January 28, 1888 Vol. III, No. 4Whole No. 56

CHARITY AND JUSTICE.

This letter should have been printed las^sic week, [but was?] held over because I wished to make some comment on it:

> I must take issue with you concerning some of the views expressed in your editoral^sic of Jan. 7 upon the subjects of almsgiving and charity.

I seems to me^sic that it is you who have failed to perceive the real evils that attach to almsgiving as to all other means of living without work.

To the individual the chief evil is the destruction of the qualities (independence, enterprise, energy, etc.) which make self-support possible, and it is equally disastrous, so far as character is concerned, whether the man supported be rich or poor. The physical degradation is, of course, usually only apparent in the poor dependent, because the living he gets from other people is too meager to allow him to procure the necessaries and decencies of life, while, on the contrary, the rich dependent maintains a respectable exterior, although in spirit he may be as deficient as the other in all the qualities necessary for success in life.

Apart from the effect on the individual, and a much greater evil, is the temptation which almsgiving holds out to persons not naturally very industrious or independent to give up the struggle of earning a living and live on others; and so long as it is easy to get food and lodging without giving any equivalent, so long will that class of men and women succumb to this temptation and be dragged lower and lower instead of being helped to climb higher and higher.

This brings me to your comments upon the Woodyard Association, in which I am naturally a good deal interested, as I am one of the persons who originated it and one of its present committee of management, and while I agree with all you say as to the general bad effects of made work, I contend that our woodyard avoids them by the very strict rules under which it is carried on, and which you evidently consider only as adding to them. The yard is intended as a means of testing the genuineness of the distress of able bodied men who apply for charitable relief. Now, whoever may be to blame for the fact that able bodied men do so apply (you, if I remember correctly, say it is the people of the United States) the fact remains a fact, and it is also a fact that to give the relief they ask to these men is often to do them the worst of injuries. To give a man a woodyard ticket and let him saw and split wood for a day’s meals and lodgings is, I agree, a questionable good; but to teach him that he can get a day’s meals and lodgings for nothing is an unquestionable evil. To show that the woodyard does test the genuineness of the distress of able bodied men the following fact is sufficient: Within a few weeks woodyard tickets have been given at the office of the charity organization society, to thirty-six men, who claimed to be absolutely homeless and penniless, which would have given to each at least one day’s living and lodging. Of these thirty-six men only eight ever went to the wood yard. You may very well say that one day’s food and lodging is not much, and neither is it; but a man who refuses it (having already begged for food), cannot be supposed to be starving; and in many cases work at the wood yard has been the means of introducing men to permanent employment.

Please remember that no man works at the wood yard who has not first (and quite [independently?] of the wood yard) asked for [charitable?] relief.

As to the class of men who come [many?] are, of course, foreigners, but many [also?] are Americans, who have come to [New?] York within the year, within the [month?], some within the week. Is it desirable [for?] these men, or for the city, to teach [them?] that here food and lodging are free to [whoever?] asks for them? Is not a sharp [lesson?] at the wood yard a greater benefit?

Another point is that [with?] the rarest exceptions no one is [allowed?] to work at the wood yard for more [than?] ten days, which at least gives a man a [chance?] to look about him and try to get real [work?], but does not teach him to depend on “[charity?] work” for permanent support.

In the same [editorial?] you make the mistake of assuming [that?] the “friendly visitors” for whom the [charity?] organization society is looking would “[mix?] moral with material assistance,” [whereas?] the ideal of the society is to render [material?] assistance in most cases unnecessary, which I believe to be an entirely [attainable?] ideal, provided that the moral assistance were forthcoming and the standing temptation of the material assistance could be removed.

JOSEPHINE SHAW LOWELL.

Jan. 13, 1888.

I [hardly?] think I have failed to appreciate the evils which attach to alms giving as a means of relieving poverty, and which were so clearly pointed out by Mrs. Lowell in the admirable address to the Woman’s Christian conference, from which I quoted in the article she now refers to. But I think, as I endeavored in that article to show, that the essence of these evils is in the injury done to that sense of self-respect which is the foundation of independence, enterprise, energy and a[ll?] the manly virtues, and which when go[ne?] leaves the man without the stimulus [that?] makes the bread of toil preferable to [the bread?] of charity. This essential evil, I [sought to?] show, is inherent in all attempts to [relieve?] charity by benevolence—whether by [giving?] alms, by giving counsel, or by giving [work?]. Benevolence has its place; but [benevolence?] cannot take the place of justice. And every attempt to cure or even [possibly?] to mitigate by benevolence the [evils?] which proceed from injustice, are [not merely?] foredoomed to failure, but just [in?] proportion to their extent and the [persistence?] in them do they seem to produce [new?] evils.

In what, and in how far, [charity?] by wood yard test may be preferable [to?] Mr. Keyser’s free soup charity or [Mrs.?] Lamadrid’s cheap meal charity is hardly worth while to inquire. [Since Mrs.?] Lowell wrote, the woodyard [charity?] has broken down, and that from a [consciousness?] of at least some of the evils [which?] must attend any large resort to [such?] measures of relief. The Evening [Post of?] the 21st has the following:

THE CHARITY [WOOD?]YARD.

The New York Wood[yard?] Association was established to test the [willingness?] to work of

p. 1, col. 2

men applying for charitable relief. It has been opened this year since November 1, and has had as an average twenty-five men a day at work sawing and splitting kindling wood. A large quantity of wood has been sold, but the sales do not keep pace with the amount cut up, and at present it is necessary to close the yard until some of the wood is disposed of, because there is no room for the men to work. One day last week work was given to fifty-six men.

Orders for kindling should be sent to the New York Woodyard Association, Nineteenth street and Avenue B. Price, $14.50 per cord, $7.50 half-cord, $4 quarter-cord, delivered and put in without extra charge.

Why did not the Woodyard Association avoid this block, which has brought their attempt at relief to a dead stop in the bitterest of winter weather, and when the pressure of men driven even to that hard charity work was greatest, by reducing the stent of work required of each man before he could get his dole? Because that would have increased the pressure of applicants. Why not increase its sales by reducing the price of its kindling wood? Because that would cause bitter complaint from other producers of kindling wood, and throw men out of employment who would be forced to swell the ranks of applicantsfor^sic charity.

Th[us does?] this attempt to relieve distress by giving work instead of giving alms come tc^sicsic a stop as soon as it gets fairly started, and that because it is confronted by unavoidable difficulties. And these difficulties do not arise from, but are only brought into view by, the enlargement of the scale of operations. The Woodyard Asociation^sic is really inconsistent in refusingto^sic attract customers by offering its wood for less than the market price, while it makes no scruple of endeavoring to attract customers by obtaining a “reading notice” in the columns of the Evening Post, which would cost any private woodyard at least twenty-five cents a line. For whether people are induced to buy this charity association’s kindling wood by an appeal to their pockets or an appeal to their benevolence, makes no [difference?]. The effect in diminishing the demand for kindling wood from private yards is the same. In so far as this charity furnishes its beneficiaries with what Mrs. Lowell so happily styles “real work,” it but takes employment from one set of men to give it to another. And as its test for employment is a degrading one—an application for charity—it merely so alters the distribution of real work as to degrade workers. What the association, as [the net result of its operations?], [line partly obscured by crease] does actually add to the amount of employment to be found in New York, is a certain amount of what, as distinguished from real work, Mrs. Lowell would doubtless call sham work—i. e., unnecessary and unproductive exertion. This it furnishes because it compels its beneficiaries to use hand saws instead of power saws, and axes instead of splitting machines. Such sham work may supply a test for charity, but it is only such a test for charity as might be had by compelling men, as a condition to getting alms, to dig holes and fill them up again, or to stand on one leg for a certain time. This would show how badly the applicant wanted charity, in the sense of showing how much pain he was willing to undergo to get the charity. And this is all that charity woolyards^sic can really do.

But whether woodyard charity is better or worse than free soup charity, it is hardly worth while to discuss. It may, to some small extent,serve^sic as a test by which the charitable may distinguish those willing to work from the dissolute tramps and hardened beggarswhom^sic the difficulty of finding real work has produced. But there is in its principe^sic no remedy for pauperism, no cure for that difficulty of getting a living which fills our streets with men begging for alms or begging for work. The very suporters^sic of the woodyard would not dare to advocate any extension of its principle at all commensurate with the magnitude of the problem to be solved, for that would be inevitably to lead to national workshops and the taxation of the rich to furnish wages for the poor. Though they have run it only two months and a half, and expended in wages an average of only twelve dollars and a half a day, they are already compelled to close their little woodyard just when the want of work is bitterest, not from any lack of funds, but because when they have got wood cut and split they are afraid to force it on the market.

Mrs. Lowell is quite right as to the hopelessness and injury of alms giving, but in hoping to find any help for poverty in the moral assistance of friendly visitors she is, as I have said, turning from broken reed to broken reed. It is true, as she sees, that the rich cannot help the poor by giving alms without at the same time increasing poverty. But it is also true that the rich cannot help the poor in any other way. The distinction between rich and poor is an insurmountable barrier to moral help.

So far as I have read them, the most interesting of Count Tolstoi’s books is that last one, in which he describes his attempts to solve the problem of poverty. The bitter want and deep degradation to be found in the poorer quarters of such a city as Moscow appalled him. He felt that this ought not to be, and that there must be some way of remedying it. Realizing, as Mrs. Lowell

p. 1, col. 3

has realized, the hopelessness of curing this poverty by alms, he made his call for friendly visitors to the comfortable, cultured Christians of Moscow, as Mrs. Lowell has made her call to the ladies of the Women’s Christian Conference of New York.

“Doing good and giving money,” he told them, “are not only not the same thing, but two different and generally opposite things. To do good signifies to do that which is good for man; but in order to know what is good for man it is necessary to be on humane, i. e., on friendly terms with him; and, therefore, in order to do good it is not money that is necessary, but first of all a capacity for detaching ourselves for the time, at least, from the conditions of our own life. It is necessary that we should not be afraid to soil our boots and clothing, that we should not fear lice and bedbugs, that we should not fear typhus fever, diphtheria and smallpox. It is necessary that we should be in a condition to seat ourselves by the bunk of a tatterdemalion and converse earnestly with him in such a manner that he may feel that the man who is talking with him respects and loves him and is not putting on airs and admiring himself.”

With these and many other eloquent words did Count Tolstoi call upon the charitable people of Moscow to make a grand organized attempt to act the part of friendly visitors. “Let the mechanicians,” he said, “invent a machine for lifting the weight that is crushing us—that is a good thing; but until they shall have invented it, let us bear down upon the people like fools, like muzhiki, like peasants, like Christians, and see whether we cannot raise them. And now, brothers, all to-gether, and away it goes!”

As he tells in his paper entitled “Thoughts Evoked by the Census of Moscow,” written three years after his glowing appeal for moral assistance in aid of the poor, Count Tolstoi did not get his friendly visitors; he only got a few of them. And although in response to his solicitations he was promised money for his work, he only got a little of it. But he went on and tried his experiment sufficiently to satisfy himself, as he has related in detail in his vivid account of his experiences, that neither by money, nor by friendly counsel, nor by taking poor children into his own house, could he be of help to a single one. “There is a wall between the rich and poor,” says Count Tolstoi, “and that wall is our wealth.”

Here is something that may serve to suggest why it is that people so ready to give money are not ready to give anything else:

Every time that I chanced, either on the street or in the house, to give some small coin to a poor man, without saying anything to him, I saw, or thought that I saw, contentment and gratitude on the couutenance^sic of the poor man, and I myself experienced in this form of benevolence an agreeable sensation. I saw that I had done what the man wished and expected from me. But if I stopped the poor man, and sympathetically questioned him about his former and his present life, I felt that it was no longer possible to give three or twenty kopeks, and I began to fumble in my purse for money, in doubt as to how much I ought to give. And I always gave more; and I always noticed that the poor man left me dissatisfied. But if I entered into still closer intercourse with the poor man, then my doubts as to how much to give increased also; and, no matter how much I gave, the poor man grew ever more sullen and discontented. As a general rule, it always turned out thus, that if I gave, after conversation with a poor man, three rubles or even more, I almost always beheld gloom, displeasure, and even ill will, on the countenance of the poor man; and I have even known it to happen, that, having received ten rubles, he went off without so much as saying “Thank you,” exactly as though I had insulted him.

And thereupon I felt awkward and ashamed, and almost guilty. But if I followed up a poor man for weeks and months and years, and assisted him, and explained my views to him, and associated with him, our relations became a torment, and I perceived that the man despised me. And I felt that he was in the right.

If I go out into the street, and he, standing in that street, begs of me among the number of the other passers by, people who walk and ride past him, and I give him money, I then am to him a passer by, and a good, kind passer by, who bestows on him that thread from which a shirt is made for the naked man. He expects nothing more than the thread, and if I give it he thanks me sincerely. But if I stop him, and talk with him as man with man, I thereby show him that I desire to be something more than a mere passer by. If, as often happens, he weeps while relating to me his woes, then he sees in me no longer a passer by, but that which I desire that he should see—a good man. But if I am a good man, my goodness cannot pause at a twenty-kopek piece, nor at ten rubles, nor at ten thousand; it is impossible to be a little bit of a good man. Let us suppose that I have given him a great deal, that I have fitted him out, dressed him, set him on his feet so that he can live without outside assistance; but for some reason or other, through misfortune or his own weakness or vices, he is again without that coat, that linen, and that money which I have given him; he is again cold and hungry, and he has again come to me—how can I refuse him?

And thus in the case^sic with the men from whom I chanced to recede, to whom I ceased to give, and, by this action, denied good, I experienced a torturing sense of shame.

Is it not a half-conscious unwillingness to incur this obligation that cannot be discharged save by one who is ready to sell all that he hath and give to the poor—a dim fear of this torturing sense of shame that lies at the bottom of the difficulty of finding “friendly visitors,” of which Mrs. Lowell spoke so despairingly to the women of the Christian conference? And is there not here, when one comes to think of it, a

p. 1, col. 4

deep reason for the vows of poverty which the Catholic church exacts from those whom she specially sets apart for ministering to the poor, and which such men as our own Father Huntington and Brother Gilbert have voluntarily assumed?

I would not be understood as belittling that spirit which finds expression in works of benevolence, and which, seeing suffering, hastens to do what is nearest at hand. In Mr. Keyser’s distribution of free soup, now brought to a close; in Mrs. Lamadrid’s cheap meals; in Mrs. Lowell’s work of unselfish devotion in organizing charity; in model tenements and free libraries and industrial schools, I recognize a quality which in its essence stands perhaps at the very summit of human virtues—a spirit which reaches its highest organized expression in those great orders of the Catholic church, whose members taking the vow of perpetual poverty have devoted themselves to works of consolation and mercy and helpfulness, and whose annals gleam with the radiance of lives in which it needs no canonization for all men to recognize the saints of God.

But high as we instinctively hold charity, and beneficent as may be its functions when justice is satisfied, no scheme of organized benevolence can take the place of justice in the social order. The cause of the evils with which charity, organized and unorganized, battles in vain, is that we permit and legalize robbery. If there are thousands of children who must go hungry unless charity feeds them, it is because they are disinherited. If there are stalwart men who must needs beg for a fifty cent job in a charity wood yard, it is because they are fenced out by monopoly from opportunities of work which are theirs by natural right.

And while this is obviously the case, it is impossible not to see that there is very much in all the discussion of social problems now going on, and in the advocacy and support of many of the schemes of alleviating poverty by benevolence, something which is really not charity, but the reverse—a conscious or half conscious desire to use the cloak of charity to hush conscience and still the demand of justice.

“I belong,” says Count Tolstoi, “to that class of people who by divers tricks take from the toiling masses the necessaries of life, . . . and I imagine that I pity people and I wish to assist them. I sit on a man’s neck and I weigh him down, and I demand that he shall carry me; and with[out?] descending from his shoulders I assure myself and others that I am very sorry for him and that I desire to ameliorate his condition by all possible means, only not by getting off of him.”

