh Chronicle-Telegraph.]

No one has any right to question the sincerity of Dr. Edward McGlynn in his advocacy of certain peculiar theories about property. But his views are not rendered the less dangerous by his thorough earnestness and the marked ability he displays. Quite the reverse.—[Buffalo Evening News.]

Although the politicians of both the old parties profess to have no fear of the land and labor party working their parties injury, yet the rapidity with which clubs of that party are being organized throughout the country will soon make it apparent that this party must be reckoned as a factor in any calculation as to the probable result of the approaching presidential election.—[Lynn, Mass., Bee.]

Say what we may in excuse or contradiction, it is still a fact—as cold and as hard as the Spinx itself—that with all classes of society the scandal attached to hard work is one of its gravest evils. If it is success to get out of Egypt, it is failure and misfortune to make bricks on the Nile. This teaching is false and pernicious. It may be of Cæsar. but it is not of Christ. it tickled the ancient Roman, but it ought to scorch the modern Christian.—[Frank Woodrow in Age of Steel.]

A contemporary brings up the case of Father Hyacinthe “to show what excommunication will do for Father McGlynn. Hyacinthe, eloquent as he was and world renowned, soon sank out of sight and has been forgotten. The case affords but slight suggestion, for Hyacinthe changed his form of superstition to gain more liberty for himself alone, while McGlynn sacrifices his priestly office to gain more liberty for his fellow men. The one act was narrowly selfish, the other uniquely heroic.—[Winsted, Conn., Press.]

We glory in Dr. McGlynn’s spunk. We have a heart full of admiration for the man who stands up for what he believes to be right. The laboring people have been fooled and bedeviled for many weary years by dirty, thieving political demagogues, who have over and over again brought their cause into ridicule and disgrace, but Henry George and Dr. McGlynn are both pure hearted men, and preach the gospel of the new crusade because they believe it is true and will be productive of the greatest good to the children of men both here and hereafter.—[Charleston, S. C , Kanawhee Gazette.]

What has seemed most singular to us, and what has must excited our interest in the question is that, while Mr. George’s proposition to impose a single tax on land values has drawn forth the most intense opposition, there has been almost nothing in the way of argument against it. Nearly everything that we see in the newspapers attacking the plan is either mere invective or argument based on what anybody who has read Mr. George’s works can see at a glance is a misapprehension of what the plan is. and of what would be involved in carrying it into practice.—[Portland, Me., Opinion.]

Dr. McGlynn declares that he believes in every doctrine of his church and in the supremacy of the pope in all spiritual matters, out he refused to recognize the authority of Rome on political or other temporal questions. Certainly, Dr. McGlynn has the courage of his convictions, and while we fail to see the practicability or the wisdom of the land theory which he defends, we admire the manly spirit he has shown. Such experiences as his are more powerful than any amount of reasoning to change the convictions of men in regard to religious doctrines and authorities. A little persecution or proscription sometimes serves as a stimulus to thought and enables men to realize the absurdity of claims never before questioned.—[Chicago Open Court.]

Pro-Poverty Civilization

Thos. E. Malone in the Youngstown, O., Independent.

Out a long the great railroads in the far west there are weary men who will lie down at night to rest hungry and cold. They have been traveling for many days hunting work and begging for food. They are called “tramps” and the people shun them as they would a leper. It is a crime for them to enter a city or to ask for bread. They are hungry, helpless wanderers through this vale of life, without a home, a hope or a friend. Ten thousand dollars will be sent from a single state this year to help the heathen in foreign lands. Ten thousand dollars to help the cannibal heathen and a policeman with a club to drive American tramps out in the night to steal or starve! Great heavens! What an inconsistency. All these sad sights and mournful incidents are directly the result of this fearful destitution which is fast corroding the vital principles of society.

Page 6

 



Our Creed

“The Fatherhood of God and the Brotherhood of Man”

Air—“Wearing of the Green.”

Throned in a realm of light and love, where

saints and angels sing,

Lives God, the righteous Judge of all, our

Maker and our King;

He is no tyrant of the poor to curse them with

His ban:

We sing the fatherhood of God—the brotherhood

of man.

He made this earth a planet fair—a jeweled

star of light—

To feed the offspring of His care, the children

of His sight;

But selfish greed and human sin h a v e moved

His righteous plan—

Bring back the fatherhood of God—the

brotherhood of man.

“Man’s inhumanity to man makes countless

thousands” weep—

They toil in mines—their starving babes in

wretched hovels sleep;

But there’s an Eye that watches still—escape

it if you can—

We sing the fatherhood of God—the brotherhood

of man.

Go preach the gospel to the poor that once

the Master taught;

Go save the bodies and the souls His precious

lire blood bought;

Fear not—though haughty priest or prelate

curse you with his ban—

To preach the fatherhood of God and brotherhood

of man.

“The heaven of heavens is God’s own throne,

the earth to men He gave;”

We come, like Him, inspired by love, the poor

and lost to save;

We preach that gospel to the poor, the Master’s

voice began,

The glorious fatherhood of God and brotherhood

of man.

Oh, for those tongues of lambent fire that on

th’ apostles fell,

To fill our breasts, our souls inspire to fight

the hosts of hell;

To preach in market place and street, to every

tribe and elan,

The glorious fatherhood of God and brotherhood

of man.

John Anketell, A. M.

Whitsantide, 1887.

 



The Story Of Mt. Vernon

Private Land Ownership Defeats A Plan To Conquer Poverty

Land Values Increasing from $160 an Acre to $32,000—A Community of House Owners Changed to a Community of Tenants—Poor People Crowded into the Back Streets—Some Facts About Westchester County

Fourteen miles from the Grand Central depot, in the county of Westchester, lies the township of Eastchester, containing the thriving modern village of Mount Vernon and the decayed ancient village of Eastchester, a settlement dating from early colonial times. Besides these, the little villages of Tuckahoe, Waverly. Sebastopol, etc., are grouped round the marble quarries at the north end of the town, on the line of the Harlem railroad, now stagnant, comparatively, since the change in taste which has driven marble out of the market as a general building material. The state census of the year 1845 discloses the following facts about the township of Eastchester:

In that year the whole township had a population of 689 males to 680 females, with 272 voters, and 90 men subject to military duty. There were 162 non-naturalized aliens in the town; 93 “colored persons not taxed;” 1 “colored man taxed;” and just 1 pauper; 176 children attended common schools; 16 were at private schools and academies; and 134 did not attend school.

The number of acres of “improved land, occupied by families,” was 6,693½, of which, under actual cultivation at the time of the census were 1,318 3/8 acres, divided as follows: Barley, 62¾ acres; beans, 1½ acres; buckwheat, 89 acres; turnips, 18 5/8 acres; potatoes, 212½ acres; wheat, 59 acres; corn, 420 acres; rye, 184 acres; oats, 204 acres.

No account is taken in this census of orchards, grazing land or timber. As a matter of fact, grazing land occupied about 1,500 acres, orchards about 700 acres, woodland possibly 1,200 acres, the residue being land lying fallow, or for other causes out of use.

There were 739 head of cattle, 213 horses, 226 sheep and 991 hogs, showing the township to be an average farming district, while the testimony of old inhabitants agrees in making the community exceptionally prosperous, on account of the near neighborhood of the city as a market for crops. The fact that but one pauper could be found among 1,369 people confirms these statements.

The New Haven railroad ran through the center of the township, nearly from east to west, while the Harlem railroad diverged from the track, at the western edge of the town, forking off to the north, and running to the county seat, White Plains.

Into the midst of this peaceful community, six years later, came a disturbing element, in the shape of “Industrial home association, No. 1,” of New York city. This association, as appears on its journal, had its rise in “Mechanics’ mutual protection association, No. 11,” at the Cooper institute, and was organized at the seventh meeting of this society, held on July 9, 1850.

The new association was to be limited to 1,300 members, who were to be “persons of good moral character and industrious habits,” and the object sought was stated to be “protection against the unjust power and influence of capital, and against land monopoly as the efficient cause of poverty.”

The means by which this end was to be attained was by the purchase of “not less than 850 acres of land, somewhere within forty minutes’ ride of the city of New York,” to be divided into a thousand lots to cost “not less than $25, and not more than $75, per lot, the payments being made by the members, at the rate of $1 per week; the settlement of the tract to be made “within two years, if possible.”

Horace Greeley was one of the early members, and in a speech to the society, and a letter, still in existence, calls the object a “noble and practical one.”

On Oct. 14, 1850, the executive committee, Of which the society’s president, a tailor, called John Stevens, u man of great energy at that time, was ex-officio chairman, was empowered by the society to purchase 375 acres from Messrs. “Purdy, Hayward and others,” Mr. Stevens being “made purchasing agent by acclamation.”

The persons named were farmers in the town of Eastchester, who had proved willing to sell to the association; and in March, 1851, the purchase was concluded, on which purchase now stands the main part of the present Village of Mount Vernon.

The committee had made a wise choice, in the opinion of the members, the plot bought being on the New Haven railroad, while the Harlem railroad was so close that the junction promised every advantage for the attraction of residents to the new village. The total price of the farms, comprising something over 369 acres, was $75,162.90. While it is a noticeable fact that the land near the railroad, being low and swampy, only cost from a hundred and sixty to a hundred and eighty dollars and some cents per acre, against $209 and $224 per acre, respectively, for the farms of Sylvanus Purdy and John R. Hayward, further to the south, the furthest from the railroad fetching the highest price. This, now the southern portion of Mount Vernon, possesses plenty of high rolling ground, with a fine outlook on the sound, and is by all odds the prettiest part of the village today, though the ratio of price has been reversed, so that the former swamp land is worth four or live times as much for the purposes of speculation today as the naturally superior building sites to the south.

A further reason for the higher price paid for the southern farms, no doubt lay in the fact that it was necessary to buy them to secure a sufficient quantity for the new village, so that Hayward and Sylvanus Purdy managed to secure a better price than Andrew Purdy and his sons, John M. and Andrew Oscar, who were apparently quite willing to get rid of poor farming land for what secured to them a good stiff price at the time.

On the land thus purchased the association expended something over $18,000 in laying out streets, etc., dividing the whole into 1,000 lots, measuring 100×105 feet, each containing a quarter of an acre, more or less, at a price of $93.50 per lot, the total cost of Mount Vernon, ready for settlement, being $93,500. The plots were subjected to a lottery, the early numbers getting first choice, and it is noticeable that the beauty of the southern end of the village attracted at least three early numbers to choose their location a mile or more from the station, on the high ground at the extreme end of the Hayward farm, which overlooks the sound. These numbers were drawn by James Taylor, a working hatter, William Smeaton, principal of a New York city public school, and Richard Atkinson, a well-to-do iron founder. Taylor and Smeaton died some years since; Atkinson, afterward president of the village, still lives, a very old man, whose property has been lost for some years in consequence of his failure in business. The Taylor house, after the death of the owner, was sold under a mortgage for some $4,500; the Smeaton house fetched about $5,000, while the Atkinson house brought something over $6,000, as near as we are at present informed. They averaged two lots each, costing $187 at the foundation of the village. The houses probably cost from $2,000 to $3,000 at the outside to put up in these days, and the profit on the investment, after paying interest and taxes, can hardly be called heavy, while actual loss was experienced in the Taylor case, $7,000 having been ref used for the place a year before.

