February 18, 1888 Vol. III, No. 7Whole No. 59

THE STANDARD

HENRY GEORGE, EDITOR AND PROPRIETOR.

NO. [stamp obscures] VOL. III, NO. 7. | NEW YORK, SATURDAY, FEBRUARY 18, 1888. | PRICE FIVE CENTS

[A diagonal subscriber’s address stamp, not part of the printed page, is set over the top of column 1 and obscures part of the dateline and the first headline: “Dr Walter / Mendelson 10[?] / 209 W. 40th St”. Pencil notes, also not printed, appear above the nameplate at the left.]

p. 1, col. 1

QUERIES AND ANSWERS.

ANTI-POVERTY SOCIETY.

A SERIOUS CRISIS.

Comments of the Press.

Dr. McGlynn objects to a despot in Russia, but he doesn’t at all object to a despot in the Anti-poverty society, provided he can be the despot. After all there is a good deal of human nature in most men.—[Tribune.

The good Dr. McGlynn is showing himself to be “no slouch” of a politician.—[World.

Whether any one will blame the doctor depends upon whether he regards him as an inspired saint or as a straightforward example of human nature. Those who have thought of him in the latter light will not be surprised at the facility with which Mr. George’s followers were left. Probably Dr. McGlynn himself would say that the view of these latter observers was correct.—[Sun.

Politicians, as we have often said, are, as a rule, honorable and fair in their transactions; but when novices undertake to reform the world by the propagation of cretchets^sic through the action of volunteer committees, they are very apt to find themselves descending to methods that the educated self-control and well defined rules ot^sic established political organizations preclude. This has proved no less true of various ephemeral “citizen” associations during recent years that it now does of the “anti-poverty” experiment.—[Star.

Two Members of the Executive Committee Resign.

Rev. John Anketell writes as follows:

NEW YORK, Feb. 14.—I have just mailed to the secretary my resignation as the chairman central branch and member of the executive committee anti-poverty society.

J. ANKETELL.

Mr. Charles F. Wingate also informs THE STANDARD that he has sent to the president a brief but emphatic resignation from the executive committee.

HOW IT ALL BEGAN.

Last week an attack, manifestly prearranged, was made on Henry George with a view to making effective here in New York a campaign of slander that has been actively carried on by mail for some months. The reports appearing in the city papers are here reprinted in order to afford our readers throughout the world the fullest knowledge of the series of events that culminated in the rupture in the executive committee of the anti-poverty society on Monday evening.

The Text That Dr. McGlynn Garbled.

In order that our readers may judge of the fairness of Dr. McGlynn’s assertion that Mr. George declared in “Protection or Free Trade?” that free trade is of comparatively little importance the full text of the passage alluded to is here given:

To abolish private property in land is an undertaking so great that it may at first seem impracticable.

But this seeming impracticability consists merely in the fact that the public mind is not yet sufficiently awakened to the justice and necessity of this great change. To bring it about is simply a work of arousing thought. How men vote is something we need not much concern ourselves with. The important thing is how they think.

Now the chief agency in promoting thought is discussion. And to secure the most general and most effective discussion of a principle it must be embodied in concrete form and presented in practical politics, so that men, being called to vote on it, shall be forced to think and talk about it.

The advocates of a great principle should know no thought of compromise. They should proclaim it in its fullness, and point to its complete attainment as their goal. But the zeal of the propagandist needs to be supplemented by the skill of the politician. While the one need not fear to arouse opposition, the other should seek to minimize resistance. The political art, like the military art, consists in massing the greatest force against the point of least resistance; and, to bring a principle most quickly and effectively into practical politics, the measure which presents it should be so moderate as (while involving the principle) to secure the largest support and excite the least resistance. For whether the first step be long or short is of little consequence. When a start is once made in a right direction, progress is a mere matter of keeping on.

It is in this way that great questions always enter the phase of political action. Important political battles begin with affairs of outposts, in themselves of little moment, and are generally decided upon issue joined not on the main question, but on some minor or collateral question. Thus the slavery question in the United States came into practical politics upon the issue of the extension of slavery to new territory, and was decisively settled upon the issue of secession. Regarded as an end, the abolitionist might well have looked with contempt on the proposals of the republicans, but these proposals were the means of bringing to realization what the abolitionists would in vain have sought to accomplish directly.

So with the tariff question. Whether we have a protective tariff or a revenue tariff is in itself of small importance, for, though the abolition of protection would increase production, the tendency to unequal distribution would be unaffected and would soon neutralize the gain. Yet, what is thus unimportant as an end, is all-important as a means. Protection is a little robber, it is true; but it is the sentinel and outpost of the great robber—the little robber who cannot be routed without carrying the struggle into the very stronghold of the great robber. The great robber is so well intrenched, and people have so long been used to his exactions, that it is hard to arouse them to assail him directly. But to help those engaged in a conflict with this little robber will be to open the easiest way to attack his master, and to arouse a spirit that must push on.

To secure to all the free use of the power to labor and the full enjoyment of its products, equal rights to land must be secured.