This is the fatal defect of all the schemes for alleviating poverty and improving the condition of the working masses by benevolence, with which people who will not listen to the simple remedy of stopping robbery and restoring natural rights so frequently amuse themselves. They are devices to help the down trodden man without getting off of him.

Mrs. Lowell is correct when she says that I place the blame for the fact that able bodied men apply for charity, upon the people of the United States. I put it upon the people of the United States because in their hands is the sovereign political power—the power of making and unmaking laws; and in the fact that a country so wide and so rich as this is, swarming with able bodied men who cannot find work, I see only the result of bad laws. But I am far from believing that the people of the United States are equally to blame. Those on whom the responsibility most heavily rests are those who have talent, leisure, culture; those who occupy toward their fellows a position that make them teachers, leaders and directors of thought. What, as a class, are these men doing in the United States to-day in the face of the steadily increasing pressure of the most stupendous social problem? They are engaged in darkening counsel and stilling conscience, and either treating the great wrong, which must surely wreck society if it continues, with flippant denial, or endeavoring to draw men’s minds away from any thought of it by rosewater schemes for ameliorating the condition of labor “without getting off of him.” And in this they are doing not merely negative evil but positive evil. For in their endeavors to hide and lead away from the obvious cause and the simple remedy of widespread and growing distress and discontent they are sowing the seeds of socialism, communism, anarchism and blind destruction.

In her recent address before the Woman’s Christian Conference, Mrs. Lowell quoted, from a late number of the Charity Organization Review, a story “of a London business man who turned away two of his clerks because times were so hard and immediately sent £50 to the fund for the unemployed, to whose ranks he had contributed those two men.” This Mrs. Lowell quoted as an illustration of how hard and unsympathetic and even mean and cruel people are apt to be with those who are brought into daily contact with them, while ready to lavish mischievous charity upon strangers of whom they have heard some tale of woe. But does it necessarily illustrate this?

The London business man was in his

p. 1, col. 5

business acting on business principles, the only principles on which a business man can anywhere hope to be successful, while in sending his check he was acting as a philanthropist or a citizen. His conduct was not merely justified by that business maxim which forbids the mixing of sentiment with business, but it was justified by a consideration, of which he was doubtless conscious, though he might not have formulated it—that as an individual he was not responsible for that state of things which deprived of all work the men whom he had no work for; but as a member of society he was.

Now this is the obligation that rests upon all of us, and upon all of us in proportion to our influence and power. No individual can, as an individual, change the general conditions which compel to idleness men who would gladly be at work, and reduce to chronic tramps and paupers those who under different conditions might be useful members of society. But every one by his action upon public opinion can contribute to the change of those conditions. And so, while we all must as individuals deal, as Mrs. Lowell says, with facts as they are, yet we all can, by striving to enlighten our own minds and the minds of others as to causes and cures, contribute to make social facts what they ought to be. This is where many of those ready enough in matters of individual charity and petty philanthropy fall short in their highest duty.

The moral of the article to which Mrs. Lowell refers was left mainly to the inference of the reader, but nevertheless it was obvious. Our clearest perceptions and our strongest feelings tell us that a state of affairs in which human beings can only live by charity, and able-bodied men are obliged to beg for work, is unnatural and wrong. But not only do we encounter utter failure when we try by benevolence to remedy this state of things, but we may see if we choose to look, just as Mrs. Lowell sees with reference to alms giving, that mere benevolence only intensifies evils it cannot cure. Why then should we not turn to justice?

Look at the condition of things in this city to-day. Commissioner Henry H. Porter said to a reporter before the Keyser free soup charity had stopped and the Woodyard charity had broken down:

Every day, men, some days as many as fifty, come to me to be committed to the island, who say they have searched in vain for work and cannot find it. They do not want to go to the almshouse, but have to or starve.

And the number of the unemployed who appeal to public charities of any kind is but small as compared with the number who get along somehow by the aid of friends, acquaintances and private charity. As it is in the city, so it is through the whole country. California is overrun with tramps, and in Florida they are organizing tramp hunts and talking of re-establishing whipping posts to frighten them away. The remedy for this state of things is perfectly clear. It is not in establishing charity woodyards, nor in any similar devices; but in the opening of natural opportunities for labor. There is “real work” enough to do if men are only permitted to do it.

In the meantime Mrs. Lowell may see by the article “Concerning Profit Sharing,” which we reprint from the Christian Union, into what stark socialism they are finally led who desire to help the poor man “without getting off of him.”

I commend to the readers of THE STANDARD, and especially to those friends who are constantly writing to me to answer this, that or the other foolish criticism, the article from the Harvard Law Review which is to be found on our sixth and seventh pages. The author, Mr. Samuel B. Clarke, is a prominent lawyer of this city.

HENRY GEORGE.

To Texas Readers.

Friends of the single tax reform in Texas are requested to communicate with J. B. Cochran, secretary National tax reform association, Houston, Texas.

What Protection Means.

Professor J. E. Thorold Rogers.

> Our fathers, who did battle and won the victory against the old protective system, used to say that all protection means robbing somebody else. I remember when I was a young man studying at Oxford, I went in the old protectionist days, when to be sure the old monster was wounded, and had but little life left in him, though he was as mischievous as ever, to the town of Bolton, in the company of my dear and revered friend, Cobden. Half the works were shut up, and the streets were full of gaunt, hungry men and starving children. There was a market for English goods, but, thanks to the law, no market for foreign corn. So the employers had to lose their profit, the men had to lose their work, the children had to lose their food. The sight cured me of any sympathy with artificial prices. Rent is no doubt an excellent thing to him who receives it, but I would rather see rent dwindle through plenty than children dwindle through starvation. . . . Raw material is any article of value which is not, when it is purchased, put to its last use. So the same thing is or is not raw material to different persons. Hides are finished goods to a farmer, raw material to a tanner. Leather is finished goods to a tanner, raw material to a shoemaker. Clothing of various kinds is finished goods to most people, it is raw material to Mme. Tussaud, or any other proprietor of a waxwork exhibition, probably also to an actor or actress. Try it as you will, and you will find that by imposing an artificial price you do an injury to somebody. All protection means robbing somebody else, cutting down somebody’s profits, turning somebody out of employment, shortening the innocent pleasures of somebody or another.

p. 1, col. 6

CANADA GETTING EVEN.

WATFORD, Canada.—Councilor W. D. McIntyre of Alvinston, the well known mining capitalist and conservative politician, has recently made another lucky stroke, which will add considerably to the already princely income he derives from his Michigan mining property. While on his bridal tour last summer he stopped off at Hancock, Mich., to inspect his valuable mining interests there During^sic his stay he invested in a fifty acre tract of land for which he paid $800. Last week he received and accepted an offer of $50,000 from a Michigan syndicate for the property. A member of the fourth estate will share in the bonanza, as Mr. McIntyre, with characteristic generosity, gave a young Watford newspaper man an interest in the mine previous to its disposal.

Thus, O Yanks, are we getting even with you for those Fenian raids! Instead of sending over a gang of marauders to pillage your shore we simply send, from time to time, gentlemen like Mr. McIntyre, persons of “characteristic generosity,” who collect tribute money. In this instance the tax collected was $49,200, as you see. How do you like it, O boasted nation of freedom? And yet we do it by virtue of your own laws, which permit foreigners as well as natives to become “possessors” of your land and to reap the unearned increment thereof. This is away ahead of the system under which the Romans collected tribute from the Jews, and we hope you will frown on Henry George and let us go right on.

CANADA.

Anti-Poverty in Philadelphia.

PHILADELPHIA.—Last Sunday night the anti-poverty society in Philadelphia held a very enthusiastic meeting in Lincoln hall. W. J. Atkinson, the president of the society, made a few opening remarks, and W. J. Gorsuch delivered an eloquent address showing that just as a bull dog’s tenacity becomes indomitable steadfastness of purpose in the hero, so that same spirit, which in its narrow state men call selfishness, becomes, when controlled and molded by intelligence and reason, a grand ennobling sympathy for all animate creation. Mr. Gorsuch said the ignorant, narrow minded man sought the gratification of his immediate desires, no matter at whose expense, and that it was the mission of the anti-poverty movement to enlighten and ennoble that selfishness by teaching people that tc secure the greatest and most lasting happiness it was necessary to secure to every man equal opportunity, justice, the equal right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. He gave a resume of the land value tax doctrine with a few clear definitions of economic terms frequently used in discussing it, and closed with a brilliant peroration, admonishing men to be true to themselves, their duty and their faith in the fatherhood of God and brotherhood of man.

On Monday evening Mr. John Wanamaker “exploded” the anti-poverty doctrine for the benefit of about 200 people who assembled in his (Bethany) Sunday school room. He explained that anti poverty meant no poverty, and said he didn’t swear, as he used to when he was a boy, by George nor by Ingersoll either, because they are teachers of lies. “These socialists do an incalculable amount of mischief going about teaching that all things ought to be divided up equally [illegible] that the government ought to own all the land and cut it up into equal pieces and give each person a slip. They are demagogues who don’t work but always manage to become the walking delegates, etc. Their teachings mean that the industrious must be the slaves of the lazy. The workingman who sends for his kettle of beer grumbles because some one else has saved his money and bought a house, and by and by as the neighborhood grew up and it increased in value and he sold it and bought three or four where the neighborhood had not yet grown up. But didn’t both have the same chance? If we should divide up all the land, before next New Year’s day the lazy and the drunken ones would have lost theirs and everything would be unequal again. If these people want land why don’t they go to western Pennsylvania, where they can get it at $10 an acre, or to Texas, where land can be had for $5 an acre? According to these people’s fallacies, the man who endured so much working under the waters of New York harbor should have only $7 a week and Dr. McGlynn should lecture for $25 a month. Josef Hoffman should not get more than any bootblack and Henry Irving should act for $1 a night. Talent is anti-poverty. President Scott, who would walk to the depot dictating to a stenographer, would work on the train with an assistant, and turn into his berth at midnight to rise again at 4 in the morning and work all day like a general marshaling his forces for a great battle, should get only the wages of a brakeman. Energy is anti-poverty. One such employer as John Stetson is worth 4,316 assemblies of Knights of Labor. Honesty is anti-poverty. Health is anti-poverty. Temperance is anti-poverty. Religion is anti-poverty. The only kind of organization I belong to is that where the hands and feet and brain all struggle together against anti-poverty, and that is the only one I ever intend to belong to, and in it I shall continue to think and to thank and to toil and to trust.

At the close of this remarkable address the Rev. Dr. Pierson, the pastor of Mr. Wanamaker’s church, arose and said: “I think this address ought to be printed and circulated far and wide to counteract the evil teachings that are becoming so dangerous to society, and all those who think so too will please say aye.” Of course many said “aye.” “Contrary, no.” “Nobody said no,” the reverend doctor said, “and they’d be nobody if they did.” And with this insult to those who differed from them in opinion the circus closed.

JOHN F. HALBACH.

Sees the Cat and Wants Others to See It.

VILLE PLATTE, La.—A friend of mine in Baton Rouge has sent me several copies of THE STANDARD and four of your books: “Progress and Poverty,” “Protection or Free Trade?” “Social Problems” and “The Land Question.” The result is that I see the cat. As soon as one sees the cat he is seized with a desire to show the animal to others. The moment is opportune to spread the gospel of the new crusade. I inclose the money for some copies of Ring’s “Case Plainly Stated.” I select that tract because, though I had all along seen the different parts of the cat I did not see the animal in its totality till pointed out by Mr. Ring. Now that I see pussy I want others to enjoy the spectacle.

D. C. DAVID.

The Marble Cutter’s Ball.

The annual ball and entertainment of the marble cutters of New York took place at the Lexington avenue opera house on Tuesday evening, and was a great success. Miss Munier and Madame De Carlo sang and Marshall P. Wilder gave some of his characteristic recitations.

DR. M’GLYNN ADDRESSES THE SOCIETY AT ITS THIRTY-NINTH MEETING.

“The Ecclesiastic Machine in American Politics”—The Quarrel Not With the Church or Her Sacraments—Some of the Deals Between Tammany and the Church Authorities.

Dr. McGlynn lectured at the thirty-ninth public meeting of the Anti-poverty society last Sunday night on “The Ecclesiastical Machine in American Politics.” Thomas B. Preston, a nephew of Monsignor Preston, presided and introduced the speaker. Dr. McGlynn said:

Our quarrel is and must be not with the Catholic church, her dogmas and her sacraments, but with that ecclesiastical authority which works by such unworthy means for purposes not holy. We must have a quarrel with that machine and with that policy in order to maintain not merely our rights and our liberties as men and as citizens, but also to maintain our holy religion itself. The worst consequence of the abuse of this ecclesiastical machine is not the violation of liberty and of civil rights, but the deadly wound that it inflicts on religion itself. (Applause.) What we have to say here to-night is not merely for the vindication of civil liberty, but is also in the best interest of pure religion. (Applause.)

I can never tire of repeating that I am first of all, by preference and by education, not a politician, but a minister of Christ, a preacher of His truth. (Applause.) And if I stand upon this platform it is because what we have to do and say is not unworthy of the Christian pulpit or the holy altar. (Applause.) I give full permission to any man to call me recreant to what I believe most intensely if ever I shall say one word against the teachings of the Holy Catholic church. (Applause.) There are many of you here who for years have heard those teachings from my lips, and by your presence here Sunday after Sunday you bear witness to the fact that I am not recreant to what I taught you (cries of “No! no!” and applause); that what I am teaching from this platform contradicts in no particular what I taught from the Christian altar or from the Christian pulpit.

The old fashioned Protestant hatred of the ecclesiastical machine is largely dying out. But there is a new and most intense and passionate hatred of this machine. In Italy, in France, in Spain, in South Germany, in Portugal, in South America, wherever the Catholic church is supposed to reign almost supreme, there is a new kind of Protestantism, that in revolting against the ecclesiastical machine has taken refuge in infidelity, in seeking the things of this world and almost entirely forgetting the things of the next.

We desire to abolish poverty because the miseries, the vices, the crimes that flow from poverty are crushing the souls of men. We wage war against poverty as another form of waging a conflict for the essence of all religion. The greatest curse that can happen to religion is when those who are charged with its blessed offices seek to control what Christ and natural religion and right reason have never given them any authority to control. They are weak and human, and when they would control politics and education and charity to the exclusion of others, they are necessarily to the same extent neglecting the one special work that they were sent to do. (Applause.)

This is the curse of religion everywhere to-day, that men charged with the single duty of preaching the gospel, are itching for something else. It is to control politics. It is to control education. It is to have authority with men in power, whether in church or state; to magnify their own office. And so there is a constant tendency, natural enough to poor, weak, fallen man, to magnify the means at the expense of the end, to put the cart before the horse, to magnify the work of building the scaffold, forgetting that the scaffolding is only a means toward the erection of the edifice; it is to make more of the scaffolding than the building. This is obviously suggested by the word edification. The one object of all dogmatism is to build up the spiritual man and woman. The one object is this edification, this love of God for his own sake. The scaffolding should always be made subordinate to the erection of that edifice.

Pope Urban VIII deplored, “as if with tears of blood”—that is the strong phrase he uses—the blunders of his predecessor, Pope Pius V. Now, if this can be said of the chief bishops, how much more can it be said, without the slightest danger of forfeiting our title to Catholicity, of a mere local ecclesiastical machine, an archbishop, a vicar general, or even of a council of Baltimore.

It is simply a matter of detail, but I can tell you that there has been printed in our Catholic orders for the clergy a decision of the propaganda about saying mass in two places on the same day, that is utterly in contradiction to the teaching of Roman theology. And there has not been a priest or bishop to write to Rome and say: “This is against your own theology, and the sooner you scratch it out the better.” Why is it that they don’t take the trouble to write to Rome? Because that would make Rome seem a little ridiculous.