Some time in 1851 the settlers began to arrive in the new village, which was at first named Monticello. The post office department objecting that there were so many Monticellos at the time, the name was changed to Mount Vernon, both names, it will be observed, relating to the hilly portions of the village as the pride of the place.

The settlement seems to have gone on rather slowly, as appears from the tiles of a long since extinct paper, known as the Mount Vernon Gazette, started in September, 1854. The villagers had fled to Mount Vernon to escape high rents in New York. They were, for the most part, working mechanics, ill-supplied with money; and a burning question early arose as to paving the streets. Flag walks were judged too expensive, and a patent tar walk was tried as cheaper, of which one or two remnants still exist in out-of-the-way places, the rest having gone to ruin within a very few years. Gas was not introduced till many years afterward, and the streets were not lighted, the inhabitants depending on hand lanterns when they had to run to catch trains on dark winter mornings. The “five fifty” was then a heavily attended morning tram, and old inhabitants of ten tell of the twinkling lights that used to dance over the snow before daylight on the way to catch it in those days.

The village was formally incorporated Dec. 10, 1853, at which time the population was stated at 1,370, of whom 564 were parents, the remainder children, unmarried adults and apprentices. The executive committee of the association had reported, in August, 1802, that three hundred houses had been erected, or were under way.

The names of the petitioners for incorporation were Thomas Jones, Enoch Douglass, Amzi Hill, Henry Higgins, John Davolls and William Wisdom, only one of whom—Douglass(1) —remains in the village. Stephen Bogart was elected first president, followed by Dr. Gregory, Thomas Jones, Cornelius Cooper, Richard Atkinson and others. John Stevens was the seventh president of the village. In 1854, the Gazette states in a leader, that Mount Vernon, the pioneer settlement, is already surrounded by the villages of Wakefield, Jacksonville, Washingtonville, West Mount Vernon, Fleetwood, Jeffersonville, Central Mount Vernon and East Mount Vernon.

It suggests that there are too many “Mount Vernons,” and wants West Mount Vernon, which had been settled by the Teutonic society, to be called “Teutonia,” but the name was never adopted, and all these settlements have long since lost their identity, being joined to the main village by incorporation at different times.

The Gazette chronicles particularly the building of houses by Messrs. Bloomer and Begelspacker, and informs its readers, with pride, that there are “thirty houses” in course of erection throughout the village, observing: “This, we think, is doing pretty well in dull times.”

In 1855, the Mount Vernon folks had a horticultural society, and Mr. William Miller is recorded as having raised 130,000 pickles off three-quarters of an acre of ground, for which he received a prize.

The editor of the Gazette did his best to start a “boom,” with pictures of the tune when the 2,000 acres clustered round the depot at Mount Vernon, and divided into 8.000 quarter-acre lots, each with a family of four people thereon, would number 32,000 inhabitants, while Eastchester was to swell the total to 40,000, and informs his readers that this is “no fancy picture.” But the boom died out, luckily for the inhabitants,who continued in a quiet, homely way, to live and die, marry and beget children, balancing the loss of gas and city excitement by the comparative cheapness of living, till the civil war had passed and the population had run up to near . 3,000, by natural means.

After the war a new boom was started, and the village shot up to four or live thousand inhabitants, while lots that had cost $03.50, and on which the community had expended about the same amount in improvements,were held at prices ranging from $2,000 near the depot, to $600 on the southern bills, the promised land of the early “pioneers.”

In the meantime changes took place. Early settlers grew tired of catching trains by lantern light over unpaved streets, and many sold out at a sacrifice. Lots were held at all sorts of prices, and the spirit of speculating on futures began to develop among a few of the pioneers themselves. John Stevens, who had been the head of the original crusade against “land monopoly as the efficient cause of poverty,” began to pick up outlying lots at low prices, and ultimately died the possessor of a very pretty little property in real estate. His house, at the corner of Sixth avenue and Fourth street, was known through the country side for having the largest elm to be found for miles, and the ex-president delighted in nothing so much as sitting on a platform among its branches and telling stories about the wonderful variety of birds that came to perch on that tree and survey the beauties of Mount Vernon.

The “real estate boom” lasted in Mount Vernon up to the year of the panic—1873—when “the bottom dropped out,” and lots, houses, farms, and everything else in the town of Eastchester were a drug on the market, having been mortgaged on fancy values, and falling to the mortgagees, generally insurance companies from the city, who frequently had to take the land in default of anything else. The panic stopped the growth of Mount Vernon for many years, but since the new boom started, a little after 1880, things have improved greatly in the opinion of real estate agents.

The population of the village, in a census taken this year (1887), is stated at between 8,000 and 9,000.

The selling value of lots in Mount Vernon, at the present date, as near as can be ascertained by late sales, is about as follows:

On the old “swamp farms,” near the New Haven railroad, quarter acre lots, which originally cost the association about $45, are, as a rule, now cut up into quarter lots (25x 100), which sell for from $1,500 to $2,500, making an average of $2,000, and bringing the value of a full lot to $8,800; that of an acre to $32,000, on land which originally sold for $100 to $180 an acre.

On the Sylvanus Purday farm, lots which cost the association about $50, now felch from $2,000 to $3,000, with an increasing tendency to cut up into “half lots” (50×100), in the case of land sold for building purposes, within a year past.

On the Hayward farm, where the lots cost originally about $50, the last sale by auction gave $1,250 for the value of a “full lot,” with a shanty thereon, which did not count in the price.

This is the result of the crusade begun in 1851 by the association “against land monopoly as the efficient cause of poverty,” under the leadership of an energetic president, who afterward became a shrewd speculator in lots; while the operation of the gradual advance in land values, defeating the primary object of the association, is shown by many curious facts.

At the beginning, and up to the starting of the “post-bellum boom” in Mount Vernon, the houses in the village, as a rule, were occupied by owners. The few houses to rent fetched sums ranging from $12 to $20 a month, $50 being thought a preposterous rent. After the collapse of the boom in 1873 there were plenty of houses to rent; but rents ranged from $20 to $25 a month for houses in the “best part,” of the village (the swamp). Then they began to rise, till $25 became the lowest figure, $30 the better one. Then they rose to $40 and $50 till at present it is not uncommon to find rents higher, for the same accommodations, than in New York city itself. A recent instance is one in which, on a $2,000 lot, the owner put up a $4,000 house, raising the money on mortgage and demanding $65 a month for the erection—thirteen per cent on his capital invested.

The “renters” already exceed the “owners” in numbers, and the character of the faces one meets is altering daily and yearly. The streets in that part of the village covering the “old swamp farms,” are well paved, lighted with gas, and supplied with water in the houses. “Modern conveniences” are demanded by folks who can afford to pay rent: and the “old pioneers,” as they once delighted to call themselves, are almost extinct. In 1874, when the village held a jubilee on its twenty-first birthday, there were still some thirty of these men, who marched as an organization in a little procession, at which all the world of Mount Vernon turned out, and the schoolboys were drilled as a battalion, with a boy officiating as adjutant, who now lives by his rents.

Today these pioneers and their descendants are almost extinct, and the only prosperous members of their band are gentlemen who picked up lots cheap, and now live on their rents.

There are three brick school-houses, quite a number of churches, the Methodists and Roman Catholics having thirty-thousand-dollar edifices, while the Baptists are going to have one to beat them as soon as they can raise the money, and the Episcopalians have just enlarged and beautified their pretty stone church. The Dutch Reformers have got so rich that they have quarreled and split into two churches, each with a fair proportion of wealth in its congregation. Electric lights have made their appearance near the depot, and a horse railroad runs from the Harlem depot, in West Mount Vernon, past the New Haven depot, to the ancient village of Eastchester, causing a new boom at the southern end of Mount Vernon. The people at that end are anxiously looking for a projected steam road, that is to run through the midst of the village, and act as a rival to the New Haven corporation, which keeps up fares as long as it can. When that road comes the boom will start “on the hill,” and its residents fondly hope it will beat “the swamp.” Shrewd men, with money, are buying up lots cheap at that end, and building is creeping up that way. In ten years more, in all probability, the village will apply to become a city, after the pattern of Yonkers, and every loyal Mount Vernonite believes in the “manifest destiny of the place.” The name “Mount Misery,” which dung to the village during the panic times, is no more heard, and everybody pretends it never had any meaning, while rich people are beginning to fill up the middle of the village, and the poor ones are being crowded into the back streets, where the sidewalks are few and far between.

Right in the midst of the “new boom quarter,” at the edge of the old Hayward farm, still stands one stone shanty, which is an eyesore to the residents of the handsome houses around it; and efforts are being made to induce its proprietor—a queer character, given to drink and profanity—to sell out. He sticks at bis price, and wants $6,000. If he does not die too soon he will very probably get it, for his poverty is a constant offense to his rich neighbors, who excuse their dislike on temperance grounds.

In short, Mount Vernon is now in the center of a brand new boom, which delights every one who owns a lot he can afford to keep, and, as the papers say, “the future of the village is assured.”

On the other side of the picture we have the following facts, for the township at large:

Instead of 1,318 acres in crops, barely 100 can be made out, by the most searching arithmetic, to be under cultivation. In the village of Eastchester one man—an exceptionally capable farmer— akes a living by raising strawberries, which sell well, in the village chiefly; but he is the only person worthy of the name of farmer at the southern end of the township. At Tuckahoe, the other end, a few small patches are still farmed; but, as a rule, the land of the once fertile township lies idle, waiting for a boom to come along. This state of things extends over the whole county to an extent that may be guessed from a statement in the “History of Westchester County,” in a chapter written by Rev. William Samuel Coffey, rector of St. Paul’s church, Eastchester, a most careful antiquarian and historian.

It appears from his researches that the crops in the whole county are two-fifths less than they were in 1840, while the value of real and personal property in the county has risen from $10,050,054 in 1840 to $73,800,487 in 1884. All this is a consequence of the great immigration boom begun by the Industrial home association in 1851, and extends, for the most part, along the New Haven road. On the Harlem side the road seems to operate for the benefit of the farmers to some extent. They send a good deal of stuff by the cars, though the freights were so high that for many years it was the practice of an association of farmers to send their milk to the city by four horse teams, which traveled all night and came back next day, a mode of transport which they found cheaper than sending, the cans of milk by the cars. Three years ago they were still doing this, and may be yet. For a radius of miles around Mount Vernon, New Rochelle, Larchmont, Mamaroneck, Harrison, Rye and Portchester farming ‘anguishes, simply because the proprietors of the land think that if they only wait long enough they will get to be rich without work, by letting their land rise in value.