To secure equal rights to land there is in this stage of civilization but one way. Such measures as peasant proprietary, or “land limitation,” or the reservation to actual settlers of what is left of the public domain, do not tend toward it; they lead away from it. They can affect only a comparatively unimportant class, and that temporarily, while their outcome is not to weaken land ownership but rather to strengthen it, by interesting a larger number in its maintenance. The only way to abolish private property in land is by the way of taxation. That way is clear and straightforward. It consists simply in abolishing, one after another, all imposts that are in their nature really taxes, and resorting for public revenues to economic rent, or ground value. To the full freeing of land, and the complete emancipation of labor, it is, of course, necessary that the whole of this value should be taken for the common benefit; but that will inevitably follow the

p. 3, col. 5 > decision to collect from this source the revenues now needed, or even any considerable part of them, just as the entrance of a victorious army into a city follows the rout of the army that defended it. > > In the United States the most direct way of moving on property in land is through local taxation, since that is already to some extent levied upon land values. And that is doubtless the way in which the final and decisive advance will be made. But national politics dominate state politics, and a question can be brought into discussion much more quickly and thoroughly as a national than as a local question. > > Now to bring an issue into politics it is not necessary to form a party. Parties are not to be manufactured; they grow out of existing parties by the bringing forward of issues upon which men will divide. We have, ready to our hand, in the tariff question, a means of bringing the whole subject of taxation, and, through it, the whole social question, into the fullest discussion. > > As we have seen in the inquiry through which we have passed, the tariff question necessarily opens the whole social question. Any discussion of it to-day must go further and deeper than the anti-corn law agitation in Great Britain, or than the tariff controversies of whigs and democrats, for the progress of thought and the march of invention have made the distribution of wealth the burning question of our times. The making of the tariff question a national political issue must now mean the discussion in every newspaper, on every stump, and at every cross roads where two men meet, of questions of work and wages, of capital and labor, of the incidence of taxation, of the nature and rights of property, and of the question to which all these questions lead—the question of the relation of men to the planet on which they live. In this way more can be accomplished for popular economic education in a year than could otherwise be accomplished in decades. > > Therefore it is that I would urge earnest men who aim at the emancipation of labor and the establishment of social justice, to throw themselves into the free trade movement with might and main, and to force the tariff question to the front. It is not merely that the free trade side of the tariff controversy best consorts with the interest of labor; it is not merely that until workingmen get over thinking of labor as a poor thing that needs to be “protected,” and of work as a dole from gracious capitalists or paternal government, they cannot rise to a sense of their rights; but it is that the movement for free trade is in reality the van of the struggle for the emancipation of labor. This is the way the bull must go to untwist his rope. It makes no difference how timorously the issue against protection is now presented; it is still the thin end of the wedge. It makes no difference how little we can hope at once to do; social progress is by steps, and the step to which we should address ourselves is always the next step. > > Nor does it matter that those now active in the free trade movement have no sympathy with our aims; nor that they denounce and misrepresent us. It is our policy to support them, and strengthen them and urge them on. No matter how soon they may propose to stop, the direction they wish to take is the direction in which we must go if we would reach our goal. In joining our forces to theirs we shall not be putting ourselves to their use; we shall be making use of them. But these men themselves, when fairly started and borne on by the impulse of controversy, will go further than they now dream. It is the law of all such movements that they must become more and more radical. . . . > > Thus it is that when men take up the principle of freedom they are led on and on, and that the hearty advocacy of freedom to trade becomes at length the advocacy of freedom to labor. And so must it be in the United States. Once the tariff question becomes a national issue, and in the struggle against protection, free traders will be forced to attack indirect taxation. Protection is so well intrenched that before a revenue tariff can be secured the active spirits of the free trade party will have far passed the point when that would satisfy them; while before the abolition of indirect taxation is reached, the incidence of taxation and the nature and effect of private property in land will have been so well discussed that the rest will be but a matter of time.

An Echo at St. Stephen’s.

The regular weekly meeting of St. Stephen’s parishioners was held at International hall on Friday evening of last week. The meeting was opened with singing by Miss Munier and part of her chorus, after which Secretary Rorty read a set of resolutions expressing the determination of the parishioners to cease holding any more meetings. This was in conformity with Dr. McGlynn’s request. The resolutions were carried unanimously.

Mr. Caffrey of Greenpoint then spoke of the affection they all had for Dr. McGlynn and said that although the Friday night meetings were stopped, yet he knew they would still continue to hold some kind of an organization. This was received with great applause. Referring to the anti-poverty movement he said: “You have seen there has been trouble in the ranks last week. There has been uneasiness. There is uneasiness in the minds of some who are too anxious for power (applause), some who don’t fully understand the principles and the movement. (Applause.) But you are the representatives of one who, I believe, sees the goal and knows how to get there.” (Applause.)

Mr. McDermott, one of the members of the parish, then made a short and effective speech on the case of Dr. McGlynn. He also touched on the questions which are uppermost in the minds of the members of the united labor party and the anti-poverty society, saying at one point, “I will do all I can to injure the democratic interests, and no one can carry me back to the democratic party on the tail of free trade.” (Applause.)