The result is that the machine that pulls all the wires and wants to direct everything begins to suffer from what physicians would call hypertrophy of the head—big head, swelled head. (Laughter and applause.) Wherever you have a machine like this the chief virtue gets to be the magnifying of the machine, the respect for authority; and the question is hardly so much “What does that man preach? has he converted multitudes to Christ?” as “Is he devoted to authority? is he always respectful? is he full of reverence?”

It gets to be the proper thing for people to toady to authority, to invite the bishop frequently to dinner and give him a good dinner. (Laughter.) And it will be no harm, if he has rendered some little service to your church and stays over night with you, to take a hundred dollar bill and to fold it up nicely, and while the bishop is at his breakfast to put it in his breviary, out of which he will be reading his prayers after breakfast. (Great laughter and applause.)

And the same thing is true of the higher authorities. One of the greatest merits nowadays is to send plenty of Peter’s pence to Rome. And the wise priest, who feels that if the Lord should call him to be a bishop it would hardly be proper to refuse, will send his collection direct to Rome. And in time the good priest will get a letter thanking him; and he may receive a complimentary degree of D.D.; and he may be surprised immensely some day by discovering that he is to be appointed bishop. (Laughter.) Now all that is very funny; but I assure you it is actual history. (Applause.)

The danger of this machine is, in our country as everywhere else, that the true interest of the people will be overlooked, will be misunderstood, will be neglected, because of the desire not so much to provide for the people as to please those in authority. And the remedy for that is, while respecting the proper authority of the see of Rome, as the

p. 2, col. 2 depository of the apostolic traditions, to insist that as far as possible the various portions of the church shall rule themselves, that the clergy and the laity shall have their say in the administrations of their temporalities and in the election of their bishops. (Applause.)

There is a serious danger that we cannot continue to be Catholics and that the people of this country cannot in large numbers come into the Catholic church except by being almost like foreigners in their native land, by becoming, as it were, subjects of a foreign power. (Applause.)

Here is the danger of the ecclesiastical machine in American politics; that with the growth of this power we may be taught more and more to take our politics not merely from Rome, but from the representatives of Rome. We must take our politics, say the head machinists here (laughter), as well as our religion, from Rome. Of course politics are largely mixed up with morality, but that gives no authority to this ecclesiastical machine to dictate to us in politics, in the application to minute circumstances of general principles of morality. Men have to decide these things for themselves. They have to fall back upon their own consciences. And it is not the office of Peter to interfere in politics, to teach men the minor applications of great moral principles.

The fact is that the church has never decided all these minute applications of the general principles of morality. It is under the similar pretense of guarding the rights of property that this ecclesiastical machine is coquetting with the oppressors of Ireland to-day and preparing to sell out the liberties of Ireland to the English government. (Applause.)

And in the same way this ecclesiastical machine has set up the incredible pretense that it shall control the education of all the children of Catholics under the pretense of guarding their faith and morals. It has gone so far that some are ready to argue that it is better to let the children go to no school at all than to let them go to a public school, even if all the teachers in that school are devoted Catholics and receiving the holy communion at a Catholic altar every day. (Applause.) If the time should ever come that all the people of the country should be Catholics, then this ecclesiastical machine would absolutely control the education of the country, and the people would have nothing whatever to say about the maintenance and direction of a system of education for their children. (Applause.) And a late archbishop of New York said: “The time is fast coming when we must build the school first and the church afterward.” Christ did not instruct his apostles in so many words to build so many houses called churches, but he sent them out to do the thing that is represented by the church building, and not the thing that is represented by the school building. (Applause.) The true doctrine is that Christ never set his church up to be the school mistress of secular things.

Those who are seeking to control the education of the country, by that very fact show that they are all the less true apostles of Christ. (Applause.) And in order to bolster up this false doctrine they are bedeviling, and will continue to bedevil more and more, the politics our country^sic. They began fifteen years ago to demand what they call their share of the public funds raised by taxation for school purposes, in order to support these church schools under the direction of an ecclesiastical machine with no control whatsoever exercised by the representatives of the people. (Applause.)

Now a man may be a zealous priest and yet be pretty ignorant. And in proportion to his ignorance will be his anxiety to control education. (Applause.) If he cannot preach he will at least have the great glory of being a financier, a builder—a man of brick and mortar. (Laughter.) Men have occupied the highest positions in the church whose only avowed merit was that they were good financiers.

In the same way, under the pretense of doing charity, this machine is actually threatening a great danger to our country by establishing hospitals and asylums and all manner of so-called charities, the support of which is expected to come almost entirely from the public treasury. And so the ecclesiastical machine will get credit for its wondrous charity, when the fact is that there is little or no charity in the support of these institutions at all. (Applause.) They have increased wonderfully in the last fifteen or twenty years, and the reason is chiefly to be found in the fact that the legislation of our city now actually makes it profitable for the various orders to establish these so-called charities, because $100 or $110 a head is paid them for those committed to the institutions by the magistrate.

The desire to secure public funds for these schools and charities explains the close alliance between the ecclesiastical machine here in this state and city and the corrupt political parties, particularly the democratic party (applause), and most particularly the most infamous and corrupt and altogether ill smelling portion of that party, namely, the Tammany hall faction. (Applause and hisses.)

In the name of God, why should we fear contact with the world? (Cheers and applause.) Are not we the leaven that is to leaven the whole mass? Should we be afraid that our religion must necessarily suffer by coming in contact with those who are not of the same religion? (Applause.) What a poor, weak, sickly thing it must be, this religion of ours—too good for this world, it must die young. (Laughter.) Ours is a church that should conquer the world; it should hail every occasion to mingle with the world, and instead of keeping its teachers, its priests and its people secluded, as it were, by a Chinese wall from the rest of society, it should be the first to demand the breaking down of all such walls. (Applause.)

Seventeen years ago a certain pastor of this city had sufficient influence by his persistence to get half a dozen others to agree with him as to a policy. They got the archbishop to consent to their plans and had an interview with the Tammany ring, at that time composed of men who have left an honorable record behind them (laughter)—the late never-sufficiently-to-be-lamented William M. Tweed, Richard B. Connolly, Oakey Hall and Peter B. Sweeney. They had an understanding that this Tammany machine should do what it could to procure public moneys in large sums for the parochial schools. It was a purely business institution, that machine, and you know they were very successful in their business.

They expected something in return. What was it? That this ecclesiastical party should do its best to maintain them in power. Their power was threatened. There were mutterings of discontent even among their own followers. There was another democratic faction that came very near to getting the better of them in the legislature, but Mr. Tweed is said to have gone to Albany one night with a trunk full of greenbacks and changed the condition of things. (Laughter and applause.)

Now the machine kept its part of the bargain. Peter B. Sweeney went up to Albany and got tacked on to an appropriation bill—I think the very last night of the session—a harmless looking little clause like this:

And, be it further enacted, that to such free schools in the city of New York as are

p. 2, col. 3 not already in receipt of any portion of the public school fund there shall be divided pro rata, according to the number of pupils attending, by a commissioner to be appointed for the purpose, a sum equivalent to twenty per cent of the excise money for the year 1868.

Now where was the patriotic member of the legislature who, the night before the close, would have the knowledge or capacity to find out what that meant? The average legislator might have thought: “Well, it’s twenty per cent of the whisky money, and most of the whisky money comes from these people, and it’s only fair to give it back.” But it wasn’t twenty per cent of the whisky money. It was “a sum equivalent to twenty per cent of the excise money for 1868.” And if the excise law had been repealed that other law would still remain upon the statute book. And the amount of the excise money for 1868 would still be a historical fact, and twenty per cent of it would be always easily computed.

So the political machine kept its promise to the ecclesiastical machine. But they were determined to take such security as they could get; and before the bargain was ratified a meeting between Archbishop McCloskey and Peter B. Sweeney took place in the back room of the episcopal residence in Mulberry street one Sunday evening. And at the next election, when it was a matter of life and death to that infinitely corrupt machine to maintain its power to rob you of tens of millions of dollars, it succeeded largely with the help of that ecclesiastical machine.

The very Saturday night before election Mr. John Mullaly, the editor of the Metropolitan Record, a kind of semi-official organ of the ecclesiastical machine, who was a confidant of Vicar General Starr, went about to the priests with as good as a message saying: “After all, the Tammany party are going to do the right thing for us; they are our friends. One good turn deserves another, and we should do the best we can for those who are going to do the best they can for us.” That was deliberately intended as a hint that they should do the best they could from their altars and pulpits the next day to help the Tammany machine to retain its power upon your public treasury. I am happy to be able to say that Mr. John Mullaly did not visit the pastor of St. Stephen’s church that evening. (Cheers and applause.)

And on Sunday morning a priest would come out and say something like this: “There is going to be an election next Tuesday morning, and after all we ought to do the proper thing for those who are good to us. There’s Jimmy So-and-so in our district who is a candidate for the legislature. He is a very good man. He borrowed the frame of our banner of the Blessed Virgin the other day for a political procession and he actually sent us a hundred dollars to pay for the use of it.” And it is very possible that that frame, after the picture of the Blessed Virgin had been taken out, actually bore in procession the picture of William M. Tweed. (Laughter.)

And so Jimmy was elected. (Laughter.) And that same Jimmy was a notorious bruiser, and was as good as kicked out of the legislature because he assaulted a member on the floor of the house. These are thy fruits, O alliance between the ecclesiastical machine and the political machine!

And to-day we ourselves are painful examples of the fact that it is not safe for any priest not to be in good odor and sympathy with that Tammany machine. To get money for their schools they were willing to enter into an alliance with that infinitely, infamously corrupt machine. I shall continue bitterly to regret that in the first gush of enthusiastic gratitude there was not erected in the [new?] cathedral in some conspicuous [place a large?] marble tablet inscribed in golden letters with the names of the chief benefactors of that cathedral. It would have been a most instructive tablet for ages to come. It would have borne something like this extraordinary litany:

William M. Tweed, five thousand dollars. Pray for him.

Richard B. Connolly, five thousand dollars. Pray for him.

Peter B. Sweeney, five thousand dollars. Pray for him.

And one or two other names of men who have not yet departed this life and whom I shall not therefore be guilty of the indelicacy of naming, although I am almost itching to do it. (Great laughter.)

It is high time to call a halt. To get public money for these schools they are ready at any moment to bedevil your politics. There is one institution called the Catholic protectory that is now receiving from your treasury well nigh $300,000 a year. And so it is with the foundling asylums and the House of Good Shepherd and the houses of the Sisters of Mercy. It is no longer charity; it is business. Hence this bedevilment of our city politics and the opposition to Mr. Cleveland in the presidential campaign, because he vetoed an appropriation of $25,000 for that Catholic protectory. In the presidential campaign he was denounced openly as the enemy of the Catholic church, and it was understood to be the correct thing not to vote for Mr. Cleveland.

That ecclesiastical machine was pretty powerful and came very near defeating Mr. Cleveland. Now, Mr. Cleveland is a wise man, and small blame to him for being gradually educated to be a practical politician. And Mr. Cleveland has been told, I suppose, that it is a better thing to have that machine on his side than to have it hostile to him. And he has done his best, after consultation with the cardinal archbishop of Baltimore, to show that he is not a bigot by sending a present to the pope on the occasion of his jubilee. And our papers comment on it as an eminently proper thing, in view of the fact that there are in this country some eight or ten millions of the pope’s subjects. Subjects!

You may almost look in vain through the press of the country for a ringing word of denunciation of the monstrous utterance of Mgr. Preston two weeks ago to the effect that the Catholics of this country must take their politics from Rome as well as their religion. We have been making gigantic strides in the last few years in the direction of actual surrender to this horrible ecclesiastical machine and its politics and policies as distinct from the church of Christ. They tried to help Mr. Kelly defeat Governor Robinson; and one man used this argument to a gang down in the Fourth ward: “You men of New York, do you want to break the poor cardinal’s heart in his old age by going against his nephew?” (Laughter.) That nephew being the head of Tammany Hall and not a nephew at all, but a man who, in very mature years, had married Cardinal McCloskey’s niece—an extraordinary illustration of the union of church and state. (Laughter.)

And now, to come nearer home, why was there a sudden alarm when a new party, a little over a year ago, nominated a candidate for mayor—a party of workingmen, a party composed very largely of honest sons of toil, who had done more than their share to support the Catholic church and its institutions? Why this eagerness to repress it? It was largely because of the alliance of the ecclesiastical machine with the corrupt Tammany machine. And so they forbade a priest and a citizen to confer with his fellow citizens, or to keep his engagement at a meeting without permission of the propaganda. And it is implied that with their permission and at their

p. 2, col. 4 request he would be very much rewarded for making speeches. It is not wrong, they seemed to say, for a priest to make political speeches. It may be most commendable if he have our permission or advice. It is a commendable thing in Ireland, for instance, if a priest tries to disperse a land league meeting, but it would be an unpardonable crime to tell the people to stand up for their rights against the landlord and against the government. The propaganda has actually said that the clergy might be permitted in Ireland to take a moderate part in politics and public meetings, with the view of restraining the ardor of the people and getting them to be less firm for their rights.

The ecclesiastical machine, whether in Rome or in America, is very much in favor of authority as against liberty. Its instincts are in favor of aristocracy as against democracy, in favor of monarchy as against republicanism. (Applause.) They believe in centralization, in monarchy, in despotism. They would tie the hands even of the ecclesiastical machine here so that the chief men here should be only puppets to collect Peter’s pence. It is that centralization of power, of authority, of financial management of everything in the machine, controlled by the central machine in Rome, that actually is a blight upon the Catholic church. It is the proper thing to pay court to each pope, to worship each bishop and offer incense to him. And the priest that does that may not be the most zealous of men, but he is orthodox; he obeys the machine. And he gets up a school; and it is really the proper, orthodox thing to do more for the school than for the church. It is a significant thing that some seventeen years ago a circular was leveled at the man who has the honor of addressing you here to-night requesting signatures to a remonstrance to be sent to Archbishop McClosky^sic, then in Rome, because of some liberal utterances about the school question that were very guarded, to the effect that the chief work to do in his parish was to get more priests to preach as much as possible, to have as many services, to try and get people to receive the sacraments as often as possible, to lead Christian lives, and even that he should like to look after the destitute children most particularly in need of help who at that time were being lost by the thousands to the Catholic church, being picked up on the street and shipped out west.

And the archbishop of New York was actually charged in the newspapers with the incredible neglect of these destitute children for whom there was scarcely any provision whatsoever. And the archbishop actually answered his critic in the New York Times, and said: “It is true that these children have been baptized in the Catholic church, yet they scarcely can be said to have ever belonged to it.” Just think of it! And his critic, a clergyman and pastor of this very diocese, very truthfully and properly answered the archbishop in the same newspaper, saying: “This is the most extraordinary utterance that ever came from the tongue or pen of an alleged Christian bishop. Thousands of children baptized in the Catholic church, and yet, says the archbishop, they can scarcely be said to have ever belonged to it!” Let us hope that he repented of that before he died. How could he stand before the judgment seat of the Son of Man, asking an account of those who were baptized and in whom he has the deepest solicitude? How could he give an account of those innocent lambs of the flock to his judge, saying: “They can scarcely be said to have ever belonged to your flock.” “There is a certain policy on the part of the ecclesiastical machine, as long as it is poor, to seem to adapt itself to circumstances, to celebrate the Fourth of July and Washington’s birthday. But if you go a little behind the scenes you will find there is not very much respect for the Fourth of July and Washington’s birthday. We are particularly ostracized and excommunicated to-day for teaching the doctrines of the Fourth of July. Do you want to know the opinion the propaganda has of the Fourth of July? I will tell you. Some seventy years ago, when the progaganda^sic was intriguing to the detriment of the liberties and rights of English and Irish Catholics, it was willing to give to that persecuting government the practical appointment of Catholic bishops by giving it the veto power over their appointment, because it was intriguing for the restoration of the temporal throne of the pope. And the secretary of the propaganda, in correspondence with the British cabinet, said that it was a most excellent thing to have a proper understanding between the holy see and the British cabinet, for the reason that the holy see had always inculcated obedience and respect for legitimate authority—legitimate authority of the English government in Ireland! And the secretary said that Catholics would not rebel against his gracious majesty the king, as witness the significant fact that in the recent unfortunate rebellion in America, it was the Protestant colonies that rebelled, while the Catholic colony of Canada remained faithful. (Applause.) That shows what the Roman machine would have done if it could. It would have made impossible our glorious American revolution. It would have left unwritten the Declaration of Independence.