These places are all on the line of the New Haven road, and on the coast of the sound, which offers superior advantages for residences, in point of salubrity and pleasant surroundings. The Harlem track passes through a rather dreary and uninteresting landscape, which has saved it from the grip of the speculator till the line of the Hudson river on one side and of the sea on the other shall be filled up with high-priced dwellings. Then, probably, the farmers of the interior will have to follow their brethren of the coast and river and make way for the speculator—for a consideration.

It is, however, when we come to look at the statistics of pauperism and crime in the county today that we see the consequence of the real estate boom in its strongest light.

In 1845 there was but one pauper in the whole town of Eastchester—in the family of one Vine A. Stann, who does not seem to have possessed a foot of land. though he had a wife and two children. From the outlandish name, and the fact that his family is reported to have been born in the New England states, we are left to guess at the cause of his pauperism, outside of his want of land.

The “Supervisor’s Report for 1886” reveals a different state of facts today, both in town and county.

In the county almshousethere were forty paupers from the town of Eastchester in 1835, with forty-three in 1880. These paupers cost the county one dollar and fifty cents per week each. The poormaster of the town received the munificent salary of one hundred and forty five dollars and eighty- eight cents, while five dollars was paid to a doctor for medical services to paupers. This represents the amount given by the landowners of the town for the support of their needy brethren in comparative idleness. When we come to the criminal expenses for justices and constables we find them much more liberal, for these gentry receive the sum of $3,105.58, to keep the poor whom we have always with us, out of sight, or in some place where they might be properly disciplined for their sins; while the items of $123 for “rent of lockup” and $73.20 for “feeding prisoners,” show that Mount Vernon has always entertained a proper respect for the law, combined with that humanity which will not permit a poor prisoner to perish of hunger and cold while the lockup stands.

The number of grogshops in the town is about sixty or so, in this respect being below the average of Portchester, which boasts of seventy-five, on a smaller population. The license fees being only ten dollars, are applied to the support of the poor.

However, the county, judging from the report of the superintendent of the poor, is economical in the support of “outside relief” cases from the county seat, the average amount expended for “outdoor” support being 69 447-1431 cents per week to each case. The county does not believe in following the example of the monasteries in the middle ages, which increased the pauper class so largely. In Westchester county, as in all other well-governed places, the pauper population only increases in spite of the best efforts of the respectable and virtuous classes, who wisely try to make the lot of the pauper so unpleasant that he will either go to work, die, or turn tramp and move out of the county. How they would like to treat tramps in the county may be learned from the following, taken from pages 71 and 72 of this valuable report:

Mr. See, Nov. 17,1880, presented the following preamble and resolutions:

Whereas, It has been the practice of committing magistrates in different sections of this county to committramps and vagrants to the county jail, where they are well taken ca re of during the winter months; and,

Whereas, It is a well known fact that hundreds of this class flock to this county from the city of New York, and the adjoining state of Connecticut; and,

Whereas, These tramps are a source of great danger and a great nuisance to our citizens; and,

Whereas, The expense, directly and indirectly, to the taxpayers of this county, caused by this tramp raid, has reached the enormous sum of $75,000 per year(1); therefore, be it

Resolved, That the committee on superintendent of the poor and asylums be and hereby is directed to carry into practical effect the following resolutions:

Resolved, That the committee request the senator and members of the assembly from this county to secure the passage of an act requiring all magistrates in this county to commit to the almshouse all persons committed as tramps or vagrants. And also of an act to repeal all acts or parts of acts not consistent with the above.

Resolved, That said committee be authorized to enter into a contract with responsible parties to erect a building in a suitable place on the county farm, which shall be so situated and constructed that it can be flooded with water to the depth of at least six feet, and so arranged with apartments and platforms that all persons committed as tramps arid vagrants can be placed therein and thereon, and when the water is turned on be compelled to bail or be submerged thereby. Said building and mixtures and all things pertaining thereto not to exceed the cost of $10,000.

Resolved, That the said committee be authorized to borrow upon the credit of the county such sum as may be necessary to complete the above mentioned work, such sum not to exceed $10,000.

Resolved, That when such building may be completed, the superintendent of the poor be authorized to employ such agents and make such arrangements as may be necessary for the practical operation of the above mentioned plan.

On page 180 of the report it appears that on Dec. 13. 1880, Mr. See called this resolution up and amended it so as to make the building cost only $5,000, to be paid for in county bonds, when the amended resolution was put to vote and carried, as follows:

Ayes—Messrs. Miles Adams, T. C. Adams, Burling, Carpenter, Close, Holmes, Mabie, Platt, Pell, Phelps, Ry an, Secor, See and Teed—14. Nays—Banta, Besson, Horton, Me- Grory, Quackinbush of Eastchester, Read, Taylor and Todd—S. The nail was then clinched in regular parliamentary style by moving a reconsideration and defeating the motion. The matter then slumbered till Dec. 27, when Mr. Mabie presented the following: Whereas, Certain resolutions adopted by this board on the 13th inst. have been construed as recommending that prisoners known as tramps and vagrants be subjected, in this county, to the infliction of such dangerous and unusual punishment as would jeopardize their lives; and

Whereas, Such construction is contrary to the intention desired to be expressed by such resolutions; therefore

Resolved, As the sense of this board, that only such legislation be asked for or recommended, on the subject referred to in the resolution aforesaid, as will permit the construction of a workhouse, or secure the removal of convicted tramps and vagrants from a condition of demoralizing idleness and degrading associations to a situation where they can be perfected and compelled to work at some laborious occupation, even though it should be impracticable to make such employment directly remunerative to the community. This resolution, slightly modified in language, was called up, and, after being fully debated at successive meetings, was finally carried, Monday, Jan. 3, 1887, by a vote of 11 to 8.

To sum up the results to the town of Eastchester and the county of Westchester of the crusade started in 1851, “against land monopoly as the efficient cause of poverty,” we find about as follows:

In 1845 Eastchester supported 1,309 people . in comfort, with plenty to eat and drink and good houses, with only one pauper in the town, and no records of crime to be found. Forty-two years of “improvements” have raised the population eight times; driven” out the old inhabitants almost entirely; laid desolate almost all the farms; developed a pauper population, a thriving liquor interest, a fair amount of criminal practice, and a desire to drown all the poor men if the law does not forbid it; have witnessed the birth’ of the tenement house in Mount Vernon, and have given rise to a daily increasing party in the village that seeks annexation to New York city, to get lower taxation and a police force. And all this has come, through the operation of natural laws, in consequence cf the purchase thirty- even years ago of a tract of land, to which “New York Industrial home association No. 1 titled as a refuge from “land monopoly as the efficient cause of poverty.”

The Rev. Coffey, in closing his chapter on Mount Vernon, well remarks: “It must be conceded, however, that the original intention of these settlements—that of home ownership—has, as might have been expected, been for a long time completely ignored.”

Per contra, if Mount Vernon has few homes, it has many churches, and pays its ministers good salaries. Instead of a place for a poor man to live, it,is fast becoming a nice pleasure ground for the well to do. The village supports a band, which gives free concerts on Friday nights, while tennis clubs, bicycle clubs, dancing schools and “citizen’s associations” flourish.

Meanwhile the poorer laboring men, who live in the back streets, are beginning to ask themselves, as they survey the idle fields that wait for the boom to come along: “Why should not we be allowed to cultivate these fields? Why should we have to go west to get a chance to work, ‘when all this land is held idle by dogs in the manger?’ When they get permission to do this, the bottom will drop out of the Mount Vernon real estate boom, but there will be more homes than there are now, and not so many paupers and tramps.

[The facts contained in the foregoing article are gathered from the census of the year 1845, “tiled in the office of Theodosius Hunt, town clerk, Oct. 9, 1815;” “abstract of title of John Stevens to lands in Eastchester, on behalf of the New York industrial home association, No. 1,” printed by Pudney & Russell, 79 John street, 1851; “proceedings of the board of supervisors of Westchester county, N. Y., session of 1880.” printed at New Rochelle, N. Y., by James H. Smith, besides other sources indicated in the article.]

Egypt.

Mr. Murphy on Sunday and Mr. Murphy on Monday

In The Standard of June 25 appeared a letter from “Tom Marley,” Galveston, Tex., in which, on the strength of a paragraph in the New York Herald of June 7 the writer assumed that Mr. Murphy had expressed his decided disapproval of the action of the O’Brien reception committee, and commented somewhat severely on the inconsistency of such action on the part of one who up to that time had been a supporter of the doctrine of the land for the people.

Mr. Murphy now writes us :

I do not care so much about the adverse criticism upon me in the letter in question as I do about a professed advocate of labor and the people’s God given right s being so inconsistent as to condemn one who he admits was a brother un to Sunday on the sole strength of a distorted paragraph. . . . I do not see how a believer in the Herald can be a believer in ‘Progress and Poverty.’ A Texas tornado could not ‘change me from the principles which grew with me, and which I imbibed from Fentan Lalor, the Irish World, and the noble and patriotic Bishop Nulty of Meath and Henry George on the land question.

The Standard understands from Mr. Murphy’s letter that the Herald paragraph which deceived “Tom Marley” had no foundation in fact. We regret the injustice that has been done Mr.’Murphy, and publish the above extract from his letter as the only atonement in our power.—[Ed. Standard.]

The New Northwest Grasps the New Idea

Duluth, Minn.—In trying to defend the present system of land holding the saviors of society are fighting a losing light. All thinking men see that this system is what drives hard working men and their families from their homes, yet its defenders land it as honesty itself. It produces the “harvest tramps” of the west, yet it is called the bulwark of morality! Only a few of the pioneers hold their original claims hero. and their successors labor under burdens similar to those which drove them from their homes. A system that nurtures the poverty one can see here is surely not conducive to morality. More people are realizing this every day in this section. In the bustling flour city, the site of labors first temple, men are answering to the call. In St Paul, Duluth and other populous centers, their brothers cannot lag. The farmers, too, are thinking. Men of the northwest can be Counted upon among those who will lead in this peaceful light for justice and the regeneration of society.

J. J. Brennan.

God Speed the Holy Mission

Jamestown, N. Y.—Henry George’s principles on the land question are spreading rapidly throughout this region. Some Catholic prelates—church princes and dictators of what Torn, Dick and Harry shall believe in politics and political economy—claim that Dr. McGlynn is in open rebellion to the Catholic church. For the church’s sake I hope this is not the case, as it would bring great discredit on that organization if it put itself on record as an antagonist to the Lord of Lords and Host of Hosts. God speed the holy mission of Henry George and Dr. McGlynn.