Mr. George Smith followed Mr. McDermott, and confined himself almost exclusively to the question of ecclesiastical tyranny. Previous to his speech, Mr. W. T. Croasdale, who had entered the hall, took a seat on the platform at the request of Chairman Feeny. In response to calls from the audience, Mr. Feeny then introduced Mr. Croasdale, who spoke of the devotion of the parishioners to Dr. McGlynn. He then said: “I had no intention of making a speech here to-night, but accidentally happening in here, and hearing two of the speeches, I should be false to myself if I did not say that I regret exceedingly that the influences around him have led Dr. McGlynn to make the ctatement^sic he made the other night. I regret that any influences should have been exercised that led one of our principal leaders to separate from the other.

Dr. Coughlin was the next speaker. He spoke substantially as follows:

“Follow the doctor, no matter what he tells you to do; no matter what man stands in the way. (Applause.) The doctor sees the present

p. 3, col. 6 emergency clearer than any other member of the united labor party. (Applause.)

“Any man who really believes in the doctrines of the anti-poverty society cannot have the movement turned back. Why, it is so powerful that it seizes every member of his body and every fiber of his soul. What! are we to stop when the politicians are praying that our party should be divided? Were Henry George to direct the party; were Dr. McGlynn, even as an individual, to direct the principles, the principles would remain. As long as Mr. George and Dr. McGlynn advocate the grand and noble truth that God gave the earth to mankind, so long will we follow both of them. (Applause.) But there is no moving backward, only onward and forward, on the part of men who believe in principles and are ready to stand up for them.

“Let me tell you, ladies and gentlemen, there is no man who can lead Dr. McGlynn. (Applause.) It may seem as though this gentleman led him or that gentleman led him, but when the emergency comes Dr. McGlynn thinks for himself. (Applause.)

“Dr. McGlynn has made sacrifices that no other man in the anti-poverty society or the party has made. Then let us follow him. He is after good men for the anti-poverty society; men who will not sacrifice the anti-poverty society for themselves. (Great applause.) You know we have been organizing branches of the anti-poverty society in this city; we organized one down town last night. Now you have in this part of the city hundreds and hundreds of noble hearted men and women. You can organize here a great association. You can form here a branch of the anti-poverty society. (Applause.) Then the doctor can come to speak to you, whereas, he could not very well come to your parishioners meetings.

“Our doctrines are simple and easily understood. I learned the land question from the lips of men who did not know how to read. But there are other economic questions, such as the tariff question and the money question, which are complex and hard to understand.”

Here the speaker gave an explanation of the rights of all to land and the taking of ground rents for public uses. Then he said:

“Do not hiss the name of any one who may be with us in great part. They will all be with us by and by. A year or two hence they will run and try to catch up with us.

“I may have my own opinions on many matters, but when I find a person who knows more than I do, and he says, ‘This is right; do this,’ I take his advice. No matter what anyone else says, do what Dr. McGlynn advises you to, and in doing that you will do what is right.”

The chairman then made a few remarks, and adjourned the meeting sine die.

The Dr. McGlynn Fund.

The publisher of THE STANDARD acknowledges the receipt of $2 from ’ammer, ’ammer, ’hammer for the Dr. McGlynn fund.

True, Every Word.

NEW YORK.—The Eleventh assembly district organization of the united labor party has adopted the following resolution:

Resolved, That it is the sense of this assembly district that opinions expressed by any member of this party in advance of the general consent and indorsement of the party are mere individual utterances.

Resolved, That our movement should be freed from the appearance of favoring partial tax reform as well as a seeming conflict with ecclesiastical authority.

Resolved, That no one man or dozen men can ever be greater than the whole party.

J. T. DARLING, Secretary.

The Canton, Ohio, Anti-Poverty Society.

CANTON, Ohio.—It may interest your readers to know that the application for a charter for the anti-poverty society of this city contains eighteen names. A majority of the applicants are mechanics, with two school teachers and one painter. Some of the ladies are very proficient musicians.

I should like to give my ideal of an anti-poverty certificate of membership. It should be the work of an artist who has seen the cat, and would show, in sharp contrast, the evils of poverty and the blessings that may be hoped for from the adoption of the single tax. A picture of Brown’s meadow before and after the marble deal, or some equally striking object lesson would be a good idea.

A. E. KNISELY.

Anti-Poverty in Cincinnati.

CINCINNATI, O.—The meeting of the Cincinnati anti-poverty society on February 12 was devoted to volunteer recitals of experience by those present. R. W. Harrison was in the chair and the “experiences” limited to five minutes each and ranging from “grave to gay, from lively to severe,” proved very entertaining. One of the best was by Mr. H. M. Smith; and Dr. A. S. Houghton’s “How I Saw the Cat” was a masterly argument for free land and free trade. His figure of the actual state of things in the Gogebic region are an up and down showing fairly precipitous in its emphasis of the need of reform.