Now then, dear friends, I am going to come to an end, and I shall end, as I began, by saying that no man, I am sure, can surpass me in sympathetic, tender reverence for all that is good and sweet and beautiful and holy in the Catholic religion. (Applause.) And I am intensely convinced that if this Catholic church would but abdicate its claims to temporal thrones and the administration of temporalities that are nothing but a bane and a curse, she could go out to conquer the whole world, and all nations would acknowledge her to be the best of mothers. I am here to-night, not because I have departed from the spirit of my priesthood, but because I desired to bring as many as I could within the genial influence of that holy priesthood. And what I and others with me may have to suffer may perhaps hasten the day for the breaking down of the machine and hasten the day when the church of Christ shall be seen by the world in all her pristine beauty without the aid of any such temporal machine, and only by the aid of men’s minds and the perfect love of their hearts. (Great applause.)

After the conclusion of Dr. McGlynn’s address Mme. De Carlo sang a solo, and the exercises of the evening closed with the singing of the “The Cross^sic of the New Crusade” by Miss Munier’s choir and the audience.

HUGH O. PENTECOST’S SECOND SERMON AT MASONIC TEMPLE.

The Devil in Daily Life—What the Story of Christ’s Temptation Really Means—It is Not Needful You Should Live, but it is Needful You Should Do Right.

Last Sunday was a bitter cold day—a day when none but men and women who were moved by some definite purpose would have ventured forth. And it augurs well for the prosperity of Unity congregation that on such a day an audience larger than could probably have been found in most of the city churches gathered to listen to the second of Mr. Pentecost’s discourses.

The sermon is given below. But the printed words are powerless to convey more than a faint idea of the address. The voice now ringing in denunciation, now calm in argument, now tender in appeal—the presence of the speaker—are wanting, to clothe with flesh the dry bones of words and phrases and make them move and live.

As on the preceding Sunday, the exercises began with the singing of a hymn, followed by an interval devoted to silent prayer. The following verses were then read alternately by minister and congregation:

Then was Jesus led up of the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted of the devil.

And when He had fasted forty days and forty nights He was afterward ahungered.

And when the tempter came to Him, he said, If Thou be the Son of God, command that these stones be made bread.

But He answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.

Then the devil taketh him up into the holy city, and setteth him on a pinnacle of the temple.

And saith [onto^sic?] Him, If Thou be the Son of God, cast Thyself down: for it is written, He shall give His angels charge concerning Thee, and in their hands they shall bear Thee up, lest at any time Thou dash Thy foot against a stone.

Jesus said unto him, It is written again, Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God.

Again the devil taketh Him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth Him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them;

And saith unto Him, All these things will I give Thee, if Thou wilt fall down and worship me.

Then saith Jesus unto him, Get thee hence, Satan; for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and Him only shalt thou serve.

Then the devil leaveth Him, and, behold, angels came and ministered unto Him.—[Matthew iv: 1–11.

As Sakya Muni (Buddha) went forth by night from his father’s palace, to become a devotee,

The prince of evil, Mara, trembled and determined to prevent him.

Descending from his abode, he cried:

“Lord, that art capable of such vast endurance, go not forth to adopt a religious life,

“But return to thy kingdom, and in seven days thou shalt become an emperor of the world, riding over the four great continents.”

“Take heed, O Mara,” replied the good prince,

“I also know that in seven days I might gain universal empire, but I desire not such possessions.

“I know that the pursuit of religion is better than the empire of the world.

“You, thinking only of evil lusts, would force me to leave all beings without guide into your power.

“Avaunt! Get thou away far from me!”

The Lord rode onward, intent on his purpose.

The skies rained flowers and delicious odors pervaded the air.—[From “The Sacred Anthology.”

The collection was then taken up, after which Mr. Pentecost spoke as follows:

THE ADDRESS.

My text for this morning consists of the two scriptures printed on our order of service, containing the traditions of the great temptations of Jesus, the Christ, and Siddartha, Gautama, or Sakya Muni, the Buddha.

You will observe the similarity in the stories; though there could have been no collusion between the writers. The Buddha lived 600 years before the Christ. This similarity points to the essential truthfulness of both the stories, though, to many minds, neither story is believable in the form in which it is written.

To those who bow before authority, and consequently believe whatever is found in the Bible, not because it is probably or possibly true upon reasonable grounds, but simply because it is in the Bible, there will be no difficulty in accepting the story of the temptation of Jesus as here given. Nor is it for me to sneer at such faith or to try to violently overthrow it.

I am free to say, however, that I do not even try to believe it. The exact number of forty days, one of the sacred numbers of the ancient Hebrews, is suspicious; the suppositions that Jesus had power to turn stones into loaves of bread; that he was whisked through the air to a pinnacle of the temple; that there was a mountain top high enough for him to see from it all the kingdoms of the world—these stamp the story at once, to my mind, as an allegory or parable, and not history.

Then, too, that there is any such being as a personal devil I have no good reason for believing. He does not appear in the Old Testament. Satan does—but he is a very different person. The serpent of Genesis is merely a serpent, not the devil. The Jews found the devil among the Persians. But apart from scriptural considerations, I cannot understand how there can be an almighty God and at the same time an almighty devil—for there is no denying the fact that under the Christian system the devil is smarter and more powerful than God at every turn, for the time being, at any rate. And unless Calvinism is false he will have through all eternity by far the larger portion of the human race for his spoil, thus proving his greater power to ruin than God to save.

Besides that, I know nothing of angels (except certain men, women and children). If there are such extra natural persons, who occasionally break through the sky and descend to earth, it is more than I know, and I think Matthew knew as little about the subject as I do.

In short, the extra-natural character of both these stories makes it impossible for me to believe them. I should have to know that Matthew wrote the story and that he absolutely knew that what he wrote was true. And this I cannot know, because there is no way to prove it.

This is only my opinion. You are at liberty to form yours, which, if you form it honestly, is worthy of the same respect that I wish to be shown mine. I do not say that I know this story is unhistorical. I merely say that my mind is so that I cannot believe it without trying, and when I have to try to believe something I always suspect that it is not true or I should find it is easy to believe.

But in saying all this do I destroy the Bible or the value of this legend? I think not. This narrative is not, in my opinion, true literally, but it is true morally and spiritually.

p. 3, col. 2

I have no doubt Jesus and Gautama passed through the experiences which these records, with the vivid imagery of the east, so graphically describe. I have no doubt of it, because I have been through the same experiences, devil, angels, roses, delicious odors and all, myself. And it is because every earnest person sees in the temptation of Jesus the record of his own soul torment and delight that this legend has been and will be preserved in the sacred literature of the world. Moses, Elijah, Paul, Luther, Darwin, Bunyan’s Pilgrim, Carlisle’s Teufelsdrockh^sic—every man who tries to benefit the human race by speaking a new truth or applying an old principle in a new way in order to work reforms in human society runs upon the hour when he must count the cost of being true to himself, when his baser self rises up to contend against his better self; and this is the hour of his fast, his temptation by the devil, and if he is true to himself, of his consolation by angels, when the sky rains flowers and emits delicious odors.

Let us now consider the real nature of this threefold tempation^sic, which comes upon every earnest, honest man.

“Man lives not by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.” Man lives not by bread alone, but by doing what is right, by being true to his reason and conscience. This is the law of real life—what the Bible calls eternal life. And one phase of our daily tempations^sic is to violate that law.

Man lives by bread, but not by bread alone. The temptation is to live by bread alone.

The priest or minister knows the truth—theological, political, economical. Why does he not speak it, then?

It will cost him his bread if he does.

The lawyer knows the truth about his client. He is a bad man who should not be defended. He knows, too, that many laws are unjust or immoral. Why does he not act aright upon that knowledge?

It will cost him his bread.

The politician—the office holder—knows the corruption about him of which by his silence he is partaker. Why does he not tear away the mask which conceals it and boldly come forth to denounce and fight it?

It will cost him his bread.

The editor knows he writes the lie when he writes it. Why does he thus prostitute his pen?

It will cost him his bread if he writes the truth.

The merchant knows his transactions are fraudulent—that he lies about his wares and robs his customer. Why does he persist in that course?

Bread!

The workman knows that the system under which he works defrauds and degrades himself, his wife, his children, his fellow workmen the world over. He knows the way of justice and relief. Why does he vote, then, on election day against his wife, his children and his fellows? To keep his situation or for a small and soul-damning bribes^sic.

Bread!

How many letters I get from those who say, “God bless you;” but who will not sign their names because, they say, “You know I must live, and if it were known that I think as I do, or if I associated myself with those with whom I think it would cost me my situation.”

I pity these poor souls, for it is not a thing to be desired to be poor. But no angel ministers to them; no sky rains flowers upon them; no sweet odors hang about them. The devil is their boon companion. They are fat in body but living skeletons in soul.

This is the daily heresy of life, this “I must live.”

I tell you that it is not necessary to live. It is necessary that you shall not violate your conscience. If you do wrong in order to live, then you never can be anything but a curse to the world and most of all to yourself.

It is better that a man should gather his wife and children about him and wait for death, with angels ministering to him and flowers raining upon him, than that he should live to know, and have them know, that for what he gains in bread he sells all that is worth keeping.

“’Tis man’s perdition to be safe When for the truth he ought to die.”

And the second temptation is this: To live in the sight of other people, for their wonder or admiration; to be popular.

Had Jesus flung himself unhurt from the temple parapet to the stones below he would have been a nine days’ wonder, and many would have followed him who had no eye for goodness.

There are women who wear little cymbals in their shoe heels to gain the attention of the passer by. And, alack! there are men who walk the avenue to be looked at—spectacles to behold they are, too, in very deed. There are persons who furnish their houses and spend lavishly on equipages, not to please themselves but to thus buy the gaping wonder of their neighbors.

There are men who have before now gone into conventions in order to fight the ring and break the slate, but when they have been unanimously elected to the chairmanship have dismissed the angel, shaken hands with the devil, and gagged themselves with the paltry honor.

There are ministers and priests and politicians, editors and statesmen, aye, even poets, who might be good men but for their love of popularity. Many a man has been good and true until he has come to be talked about, when the praise of men has been worth more to him than self-respect. How many men have promised fair till they got into the White house and then failed under flattery?

Why is this man not a Christian? He fears the jeers of the unbeliever. Why is that man not a rationalist? He fears the ill favor of the church and isolation. Why does not the other fight for the reform he believes in? It would not cost him bread. He is rich. It would cost him caste.

There are persons who will come into this hall and decide whether they will come again solely by whether the audience is as respectable as or a little more respectable than they consider themselves.

I have known men who bought the title of D. D. from a Christian college notwithstanding He whom they call Lord and Master said, “Be not called rabbi.”

I have known of men who spent a fortune in order to be called henceforth governor or senator or honorable or mayor or even alderman.

You tell me that publicans and harlots go to hell? If so these men will also go to hell, the D. D. and the alderman arm in arm.

And all this notwithstanding the Son of Man said, “Beware when all men speak well of you.”

But must we not care for the good opinion of our fellows?

Not at the expense of what is right. You must do your duty though men curse you and ostracize you; though they call you a winebibber and the friend of publicans and sinners; though they call you a fanatic, a crank. Better lose caste and with it reputation than save them and be obliged to be ashamed of yourself.

The last temptation comes through the love of influence and power.

The world shall be yours if you but worship the devil.

p. 3, col. 3

There are men so rich that money no longer tempts them. But they love power. They do not care to sit on the throne. They prefer to control him who does. They do not care to be elected to the legislature. They prefer to own the legislature. The delicious sense of power is everything to them.

There are divines who, to become bishop, archbishop or pope, would worship forty devils.

Nor is this always a gross temptation. It is often subtle and specious as the others. “Beware how you do that which will destroy your influence,” says the devil. “Where you are you have a large field and great influence for good. Consider how foolish it would be for you to lose this very power for good in your attempt to do good.”

“Consider!” quoth the devil to the priest. “You have a parish of 20,000 souls whom you can lead along gradually into the truth you love if you are prudent. If you are imprudent you will lose your influence. Fall down and worship me and this parish shall still be yours.”

“Get thee behind me,” said the priest. “The true soul knows no prudence. I will speak the truth at the cost of influence.” And the angels and the flowers came to the priest.

Ah! this subtle lie, that it is better to have a kingdom which you should not have because with it comes power to do good, has wrecked many a soul.

“I only wish money,” says the Christian, “to do good with.”

“I only wish office,” says the politician, “to use it for good.”

“We buy voters,” said a member of the republican machine in a certain city, “because if we did not the democrats would; and it is better that the town should be controlled by republicans than democrats, because the republican is the purer party.”

But is there no place for ambition in human conduct? Yes! But not at the expense of what is right.

So little is this recognized that I sometimes think it not unfair to say that religion, as popularly lived, consists in fearing God and serving the devil.

This threefold temptation is hard to withstand. It is hard to be poor, to be ostracised, to be a nobody. There is no denying it. He who passes through this trial will have the heartache; will know mental agony.

But there are two points of cheer. That which threatens the good man does not always happen. He runs the risk of starving, but he does not always starve. He loses one set of friends, but gains a few others better than they. He loses influence, apparently, while he lives, but gains it when he is dead.

But the best of all is the angel’s ministration and the rain of flowers. To do right is worth all it costs. To be crucified is awful, but oh! it is sweet to look inward on a clean soul. This joy the pharisee, the hypocrite, the money getter, the time server, never knows.

I want you to meet your temptation like good men and women, and to remember that the worst evil which can befall you is to lose respect for yourself. This is hell: To know that right and wrong were before me and I did not choose to do right.

A Clear Case.

CINCINNATI, O.—A friend of mine intends to buy a factory for $12,000 (being $5,000 for the business and $7,000 for the land and building) by mortgaging two-thirds of the value to a building association, and he says to me, “I think I can pay my weekly dues; but if before my mortgage is paid off your Henry George law goes into effect I shall be required to pay a land value tax, which, in addition to my dues, will be too much of a load for me to carry and the association will foreclose and I become bankrupt.” He also says, “If I thought there was any possibility of such a law I would not invest in the enterprise.”

What shall I tell him?

CHAS. A. JONES.

Your friend is like the horse which, seeing a hay stack in the twilight, mistook it for a ghost and reared and plunged until his master led him up to the stack, when he found it to be very excellent fodder.

Under the system of taxation now in vogue, if honestly enforced, your friend must pay taxes on $12,000; and although I do not know what raw material he will use in his business, it is quite safe to say that he must pay duty or the equivalent of duty on some of it, which will require extra capital and narrow his market by compelling him to charge more for his goods than he could sell them for if he paid no duty on his materials. But if “your Henry George law” should go into effect your friend would have no taxes to pay on raw materials; that would enable him to sell for less and consequently to do a better business. Neither would he have to pay taxes on $5,000 of the $12,000, for that represents the machinery which he proposes to buy. And of the remaining $7,000 there must be a deduction for the value of the building before his basis of taxation is reached. Assuming that the building is worth $4,000 his entire tax would be based on $3,000, the value of the bare land.

Even if taxes were increased so as to absorb the entire rental value of land, how much more taxes would he pay then than he must pay now? Probably no more; possibly less. And that without considering at all the business benefits he would derive from the abolition of taxes on business.

Tell your friend to walk up to the hay stack and examine it.

Fraud Under the Single Tax.

MINNEAPOLIS, Minn.—If the single tax were in force a majority of the voters would be land owners; would they not desire as individuals to pay the smallest taxes possible, and would they not elect an assessor who would levy a tax much less in amount than the unearned increment?

JOHN LAMB.