F. G. Anderson.

 



Affairs In England

The Approaching Crisis—A Glut of Goods and a Glut of Starving People Who Can’t Buy Them—The English Mines

Newcastle, England, June 20.—On every hand there is evidence of a great crisis approaching in the relations of labor and capital in this country. The increase of population and the rapid development of labor saving machinery are making competition ever keener and fiercer among the workers, while the pressure of foreign and home competition among the manufacturers is compelling them to force down wages to the barest subsistence limit. This has caused a general feeling of insecurity. The traders cry out that there is a glut of goods, and the workmen complain that the army of unemployed are everywhere growing beyond manageable bounds. What the outcome will be it is difficult to tell and useless to conjecture.

One of the most reliable and most dismal tokens of the condition of trade is the position of the various trade unions. The amounts paid from the funds of these organizations to members out of work is abnormally large. The superannuation payments also are developing beyond manageable limits. Even among the engineers the complaint is very strong.

The condition of the miners, a representative body of workers, is one of the engrossing questions of the day. This country employs over 500,000 persons about the mines. Their work is hard, unhealthy and dangerous. It is, further, a trade which at present is indispensable to all the others. In Northumberland the men are admitted to be in every respect better off than in any other county. The pits there are safer, the men have better wages and the best labor organization, and they are the most advanced in their political education. In the palmy days of mining, which began to decline in 1874, they had exceptionally good wages. Since then there has been a steady decline. At the end of last year the miners were getting fifteen shillings and ninepence for the same work that before brought them thirty shillings, and there has been a subsequent reduction of twelve and one-half per cent.

Every strike adds to their misery, and thousands are leaving this country for the United States. They are reluctant to go, but between the landlord and the monopolist they are driven away.

The majority of the thirty-five million people in this country are mad just now over the jubilee of Queen Victoria. The might, fame, power and wealth of the empire ring in one’s ears from morn till night. The misery, strife and crime bred up in the empire, the injustice and cruelty on which it is built, are left unheeded. But for those who closely study the labor question, there is plenty oi proof that the empire will see stormy days before long.

J. L. Mahon.

The Absurdity of Compensation

Toronto.—It seems to me absurd, after admitting the injustice of private property in land, to talk of compensation. Compensation for what? The restitution of a birthright? Look at it, however, in another light. If, from some irremediable cause, New, York should become an undesirable place to live in, and rapid depopulation ensued, would land owners think of compensation? Or if an industry employing thousands of hands is removed from a town, the land values of which are dependent upon, and resultant from, that industry, would land owners expect compensation? Would the abolition of protection be accompanied by compensation, to the can’t-exist-under-free-trade industries? When competition breaks up monopoly, is compensation thought of?

Arthur E. Phillips.

An Englishwoman Speaks Out

Staines, Middlesex, England.—I am but an insignificant woman, one of the poor and lowly, but my heart turned with passion as I read your “Progress and Poverty,” and I cannot refrain from writing to you, While I live I shall be, so far as may be in me, the apostle of that justice which you have so fully and admirably set forth.

Esther Locke.

John Phelps and the Farmer

Clinton, Iowa, Labor Union.

A short time ago, in conversation with one of the small farmers in this vicinity on the tax question, I alluded to J. M. Osborne’s lecture and explained his position on the subject. The farmer replied immediately that such a course would be unjust. Said I “Why should you pay more tax on your forty acres than the man who owns the forty adjoining you pays on his.”’ “Because” he said “mine is worth more than his?” “What makes it worth more?” “The improvements on it.” “But why should you be taxed for the improvements?” “Because every improvement either in building or clearing, is an investment and adds just as much to the value of my farm.” Said I, “Look here, you came hero and went to work on this forty acres when this was all it: a state of nature. The forty north of you was worth as much as yours, if not more. You have expended money and labor on your farm while the other has done nothing on his. What is the result? Every year your tax is more in proportion than Iris. You have been taxed on the money and labor that you have expended, while the same money and labor has added largely to the value of that other forty, and the owner has not only had the benefit of your expenditures in the increased value of his land, but his tax has grown less proportionately: in other words, you expend money on your farm and your percentage of the tax collected in the township increases, while the man who expends nothing pays each. year a smaller percentage.” The farmer couldn’t see it in that light. But time and a sober thought works change. Open the subject to him now and he will argue very much as I did then.

The Paralysis of Poverty

Journal of United Labor.

There is a degree of poverty that paralyses the will, and conditions that leave no fulcrum by which purchasing power can be gained to lift one from out its quicksands. It needs the helping hand of one stationed above, the firm grip that imparts strength and courage to the sinking heart and leaves the victim standing on firm ground. The moral influence of homes becomes more and more apparent the deeper one goes into the causes that lie at the root of crime. Self-respect is the basic principle upon which rests the moral advancement of the race. This can be gained only by the awakening of the sense of responsibility that attaches to home, to wife and child.

Scenery Grabbing

Burlington, Iowa, Justice.

A man has preempted 160 acres of absolutely barren land upon the slope of Pike’s Peak, over which is the only practical trail to the summit. He has stretched a chain across as a barrier, and travelers are forced to pay him $1 each in order to ascend. We all see that this private appropriation is legalized robbery. But in what essential respect does it differ from all other private appropriation of pay for the use of the land?

Please Get Down to Business

Kellogg, Ia., Enterprise.

We have been much disappointed in the general character of the answers and criticisms we have seen of Henry George and his philosophy. They are full of laugh, ridicule and prejudice; but we have thus far failed to see anything like what we would term a substantial, orthodox answer. We wish somebody would get down to business and dish up the fallacy, if it is one.

Page 7

 



Yet Another Clergyman

“The Land Shall Not Be Sold In Perpetuity”

A Sermon by Rev. Edward P. Foster of Storrs’ Congregational Church, Cincinnati—The Right and Duty of the Pulpit—God Speed the Day!

Lev. XXV, 23 (Rev. Ver.)—And the land shall not be sold in perpetuity; for the land is mine.

No one can deny that the text lays down a scriptural law with regard to the disposition of the land. as plainly as human language can possibly be made to state it. Therefore the general question is, on the very face of it, a scriptural one; and, of consequence, one that the pulpit has not only a right to discuss, but, when circumstances require it, is in solemn duty bound by its obligations to God to consider.

There is a question of tremendous import that our modern civilization must answer, or, like those who failed to solve the riddle of the Sphinx, be itself destroyed. It is the social question of which President Seelye said to a graduating class at Amherst college, “Toward it all other questions, whether of nature, of man, or of God, steadily tend.” It is no time now to find fault with any one who seeks an answer to this question, or to say that. the church has no call to consider it. For, whether the black cloud whose rim is now seen above the western hills, and the muttering thunder that growls in the distance, betoken the rapid rising of a storm that will burst in a tempest of blood and flame, whose scenes will eclipse in their terrific gloom all the frightful horrors of the French revolution, or whether it tells of a genial shower that will clarify the atmosphere, clothe the hills and valleys with fresher verdure and cause the plane of modern civilization to put forth flowers of fragrance and beauty hitherto undreamed of, and fruits of unknown lusciousness, is a question that is very soon to be answered, not improbably during these closing years of the nineteenth century.

Full of perils—and rapidly becoming still snore so—is the present congested condition of society, by which untold wealth is heaped up in the laps of a few individuals, while countless thousands of the poor are, as by the iron hand of an irresistible fate, being pushed off the edge of a frightful precipice into the unfathomable gulf below. They are told that if they will erect a barrier out of the three rails called temperance, industry and economy that they can save themselves from poverty and starvation. Ah! these gaunt wolves have learned to leap over that humble fence. Tell to the thousand passengers on board the ocean steamer sinking in mid-Atlantic that if they will only take to the boats they will be saved. Alas! the boats will hold but one hundred. What shall the other nine hundred do?

This is the advice confidently given: “Let them all use a little extra exertion and get to the boats among the first hundred. If any of them are falling behind, let them run a little faster.” That is the advice given from many a pulpit nowadays, and by many a supposed philanthropist. It may be good theoretically; and yet nine hundred men are going to drown in spite of their utmost efforts. Good is it for the remaining hundred if they also are not dragged under in the fierce struggle for existence.

The Anti-poverty society sees the hopelessness of such advice, and in another way, and from another direction, attempts to bring rescue to struggling society. Its endeavor is being pushed by men whose motives are acknowledged as sincere and earnest, even by those who are enemies of the measure proposed. Its object is a distinctly religious one; not in the sense of endeavoring to build up any particular church or denomination, but in the attempt to put an end to what it claims is a fundamental injustice that lies at the base of modern civilization, and threatens to overthrow in awful ruin the whole structure.

The doctrine that private, individual ownership of land is a fundamental injustice to the whole community seems, to some, a teaching in which they need take no interest, as though it were merely the wild dream of some enthusiastic or visionary crank. A newspaper remarks that if the doctrine has such importance as has been ascribed to it, it is queer that it has never been thought of before the end of the nineteenth century. That astute observation evidently seemed to the able editor to be a complete and satisfactory answer to the theory in question. Suppose the teaching were new; that would no more disprove it than the fact that the knowledge of electricity is a new thing proves that a business man is a mere dreamer when he imagines that he can send a telegram from here to Chicago; or that all the people who think that they have crossed the Atlantic in an ocean steamer are entirely mistaken, because a scientific man once proved, with demonstrated certainty (and figures you know never lie), that it is an absolute impossibility for a steamship to carry coal enough on board to feed the engine fires for as long a trip as that across the ocean. But, for that matter, the doctrine is not new. The present method of holding land is the one that is new. Henry George makes no claim to be the originator of the land theory that is now commonly known by his name. Indeed, such a claim, in the face of the text, would be exceedingly cheeky, for it would be difficult to find the principle on which his theory is based more clearly or more compactly stated than it is here, in the authoritative words of holy scripture. It is true, some so-called “higher critics” of the present day have been disputing among themselves as to the exact age in which the book of Leviticus was written, but no one has yet been heard of who has ventured to assign to it a later date than the year in which the volume entitled “Progress and Poverty” was published.

The same teaching, that private ownership of land is an injustice, is proclaimed also in the writings of such universally respected philosophers as John Stuart Mill and Herbert Spencer, men who as thinkers are not counted as visionary cranks. The only difference is that they did not have the courage of their opinions, so as to push the matter to a practical issue.