CHARLES H. FITCH, Secretary.

Henry George’s Lecture Tour.

Henry George is at present absent from New York on a western lecture tour. On Monday, Feb. 13, he spoke before the State university at Bloomington, Ind., and on Tuesday addressed the Normal school at Terre Haute, where he was listened to by a large and intelligent audience. His further engagements are: Wednesday, Feb. 15, Depaw university, Greenville, Ind^sic.; Thursday, Evansville, Ind.; Friday, Indianapolis; Monday, Feb. 20, Dayton, Ohio.

A Conference Wanted.

HARTFORD, Feb. 13.—At a meeting of the Hartford land and labor club on Sunday, Feb. 12, it was unanimously—

Resolved, That in the opinion of this club no national convention of the united labor party should be called until there has been a conference of the party to discuss the advisability of running a national ticket.

E. R. CLYMA^sic,, President.

Perhaps the Goose May be Learning Better

Brooklyn Citizen.

Turgot said a wise as well as a witty thing when he called taxation “the art of plucking the goose without making it cry,” for nothing is more certain than that in the popular mind the form of a tax counts for as much as the substance. The whole system of indirect taxation is maintained for no better reason than that the average man would rather part with two dollars in driblets than with one at a single operation. It may be laid down as an incontrovertible proposition that the typical American citizen is so far from being a severe economist that he protests against having his account with the government take a personal form. His irreconcilable opposition to an income tax is a conclusive proof of this. No man on earth can know better than he that all the taxes must come out of the earnings of the people; yet rather than brace himself up to the effort of settling with Uncle Sam once a year, he consents to the maintenance of a system which not only breeds dishonesty and hampers trade in a thousand directions, but may be said to double his burdens.

THE STANDARD.

HENRY GEORGE, Editor and Proprietor.

Published weekly at

[25?] ANN STREET, NEW YORK.

TERMS, POSTAGE FREE.

One year, $2.50; six months, $1.25; single copies, 5 cents.

Entered at the postoffice, New York, as second class matter.

Communications and contributions are invited, and will be attentively considered. Manuscripts not found suitable for publication will be returned if sufficient stamps are sent for return postage. No notice will be taken of anonymous communications.

Contributions and letters on editorial matters should be addressed to THE EDITOR OF THE STANDARD, and all communications on business to the PUBLISHER OF THE STANDARD.

THE STANDARD wants an agent to secure subscribers at every postoffice in the United States, to whom liberal terms will be given.

THE STANDARD is for sale by newsdealers throughout the United States. Persons who may be unable to obtain it will confer a favor on the publisher by notifying him promptly.

Sample copies sent free on application.

SATURDAY, FEBRUARY 18, 1888.

THE STANDARD is forwarded to subscribers by the early morning mails each Thursday. Subscribers who do not receive the paper promptly will confer a favor by communicating with the publisher.

PLATFORM OF THE UNITED LABOR PARTY.

THE UNVARNISHED TRUTH.

Recent evidences of differences between prominent members of the united labor party in this city have caused general regret among friends of the movement everywhere and profound sorrow to many of those immediately concerned. A desire to avoid an open rupture has caused many warmly devoted to the principles of the party to maintain silence, even under misrepresentation and abuse. The time has come, however, when the interests of the cause demand that the truth shall be plainly told.

In order to understand the situation we must go back to the early days of the party in this city. The organization accepted its defeat in 1886 as a great moral victory. It held a mass meeting to celebrate that victory in Cooper union on November 6. At that jubilee meeting it was resolved that steps should immediately be taken to begin the formation of a national party to represent the principles of the Clarendon hall platform. A resolution was adopted by acclamation

p. 4, col. 2 appointing John McMackin, Rev. Edward McGlynn, D.D., and Professor David B. Scott a central committee for the purpose. This committee organized with Dr. McGlynn as chairman and it employed Gaybert Barnes as secretary and established itself at No. 28 Cooper union. Professor Scott withdrew from the committee.

Mr. Barnes devised a scheme of organizing land and labor clubs throughout the country, and thought that a charge of $5 for a charter followed by a small per capita tax on the members would bring in a fund that would meet the expenses of the committee. This hope was not realized, and it has long been an open secret that the expenses of room 28 have been met out of the pocket of Dr. McGlynn, aided by the receipts of such lectures as he has delivered for pay. This central committee had no jurisdiction over the united labor party in New York city, and drew its only authority from the mass meeting held after the election in 1886. Nevertheless, some members of the county committee of the united labor party claimed the right to exercise some measure of supervision over the committee, and a formidable movement to attack Mr. Barnes was threatened by A. A. Levey, esq., and others in the county committee early in 1887. Mr. McMackin, who was also chairman of that committee, sat down on this effectively by refusing to recognize the member who proposed making the motion. After the withdrawal of Professor Scott, James Redpath was chosen by the other members to fill the vacancy, but he has been an invalid ever since his appointment and his attendance at its meetings has always been irregular. Practically the committee consisted of Dr. McGlynn, John McMackin and last, but by no means least, Gaybert Barnes. These gentlemen considered it astonishing impudence on the part of the united labor party of New York city to make any attempt to inquire into their affairs, since that party contributed nothing to the support of this “land and labor committee.”