While an individual might desire to pay the smallest tax possible, he could not pay a less rate than his neighbors, and his neighbors would see to it that he did not pay on a lower value than he ought to. As to a combination among land occupiers to keep down the rate, all occupiers of the less valuable land (and they would be largely in the majority) would soon learn that the nearer the tax came to appropriating all rent the better off would every one except speculators or monopolists be.

For example: Here is a farmer whose bare land is worth $100 a year, and a miner whose bare land is worth $10,000 a year. A tax which took 50 per cent of rent would leave to the farmer $50 which he did not earn and to the miner $5,000. How long do you think the farmer would study these figures before he saw that a full tax would be better for him than a partial tax?

From the Region of Tar.

[Editorial note: the left ends of many lines in this letter and the next are damaged or poorly inked; letters supplied by the transcriber are in square brackets.]

> EENDERSONVILLE^sic, N. C.—(1) Soon after I began reading THE STANDARD, and before I was fairly converted to a belief in the single tax, I was discussing the subject with a friend and met this objection: Officials might unreasonably raise taxes on certain lands, then b[i]d in the lands at tax sales, and afterward pu[t] the taxes below the average. I did not even then consider this a very valid argum[e]nt; but I do not yet see but that it would be possible under the land value tax system f[o]r “land rings” to enrich themselves off the p[e]ople by some such method. > > (2) Before I ever saw THE STANDARD or k[n]ew the real nature of its doctrines I was c[o]nvinced by reading Hudson’s “The Railways and the Republic” (published by Harp[e]rs) that the best and only logical solution o[f] the railway problem can be reached by si[m]ply restoring the original status of the r[a]ilroads as public highways, which all have e[q]ual rights to use with appropriate vehicles a[n]d motors of their own, by paying a reason[ab]le toll, and observing necessary regulati[o]ns. The language of the Syracuse platf[or]m would seem to propose the assumption b[y] government of the function of sole “com[m]on carrier” on these highways. I would like t[o] know how Messrs. George, Post, Croas[da?]le, etc., stand on this point. > > (3) When the united labor party was ready t[o] do away with the “protective tariff” [w]ould it abolish custom houses and all the [ma]chinery of revenue collection or retain t[h]em (with nominal imposts) for collecting sta[tis]tics of imports and similar purposes? > > N. H. WHITNEY BROWN.

1. The rate of taxation in a given year [w]ould be uniform, therefore the only way i[n] which officials could unreasonably raise t[a]xes would be by false appraisements of [va]lue. If this were done generally in a [co]mmunity it would defeat its purpose, [an]d if it were done in particular cases it [w]ould be easy to expose it.

2. Speaking for myself I prefer that the [co]mmunity should be its own common [ca]rrier, but the plan of making railways [pu]blic highways would be better than ex[ist]ing methods.

3. To the extent that we require [st]atistics let us appoint statisticians to [co]llect them. I would abolish every [cu]stom house.

For Information Only.

DANBURY, Conn.—(1) We have a purely [la]nd tax on thousands of acres here in Dan[bu]ry, there being no buildings thereon.

2. Within ten rods of where I am writing [th]ere are fifty acres on which the owner pays [$7?]00 a year tax. Another man owns 250 acres, [an]d is taxed only $40. Now, I don’t see that [m]y taxes are lessened by a purely land tax [an]y more than they are by a $740 tax on [bu]ildings.

3. Some of my friends have built flats [an]d stores on 100 feet square of land, on [w]hich they are taxed $740 a year. Within [illegible]0 feet on the same side of the street is an[ot]her 100 feet square of land, on which there [is] a house, the property being taxed $500 a [ye]ar. Would you tax the land in both cases [a]like? If you would make a difference, why?

4. Now, as location and style and use of

p. 3, col. 5

buildings makes a difference in value, how will you go to work to equalize or deprive the present owners of the fee of the land on which the stores and dwellings stand?

I write for information, not for argument.

A. T. PECK.

1. You have not a pure land tax in Danbury. Some of your land is vacant and is taxed, but improvements on other land is also taxed. No community has a pure land tax which taxes anything but land.

2. If the two pieces of vacant land to which you refer, one of which is taxed $700 and the other $40, or $740 in all, were not taxed at all, but that amount were imposed on buildings, your house would bear its proportion of the increase. Your taxes are, therefore, lessened by this tax on the two pieces of vacant land.

3. If the two pieces of land are of equal value they should be taxed equally, irrespective of the buildings. If any difference were made it should be only because the land in one case was worth more than in the other.

4. The style of buildings does not make a difference in the value of the land on which they stand. If it did it would only be necessary to erect Stewart’s store in Danbury to make the Danbury lot as valuable as the lot in New York. The value of any given piece of land is not determined by the improvement, but by what people are willing to give for the location. But that is immaterial to your question, the answer to which is that we would not go to work at all “to equalize or deprive the present owners of the fee of the land on which the stores and dwellings stand.” We would let them keep the fee as long as they paid their taxes.

A Free Soiler’s Riddles.

CONNERSVILLE, Ind.—(1) Will not the taxing of land values entirely destroy the value of land; and if not, why not?

2. If it will, how can we raise money to pay a $50,000 salary to the president?

3. If we don’t have high salaried officers for doing nothing, how can we perpetuate a “best society?’

4. How can we keep out of communism and anarchy if we have no “best society?”

5. If the taxing of date trees and windows destroyed them, will not the taxing of land values destroy them? If not, why not?

FREE SOILER.

1. If land values are taxed so high that the entire rental is taken in taxation, the selling value of land will be destroyed.

2. From the land value or rent tax.

3. There is no urgent need for perpetuating that kind of “best society.”

4. By securing freedom.

5. Yes, selling values; but it will not destroy land.

How to Do It.

CAMPBELL HILL, Ill.—I am an enthusiastic adherent of the new political economy dating from the palmy days of poor Patrick Ford and the Irish World. Believing as I do that the right to the use of the earth, air and water belongs to the inhabitants of the planet and to all its inhabitants, I see no reason why, after the opportunities which the control of the soil affords have been unjustly seized and appropriated by a landed few, they should not by common consent (the ballot) be restored to their just ownership:

Added to this, after a somewhat careful study of the original writings of Mr. Henry George and subsequently of the columns of THE STANDARD, I unhesitatingly accept the plan of restoration so simply and graphically pointed out. Nevertheless, in common with others for whose benefit this department of the paper is established, I desire to have one phase of the subject made plain; it is this: In conversation recently with a friend in whose judgment I have the greatest confidence—he declared that a political change, so radical, so far reaching and so disastrous to individual interests as the proposed single tax would be sure to prove, if brought about at once, or in any manner other than by slow degrees, would be certain to throw the country into anarchy and revolution. What shall I say to this? Of course I understand that the proposed tax on land values, or, as it might well be put, locality opportunities, would be accompanied by abolition of all other direct and indirect taxes. Please explain at some length for the benefit, I think, of many readers just what kind of legislative enactment in your judgment could be made to bring about this great measure of human justice.

A. O. GENUNG.

It is hardly necessary to explain at length. In the states no other enactment is necessary than a law abolishing taxes on improvements and personal property, leaving the rate on land values to adjust itself to meet the deficiency; while in the United States we have only to abolish tariffs and impose such direct tax according to population as is required, laying it on land values and collecting it through our present internal revenue machinery.

This might be done all at once, but it is more likely to come about by the abolition of one tax after another until only land values remain to be taxed.

Seeing Men as Trees Walking.

LAWRENCE, Mass.—Suppose fifty per cent of the inhabitants of a city are land owners, is it just to place all the taxes on them while the remainder enjoy the same privileges as to water, gas, police, and so forth?

M. J. MAHONEY.

Yes. You must remember that while all enjoy the privileges of water, gas, and so forth, only the fifty per cent enjoy the privilege of valuable land. By requiring them to pay for that privilege, privileges are equalized.

Evidently you have given very little thought and less reading to this subject. Read “Progress and Poverty” and write again.

Notes.

J. C. HOWE, Homewood, Ill.—If you reread Mr. George’s article in which he says that “the mere buying or renting of land within a community in no way diminishes the amount of capital that can be used for productive purposes,” you will see that you have mistaken his point. The treating of land as a commodity does tend to check the production of capital, but payments for land do not necessarily diminish existing capital.

HUGH S. ST. CLAIR, Philadelphia, Pa.—It is not proposed that the government should own land, either by seizing or buying it. That is neither necessary nor desirable. We are now taxing land values; and all that is proposed is to abolish other taxes, allowing the deficiency thus created to be made up by increasing the only remaining tax. To compensate these tax payers for paying taxes would be absurd.

DISPUTANTS, New York.—Consult a lawyer in the usual way.

LOUIS F. POST.

p. 3, col. 6

Interesting to Brooklyn Readers.

BROOKLYN, N. Y.—A meeting of the Eleventh ward association united labor party was held on Tuesday evening, Jan. 17, at No. 328 Gold street (Hibernian hall), at which it was decided to issue circulars calling upon all sympathizers in the ward to join the ward association. In future, debates between two of the members will be held at every meeting; and when advisable a series of entertainments will be given. All readers of THE STANDARD in the ward who are desirous of joining will please address F. C. Wickes, president, No. 173 South Elliott place, Brooklynn^sic; A. L. DeGout, secretary, 23 Raymond street, Brooklyn.

A Farmer Who “Sees the Cat.”

UNION STAR, Mo.—I am a farmer and own my farm, as fine and fertile as can be found in the west, containing near two hundred acres, but I am not afraid of the land value tax. I am anti-monopolist clear through, if it should strike a monopoly that I am concerned in. There are many that are only opposed to monopolies that others are interested in, but whenever the opposition strikes anything that they are engaged in themselves, then they are out.

JONATHAN EPPLER.

Adopted at Syracuse August 19, 1887.

We, the delegates of the united labor party of New York, in state convention assembled, hereby reassert, as the fundamental platform of the party, and the basis on which we ask the co-operation of citizens of other states, the following declaration of principles adopted on September 23, 1886, by the convention of trade and labor associations of the city of New York, that resulted in the formation of the united labor party.

“Holding that the corruptions of government and the impoverishment of labor result from neglect of the self-evident truths proclaimed by the founders of this republic that all men are created equal and are endowed by their Creator with unalienable rights, we aim at the abolition of a system which compels men to pay their fellow creatures for the use of God’s gifts to all, and permits monopolizers to deprive labor of natural opportunities for employment, thus filling the land with tramps and paupers and bringing about an unnatural competition which tends to reduce wages to starvation rates and to make the wealth producer the industrial slave of those who grow rich by his toil.

“Holding, moreover, that the advantages arising from social growth and improvement belong to society at large, we aim at the abolition of the system which makes such beneficent inventions as the railroad and telegraph a means for the oppression of the people and the aggrandizement of an aristocracy of wealth and power. We declare the true purpose of government to be the maintenance of that sacred right of property which gives to every one opportunity to employ his labor, and security that he shall enjoy its fruits; to prevent the strong from oppressing the weak, and the unscrupulous from robbing the honest; and to do for the equal benefit of all such things as can be better done by organized society than by individuals; and we aim at the abolition of all laws which give to any class of citizens advantages, either judicial, financial, industrial or political, that are not equally shared by all others.”

We call upon all who seek the emancipation of labor, and who would make the American union and its component states democratic commonwealths of really free and independent citizens, to ignore all minor differences and join with us in organizing a great national party on this broad platform of natural rights and equal justice. We do not aim at securing any forced equality in the distributon^sic of wealth. We do not propose that the state shall attempt to control production, conduct distribution, or in any wise interfere with the freedom of the individual to use his labor or capital in any way that may seem proper to him and that will not interfere with the equal rights of others. Nor do we propose that the state shall take possession of land and either work it or rent it out. What we propose is not the disturbing of any man in his holding or title, but by abolishing all taxes on industry or its products, to leave to the producer the full fruits of his exertion and by the taxation of land values, exclusive of improvements, to devote to the common use and benefit those values, which, arising not from the exertion of the individual, but from the growth of society, belong justly to the community as a whole. This increased taxation of land, not according to its area, but according to its value, must, while relieving the working farmer and small homestead owner of the undue burdens now imposed upon them, make it unprofitable to hold land for speculation, and thus throw open abundant opportunities for the employment of labor and the building up of homes.

While thus simplifying government by doing away with the horde of officials required by the present system of taxation and with its incentives to fraud and corruption, we would further promote the common weal and further secure the equal rights of all, by placing under public control such agencies as are in their nature monopolies: We would have our municipalities supply their inhabitants with water, light and heat; we would have the general government issue all money, without the intervention of banks; we would add a postal telegraph system and postal savings banks to the postal service, and would assume public control and ownership of those iron roads which have become the highways of modern commerce.

While declaring the foregoing to be the fundamental principles and aims of the united labor party, and while conscious that no reform can give effectual and permanent relief to labor that does not involve the legal recognition of equal rights to natural opportunities, we nevertheless, as measures of relief from some of the evil effects of ignoring those rights, favor such legislation as may tend to reduce the hours of labor, to prevent the employment of children of tender years, to avoid the competition of convict labor with honest industry, to secure the sanitary inspection of tenements, factories and mines, and to put an end to the abuse of conspiracy laws.

We desire also to so simplify the procedure of our courts and diminish the expense of legal proceedings, that the poor may be placed on an equality with the rich and the long delays which now result in scandalous miscarriages of justice may be prevented.

And since the ballot is the only means by which in our republic the redress of political and social grievances is to be sought, we especially and emphatically declare for the adoption of what is known as the “Australian system of voting,” [in?] order that the effectual secrecy of the ballot and the relief of candidates for public office from the heavy expenses now imposed up n them^sic, may prevent bribery and intimidation, do away with practical discriminations in favor of the rich and unscrupulous, and lessen the pernicious influence of money in politics.

In support of these aims we solicit the co-operation of all patriotic citizens who, sick of the degradation of politics, desire by constitutional methods to establish justice, to preserve liberty, to extend the spirit of fraternity, and to elevate humanity.

I.

Let the most radical advocates of the single tax—those who deny the right of private ownership of land—ask themselves why they do so. Is it not because they deny the right of the government to allow individuals to levy the tax called rent for their own private benefit, when it justly belongs to the people? Is not the very foundation of their whole political creed a passionate denial of the justice of any system which allows a few persons to collect p. 4, col. 2 for their own use a tax from the whole people, which ought to go solely to the use of the government for the benefit of the whole people?

Why do the radical opponents of private property in land refuse to consent to the payment of compensation to landlords, as a condition of the nationalization of land? Is there any other reason than this, that, if they agree to pay taxes for the purpose of compensating the landlords, they practically agree to submit to the same taxation for the benefit of individuals, under the name of taxation, against which they rebel, under the name of rent?

If it is just and right that the people at large should be taxed for any purpose, other than for the support of that government which is for [the?] benefit of all, then it is just as well that this tax should be called rent, as that it should go by any other name.

Now all protective taxes are, in their very nature, taxes levied upon the people at large, for the benefit of the persons who own the land upon which the protected articles are produced, or the tools by which those articles are made. Into their pockets the whole benefit of any protective tariff must necessarily go.

If this is all right and proper, why is it not equally right and proper that another tax, called rent, should also be levied on the people, for the benefit of land owners? If the prosperity of America depends upon taxing us all for the support of manufacturers, why is it not likely to be still more promoted by taxing us for the benefit of land owners? The protected manufacturers number less than 100,000; the land owners number over 4,000,000. It is therefore forty times as beneficial to the nation to tax it heavily under the name of rent, as to tax it heavily under the name of protection.

But it will be said that the manufacturers distribute the benefits of protection in high wages. If this is true of them, it is equally true of the land owners. They pay just as good wages as the manufacturers do; and they do not combine to import foreign pauper laborers, as manufacturers and mine operators do. It is said that the manufacturers pay out 90 per cent of their income in wages. If that is true, then the land owners pay out 100 per cent of theirs in the same way; because they hire servants to make them comfortable, builders to build them houses, butchers to give them meat, bakers to give them bread and coachmen to drive them about. The land owners, therefore, are only misunderstood philanthropists, who worry themselves with the collection of the tax, called rent, solely for the purpose of providing poor landless men and women with work.