Some persons turn with horror from any discussion of the subject, because, in their minds, it is connected with all the blood-curdling specters that gather about nihilism, communism, and kindred theories, in whose fearful advance they see the pestilential enemies that are threatening to sweep over Christianity and civilization with such irretrievable ruin as the engulfing wave of the Red sea brought upon the hosts of the Egyptian king. A late illustrated paper represents Henry George as an old-time farmer, diligently sowing the seed in the earth. After him comes Dr. McGlynn, as carefully watering the tiny unspringing plants. The little shoots, as they peep above the surface, develop into knives, and daggers, and bayonets, and brutal hands flourishing clubs and dynamite bombs. Do you think that the teaching that God intended that every one of his children should have at least a standing place and a working place upon the earth, really breeds anarchy and sedition like that: A little boy at school defined salt as “that thing which makes potatoes little bad.” How do you make that out?” asked the astonished teacher. “Why,” said the youngster, “when you don’t put any on.” The way in which the Henry George theory will cause a crop of anarchy, and turmoil, and uproar, to spring up from the land, is by not putting it on. It is too true that above the surface of the soil are beginning to appear blades and spears that are not merely the harmless ones of grass. The seed that Henry George is sowing is not their cause, however, but their antidote, and the plant that springs therefrom is destined to choke out these briers and thorns and prickly cactus.

Let us look at the text: “The land shall not be sold in perpetuity; for the land is mine.” The government of Israel was what is called a theocracy. It was not so much a union of church and state as an absolute identification of church and state. Jehovah was the head of the nation, not only in a religious point of view, but also from a governmental or political standpoint. Consequently, when he announces “the land is mine,” that is a definite statement of the truth upon which is based the claim for the nationalization of the land. The law, “the land shall not be sold in perpetuity”—or “forever,” as it reads in the common, the King James version of the Bible—is a definite statement against the right of private ownership in the land. Possession of the land, that should be undisturbed, was arranged for, but the law was that it should not be “sold forever;” that is, no title deed could be given by virtue of which absolute ownership should be acknowledged or claimed. When, in our modern forms of law, a deed is so made out that a piece of real estate is sold to a man, “his heirs and assigns forever,” it seems almost as if that was so worded as to be a flat contradiction, a direct and verbal setting aside of the law as given through Moses to the children of Israel.

It is true that the local regulations of Moses, or those enforced after his time, in the settlement of the children of Israel, by Joshua, in the land of Canaan, are not commanded as laws for us. There were many regulations and rules that were intended to be only temporal and national to the Jews. However, the text is, in itself, a sufficient proof of this, at any rate, that the Bible does not regard that theory of land, according to which it belongs not to individual owners, but to the community, as a teaching that is unjust, or anarchistic, or dangerous, or tending to barbarism. I have seen this teaching assailed by such appellations, even in religious papers; and, nevertheless, that which is thus characterized remains the teaching of scripture. The theory of Henry George makes a radical difference between the land itself, the gift of God to the human race, and the improvements which the labor of individual men has added to the land. The same distinction is made in this chapter of Leviticus. The law given with regard to the land in a state of nature is different from that which applies to a house in a city, for instance. The man who sold a dwelling house in a walled city was granted one year. During which he might have the privilege of redeeming that which he had sold. That was a benevolent protection against any sudden financial distress. But if the house was not redeemed within the year, the law then was this: “Then the house that is in the wall city shall be made sure in perpetuity to him that bought it, throughout his generations; it shall not go out in the jubilee.”

The house, the product of human labor, could become private property and descend perpetually, either from heir to heir, or by absolute sale. But no one might thus establish a claim to the land—the property of the community in general.

It would not be possible, or advisable, in modern conditions of society, to carry out literally the regulations that were given through Moses concerning land. But the spirit of those rules should be heeded today just as truly as three thousand years ago.

They have just been celebrating in England the jubilee of the reign of Queen Victoria. What does the word “jubilee” mean? It seems almost sarcasm to apply it as has been done in England this past week, for the old Hebrew word “jubilee,” denoting “the blowing of the ram’s horn trumpet,” was originally used to mark the time when the proclamation went forth that every one who, by financial reverse or for any other cause, had been temporarily dispossessed of that portion of the common inheritance allotted to him or his fathers, should be privileged to return to it again. If England had glorified herself by giving a real jubilee last Tuesday, there would have been no angrily revengeful smashing of windows in the city of Cork, nor gathering symptoms of revolt through Ireland. The good reign of Victoria would then have been grandly victorious over the reign of “Evictoria,” and the poor peasant women of Ireland, now so barbarously evicted from their miserable huts, would be defended by the law of God, and would have no need of vainly trying to defend themselves by boiling water.

What real liberty can there be that does not also include the right to a home in what we call our country? Suppose, for instance, that a Vanderbilt should concentrate his landed property, and become the owner of the soil of an entire state; a Gould likewise become the owner of another; a Huntington of a third; and so on, until some one man owns each of the states and territories of this union. Then is not every child that comes into existence here born in slavery to those fifty men, as really and truly as were the children of the blacks in the south to their masters? Do we not all become their slaves? If you wish to live in Ohio, for instance, you must do so by the sufferance of the owner of the soil of that state. Your day’s work may be fairly worth two dollars. By living as does a Chinaman, you may manage to exist on twenty cents a day, royal wages in some parts of the world. The landowner of Ohio happens to be a Christian, and will not oppress you severely, so he offers you twenty-five cents a day for your labor. You know your labor is worth two dollars, and you ref use to accept the offer. Well, you must either work or starve. What are you going to do now, my brother? Will you go over into Kentucky? You write to the magnate of that land to see what terms you can make with him. He is also a Christian, but not quite so generous as the one at home. Besides, there is a private understanding between him and the owners of the other states not to bid against each other. He offers you twenty-four cents. Your labor is worth two dollars, and you say “no” to him also. Well, Indiana is not far away. You will go there. You inquire about terms, and are offered twenty-three cents. Again you say “no.” You write to the men who own the other states of the union. They are not Christians, but simply practical business men, without any sentimental charity whatever. They say you can live on twenty cents; and, since you are in need of work, they will furnish you with work and give you twenty cents a day. Well, will you go to Canada or Europe? Alas! all the land in those countries has been grabbed also; and besides, you find that your expenses, while you have been seeking for work have used up all your spare cash, and your groceryman says that inasmuch as you are out of work, and he has a family to support, he can’t afford to run any risks, and so refuses to let you have anything more on account. Well, you cannot blame him for that under the circumstances. But what are you going to do? Your neighbors are no better off than you are, and you can neither beg nor steal, even if you were willing to do so. There are just two things before you now, either to work or to starve—unless, indeed, you take a third road, and scarcely a daily paper can you pick up that does not tell of some one, even as things are now, who takes that road, driven to it by sheer desperation and hopelessness. That road is the short cut out of this world by the river, a razor or a bullet. You do not choose to take your own life, and so you take the best offer that is made, and g o to work at twenty-five cents per day. Is there any hope that you or your children can better your situation? I read of one on trial in Russia, of whom it was stated that he had to work for seventeen hours every day, and all he got for it was as much black bread as he could eat. What wonder that he was a nihilist? It is no fancy picture. It is the inevitable goal toward which the acknowledgment of private ownership of land is as irresistibly tending as the decrees of fate, on which the ancients made even the throne of Jupiter dependent. Last Tuesday the sun in the heavens, that had been steadily drawing northward from the equator, took a turn toward the south, the turn that means for us winter, with its cold, and snow and ice. We know it now only from the almanac We swelter here in the still increasing heat of the summer. Nevertheless that turn—though we realize not that it has been made—rings inevitably the keen blasts from the north and covers the earth with a winding sheet of snow. If you allow the private ownership and monopoly of land to continue, you can no more prevent the enslavement of its inhabitants than you can stop the sun from crossing the equator.

Some one thinks, perhaps, that if such were the certain result it would have been realized before this, and that the fact that the world has already stood as it is for six thousand years is proof that things will continue as they are, and that the fact that this slavery has not already manifested itself proves that the threatening cloud is not the fearful funnel that betokens a cyclone, but is only a harmless column of smoke.

Be not too sure of that. The conditions of civilization have changed. Never before has the world had at its control the cyclopean forces that have developed themselves from the force of steam, and the gigantic and wonderfully ingenious powers called into existence by modern inventiveness and carried out through machinery.

I remember to have read of a boy who, before the present self-acting engines were in use, was employed to open and close the valve of the steam cylinder of a certain engine at each stroke of the piston rod. The boy possessed quite an ingenious turn of mind, and at the same time, like other boys, he wanted a frequent play spell. So he set his wits to work, and rigged up a system of strings, so that at each revolution the engine itself, by means of the strings, opened and shut the valves. The boy could have his play, and the engines went on working. So far so good. However, the owner of the engine happened to come around. He saw what was going on. He saw, too, that there was no need to pay the boy for work that the engine would do just as well without any pay. The boy lost the job.

Let us go back a moment. You are supposed to have agreed, as the best thing you do, to go to work for the owner of the state of Ohio at twenty-five cents per day. Suppose now that modern inventions are carried a little farther in the same line in which the boy worked. All the machines in the state now run themselves. The Christian owner of the soil has in the meantime died, and his son has inherited the land that his fat her held. All that he wants done is done by his machinery, and you are simply an incumbrance on the soil. If he gives you the twenty cents on which you can live, it would be simply charity on his part. You would bow before him, with humble and sincere thanks, as a generous benefactor of humanity. But suppose he is not charitable, and none of the other lords of the soil think themselves under any more obligation to feed you than you do to feed the pestiferous English sparrows that noisily chatter in the streets. Then the only thing for you to do is to enrich the soil that belongs to another man with your dead and moldering body.

You may call that an extreme supposition. Nevertheless it is directly in the line of modern tendencies. The extreme may not be so far away either. The process is going on now. Read of the sick women and helpless cripples in Ireland, mercilessly dragged from their beds and thrown upon the streets. Why? Simply because they are poor. They are willing to work with all their strength, but they are thrown out of the hut in which a decent pig would scarcely live, simply because it is so willed by a man who prides himself on the fact that neither he nor his ancestors, as far back as the memory of man can reach, ever did a single stroke of work. He doesn’t need the land himself, but if he turns out his useless tenants and lets their carcasses rot on the soil the grass will then grow a little greener and ranker and he himself will have a little more money to spend, in London or Paris, on wine and harlots.

The same process is going on in this country. A poor man in one of our cities is thrown out of work. He has not been able to lay up any thing from his miserable wages, and now he is brought to the door of starvation. His wife cries in silence. His children piteously moan for bread. The man goes upon the street, and in desperation breaks through the window of a baker’s shop and takes a loaf of bread. He is caught, and the poor dog is hustled off to the station-house. If he had been successful in some gigantic corner in wheat, and had made a million dollars by thus stealing a piece from every loaf in the country, he would then have been received with honor in the very highest society, and might have built the most magnificent bank in the city, and mockingly named it “Fidelity.” But he was only a poor man, and he took but one loaf for his children crying with hunger, and he must go to jail. Now, the rent can no longer be paid. The landlord comes, the wife and children must go upon the streets—and thence to the dogs and the devil.