When the time came for calling a state convention the county committees of New York and Kings invited the land and labor committee to join with them in the call, and agreed with it as to the representation in the convention of the land and labor clubs it had organized in the state of New York. The socialists, after they were ousted, complained that this committee had used its authority to pack the convention against them, but an examination of tne^sic votes will show that they got more support from those brought into the convention by this committee than they received from New York and Brooklyn.

The convention met at Syracuse on Aug. 17, 1887, and remained in session three days. It adopted the present platform of the party and nominated a full state ticket, headed by Henry George for secretary of state. Mr. George strenuously objected to becoming a candidate, and Dr. McGlynn insisted that it was his duty to accept. Finally, yielding to the unanimous demand of the convention, Mr. George accepted, and, Dr. McGlynn being loudly called for, mounted the platform and said:

I am not here to congratulate our leader, our teacher and our apostle upon the unanimous nomination by this convention for the highest office for which the people of this state are to vote in the coming election. It is no matter of congratulation with Mr. George except in the sense in which we might congratulate a martyr whom we had seen going smiling on, tenacious of his purpose, to the stake or to the block. (Applause.) I think I know the man whom you in placing in nomination have thereby exceedingly honored yourselves. I think I know him as well as any other man knows him, and I know that there is no selfish spot in that heart of his. (Applause.) I know that if it ever were true of a man it is true of him, that whatsoever office man could hold in this world, if he shall ever hold it, the office will have to seek him.

Among the resolutions adopted by the convention, but forming no part of the platform, was the following:

Whereas, At a conference of members of the united labor party of the states of Ohio and Indiana, held in Cincinnati on July 4, resolutions were adopted urging the central land and labor committee to take steps for calling a national conference; therefore, be it

Resolved, That, in view of the near approach of the national contest, this convention joins with our brethren of the west in requesting the chairman of our state committee to co-operate with the land and labor committee to issue a call for a national conference of such organizations of citizens of other states as may be disposed to act with the united labor party of New York, in forming a great national party.

In the course of the proceedings a communication was received from a committee representing the union labor party asking a conference. It was received with a storm of hisses and laid on the table without reading, and it was with great difficulty that this motion was reconsidered. The communication was then read and the chairman of the convention, John McMackin, was directed to return it to those from whom it emanated with the information that the united labor party refused to treat with them.

Before adjournment the convention elected a state committee. After the convention adjourned this committee met and elected J. H. Blakeney chairman and Gaybert Barnes secretary. At the same time it chose an executive committee consisting of Dr. Edward McGlynn, John McMackin and Hugh Whorisky of New York, and Victor A. Wilder and Gaybert Barnes of Brooklyn, and since that time the state committee has held but one meeting.

The executive committee organized by electing Dr. McGlynn chairman and treasurer and Gaybert Barnes secretary, and it established its headquarters at room 28 Cooper union, hiring the adjoining room during the campaign for clerks. This committee managed the canvass of 1887. It will be noted that Dr. McGlynn, John McMackin and Gaybert Barnes, who practically constitute the land and labor committee, also constitute a majority of the

p. 4, col. 3 executive committee. There was much grumbling about the close corporation character of the party’s management and at the failure of those concerned to consult with any other members of the party. Henry George, though the head of the ticket, was not consulted as to the management of the campaign, and the state committee was ignored.

Some time after the disastrous defeat of last year a correspondence began in the columns of THE STANDARD as to the expediency of entering the national canvass. At about the same time Henry George delivered in the Academy of Music, at the joint invitation of the Seventh assembly district and the executive committee of the anti-poverty society, an address on the president’s tariff message. Mr. George warmly commended this message as a step, however short, in the right direction. Dr. McGlynn was present and made a few remarks commendatory of Mr. George’s speech. Up to that time there was little thought apparently of a national ticket, and Dr. McGlynn was strongly in favor of changing the name of the party.

Suddenly there was a change of sentiment in room 28, and Mr. Barnes began to openly lament that the labor party was cursed with such leadership as that of Henry George, notwithstanding the fact that Mr. George had for a long time been excluded from all share in the management of the party. There were strong hints that Mr. George was going over to the democrats. The great importance of retaining the word “labor” in the party’s name was urged, and any declaration for or against free trade in a national platform was deprecated. At last, a few weeks ago, Mr. George, after a previous talk with Dr. McGlynn, was invited to come to room 28 and bring some friends with him. He invited Louis F. Post, James W. Sullivan and Wm. T. Croasdale to accompany him, and Dr. McGlynn, John McMackin and Gaybert Barnes were found there. An informal conversation followed. There was no objection made by any one present to the calling of the national conference provided for by the Syracuse resolutions. There was comparatively little talk as to the expediency of nominating a national ticket, though that subject was considered. The main discussion was as to the propriety or possibility of making a national platform without some declaration on the subject of the tariff. Finally, Dr. McGlynn asked Mr. George if he would not be satisfied with the Syracuse platform in a national canvas^sic. Mr. George said he would not without the addition of a plank relating to the tariff, which nothing could now stop from becoming a national issue. This is the remark which Mr. Barnes has since perverted in his declaration that Mr. George had said to him that he would not support a candidate running on the united labor platform.