Every man who votes for a protective tariff ought, to be consistent, to vote for high rents, too; since the more the landlords collect in rent the more they will spend in wages.

II.

Leaving the question of consistency, let us inquire how the abolition of private property in land is to be brought about.

It is clear that it is a movement for the abolition of something. What do the land reformers want to abolish? All taxes except one.

It is an abolition movement, pure and simple. It proposes nothing but abolition. It does not propose to create any new taxes. Land is taxed already. The “new crusade” simply proposes to abolish every tax which does not fall upon the value of land. All the rest of the scheme will take care of itself.

Pray, how are all taxes, other than the land tax, to be abolished if we are not willing to abolish the tariff? How is the tariff to be abolished altogether, if we are not willing to abolish it in part? Are we to refuse to abolish any taxes, until the happy day arrives when we can abolish all at once? We should certainly have to wait a hundred years, probably five hundred years, before such a policy could succeed.

Those who are sincerely in favor of abolishing all taxes except one, will, if they have a grain of common sense, vote for the abolition of each tax, one by one, as fast as it can be reached. No man can ever get to the end of a road who will not take one step at a time. Every sincere and sensible believer in the single land tax, therefore, will vote for the abolition of every other tax—with one limitation.

That limitation is that some taxes have a tendency to draw to themselves the support of powerful interests, while others have not; and those who want to abolish all indirect taxes should be careful to strike first at those which have the support of these interests, so as to get them first out of the way. When those are got rid of the others will fall quickly enough. But, if the weakly supported taxes are abolished first, the others will be all the harder to get rid of. If you want to topple over a row of bricks, put the heaviest one at the end and knock that over; all the rest will fall without your touching them. But if you begin with a light thin brick you may have to pull down each, one by one.

The tariff is the heavy brick in taxation; and the protective part of the tariff is the solid strength of the whole. Strike out protection, and no one will care to maintain the tariff. Abolish the tariff, and all internal revenue taxes will be abolished on the same day, without a murmur from any quarter. But if you abolish the internal revenue taxes first, you give to the tariff enormous new strength and continue indefinitely its protective features, which are the greatest obstacle to the adoption of the single land tax that ever existed or ever can exist.

Quite apart from the abstract question of free trade, therefore, the total abolition of the tariff is indispensable to the establishment p. 4, col. 3 of the single tax. Those who insist upon maintaining any tariff insist upon maintaining rent and private property in land, for the two things are bound up together. Those who vote to repeal internal taxes upon liquors and tobacco help to keep the tariff in existence for the next fifty years, because the influence of capital, which is now divided between the two systems, will then be concentrated in support of the tariff, and the plea of necessity of revenue will be successfully used for fifty years to keep up a high tariff.

But the tariff cannot be abolished in a day. It must be taken down in pieces. It is as absurd to refuse to vote for reductions in the tariff, while favoring its total abolition, as it would be to insist that a wall should be taken down all in one instant or not at all. The wall must be taken down brick by brick; and so must the tariff. Every reduction makes the next step easier.

In short, the believers in the single tax doctrine, including those who support it as a means of nationalizing the land, as well as others, are simply tax abolishers. If they will not vote to abolish existing taxes, they do not really believe in the doctrine which they profess. If they will not vote to abolish any taxes, unless they can abolish all at once, they will have to wait until we are all dead, buried and forgotten. If they vote to abolish the taxes on whisky and tobacco, before the tariff taxes are repealed, they play into the hands of their enemies; they unite the influence of capital against themselves, which is now divided to some extent; and they postpone the possibility of their own success for half a century.

All that is necessary to be accomplished in order to secure the speedy triumph of the land tax is to abolish the tariff. When public sentiment is brought to that point, all indirect taxation will go with the tariff in a single day. When the nation comes down to direct taxation, the equity and accuracy of the single tax on the value of land alone will be so clear and unmistakable, its superiority over the income tax and all other direct taxes so palpable, that no further serious effort will be needed to insure its adoption.

Whoever votes to maintain any protective duties in the tariff votes to maintain the tariff itself.

Whoever votes for any tariff votes to defeat the single tax.

Whoever refuses to vote for “tariff reform,” on the ground that it does not go far enough (as, of course, it does not), refuses to take the first step on the long road which leads to land reform, because he cannot leap over the whole length of the road at once.

Whoever does any of these things does all which at present lies in his power to perpetuate private property in land, the rent system and the system of indirect taxation, under which the poor [always?] have paid, and always will pay, ten times as much as the rich.

THOMAS G. SHEARMAN.

How the Imposition of a Levee Tax on Land has Forced Monopolists to Loosen their Grip.

GRENADA, Miss.—There are four parishes in the state of Louisiana organized as a levee district in which a tax is laid on land, in some respects similar to the tax which you advocate. I say in some respects, because it is a tax upon the area and not upon the value. Yet it has this in common with the single tax, that it is a tax rather upon those who withhold land from use than upon those who utilize it—upon monopoly rather than upon industry. It is a tax of five cents an acre upon all the land in the parishes of Concordia, Tensas, Madison and East Carroll. It is used for building levees to protect these lands from overflow, and is in addition to ordinary parish taxes which are levied, as usual with all our taxes, upon the value of lands, improvements and personalty. This five-cent tax has been in force for nearly two years, and my purpose in writing this letter is to call your attention to the effect it is having in inducing the cultivation of lands which have not been in cultivation for twenty years. This I cannot better do than by detailing a transaction in which I was, unfortunately, the principal actor and sufferer.

I had purchased for $2,500 a property of 2,200 acres located in one of the four parishes above mentioned. There was but little cultivated land upon it, and my revenue from it was therefore small, not quite enough to pay the ordinary taxes (about $40) and interest upon the investm nt^sic. Yet I would have been quite content to let the matter run on, because I believed that the increase in value of the property would more than make up for my annual loss. But the five cents an acre tax, by adding $110 to this loss each year, disarranged all my calculations, and has induced me to offer the property for sale at $2,200, pocketing a present loss of $300 rather than risk a larger one in the end if I should continue to hold the property. I think that I will succeed in selling the place; and if so, the purchaser will buy, not to speculate with it, but to improve it; and a property that has heretofore raised only twenty bales of cotton will soon be raising more than treble that number and thereby giving remunerative employment to treble the labor that it formerly did. If the store keepers near by sell more goods, and the wholesale merchants order more from the factories, and some spindles are busy that without this increased production consequent upon the change of hands of the property would be idle, it seems to me that this five cent tax will have been the cause. It will have forced the property out of the hands of a person who was not making the most of it, and for many reasons could not make the most of it, and placed it in the hands of one much more likely to make it do its best; and every economic reasoning justifies the confident belief that as a result of this simple change, so simply wrought, a new current of business energy will thrill through a hundred channels, and some men will have work who otherwise would have lacked it. In a word, it seems to me that this tax will have gone a little way toward the abolition of poverty. Besides this, any one who will travel through the parishes I have named may see that this cause is working throughout in the cultivation of lands that have long lain fallow, so that many such energizing currents are springing into existence.

And while it is true that one of the causes which is inducing their cultivation is the [belief?] that the proceeds of this tax have been so spent as to prevent overflows, it is also true if these levees had been put in twice as good a condition through taxes levied upon improvements and personalty as well as lands there would not have been for several years to come the increased acreage in cultivation which there will be this spring, simply because the forces impelling those in interest to the change would not have been as strong as they now are. Without this tax the erection of the levees would really have been an inducement to land owners to withhold their lands from improvement and sale in the hope to realize higher prices. With this tax this speculative tendency toward the withholding of lands from use is counteracted by a considerable tax which must be paid now.

From the window of a car I noticed the other day the dinner buckets of the laborers hanging on the trees, and was led to speculate upon the probable effect which would follow the discovery of a tree having such fruit. Rent would rise and wages still tend downward.

BOLTON SMITH.

PUBLISHER’S NOTES.

Here is a New Year’s greeting from the Pacific coast:

SAN LUIS OBISPO, Cal.—I inclose my subscription for 1888 and hope to have another subscriber’s renewal to send soon, besides my mother’s. My mother and I are subscribers for life. We can truly testify, from our own experience, to what Mr. George says, that “one of THE STANDARD’S chief services is that it brings the consciousness of support and companionship to those who otherwise could not but feel isolated.” It seems impossible now to imagine the world without it. What a dreary pro-povertv^sic world it was only a year ago, before this “herald angel” sang anew for us the heavenly anthem of “peace, good will.” I lose patience sometimes when I find people actually believing in land tax doctrines yet having to be coaxed and urged to “support” such a paper, when they ought to be thanking God cn bended knees^sic for the glorious privilege of having it.

A people who could let such a paper fail would deserve to be slaves, for they would have proved themselves unworthy of freedom. Never, never, had humanity such an advocate to voice its cause. My mother and I have induced one of our newsdealers here to place a STANDARD show card in his window, and also one within his store, and to keep a copy of THE STANDARD for sale on condition of our redeeming those unsold at the end of each month. We were not able to pledge ourselves to more than one copy, but even that is a beginning.

I think the very hardest test Dr. McGlynn has named of devotion to the good cause was when he said to give up one’s place in an anti-poverty meeting for the sake of making room for some one else who might become a convert. To us who read so far away of those heart stirring gatherings that seems an almost impossible self-denial; yet I hope we would stand even that test.

In a note I received not long ago from a lady in this state (a stranger to me) occurs this beautiful passage referring to those wonderful meetings: “Was there anything ever equal to those soul stirring lectures! They cover the holiest grounds, they teach the truest and purest religion, till I have thought within myself (if such things be) the Master is the silent, unseen, yet all powerful presence in those grand assemblages!” Are not those thrilling words! How can any one see more “politics” in a movement that inspires such a feeling?

With renewed hope and faith in the future, with warmest wishes for THE STANDARD’S coming year and grateful thanks for what it has been to us of instruction and comfort and inspiration in the year just past, in which my dear mother joins, Very truly yours,

MRS. FRANCIS M. MILNE.

There’s a whole sermon of argument, exhortation and appeal in such a letter as that.

CUSTER CITY, Pa.—The tracts which I ordered a short time ago, and which have been scattered where it was thought they were most likely to bear fruit, are beginning to give promise of fair returns, as witness the inclosed list of subscribers that have come to me as the result of a little persuasion and explanation of some things which were perplexing to the minds of the infant class in the Georgean school of political economy.

When I find a man opposed to the whole scheme as utterly impractical and anxious to argue the point I smile to myself and say mentally, “You are my victim.” And so far I have been right eight times out of ten. I am at liberty now, so I can give a little attention to the cause of emancipation, and hope to show the result of my efforts in a goodly subscription list soon to be added to this.

Please send me some sample copies of THE STANDARD, to be used among members of the assembly as also for general distribution. I have read every copy of THE STANDARD since February 19 last, buying from one to three copies weekly at the news stands in our sister city of Bradford.

Besides the subscriptions I inclose list of recruits to whom I want THE STANDARD sent for four weeks.

G. W. PATTERSON.

LOUISVILLE, Ky.—The new views now obtaining in regard to land and labor reforms are gradually drawing to their advocacy the more thoughtful and better part of men in all conditions of life; that part which weighs and measures the values of things by the invariable standard of truth and justice, and whose forward movement in accord with that standard knows no shadow of turning. They are the men to whom righteousness and brotherhood are not mere names for a party cry, but grand, natural principles which should be woven into the life of man, and by which he will achieve the highest triumphs of political and social reform. But though we confidently believe that these views are now steadily making way, and are destined, in the near future, to acquire a momentum of their own which no opposition can withstand, we realize how necessary and important it is at the present time that they should be more quickly and extensively diffused among the people by means of the land and labor literature. We, therefore, urge every one whose heart and mind fully sympathizes with the new movement to assume the obligation of purchasing and distributing THE STANDARD tracts so far as his means will allow. For ourselves we stand pledged to purchase and distribute, within the year, 1,500 tracts or more. Now, if those called upon will wake up, cheerfully put their shoulder to the wheel and send to THE STANDARD office a similar pledge we believe that some millions of tracts can soon be spread abroad, independent of other efforts. We also suggest to every STANDARD subscriber that after each paper has been read it should be made to do double duty by giving it to a friend, or leaving it at a barber’s shop, hotel office, restaurant or other place where it may find readers. Moreover, we would ask all STANDARD readers who can so afford to purchase a copy of “Progress and Poverty,” “Social Prblems^sic” and “Protection or Free Trade?” and start them on a free circulating tour, writing on the face of each book the injunction: “This book is given to be read on condition that the recipient shall continue to transfer it to another for the same purpose.”

B. GROVE & SONS.

These are two out of the many letters we receive from people who are utilizing the tracts of the land and labor library as a means of spreading the gospel of freedom. They point the way to very useful work.

Rightly used, the land and labor library is a perfect arsenal of weapons for the soldiers of the new crusade. Among the sixty-four tracts already issued may be found arguments, appeals and statements of fact adapted to men and women of almost every occupation and degree of social comfort. To the man who simply wants to know what it is we propose and why we propose it, King’s^sic “Case Plainly Stated” is a veritable mine of information. To one who ridicules our proposal as impracticable, such tracts as “Sailors’ Snug Harbor,” “New York’s Docks,” and “The Collegiate Church” will be a sufficient answer. The doubting Roman Catholic may be persuaded by Bishop Nulty’s “Back to the Land;” the agriculturist will profit by “The American Farmer;” the storekeeper will be interested in “How to Increase Profits;” the trades unionist or Knight of Labor in Everett Glackin’s “What We Want;” the lawyer in any one of Thomas G. Shearman’s essays; the clerk or bookkeeper in “My Landlord;” the clergyman in the various addresses by Hugh O. Pentecost, Dr. McGlynn and S. H. Spencer. It would hardly be possible to name a man or woman in any vocation for whom some specially suitable tract cannot be found.

Use the tracts. Use them freely; but use them understandingly. When you

p. 8, col. 2 write to a friend inclose a tract, but don’t do it hap-hazard, picking up the first one on top of the pile. Study your friend’s character a little; attack him at his weakest point; select a tract that you think will least offend his prejudices and most easily affect his judgment. And in the same way, when distributing tracts by hand, endeavor to select those most suitable to the people and the occasion.

And in order that you may do this effectually, be sure to keep a well assorted supply of tracts on hand; and read the new one’s as fast as they appear.

Here is a pleasant note from the Episcopal bishop of central New York. There are quite a number of other bishops, and not a few laymen, who might read it with profit:

BOSTON, Jan. 9.—In inclosing my subscription to THE STANDARD for next year, I can not refrain from expressing to you my personal regard and sympathy. For sincerity of purpose, fidelity to principle, patience in explanations, fair and dispassionate treatment of opponents, masterly statement and uncompromising earnestness, your editorials constantly remind me of the Liberator. I rise from my weekly perusal of THE STANDARD with larger hope and strengthened purpose. Not because I am able to share all your views or to approve all your methods, but for the reason that I am stirred by your pirit^sic and share in your humane aspirations.

On the tariff issue nothing is more refreshing than your clear cut, consistent and logical treatment, after the wishy-washy, give and take, half hearted, “practical” expressions of the best papers on the side of tariff reform. These papers are conspicuous examples of how to chill enthusiasm, discourage plain speaking and to keep political economy on the dismal science plane. The single tax plan touches my convictions forcibly, while I am yet unable to see in it the panacea for poverty. That it would enlarge opportunity for labor I cannot doubt.

Your manly attitude on the woman suffrage question and your assertion of the rights of the individual as against the socialistic scheme are worthy of you.

If I may offer a word of criticism, I think your true function that of a reformer and not of a party leader. Reform permits absolute truth speaking, and is undisturbed by prophecies of evil consequences, knowing that right principles work out just results. Politics is a game of compromise, a question of numbers, a balancing of chances, a paring down of testimony, a matter of policy, an undue valuation of the present.

One is magnificent and compatible with a handful of followers. The other is ridiculous unless multitudinous. The moral warfare duly begets the political.