The present process that, if permitted to continue, will at length, with more than the force of a hydraulic press, squeeze out every man, woman and child, who does not own a standing place upon the land, or who cannot obtain one by the gracious and charitable sufferance ‘of some fortunate land holder, who has got hold of enough and more than enough for two stand on, can only be stopped by compelling every one to pay back, as rent, in the shape of taxes, whatsoever of value he thus scoops out of the common treasury. The objection is made to this solution of the difficulty, that it will bear very hard on the poor man who has perhaps invested his all in a lot on which he hopes to maintain his home. It is said that if you tax land values up to the rental worth, you may compel that poor man to give up his home. Do you know why the whale swallowed Jonah ? Some of you perhaps may not know the reason, and so I will tell you. It was because he was bigger than Jonah. It is presumable that Jonah was smarter than the whale; but, nevertheless, you will notice that he did not swallow the whale. Do you not know that all over the country the big fish are swallowing the little ones—not because they were smarter, but simply because they are bigger? Now you know the danger that threatens the poor man’s little lot. The man with a ten acre lot right beside the poor man’s dooryard will swallow down the little patch of ground more easily than the whale did Jonah, and will do what the whale could not—he will succeed in keeping it on his stomach.

Besides, what does the poor man want the patch of ground for? If he has built a house upon it for a home, it is not at all certain that the taking of all taxes off his house, and concentrating them upon his lot, would raise the amount of tax he must pay a single cent; but if he does not intend to use his square rod of land, but holds it for purposes of speculation, then is it not right that he should be taxed for that, just as truly as should the rich man who keeps his square mile, or his thousand square miles, out of the market and out of use? It is simple justice that we plead for. Justice is represented as a goddess with blindfolded eyes. She weighs the matter impartially, seeing not the faces of those before her, and asking not whether they be rich or poor, learned or ignorant, servant or master.

Many seem to think that the advocacy of free land is a piece of the communistic idea of abolishing poverty by dividing all the property of the country equally among all the inhabitants. No such miserable theory as that is in any wise advocated. Whatever is the rightful product of a man’s labor, whether of head or of hand, is his, and his right shall be maintained by every power that government can employ. What is insisted on is simply that might shall not be considered as equivalent to right; that no man shall have the privilege of robbing his neighbor. The same God who maketh His sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and who sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust, has also placed His soil beneath the feet of all men; and we simply say that it is defiance of the universal laws of the beneficent Creator when one man is given the legal right, without paying any compensation therefor, to warn off of hundreds of millions of acres, even at the penalty of death, all other men, even though they are just as much children of the one God as he himself is.

But let the man pay a just and equitable compensation for what he takes from the common stock, and then all our cause of quarrel with him is ended. If he has a farm, and by industry superior to mine can raise twice as many bushels to the acre as I can, it is all right. I will not ask from him a single cent of that superior income. If he put up a factory or a store in the city and .can make or sell ten times as much as I can, very well. He shall have ten times the income, and I shall not be wronged in the least. It is all simple justice, clear as the sunbeams. It is simply giving every one the right to his labor, the opportunity of using for his maintenance or that of his family, the brains and the hands which God gave him to use.

Let that be done and labor will be truly emancipated. The results will be wonderful. It is not claimed that all will at once become industrious, or righteous, or temperate; nor that there will not be poverty still as a lash to sting the lazy, or the drunken, or the wasteful. Nevertheless, the burden under which the poor man now bends and totters will be so lightened that he can walk erect, holding up his head as one who has a share in the inheritance of the good things of this world. Then can the church more easily persuade him that he is also a joint heir with Christ of a still more glorious inheritance in the skies. Then, too, he will not need to drown his hopelessness in strong drink: for intemperance is, perhaps, as often the effect as the cause of poverty. Then, too, the beautiful sun light that God’s Word tells us was intended for all, will shine into the dark slums and alleys and tenement houses of our great cities; and it will be the shining of the sun of righteousness, with healing in its beams, for before it dirt and disease will flee away; and the little children that now, like potato plants in the cellar, grow pale and sickly, and in their rags slink out of sight, will come forth rosy-cheeked and with laughing faces, trooping to the Sabbath school and to the house of God, to learn of the good Father above, who so bountifully bestows upon them richest blessings. God speed the day.

Land Values in Lower New York

Real Estate Record and Guide.

The interest in this matter to our readers is the hint it gives as to the possibilities of prices of real estate on the extreme end of the lower portion of this island. The exchanges will naturally continue to grow in importance with the increase of the business of the country, and are not likely for the next century to be removed from their present locations. The great office buildings will necessarily continue to multiply, and, as the number of businessmen increases, there will be new customers for the retail stores. Hence it is not easy to limit the possible values of locations below the City hall park accessible to those who wish to purchase necessary articles of clothing. There is every reason to believe that Broadway, Wall street and Broad street properties will in time sell higher than any realty in Paris or London, for nowhere else on earth will there be such a throng of people on so limited a surface of ground.

The Hour Has Produced the Man

London Democrat.

Have we no champion to ride forth against poverty. Has the worst enemy of the world no need to fear a Galahad and his shining sword? Yes, thank God, the fullness of time has come, the hour has struck, the man appeared. In New York, amidst the fresh thoughts and the vigorous life of a people whose great future awes the imagination of the boldest, an humble parish priest, a new Peter the Hermit, has spoken words that have thundered round the globe, that have echoed from America to Europe, that have sped on their electric wings to the uttermost parts of the earth. Men have listened to the sonorous music of the greatest message that has been uttered since John the Baptist cried in the wilderness that the world’s Creator was coming to relieve the world’s misery.

Alien Landholders in Dakota

Grand Rapids Journal.

No one thing is so injurious and disastrous to the interests and development of Dakota as large tracts of land being held by aliens, at fabulous prices, for speculative purposes. It is positively a curse. While the sturdy settlers are battling hard for an existence, they are enhancing the value of land held by bloated syndicates and aliens. The gophers that breed on the unoccupied tracts destroy the crops of the struggling settler, and it is a barrier to the settlement of all the land. Alone, almost without any near neighbors, he has to fight the battle, and the greater part of the results is reaped by kid-gloved capitalists!

Hasn’t Mine Working Had This Effect in Pennsylvania?

The coal beds of China are five times as large as those of Europe, while gold, silver, lead, tin, copper, iron, marble and petroleum are all found in the greatest abundance. Owing to the prejudice of the people, the mines have never been worked to any extent. it being the popular belief in China that if these mines should be opened thousands of demons and spirits imprisoned in the earth would come forth and fill the country with suffering.—[Winsted, Ct., Press.]

Taking a Good Deal for Granted

New York Star.

No sound hearted and clear headed citizen of this country really believes that his individual liberty as a citizen or the independence of his country is endangered by the pope or the Vatican, or what Dr. McGlynn so disrespectfully describes as “the Roman machine.” If Dr. McGlynn believes it, he should be put to bed and iced towels applied to his head.

 



Metlakahtla

Buffalo Gap, Dakota, June 27.—The World, in an editorial, lately had “A point for poverty abolishers” in the story of Metlakahtla. The complete story, when told, makes several points not mentioned by the World writer.

In its playful way, the World puts the case in this shape:

“Thirty years ago when William Duncan, a brave English missionary, selected the coast of far off British Columbia as a field of labor, he found the Tsimshean Indians given over to cannibalism, murder, theft and general deviltry. But they had among their peculiar tribal customs one which might well attract the attention of our modern reformers who are endeavoring so heroically to change the status of property.

“These primitive people held that the greatest man in the tribe was he who, after the accumulation of a lot of trinkets, furs, blankets, etc., should make a general distribution among his fellows. Hence it was a common thing for a man to lead a life of frenzied industry and self-denial in order to gather together a fine array of valuables. On an appointed day he would gather the tribe together and after a feast would proceed to impoverish himself by dividing all his personal possessions, reducing himself to absolute want. This gave him the respect of the tribe and made him a sort of dignitary. Of course his only salvation was to share in the next ‘divide,’ for no office that could be given such a self-sacrificing man among the Tsimsheans could afford him an opportunity to recoup himself.

“Mr. Henry George and his followers might find something in this system to aid them in the work of abolishing general poverty. It remains to be said, however, that after Missionary Duncan’s sojourn among these peculiar Indians he induced them to stop their system of dividing property for glory’s sake. In due time they founded the village of Metlakahtla, built a church, started a saw mill, and went into the fish canning business on an extensive scale. They all agree now that their old system was not just the thing upon which to base commercial prosperity, but there are always a few people around who think that we can gather economic wisdom from the early Aryans, the nomads of Africa or the prehistoric cave dwellers.”

With all its facilities for gathering news the World is a year behind the latest intelligence from Metlakahtla. When the bearer of its information set out from that Indian village to walk to the editorial rooms of the World Metlakahtla was truly the full realization of a missionary’s dream of aboriginal restoration. Its people, 1,200 in number, were all as happy as mortals could be. Each Indian had recognized rights in its lands, the tribe having had possession of them for several generations. Their one store was co-operative. The vessel that carried their canned goods down the coast to the white men’s settlements was the property of the people. Profits were shared by those who worked. Church, school and library were free to all. Officers were elective. Taxation was simple. Want was unknown. The people were brothers worshiping a common father.

But the white man, in his official capacity, has, during the past year, arrived at Metlakahtla, bringing with him “a peculiar tribal custom.” English white men have claimed the land on which the Arcadian village was built, and against the rapacity of white Christians the labor of the Indians for thirty years does not weigh a feather. The Indians believed that they owned the land, and they assert that their right to it was guaranteed to them by Lord Dufferin. The Canadian government is taking away from them for its own uses lands held by the community as well as property regarded as justly in the hands of individual Indians. Honest, thrifty, educated Indians are now in jail hundreds of miles from home for not giving up both land and house. The Canadian authorities enforce the white man’s “peculiar tribal custom” by selling parts of the reservation without Consulting with the Indians, who are utterly unable to understand this “change in the status of property.” The Indians have abandoned all hope of getting justice in Canada, and have petitioned our government for land in Alaska. They propose to remove in a body from their loved and once happy village, leaving to the despoilers their church and their dwelling houses. The white men’s government, it seems to them, recognizes a system of “dividing property” which bears no comparison with their own obsolete custom, for the latter was only practiced voluntarily. They cannot believe that. this system is just, even if ancient, for their own foresworn cannibalism reached back with them to the time when the memory of the red man runneth not to the contrary, and they abandoned it because they were convinced of its evils. That they should be expected on every rent day to divide the fruits of their labor with men in Montreal or London who never saw the land on which they had built their homes seems a gross perversion of law. And that this “division of property” should be adjusted on a basis that the more they work the more they must give, is in their eyes nearly as bad as the cannibalism of their early life. They see that by this system of dividing the whole tribe may be reduced to want and that the Canadians and Englishmen who lay claim to their lands base their commercial prosperity on the industry of the Metlakahtla Indians.