The discussion was inconclusive, and finally Mr. Post asked Mr. Barnes what they proposed to do. Mr. Barnes replied that they would go right on and call a convention and nominate a ticket. Mr. Post asked where that would leave those who had not yet made up their minds as to the expediency of nominating a ticket. Mr. Barnes replied that they would be left out, that no one opposed to the object of the convention “had” any business in it. This proposal to leave out Messrs. George, Post and others on the mere dictum of three men in room 28 excited the ire of Mr. Croasdale, and he told them that they had no right or authority to take such action. The Syracuse resolution provided for calling a conference, not a convention, and the representatives of the party from all parts of the country must attend that conference and decide for themselves as to whether a convention should be held, and it was not in the power of those gathered in that room to decide such an important question in advance.

Mr. Barnes and Dr. McGlynn objected to the great expense of two national gatherings, and Mr. Post said there need not be two. If the conference decided on nominations it could turn itself into a convention and nominate candidates. The question of expense being thus brought up, the talk turned in that direction, and Mr. Barnes remarked that it would only be necessary to make a vigorous campaign in those states that were “anybody’s states.” On being asked to name them, he replied Connecticut, New York, New Jersey and Indiana. The remark was then made by some one that that would be obviously a campaign in aid of the republican party. Mr. Barnes did not deny this, but declared that it was necessary to our cause that the republican party should win. If the democratic party wins this year, he said, it would remain in power for twenty years, and it would be useless to propose any reform. Dr. McGlynn followed with the declaration that the democratic party was so thoroughly identified with the Roman Catholic machine that its defeat was imperatively necessary. Mr. George and his friends then withdrew.

Since that time systematic inspired attacks have been made on Mr. George. Again, proposals have been put forth tentatively to make a union with the union labor party and even with the socialists. A party believing nothing in particular is wanted to hold the balance of power in certain states, for the unconcealed purpose of electing the republican candidate for the presidency. Yet Henry George is denounced, first secretly, and then openly, for trying to sidetrack the issue that he taught these very people and for seeking to deliver the united labor party to the democrats. He has talked out openly in the columns of THE STANDARD, inviting a free discussion of the matter,

p. 4, col. 4 while those denouncing him have plotted in secret. He has never proposed that the united labor party shall indorse or assist the democratic candidates, while his accusers have deliberately planned to run it in the interest of the republicans. Hoping the foolish scheme originated by Secretary-General Barnes would fall through, Mr. George has silently submitted to secret misrepresentation rather than take the initiative in provoking a rupture that every friend of the principles enunciated in the Syracuse platform will deplore. Now that the open charge has come, Mr. George is bound to speak, and in justice to him and to the cause that he above all others represents, the truth must be told.

Let the hasty and ill-informed who are swift to judge without knowledge ask themselves a few questions.

Have any three men, however good and great, the right to sit in room 28, Cooper Union, and, without advice or consultation with others, to speak and act for the united labor party of this city and state?

Have those three men under the terms of the Syracuse resolution the power to decide the momentous question of nomination or no nomination for the whole country?

Have those three men any right to refuse to speedily call a conference to settle just such questions?

Remembering the treatment of the socialists and union labor men at Syracuse, would it not be a usurpation of power without parallel for these three men to attempt to join the united labor party with those organizations in a national convention?

Is it not sidetracking the united labor party and all that it represents to deliberately plot its ruin forever by making it play the Ben Butler farce of ’84 in the coming campaign?

Let honest men who have sense as well as enthusiasm stop their paroxysmal howl about the importance of maintaining a great principle by a national canvass long enough to think over these questions and calmly answer them, and then they may begin to see that the man who taught them the land doctrine, and who was so recently saluted by Dr. McGlynn as “our leader, our teacher and our apostle,” in whose heart “there is no selfish spot,” has again been “going smiling on, tenacious of his purpose,” though wounded in his tenderest affections, seeking, without scandal, to save the party he has twice led from going down in everlasting infamy amidst the jeering ridicule that overwhelmed the Butler fiasco four years ago.

Let our friends throughout the country remember this: Mr. George and his friends have never for a moment opposed the calling of a conference of representative men to decide the question of the nomination and all other questions, but they have insisted that no three or more men in this city shall decide so important a question. They have never advocated any alliance with the democratic party, but they have resisted a deliberate conspiracy to make the united labor party the catspaw of the republican party in the coming canvass, conducting a campaign that must be carried on with republican money, if at all. They share Dr. McGlynn’s resentment against the shameful alliance between the democratic and ecclesiastical machines in this city, but even this is not sufficient to make them assistant republicans for the sake of putting some such man as Chauncey Depew in the White house, and still further confirming foolish workingmen in the high tariff delusion, which has kept so many of them from seeing the true cause of the evils that beset them. Mr. George and his friends want the party held together on local lines, leaving its members individually free in the national contest; and, knowing all they do, they believe that thus, and thus only, can corrupt alliances with one or the other of the two old parties be prevented.