But I began simply to send you my word of respect and appreciation, and am, sincerely your well wisher,

WILLIAM LLOYD GARRISON.

SYRACUSE, N. Y.—Whenever I see THE STANDARD I find something in it worth reading, and not found anywhere else. I therefore subscribe for the paper for ’88, and inclose what appears to be its price. Faithfully yours,

F. D. HUNTINGTON.

WACO, Texas.—Inclosed find $2.50 to renew my subscription to THE STANDARD. Times are harder here than they have been for fourteen years. But I hope to send you several subscribers. I am doing what I can with voice, pen and money. I am in for the war.

J. L. CALDWELL.

DEMING, N. M.—Inclosed find remittance, for which send me two more papers besides the one you are now sending. Your paper was loaned to me by a friend. My attention was riveted at once, and now I cannot do without it. I am a working woman, and an old woman. I quit my work last week because it kept me busy long hours every day and Sunday, and gave me no chance to go around with your tracts. I have got two subscribers and sold one “Progress and Poverty.”

JANE BIGGS.

RED WING, Minn.—I inclose a renewal of my subscription. I have read THE STANDARD from the first issue. It is my Sunday reading. It is the gospel to me.

WILLIAM DANIELS.

There are still a few of last year’s subscribers to THE STANDARD who have not renewed their subscriptions. Are you one of them?

This is what THE STANDARD costs its subscribers:

One subscription, one year, . . . . . $[2?] 50 One subscription, six months, . . . . 1 25 One subscription, three months, . . . . 63

Three or more subscriptions:

One year, each, . . . . . . . . . . . . $2 00 Six months, each, . . . . . . . . . . 1 00 Three months, each, . . . . . . . . . 50

After the first club of three has been sent, subsequent subscriptions may be forwarded at the same reduced rates.

Recruit subscriptions, for four weeks, will be received, singly or in clubs to different addresses at fifteen cents each.

The contributions to the recruiting fund for the week have been:

Augustin Blair, Cchoes^sic, N. Y……………….. $1 00 C. D. Conklin, Cleveland, O………………… 1 25 Ida Hibbard, Roselle, N. J…………………. 3 00 Colin Timmons, Aspen, Col………………….. 2 00 Calvin A. Beltz, Mauch Chunk, Pa……………. 65

Total for the week………………………… $7 90 Previously acknowledged……………………$2,042 71

Total to date…………………………….$2,050 61

A State Within a State.

Correspondence New York Times.

There are already three great private game parks in Pike county, Pennsylvania—the Blooming grove park, with 12,000 acres in fee and as many more controlled absolutely by lease, the Forest and lake association, owning 6,000 acres, and the Wescoline club, with nearly 7,000 acres.

The charter of the Blooming grove park association that the Pennsylvania legislature was asked to grant was drawn by David Dudley Field, and the extraordinary provisions of the document aroused the strongest opposition to it among careful legislators.

The charter makes of Blooming grove park an empire within itself. It is independent of the general laws of Pennsylvania, with the exception of capital crimes and misdemeanors. The association has power to make its own game laws regardless of the laws of the state regulating game and fish interests. Its members may hunt deer with hounds, either in its own or its leased lands, or fish when they please, on Sunday, or any other day, and defy the constituted authorities of the state or county to interfere with them; while a native hunter over the park line, a rod from where a member of the park may be watching his dogs surrounding and fighting a deer he has wounded, may be arrested, fined and even imprisoned if he is seen in possession of a deer with dogs at his heels. The members of the Blooming grove park association may have race horses, enjoy cock fighting, dog fighting, prize fighting and any other sport prohibited by the law of Pennsylvania, with like immunity and defiance. No license to keep liquors at their club house can be required of them. The association appoints and swears in its own constabulary, and the unsupported oath of one of these officers is sufficient to convict any citizen of this county of violation of the association’s laws and inflict on him the heaviest of fines or a term of imprisonment in the county jail and at the county’s expense if the fine cannot be paid. All residents of the county are warned against trespassing on the park grounds under heavy penalty, but members of the association may hunt and fish with impunity on the wild lands outside their domain. The charter of the association, in short, gives to citizens of another state a condition of perfect freedom and exemption from the force of laws which all citizens of

p. 8, col. 3 Pennsylvania are bound to obey, and the exclusive and peculiar protection and autocratic power granted by the Pennsylvania legislature to the New York gentlemen who are the association were never before permitted to any organization in this or any other country.

===

ANTI-POVERTY SOCIETY.

REV. EDWARD McGLYNN, D. D., PRESIDENT.

The fortieth public meeting of the society will be held at

THE ACADEMY OF MUSIC,

SUNDAY EVENING, JAN. 29.

ADDRESS

by

REV. DR. M’GLYNN.

Subject, “The Church and the Labor Movement.”

Musical service by

CONCORDIA CHORUS.

Admission free to Family Circle. Balcony Circle, Boxes and Orchestra Circle 10 cents. Orchestra 25 cents. Proscenium Boxes 50 cents.

Tickets on sale at the Anti-Poverty Society office, 30 Cooper Union.

Box office at Academy open at 6:30 p. m. Sunday.

UNITY CONGREGATION.

REV. HUGH O. PENTECOST,

MINISTER.

MASONIC HALL,

Sixth avenue and Twenty-third street.

SERVICES,

Sunday Morning, 11 o’clock.

SUBJECT—“Parasites.”

ANTI-POVERTY SOCIETY IN PHILADELPHIA.

The Society will hold meetings every Sunday evening at 8 o’clock at Lincoln hall, corner of Broad street and Fairmount avenue.

Everybody invited. Admission free.

A LIVE CHRISTIANITY.

Speakers have been secured as follows:

Sunday, Jan. 29. Rev. John B. Barnhill of Meadville, Pa.

By order of Executive Committee.

WM. J. ATKINSON, President.

J. H. M’INTYRE, Secretary.

===

MACHINE POLITICS AND MONEY IN ELECTIONS IN NEW YORK CITY,

by

WILLIAM M. IVINS.

As there is much demand for information about the Australian system, City Chamberlain William M, Ivins^sic has placed at the disposal of the readers of “The Standard” a number of copies cf^sic his pamphlet entitled “Machine Politics, and Money in Elections in New York City,” in which a full account is given of the Australian system of voting, and the gross evils in our politics which it would remedy are vividly portrayed.

Those who desire a copy of this pamphlet can procure it by forwarding a two-cent stamp, for postage, to “The Standard” office.

Blank petitions to the New York legislature in favor of the Australian system of voting can also be obtained by application to this office.

Address THE STANDARD,

25 Ann street, New York.

===

[Advertisement] Ollendorf’s Neurodontine

OLLENDORF’S

NEURODONTINE.

Instantaneous cure for Toothache, Headache and Neuralgia. 25 cents. Central depot, 203 E. 14th st., N. Y.

[Advertisement] Charles B. Schaidner, Photographer

CHARLES B. SCHAIDNER,

PHOTOGRAPHER,

22[3?]0 Third avenue, cor. 124th street, New York.

Children’s Photographs by instantaneous process a specialty

[Advertisement] James Bogan

JAMES BOGAN, PRINCIPAL AGENT for James Means’ $3 and $4 shoes. 226 BOWERY, near Prince street.

[Advertisement] Holland’s Coffee and Dining Rooms

HOLLAND’S COFFEE AND DINING ROOMS,

1[25?] Fourth avenue,

Bet. 13th and 14th sts.

MISCELLANEOUS.

[Advertisement] Piso’s Cure for Consumption

[Cartoon: display advertisement, white lettering on a black frame, with “25 CTS.” set vertically at each end]

PISO’S CURE FOR

CURES WHERE ALL ELSE FAILS.

Best Cough Syrup. Tastes good. Use in time. Sold by druggists.

CONSUMPTION

25 CTS. 25 CTS.

[Advertisement] Canned Goods, Organized Labor

[Cartoon: round can-bottom stamp reading “HAND MADE C.M.P.A.” in white on black, with display lettering at right]

Canned Goods

WITH THIS STAMP IN THE BOTTOM OF CANS ARE

Free from Poison.

AND ARE MADE BY

ORGANIZED LABOR.

Trade-Mark.—Registered.

[Advertisement] The Great American Tea Co.

[Cartoon: T-shaped black logo with white lettering “THE GREAT AMERICAN TEA COMPANY”, the word TEA set vertically]

GOOD NEWS TO LADIES.

Greatest offer. Now’s your time to get orders for our celebrated Teas, Coffees and Baking Powder, and secure a beautiful Gold Band or Moss Rose China Tea Set, Dinner Set, Gold Band Moss Rose Toilet Set, Watch, Brass Lamp, Castor, or Webster’s Dictionary. For particulars address

THE GREAT AMERICAN TEA CO.,

P. O. Box 289. 31 and 33 Vesey St., New York.

[Advertisement] Autocopyist

EXCELLENT BLACK COPIES of anything written or drawn with any Pen (or Type Writer) by the Patent

AUTOCOPYIST

Only equalled by Lithography. Specimens Free.

AUTOCOPYIST CO., 166 William St., New York.

[Advertisement] Coogan Bros. 

[Cartoon: engraving of the five-story Coogan Brothers store front, with a horse-drawn furniture wagon and pedestrians in the street. Signs on the building read: “COOGAN BROTHERS”; “WHOLESALE & RETAIL FURNITURE CARPETS” (partly illegible); “BEDDING WAREROOMS”; “MANUFACTURERS”; “125 COOGAN BRO’S 121”; on the wagon wheels “FURNITURE” (partly legible)]

COOGAN BROS.,

CARPET AND FURNITURE DEALERS,

COR. BOWERY AND GRAND STS.

===

PRINTING.

[Advertisement] Concord Co-operative Printing Company

CONCORD CO-OPERATIVE PRINTING COMPANY (Ld.)

47 and 49 Center st., N. Y.

BOOK, JOB AND NEWSPAPER PRINTING.

p. 8, col. 4

NEW PUBLICATIONS.

[Advertisement] Protection or Free Trade?

PROTECTION OR FREE TRADE?

An Examination of the Tariff Question with Especial Regard to the Interests of Labor.

BY HENRY GEORGE.

CONTENTS:

I. Introductory. II. Clearing ground. III. Of method. IV. Protection as a universal need. V. The protective unit. VI. Trade. VII. Production and producers. VIII. Tariffs for revenue. IX. Tariffs for protection. X. The encouragement of industry. XI. The home market and home trade. XII. Exports and imports. XIII. Confusions arising from the use of money. XIV. Do high wages necessitate protection XV. Of advantages and disadvantages as reasons for protection. XVI. The Development of manufactures. XVII. Protection and producers. XVIII. Effect of protection on American industry. XIX. Protection and wages. XX. The abolition of protection. XXI. Inadequacy of the free trade argument. XXII. The Real Weakness of Free Trade. XXIII. The Real Strength of Protection. XXIV. The Paradox. XXV. The Robber that Takes All that is Left. XXVI. True Free Trade. XXVII. The Lion in the Way. XXVIII. Free Trade and Socialism. XXIX. Practical Politics. XXX. Conclusion.

One Volume. Price, Cloth, $1.50; in Paper, 35 Cents.

Address HENRY GEORGE & CO.,

25 Ann Street, New York.

[Advertisement] The Railway News

[Cartoon: engraved cover of the magazine The Railway News, flanked by the words “ANNUAL SUBSCRIPTION $2.” set vertically on each side. Legible lettering on the cover: “The RAILWAY NEWS”; “DEVOTED TO” (partly legible); “RAILWAY INTELLIGENCE”; on a banner “CONSTRUCTION, OPERATION, MANAGEMENT, EXTENSIONS, EARNINGS, PROJECTS, APPOINTMENTS, PERSONAL [illegible], ELECTIONS” (partly legible); publisher’s imprint at foot [illegible]]

ANNUAL SUBSCRIPTION $2. ANNUAL SUBSCRIPTION $2.

The RAILWAY NEWS is a monthly journal which discusses all the railway problems and specially undertakes the protection of all railway employes.

Mechanical and technical articles by leading experts.

This journal notes all industrial advance and is in sympathy with its progress. Offices, 40 Broadway, New York.

[Advertisement] The Unseen

THE UNSEEN.

Thirty-two pages. By mail, ten cents in stamps.

CONTENTS:

The Immortal Nature of Man a Scientific Fact. The Creation of the Material Universe. The Personality of the Great Creator. The Spirit an Organism. The Difference Between Reason and Instinct. That Which is Without Beginning. The Philosophy of Poverty—Its Cause a Cure^sic.

FORBES & CO., 52 Broadway, New York.

[Advertisement] Now Ready, Progress and Poverty

NOW READY,

NEW POPULAR EDITION OF

PROGRESS AND POVERTY,

by HENRY GEORGE.

Large type, 520 pages Price 35 cents.

[Advertisement] Members of Labor Organizations

MEMBERS OF LABOR ORGANIZATIONS and others wishing to canvass for subscribers to this paper on a liberal commission are invited to send their names and addresses to the publishers of THE STANDARD, 25 Ann street, New York.

[Advertisement] McGill, Cabinet Photos

DR. M’GLYNN, HENRY GEORGE, POWDERLY and Pentecost. Cabinet Photos, 25 cents. McGILL, 304 Henry street, New York city.

===

MISCELLANEOUS.

[Advertisement] Braham’s, 212 Bowery

[Cartoon: display banner, white lettering on black]

WHO WOULDN’T BE DRESSED WELL

PRINCE ALBERT COAT AND VEST, SATIN LINED THROUGHOUT, TO MEASURE………….$18.00 TROUSERS TO MEASURE, FROM….. 4.00 BUSINESS SUITS TO MEASURE, FROM 16.00 DRESS SUITS TO MEASURE, FROM.. 20.00 BLUE, BLACK OR BROWN CORK-SCREW CUTAWAY COAT & VEST TO MEASURE, FROM………… 12.00 OVERCOATS, QUILTED SILK OR SATIN LINED THROUGHOUT, TO MEASURE, FROM………….. 20.00

[Cartoon: display banner, white ornamental lettering on black]

BRAHAM’S

212 BOWERY, N.Y.

OPPOSITE RIVINGTON ST.

Samples and Self-Measurement Chart Mailed on Application.

[Advertisement] The Keystone Watch Club Co.

THOUSANDS OF THE BEST

$38 GOLD WATCH

EVER MADE ARE SELLING IN OUR

CO-OPERATIVE CLUBS.

This is the Best, Cheapest, Most Convenient,

And only co-operative System of selling watches. The watches are American Lever Stem Winders, containing every essential to accuracy and durability, and have, in addition, numerous patented improvements found in no other watch. They are absolutely the only Dust and Dampproof Movements made in the World, and are jeweled throughout with GENUINE RUBIES. The Patent Stem Wind and Set is the strongest and simplest made. They are fully equal for appear-ance, accuracy, durability and service, to any $75 Watch.

Our Co-operative Club System brings them within the reach of every one.

We want an active, responsible representative in EVERY CITY and TOWN.

Heavy profits guaranteed on limited investment. Write for full particulars.

The Keystone Watch Club Co.

P. O. Box 928, Philadelphia, Pa.

[Cartoon: keystone-shaped emblem enclosing an open-face pocket watch; lettering “THE KEY STONE WATCH CLUB Co.”]

REFERENCES:—Keystone National Bank, or any Commercial Agency.

AGENCIES:

p. 8, col. 5

NEW PUBLICATIONS.

[Advertisement] Popular Edition, Protection or Free Trade?

POPULAR EDITION.

PROTECTION OR FREE TRADE?

AN EXAMINATION OF THE TARIFF QUESTION WITH ESPECIAL REGARD TO THE INTERESTS OF LABOR.

By HENRY GEORGE.

One Volume, Paper Covers.

PRICE, THIRTY-FIVE CENTS.

Now in press and ready for delivery September 12.

When this book was originally published, in May, 1886, it seemed to me that the tariff would be the first of the economic questions to come into political issue in the United States, and I looked to it as a means by which the underlying land question would be brought into general discussion.