Now, the World does not like to be a year behind the times. It will doubtless tell its readers the rest of the story of Mr. Duncan’s mission. It may also, as it is a bright, progressive paper, gather a little economic wisdom from the “full account” of the Metlakahtla Indians.

Missionary.

[The World has caught up with the latest news from Metlakahtla, and is endeavoring to retrieve itself by collecting dimes and dollars for the poor Indians. But its remedy for their poverty— almsgiving, is as far from the true remedy—justice, as was its statement of the condition of the Metlakahtlans from the actual facts.—Ed. Standard.]

Page 8

 



Publisher’s Notes

Well I have found him at last; we’ve discovered a man who has read,—or at all events has had a chance to read—The Standard for six solid months, and finds himself not only none the better for it, but very much the worse. Let him speak for himself; here’s his letter:

Office of the Norris Mills, W. B. Morris, agent, Lake Charles, La.—I do not wish to renew my subscription, for the reason that the doctrines of your paper are calculated to do no good, relieve no one, but tends to discontent and sentiments of anarchy.

I subscribed for The Standard for six months, that I might understand the cause of so much complaint, from the standpoint of those who claimed they had cause.

The complaints are not reasonably stated and the proffered remedy is not fair to the majority of mankind.

W. B. Norris.

Well, Mr. Norris, the doctrines of this paper do tend to discontent; you are quite right so far. Discontent is by no means a bad thing; on the contrary, its a very necessary element of progress. We haven’t the honor of your personal acquaintance, nor do we know what is implied in your title of “Agent of the Norris mills;” but supposing (as we sincerely trust may be the case) that the agency is a lucrative and altogether desirable one, we may remind you that you never would have secured it had you been thoroughly contented without it. Also, we may point out to you that if you are ever to rise to still loftier heights of commercial dignity and profit, the first step in the elevating process must necessarily be a discontent with your present position and a desire for something better.

In the community in which you live, Mr. Norris, as in every other community of which we have any knowledge there are probably some dishonest men, who would, if they could, deprive you of things that belong to you—who would take your watch if they got a chance, who would rob your dwelling in the night, steal your money out of the bank by means of a forged check, or in some other way convert your wealth to their own use. Your security against this sort of thing lies in the fact that not only you but the majority of the people of Louisiana are opposed to that kind of stealing—are discontented with it—and have enacted laws which make it uncommonly hot for thieves. But suppose the majority of the people of Louisiana were so accustomed to being robbed that they looked on it as a perfect matter of course, and submitted without a murmur to give up their watches and other belongings to any fellow who had a fancy for them and was strong enough to take them. Wouldn’t you feel it a duty to snake the people around you discontented? Wouldn’t you try and show them that they Were being robbed, that stealing was an offense against humanity and a sin against God, and that unless they put a stop to it civilization must perish and be blotted out? If you did your duty to yourself and to the Norris mills you certainly would.

And that, Mr. Norris, is precisely what The Standard is doing. It is trying to put an end to stealing—to make people discontented with stealing, and to show them that unless the healing be speedily put a stop to, the civilization of the nineteenth century will be blotted out as the many civilizations that have preceded it have been. If you really think that in thus trying to make people discontented with robbery, we are inspiring sentiments of anarchy, we can only advise you to buy a dictionary, and see what the word ‘anarchy’ really means.

We regret to lose your subscription, Mr. Norris, but perhaps you are right to withdraw it. Were you to keep on taking The Standard, you might some tune become discontented yourself. Good-bye, Mr. Norris.

Reading, PA.—Enclosed find remittance for renewals of and I have been trying to get subscribers, but they seem to prefer to buy the paper weekly at the news stands. If you are not aware of the fact I will inform you that the Phoenixville Messenger is becoming an active advocate of your views. This is a large, influential weekly paper, and will do much to forward the good cause.

W. G. Yeager.

Thanks for your exertions, Mr. Yeager. By all means let your friends buy the paper at the newsstand if they prefer. Newsdealers are among the most active and efficient friends The Standard has. When they are willing to put their shoulders to the wheel they can push like good fellows, and ought to be encouraged. When you find a newsdealer keeping The Standard on sale, putting it well forward and doing what he can to induce people to buy it, don’t fail to give him a helping hand. Among other things, tell him to write to us for a lot of sample copies to distribute among his customers, saying how many he can use to advantage; they will be sent at once.

But we are sorry to say that there are newsdealers who allow themselves to be persuaded by their pro-poverty customers or spiritual advisers into doing all they can to injure The Standard and to impede its circulation. These men are to be more pitied than blamed. They have never taken the trouble to read The Standard for themselves and it doesn’t enter their heads to suppose that the well dressed respectable people who urge them not to handle it may be lying to them. If there is a dealer of this kind in your neighborhood do what you can to show him the mistake he is making, and redouble your efforts to get subscriptions.

We hear from one or two newsdealers that they have difficulty in getting a sufficient number of Standards from the wholesale dealers who supply them. It will be a favor to us if any dealer who has trouble of this kind will write to us, giving full particulars. We can and will insure that every dealer who wants to handle this paper shall be promptly furnished With just as many copies as he needs.

Hiyes, Allegheny County, Pa.—My first club for The Standard comprised three names. One of these has since moved away, so that I could not get his renewal; but I have prevailed-upon two others to become subscribers. I shall make every effort to increase The Standard‘s circulation hereabouts.

All of us who read The Standard regularly esteem it a s the most powerful engine of social and industrial progress in this country. Men of dispassionate, honest and discerning minds commend it not alone for the vigor and brilliancy of its matter, but for the broad, lofty and truly Christian spirit evident every where in its columns. The principal of an admirable college in Michigan, a prominent and progressive educator, wrote one recently: “I shall enjoy reading The Standard, because Mr. George is a thinker, and, more than that, he is an honest man—a Very high compliment to pay an editor.”

J. F. Cooper.

Rochester, N. Y.—The Standard is all that we desire as an advocate of the natural rights of man. In a late issue you truly stated that the action of Archbishop Corrigan in Dr. McGlynn’s case is a practical acknowledgment that the know nothing party was right when they charged their Catholic fellow-citizens with owing allegiance to a foreign ecclesiastic in political matters. As a Catholic I denied that charge when made by Gov. Minor of Connecticut when he disbanded the six companies of militia (I was captain of one of them) composed chiefly of Irish Catholic adopted citizens. Would it not be well for The Standard to publish the order issued by Gov. Minor disbanding those companies? If ex-Gov. Minor still lives, as I suppose he does, in his quiet home in Stamford, Conn., he must be well pleased after all these yea rs to find his action indorsed by Archbishop Corrigan and the pope. If bishop, pope or priest has the power to excommunicate a Catholic for believing that all taxes should be placed on land values, then their power in our political affairs is unlimited. Are the Catholics of this country prepared to surrender their political rights as Citizens of the United States to the pope? I believe not; and I furthermore believe that the sooner the pope publicly declares that he renounces all claim to our political allegiance the better for the peace and prosperity of the Roman Catholic church. Now for The Standard. I have been working for it, and the result is that I have secured six new subscribers for it. These are in addition to the six I sent you last December. T»ie recruits for the new crusade are wheeling into hue in good style.

A. C.

Richmond, Va.—I have been following the ad vice given some weeks ago in Publisher’s Notes, and getting my friends together to preach the anti-poverty gospel to them. We met last Saturday night at my house—twenty-three of us—and had a pleasant and a very successful evening. I began by reading the last chapter of “Progress and Poverty” to them; then I got one of them to read aloud Herbert Spencer’s “Right to the Use of the Earth,” and we wound up with Hugh O. Pentecost’s immortal sermon, read by a gentleman who is a practiced elocutionist, and who gave it with telling force and fire. I have been really astonished at the result. Some of my visitors have called on me since, and told me that they only came by way of a joke to see what kind of a maggot I had in my brain anyhow, but that they are now satisfied that there is a social question which must be looked into and settled before long, or it will settle itself in a way people won’t like. I think all of them will read The Standard from this time on. Several of them, I know, a r e buying it on the news stands, and six have subscribed through me. I inclose their names and addresses. I feel so much encouraged that I am going to have another meeting next week; and if things go on as they have begun, we shall be able to have a public meeting in a hall before very long. I inclose $2, for which please send me tracts for distribution.

Walter J. Phelps.

There, Standard readers, is a lesson for you. What Mr. Phelps has done, each one of you can do. If each one of you would do it, the number of people who believe in extirpating poverty would be increased ten fold within a mouth. Just think what that would mean. It would mean that the time would be wonderfully hastened when the dark cloud of poverty that now lowers above your heads and your children’s heads, shall be forever dissipated. It would mean that our cause would acquire a sudden impetus and moment um that nothing could resist. It would mean that the doom of death would be lifted from tens of thousands of innocent children who must and will perish in squalor and suffering if you don’t bestir yourselves. It would mean that thousands of women would be spared the awful need of choosing between starvation and sin. It would mean the quicker coming of the reign of the Prince of Peace!

Well, why don’t you do it? Why don’t you do it! You know your duty; and surely, if ever since the world was, an urgent duty was laid upon men and women, this duty rests upon you. Knowing the truth as you do, every failure to proclaim it is an injustice inflicted on your fellow man. Remember that simply to see the truth yourself will do but lit tie to advance the cause; though you should believe your whole life long, the cause can never triumph until you induce your neighbors to believe likewise. Get to work then, bring your neighbors into the fold, and show the fruition of your work by a rattling club of new subscribers to The Standard. Here is a ringing “Marching Through George’s hymn, sent us from San Luis Obispo, Cal.:

THE MARCH OF THE NEW CRUSADE.

“Bring the good old bugle, boys, we’ll sing

another song;”

Sing it with the courage that to right and

truth belong;

Sing it, as we hope to sing it, fifty million

strong,

As we g o marching to victory!

CHORUS:

“Hurrah! hurrah! we bring the jubilee!”

Hurrah! hurrah! the t r u t h that makes you

free!

So we sing the chorus of the day that yet

shall be,

As we go marching to victory!

Dark the days behind us—dark with doubt

and fears;

Bitter was our sighing thro’ the long and

weary years.

But our God has promised, and His hand shall

wipe our tears,

As we go marching to victory!

Chorus.

All the sky is flushing with the glory of the

dawn;

Hark! the loud reveille, for the night is past

and gone!

Ready for the combat, brothers! gird your

armor on,

For we go marching to victory!

Chorus.

White and pure our banner as our Master’s

promised reign;

Crimson as the brotherhood that flows from

vein to vein;

Blue a s yon deep heaven which echoes back

our strain,

As we go marching t o victory!

Chorus.

to, the desert blossoms in our pathway like

the rose,

Crooked places straighten, and the hill and

valley close!