WM. T. CROASDALE,

LOUIS F. POST,

J. W. SULLIVAN.

THE ANTI-POVERTY SOCIETY.

There are certain matters connected with the formation and history of the Anti-poverty society regarding which it seems to me desirable that the readers of THE STANDARD should be informed.

After Dr. McGlynn had been expelled from the pastorate of St. Stephen’s in January, 1887, and while he was still confined to his house by the illness which followed that expulsion, it occurred to me that the doctor’s announced purpose to devote his life to the furtherance of the cause of industrial emancipation would be largely aided if there could be organized a society devoted to the advocacy of the religious principle involved in the doctrine of the single tax—the principle of the fatherhood of God and brotherhood of man—as distinguished from the purely economic principle. Having sufficiently matured my ideas I submitted them first to Henry George and Louis F. Post, and next to Dr. McGlynn, and finally, on March [26?], to a meeting of a few gentlemen at the office of THE STANDARD. The result was the formation of the Anti-poverty sodety, the name being of my selection.

Between the organizing meeting on March 26 and the first public meeting at Chickeing^sic hall on May 1, weekly meetings of the society were held, at which plans of action were discussed. Although none of us anticipated the marvelous success which the society actually achieved, we all felt confidence in its future, and were anxious to surround it with safeguards which might prevent its being “sidetracked” from its original purpose.

Dr. McGlynn, who had been chosen

p. 4, col. 5 president of the society, pointed out to us that as soon as the society should commence its public career there would be an immediate influx of members from St. Stephen’s parish. He desired above all things to avoid doing anything that might look like the founding of a new church, and to be assured that the society would do nothing which might further complicate his already very complicated relations with the Roman Catholic church. It was felt by the members of the society that if the election of the executive committee were left to the society, the zeal of the new members from St. Stephen’s might outrun their discretion, with the effect of placing Dr. McGlynn in an embarrassing position. It was decided, therefore, that the executive committee should be appointed by the president, and a provision to that effect was inserted in the constitution. Dr. McGlynn thoroughly understood that this was done, not for the purpose of clothing him with despotic, irresponsible power, which I, for one, should never have thought of assisting in doing, but simply to afford him a reasonable security against being forced into a false position. In the appointment of the original executive committee, and in subsequent appointments for months following, Dr. McGlynn consulted the members of the society and appointed on their nomination. The only nominations which in the early days of the society he declined to ratify were those of members of St. Stephen’s parish.

I was appointed chairman of the executive committee, and in that capacity had frequent consultations with Dr. McGlynn in regard to the affairs of the society. When the first meeting at Chickering hall was followed by a wave of enthusiasm sweeping over the whole country, and it became evident that the society had a magnificent future before it, it was suggested to me by several members of the executive committee that the committee might very properly be enlarged, and especially that it would be improved by adding to it several of the ladies who in New York and elsewhere were giving evidence of their devotion to the cause. I communicated this suggestion to Dr. McGlynn, first privately, and afterward at a meeting of the committee. On both occasions he approved of the idea, and at the committee meeting where it was mentioned he promptly appointed three ladies as members of the committee, and requested that the committee would consider and suggest other names.

None of the ladies so appointed ever appeared at a committee meeting. When several weeks had passed without their appearance, I inquired of the secretary, Michael Clarke, if they had been duly notified, and was informed that the doctor had rescinded their appointments, and decided to place no women upon the committee.

I called upon Dr. McGlynn for an explanation at the earliest possible moment, meeting him by appointment in the hallway of Cooper union, after the close of a meeting which he had been addressing.

To my astonishment Dr. McGlynn denounced women in general as chatterboxes, “who were always shooting off their mouths,” and as unfit for such positions; and in particular he spoke abusively of one of the women whom he himself had appointed, urging as a crowning reason for rescinding her appointment, that her husband had spoken disrespectfully of Mr. Gaybert Barnes.

I ought perhaps to have brought matters to a head at once by making a statement to the executive committee and demanding that action be taken. I blame myself now that I did not. But I foresaw that such a course would involve the ruin of the society and I indulged the hope that Dr. McGlynn’s devotion to the cause would be sufficient to restrain him from indulging his personal animosities and prejudices any further. The incident produced a profound impression on me, however, and was one of the reasons which decided me to resign the chairmanship of the executive committee, which I shortly afterward did.