But events then unforeseen are bringing the land question into the discussions of “practical politics” with greater rapidity than I expected, and it now seems likely that it will be an awakening as to the larger question that will lead the masses of our people to consider the smaller.

This gratifying change, however, instead of lessening the interest and usefulness of this book, gives to the matters of which it treats so much more immediate and practical importance as to call for the publication of a popular edition. It has already done much, and is I trust destined to do more, not only to place the tariff question in its true light, but to clear away confusions of thought that obscure the full scope and beauty of the simple measure, which securing equality with regard to natural opportunities, will emancipate labor and give free play to productive forces.

HENRY GEORGE.

[Advertisement] Henry George’s Buch (German edition of Progress and Poverty)

[Cartoon: display heading in ornamental black-letter: “Henry George’s Buch” / “Fortschritt und Armuth”]

Henry George’s Buch

Fortschritt und Armuth

Eine billige deutsche Ausgabe von

“PROGRESS AND POVERTY”

Preis 35 Cents,

ist soeben erschienen und durch alle Buchhändler und Colporteure zu beziehen. Wird nach Empfang des Preises portofrei versandt vom Verleger

HENRY GEORGE,

25 Ann Street, New York.

[Advertisement] Now Out, the German Edition of Progress and Poverty

NOW OUT.

THE GERMAN EDITION OF

PROGRESS AND POVERTY.

PRICE, IN PAPER COVERS,

Thirty-five Cents.

Address HENRY GEORGE,

25 Ann Street, New York.

[Advertisement] Heaven and Hell

HEAVEN AND HELL,

From things heard and seen by Emanuel Swedenborg. Cheap edition, paper, fifteen cents, postpaid. This work unfolds the laws of the spiritual world and describes the condition of both good and evil men after death. It treats, among other things, of the sun of heaven and the light and heat thence proceeding, of the garments and habitations of the angels, their government, worship, occupations, conjugal relations, etc., of the state of the heathen and young children, of the rich and poor, and of the wise and simple in heaven.

Intercourse Between the Soul and the Body, paper, five cents; and all other writing^sic of Swedenborg and of New Church authors. Catalogue free. Address New Church Board of Publication, Room 20, Cooper Union, New York.

J. C. JACKSON,

Business Manager.

[Advertisement] Anti-Poverty Doctrines in a Nutshell

ANTI-POVERTY DOCTRINES IN A NUTSHELL.

Thirty pamphlets on various phases of the social problem. The question of the hour. All should understand it. Will be sent post paid on receipt of fifteen cents in stamps, or will be sent free to any one sending twenty-five cents for six months’ subscription to the Tax Reformer, a sixteen page journal. Address, ANTI-POVERTY PRESS, 184 William st., New York.

[Advertisement] Henry George’s Solution of the Labor Problem

HENRY GEORGE’S SOLUTION

OF THE LABOR PROBLEM.

WHY I PREACHED ON IT.

by

HUGH O. PENTECOST,

Minister to the Belleville Avenue Congregational Church in Newark, N. J.

A sixteen-page pamphlet. Price 5 cents.

Sent by mail on receipt of price. Address as above.

[Advertisement] Labor Library, Modern Press

$5.00 LABOR LIBRARY.—30 STANDARD works by [24?] authors—Marx, Darwin, Spencer, Huxley, Krupotkin^sic, Rechus^sic, Hyndman, Gronlund, Bebel, Annie Besant, Lassalle, Bradlaugh, George. Speeches of anarchists and trial, etc., bound in 3 vols.; cloth, $5; postpaid, $5.50. Complete list mailed free.

MODERN PRESS,

250 1-2 Bowery, New York.

[Advertisement] Just Out, An Account of the George-Hewitt Campaign

JUST OUT.

AN ACCOUNT OF THE GEORGE-HEWITT CAMPAIGN.

By Louis F. Post and Fred. C. Leubuscher.

1 vol., paper covers. Price, [20?] cents.

Address HENRY GEORGE & CO.,

25 Ann street, New York.

[Advertisement] The Single Tax, Union Printing Co.

THE SINGLE TAX.

Special editions of ready-printed newspapers containing current Single Tax reading matter. All sizes; low prices. UNION PRINTING CO., 15 Vandewater street, New York.

[Advertisement] German Tracts

GERMAN TRACTS.

ISSUED IN THE LAND AND LABOR LIBRARY.

NOW READY.

No. 41. The Syracuse Platform. 2 pages. No. 42. “First Principles.” Henry George. 4 pages. No. 43. “Socialism—Its Truth and Its Error.” Henry George. 4 pages. No. 46. “Taxing Land Values.” Henry George. 8 pages. No. 47. “It is the Law of Christ.” Rev. S. H. Spencer of Henry, Ill. 4 pages. No. 48. “The Case Plainly Stated.” H. F. Ring. 8 pages. No. 50. “Progress and Poverty.” Henry George. No. 52. “The Case Plainly Stated.” (Swedish.) H. F. Ring. 8 pages. No. 53. “Sailors’ Snug Harbor.” Wm. T. Croasdale. 12 pages.

Prices, free by mail: 2-page tracts—50 copies, 10 cents; 100 copies, 15 cents; 1,000 copies, $1; 5,000 copies, $4.25.

Four-page tracts—25 copies, 10 cents; 100 copies, 25 cents; 1,000 copies, $2; 5,000 copies, $8.50.

Eight-page tracts—25 copies, 20 cents; 100 copies, 50 cents; 1,000 copies, $4; 5,000 copies, $17.

Other numbers in preparation. Address

HENRY GEORGE,

25 Ann street, New York.

p. 8, col. 6

NEW PUBLICATIONS.

[Advertisement] The Land and Labor Library

THE LAND AND LABOR LIBRARY.—We are now publishing under the title of “The Land and Labor Library” a series of short tracts on various phases of the social problem. These pamphlets contain facts, figures and arguments expressed in concise, vigorous language easily understood. As a means of propaganda we recommend them to all who desire to help on the movement for social reform. Those who wish to have these tracts placed where they will do good but who are unable personally to attend to their distribution, can remit the price to us, as we have every facility for sending them where they are needed and will be read.

The following have already appeared:

No. 1. “First Principles.” By Henry George. 4 pages. No. 2. “Land and Taxation.” A conversation between David Dudley Field and Henry George. 4 pages. No. 3. “The Right to the Use of the Earth.” By Herbert Spencer. 4 pages. No. 4. “A Christian Minister on the Remedy for Poverty.” A sermon by the Rev. Hugh O. Pentecost of Newark, N. J. 2 pages. No. 5. “A Sum in Proportion.” By T. L. McCready. [2?] pages. No. 6. “The Settler’s Nightmare.” By Louis F. Post. 4 pages. No. 7. “New York’s Docks: The True Mode of Raising Revenue.” By. J. W. Sullivan^sic. 4 pages. No. 8. “Unemployed Labor.” By Henry George. 4 pages. No. 9. “Voices for Reform.” 2 pages. No. 10. “A Mysterious Disappearance.” By Lewis Freeland. 6 pages. No. 11. “How to Increase Profits.” By A. J. Steers. 2 pages. No. 12. “The American Farmer.” By Henry George. 4 pages. No. 13. “Sailors’ Snug Harbor and the Randall Farm.” By W. T. Croasdale. 12 pages. No. 14. “The Collegiate Church and the Shoemaker’s Field.” By W. T. Croasdale. 12 pages. No. 15. “Only a Dream.” By Abner C. Thomas. 4 pages. No. 16. “The Anti-Poverty Society.” Dr. McGlynn’s address at the first meeting. 8 pages. No. 17. “The Cross of the New Crusade.” A poem. By David Rorty. 2 pages. No. 18. “It is the Law of Christ.” By Rev. S. H. Spencer of Henry, Ill. 4 pages. No. 19. “My Landlord. By John Jones^sic. 4 pages. No. 20.”Thou Shalt Not Steal.” An address by Henry George before the Anti-Poverty Society. 8 pages. No. 21. “Christianity and Poverty.” An address by Father Huntington before the Anti-poverty society. 4 pages. No. 22. “Poverty and Christianity.” An address by Rev. Hugh O. Pentecost before the Anti-poverty society. 8 pages. No. 23. “The Single Tax.” By Thomas G. Shearman. 8 pages. No. 24. “Hymns of the New Crusade”—No. 1. 4 pages No. 25. “Hymns of the New Crusade”—No. 2. 4 pages. No. 26. “Religion vs. Robbery.” Address by Rev. Dr McGlynn before the New York Anti-poverty society June 12, 1887. 8 pages. No. 27. “Back to the Land.” Bishop Nulty’s letter to the clergy and laity of his diocese. 16 pages. Price, 5 cents. No. 28. “Anti-Slavery and Anti-Poverty.” An address by the Rev. Hugh O. Pentecost before the New York Anti-Poverty Society, June 19. 8 pages. No. 29. “Tenement House Morality.” Rev. J. O. S. Huntington in the Forum. 4 pages. No. 30. “The Case Plainly Stated.” A speech by H. F. Ring before the Knights of Labor at Houston, Texas. 8 pages. No. 31. “Questions and Answers.” Questions by Rev. Howard Henderson of the Sixty-first street M. E. church of New York; with answers by Henry George. 2 pages. No. 32. “Objections to the Land Tax.” By Thomas G. Shearman. 4 pages. No. 33. “Socialism—Its Truth and Its Error.” Henry George. 4 pages. No. 34. “Horse Sense.” W. C. Woods. 2 pages. No. 35. The Syracuse Platform. 2 pages. No. 36. “Citycus and Rusticus.” Tudor S. Jenks. 4 pages. No. 37. “Taxing Land Values.” Henry George. 8 pp. No. 38. “God Wills It.” Henry George. 4 pages. No. 39. “What We Want.” Everett Glackin, president Typographical Union No. 6. 2 pages. No. 40. “Protection or Free Trade.” Henry George. Price, 35 cents. No. 41. The Syracuse Platform. (German.) 2 pages. No. 42. “First Principles.” (German.) Henry George 4 pages. No. 43. “Socialism—Its Truth and Its Error. (German^sic.) Henry George. 4 pages. No. 44.”How John’s Father Saw the Light.” W. C. Woods, M. D. 2 pages. 45. Platform^sic of the United Labor Party. 2 pages. No. 46. “Taxing Land Values.” (German.) Henry George. 8 pages. No. 47. “It is the Law of Christ.” (German.) Rev. S. H. Spencer. 4 pages. No. 48. “The Case Plainly Stated.” (German). H. F. Ring. 8 pages. No. 49. “The Distribution of Wealth.” Thomas G. Shearman. 16 pages. No. 50. “Progress and Poverty.” (German.) Henry George. No. 51. “Ten Thoughts for Christian Thinkers.” Rev. John W. Kramer. 4 pages. No. 52. “The Case Plainly Stated.” (Swedish). H. F. Ring. 8 pages. No. 53. “Sailors’ Snug Harbor.” (German.) Wm. T. Croasdale. 12 pages. No. 54. “What the United Labor Party Want.” Henry George. 2 pages. No. 55. “Stories for Farmers.” 4 pages. No. 56. “Electoral Reform.” A. T. Rice. 4 pages. No. 57. “Protection as a Universal Need.” Henr George^sic. 4 pages. No. 58. “To a College Professor.” Bartholomew Appleby. 4 pages. No. 59. “Before a Royal Commission.” W. A. Douglass. 4 pages. No. 60. “The Tariff Question.” Henry George. 4 pages. No. 61, “A Practical Illustration.” Hugh B. Brown. 2 pages. No. 62. “Progress and Poverty.” Henry George. Price, 35 cents. No. 63, “American Protection and British Free Trade.” Henry George. 4 pages. No. 64. “Hints as to What You Can Do.” Henry George. 4 pages. No. 65. “To a Bookkeeper.” Rartholomew^sic Appleby. 2 pages.

Prices, free by mail: 2-page tracts—50 copies, 10 cents; 100 copies, 15 cents; 1,000 copies, $1; 5,000 copies, $4.25.

Four-page tracts—25 copies, 10 cents; 100 copies, 25 cents; 1,000 copies, $2; 5,000 copies, $8.50.

Six-page tracts—25 copies, 15 cents; 100 copies, 37 cents; 1,000 copies, $3; 5,000 copies, $12.75.

Eight-page tracts—25 copies, 20 cents; 100 copies 50 cents; 1,000 copies, $4; 5,000 copies, $17.

Twelve-page tract—25 copies, 30 cents; 100 copies, 75 cents; 1,000 copies, $6; 5,000 copies, $22.50.

Sixteen-page tracts—25 copies, 40 cents; 100 copies, $1; 1,000 copies, $8; 5,000 copies, $34.

Other numbers in preparation.

Address HENRY GEORGE,

25 Ann st., New York City.

[Advertisement] The Democrat

THE DEMOCRAT.

A RADICAL REVIEW MONTHLY.

The Democrat advocates Land Resumption and those eforms^sic which are necessary to make the English people a free people. It asks “compensation” not for those who have benefited by unjust legislation, but for those who have suffered thereby.

For one dollar the Democrat is supplied for [18?] months to any address in the United States or Canada.

Address 5 New Bridge street, London, E. C.

===

[Advertisement] United Labor Party

UNITED LABOR PARTY—Citizens of t[he] following named states who indorse the pr[inci]ples of the United Labor Party and desire to lend [ac]tive aid in the movement, are requested to comm[u]nicate with the State Organizers of their respectiv[e] states, as follows:

California—Judge James G. Maguire, San Francisco. Connecticut—Robert Pyne, 284 Asylum st., Hartford. Eastern Pennsylvania—Henry George club, box 190, Philadelphia. Indiana—Warren Worth Bailey, Vincennes. Kentucky—Land and Labor Club No. 1, box 406, Cincinnati. Louisiana—Jere. J. Sullivan, 705 Fulton street, New Orleans. Massachusetts (Berkshire county)—F. Harvey Lincoln, box 115, Zylonite. Maryland—T. H. Garside, 1507 West Lexington street, Baltimore. Minnesota—Central Committee, United Labor Party, 42 Third st. south, Minneapolis. New York—John McMackin, 28 Cooper Union, New York city. Ohio—Land and Labor Club No. 1, box 99, Cincinnati. South Carolina—Benjamin Adams, Charleston. West Tennessee, Eastern Arkansas and Northern Mississippi—Land and Labor Club No. 2. Rooms, 9 and 10, Cotton Exchange, Memphis, Tenn.

[Advertisement] Illinois

ILLINOIS.—Readers of the “Standard” in the state of Illinois, and all others interested in the great principles it advocates, are requested to send names and addresses to W. H. Van Ornum, president of land and labor club No. 1, Room 65, 170 Madison street, Chicago, with a view to effecting some plan of organization for the state. Persons in Chicago not already members of land and labor clubs, as well as secretaries of such organizations, are especially requested t[o] write.

[Advertisement] All Readers of The Standard (First Assembly District, Albany)

ALL READERS OF THE STANDARD IN favor of a united labor party in the First assembly district, composing the First, Second, Third, Fourth and Fifteenth wards, also the counties and towns included in the district will please send their names and addresses to the undersigned, for the purpose of organizing the district thoroughly. JOS. H. ROSHIRT, President First assembly district, united labor party, 22 Third avenue, Albany, N. Y.

[Advertisement] 23rd Assembly District

23RD ASSEMBLY DISTRICT MEETS every Monday evening. German speaking members every Tuesday evening at Vincent hall, 1[illegible] Third avenue, corner 105th street. Open every evenin[g] for enrollment of members. Thursday and Saturda[y] evenings free debates of the Progress and Poverty clu[b.]

[Advertisement] Voters of Maryland

VOTERS OF MARYLAND WHO AR[E] desirous to aid in propagating the principles [of] the united labor party, as set forth in the New Yor[k] platform, adopted at Syracuse, Aug. 19 are requeste[d] to send their names and addresses to

JOHN SALMON,

[415?] N. Eutaw st., Baltimore, Md.