Who, when God hath spoken, dare His gathered

hosts oppose?

As we go marching to victory!

Chorus.

Frances M. Milne.

There! Just sing a song like that, only once, and then keep out of the fight if you can.

River Falls, Wis.—Inclosed is remittance for one year’s subscription and a supply of tracts. I have spent the last two months in the back woods of Wisconsin, and have been spreading the gospel wherever I could get hearers, and have cause to hope that the seed will bear fruit. . . . I cannot tell you How very welcome and delightful The Standard is to me, bringing every week its glorious messages of cheer and hope for the whole race of man. I met and talked with a Catholic priest this morning who is a subscriber to The Standard and a stanch friend and admirer of brave Father McGlynn.

Charles Stevenson.

Somerville, Mass.—Inclosed find money order to be applied a s follows: First, pay for The Standard one year from the expiration of my present subscription; second, pay my fee as a member of the Anti-poverty society; third, give balance to the McGlynn fund. He is surely one of God’s noblemen and as bravo as lie is noble.

H. H. Bryant.

Norfolk, Va.—Inclosed you will find five cents to pay for a copy of last Saturday’s Standard, as I failed to get that issue of the paper. My subscription expired on that day, but I had previously forwarded the amount for renewal through Mr. of this city. If you have not received it. please let me know at once, as I can’t do without The Standard. It is, by far, the ablest paper I have yet seen.

S. Flournoy.

Prescott, A. T.—Enclosed is $1.25 to renew my subscription for six months.

The Standard is a very instructive paper. From early youth I have tried to be a student of social and political economy, and have never ceased to doubt that there was something wrong in existing conditions that produced so much poverty and wealth. Tariffs I have always looked upon as special legislation for the benefit of a few importing merchants and manufacturers. Years ago I thought land speculation wrong, but could not explain why; but since reading “Progress and Poverty” I see that, given equal natural conditions, there will not be so great a difference in men’s abilities to get beyond want. land speculation is now the chief business on the Pacific coast. A large-sized panic will be the result, and that very soon. Railroads all over the west that cost from $7.000 to $12,000 per mile are bonded for $20,000 to $30,000. What kind of a crime is it that puts such a quantity of fictitious paper on the public? No! The existing social conditions are wrong, and must be changed.

T. C. Bray.

Pittsburgh, Pa.—I am called to Duluth, Minn., but cannot be without my bible ; so you will please send The Standard to Mr. at Duluth, without discontinuing the copy to Pittsburgh, which will be read by my son-in-law.

J. —

Winchester, Va.—Inclosed is renewal of my six months’ subscription. What bread is to the body, The Standard is to the mind. I cannot well do without either.

C. E. Hoover.

Exeter, Neb.—Inclosed find renewal for my favorite teacher, The Standard. It is a true guide for humanity. Dr. McGlynn’s lectures are the best and brightest forms of religion I ever heard. Long may he live.

Edward Costello.

Bordentown, N. J.—My subscription to The Standard expired with the issue of July ‘J. Inclosed find $1.25 for renewal for six months. The Standard is in my judgment the best of all the religious papers.

Rev. O. A. Kerr,

Pastor of Presbyterian Church. These are pleasant letters for us to receive, and we think it will do The Standard readers good to look at them. That is why we print them.

Last week we introduced our system of “recruit subscriptions.” These are intended to assist The Standard readers to hammer truth into their friends at a distance by sending them The Standard for six consecutive weeks, the idea being that if a man or woman isn’t a hopelessly hardened sinner, six weeks of The Standard, regularly administered, will at least set him thinking pretty earnestly, if it doesn’t make an out-and-out convert of him. We will send The Standard for six consecutive weeks:

To any two addresses, for 50 cents.

To any live addresses, for $1.00.

To any twelve addresses, for $2.00.

Only please understand that these are special terms, made solely with a view to helping our readers to win converts; and remember that we cannot afford to renew a recruit subscription.

Now, good friends, we want you to take hold of this recruit subscription scheme and boom it as earnestly as the landlords of Los Angeles and dozens of other places are booming their speculative land values. They are working for money and you for principle. Don’t let us have the mortification of discovering that they are willing to do more than you. Whenever you have half a dollar to spare, send it to us with two names, or if you are lucky enough t o be able to spare more, send a longer list and more money. Above all things, see that the clergymen in your neighborhood get a chance in this way to read The Standard. Clergymen, as a rule, have an honest desire to see poverty and all the evils that now from it swept out of existence; the only trouble is that nobody has shown them the possibility of doing it. When once The Standard sets them thinking on the right track they’re pretty sure to see the truth, and when once they do see it no body of men in existence will declare it more earnestly or do more to support it. Hurry along the recruit subscriptions, friends.

Here is a letter from Scotland, which points the way to a very practical mode of work:

Glasgow, Scotland, June 22.—I am about to receive a week’s holiday. I have made up my mind to devote that week to preaching the “Cross of the New Crusade.” I purpose visiting and holding open air meetings in as many towns in the south of Scotland as I have holidays.

An old soldier of the cross has promised to accompany me, and we require three thousand tracts or so for disposal at our various meetings.

If you have any badges for the arm, or anything of that kind, please send us one or two; also any literature you can for free distribution. As we intend commencing our journey about the 22d of July, kindly forward at once with account as many copies of the following tracts as will make up the quantity mentioned above: Nos, 6, 10, 13, 18, 20, 21, 22, 23, Might not this way of spending holidays be adopted by many young men with some advantage to themselves as well as to the cause?

John Miller.

Mr. Miller’s idea is a noble one, and shows genuine enthusiasm for the cause of reform. Are there no American crusaders to imitate his good example?

We want to see the recruiting fund grow faster. This fund is doing good and efficient work. It is making converts, and converts mean votes, and votes mean victory. And bear in mind, friends, that the gathering in of a hundred recruits means a good deal more than the mere addition of a hundred names to our muster roll. It means the enlisting of a fresh body of workers, who will not only do efficient service themselves, but will add to the enthusiasm, and make easier the task of those who are already at work. Movements like ours are infectious. When a considerable body of men in any neighborhood see the truth, and get to talking about it, fresh converts are brought in almost without an effort. The recruiting fund must be sustained. What are you individually doing to sustain it? Now, don’t wait to see what your neighbor may be going to do, but settle in your own mind just what you can afford to do yourself, and do it at once, before the next mail leaves your post office.

Wilkesbarre, Pa.—I inclose you an order for $2.50 which sum you will please add to the recruiting fund. 1 wish I could make it ten times as much. God speed the recruiting work, and hasten the dawning of the day of reform.

T. B. Evans.

Three Rivers, July 7th, 1887.—Inclosed you will please find one dollar which I intended to have sent some time ago to aid the cause you are contending for. I receive The Standard regular and have read all your books and I am now prepared to give good reason for believing that the single tax would abolish poverty,

S. Nixon.

Naugatuck, Conn.—I attended a meeting of the Anti-poverty society at the Academy of Music, New York, ten days ago, and, though I added what I could to the collection then, still my enthusiasm has been growing steadily ever since, until now I feel as if I ought do something more for the cause; and as my chief desire is to make others think us I do, I know nothing better than to send along a contribution to the recruiting fund. I therefore inclose $5. When I can save another $5 I will send it.

Eben F. Mead.

Meriden, Conn.—Inclosed find $1.00, for which send Standards to such people as in your opinion will read and think for themselves. I believe that after reading one copy of The Standard many of them would subscribe. I shall send a dollar every three months, to be used for the same purpose I wish I could make it more, but I am not an owner of valuable land, but, on the contrary the owner, in name, of a few acres over ten miles from the city, on which I have built a small house, surrounded by stumps and rocks per course there is a mortgage on my place: how could it be otherwise under our present system of land monopoly and taxing industries! The New York Herald says, on what it claims to be good authority, that should Dr. McGlynn seek to become a Knight of Labor and the general board be called on to decide the question of his admission it is not likely he would be accepted. If there should be any truth in that a great many would say good bye to the order, and I among the number.

Chas. Jansen.

Chicago, July 11.—I inclose $25 for the recruiting fund. It is to aid the cause of the Anti-poverty society and to emphasize my position as a Catholic with regard to its saintly leader. Christ said: “He that layeth down his life for My sake, the same shall find it.” So let us lose ourselves and find our true life in the glorious and holy Catholic work of the Anti-poverty society. It is a holy war, and the battle has fairly begun. We must now arouse our full energies, and God will help us if we are true to ourselves and to each other. We will stand by McGlynn. We must not be traitors. M. H.

The fund now stands:

Previously acknowledged

$142.21

C. P. Bolen

$0.50

A Friend

$1.00

A Family Gleaning

$1.00

W. I. D., New York

$2.00

J. B. Evans, Wilkesbarre, Pa.

$2.50

“My Rag Bag”

$1.30

S. Nixon, Three Rivers

$1.00

J. B. Co., Philadelphia

$5.00

“No Name”

$5.00

E. F. Mead, Naugatuck, Conn.

$5.00

C. B. McGinnis, Paterson, N. J.

$4.00

F. Larson, Greenpoint

$1.00

Charles Jensen, Meriden, Conn.

$1.00

M. H., Chicago

$25.00

Total to date

$197.76

Slave Breeding in Kansas City

Kansas City Star.

Hundreds and thousands who came to Kansas City with a little or nothing a few years ago, but put their all in real estate, today show fortunes. Others have let opportunities slide. Some of the real estate deals consummated during the past six months have been of enormous size, and any in other place but here in Kansas City would have astounded the people and been the talk of the citizens for months, but the people merely go on t o be in with the next one. The fair grounds south of the city sold to a local syndicate for $700,000. An immense acre tract southeast of the city sold for $1,000,000. Business property has changed hands several times. Deals amounting to $100,000, $200,000, $300,000, $400,000 and $500,000 have been too numerous to enumerate.

We Are Vindictive Howlers

In the George-McGlynn propaganda today the main argument is a gnarled club of dogmatism, wielded with the fury of a raw radical, such as Emerson described as “half orator, half assassin.” These men have become vindictive howlers. They are disseminating doctrines that do not differ, except in form of expression, from the teachings of nihilists and anarchists. Far from apologizing to Editor O’Brien, they are heaping curses on his head. Doubtless he fully appreciates the honor of being the object of their virulent enmity.

Business Men Join

As a sign of the times, it is interesting to note that several prominent business men have lately become members of the Anti-poverty society. The latest addition to its ranks is Mr. Cameron, the well known clothier of Brooklyn.

 


( 1) Since the above was written we learn that Mr.

Douglass died a few months since; but not before ha

bad sold his Mount Vernon property to good advantage,

R. I. P.

( 1) Over one mill on the doll of the land value of the

county (v supra)

 

Print Friendly

Leave a reply

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong> 

required