At a subsequent meeting of the executive committee the treasurer, Mr. Benjamin Urner (having of course no knowledge of my experience), brought up the question of lady members again, and moved that the president be requested to appoint a certain number of ladies—I think three—as members of the committee, supporting his motion with a temperate and dignified speech. One or two other members spoke to the motion, myself among the number, when Mr. Gaybert Barnes proposed as an amendment “that the president should at the same time be requested to nominate new members to take the place of those who would immediately resign if such a motion should be carried, among whom would be Edward McGlynn, John McMackin and Gaybert Barnes.” I quote the amendment from memory. Before any one else could speak Henry George interposed, rebuking Mr. Barnes, and the amendment and original motion were both allowed to drop. But it was from that moment evident to my mind that the Anti-poverty society was regarded as the property of Dr. McGlynn, and that Mr. Barnes felt himself secure in his control over the doctor. Having already resigned my office as chairman of the executive committee, I therefore ceased to attend the meetings of the committee, being present at none up to that of last Monday evening. Had I been disposed to attend, however, it would have been impossible for me to do so, as the time of meeting of the executive committee was immediately changed so as to render it impossible for me to attend without neglecting my duties to THE STANDARD.

T. L. MCCREADY.

p. 4, col. 6

BENJAMIN URNER’S STATEMENT.

ELIZABETH, N. J., Feb. 14.—I was one of the original organizers of the anti-poverty society, and was elected treasurer at its first meeting. From the first I apprehended evil results in the future work of the society from that feature of its by-laws which made the president elective by the society and gave him the appointment of its executive committee. The reasons given for this unusual feature never seemed to me to have any weight to overbalance the serious danger to the society, but I nevertheless accepted the views of those better acquainted than I was with Dr. McGlynn, and was reassured by the intention that the society should be incorporated, in which case the objectionable feature would be necessarily removed.

At first the by-law limited the committee to fifteen. Subsequently it was altered so that the number might be increased. The intention of this was to give the president the opportunity to appoint a few desirable persons who had been omitted in the first appointment of fifteen, of which persons it was certainly expected by many that some should be women.

In common with a considerable majority of the members of the executive committee, I was extremely desirous that some of the many earnest and able women of the society should participate in its active work and direction. As Dr. McGlynn continued to disappoint us in the matter, in July I brought it before the committee. It was under discussion at several meetings, during which Mr. John McMackin expressed extremely old fashioned sentiments as to the functions of women, denying them any place in affairs outside of their households; and on Aug. 11, I made a motion “that the president be requested to appoint three ladies as members of the executive committee.” This was strenuously opposed by Mr. Gaybert Barnes, who asserted that if the motion prevailed he would resign from the committee, and that he had good reason to believe that Dr. McGlynn and John McMackin would resign also. This prevented the passage of the motion. On the next day I addressed a letter, of which the following is the copy of a portion, to Dr. McGlynn:

My Dear Sir: At yesterday’s meeting of the executive committee of our society, the committee having under consideration a motion “that the president be requested to appoint three ladies as members of the executive committee,” Mr. Gaybert Barnes made a statement that he knew that you were strenuously opposed to the appointment of ladies on the executive committee, and that he felt very confident that if the motion prevailed you would resign the presidency of the society. As the member of the committee who has been urging the wisdom of the appointment of women to the committee managing a work which so largely appeals to the sympathies and best efforts of women, I think that it is proper and not at all presumptuous for me to inquire whether Mr. Barnes spoke “as by authority” from you in making the statement mentioned, and whether you would, in fact, have resigned had the motion prevailed? . . .

It seems to me, permit me to say, extremely unfortunate that Mr. Barnes should have forced this matter to such an issue by making the statement relating to yourself, and adding that he himself, and he was very sure Mr. McMackin also, would resign from the committee if the motion prevailed. It would seem that if Mr. Barnes took that position after consultation with those for whom he assumed to speak, and spoke as by authority, that an alternative is clearly forced upon the supporters of the motion to the same extreme conclusion as the threat of the other side. I have thought it well to inquire of you privately in the matter rather than risk an excited discussion by bringing it up in committee. Yours, very respectfully,

BENJ. URNER.

To this letter Dr. McGlynn made no written reply, but about two weeks later, in THE STANDARD office, he called me aside, earnestly apologized for not having made a written reply, and said that of course Mr. Barnes had not been authorized by him to make the statement about his resigning in case my motion prevailed. I then called his attention to the fact that our cause appealed strongly to the sympathies of women by its charity and simple justice, so easily applied and to be so largely beneficial in uplifting the poor and the distressed, said that we greatly needed the woman quality in our work; that they were a large portion of the membership of the society, and that simple justice required that they should share in its management. I also said that by doing this act of justice. to the women of the society we would not only be doing right to them and good to the society, but we would show our sympathy with the general cause of the advancement of women. To all this he replied that he sympathized with the views which I expressed, but that certain members of the committee would not stay in it if women were admitted, and that he thought we had better not force them to resign. Upon my asking if he knew the grounds upon which such persons opposed the measure he stated that the presence of women in the committee would probably restrain the freedom of the male members by compelling them to keep their coats on and not smoke! He further said that women were very jealous creatures, and if a few were appointed the rest would be disappointed, also that the women who would expect the appointment were not those he would prefer to appoint. I mentioned to him the names of several ladies whose high standing and character would win for their appointment the approval of all members of the society, both male and female, but did not shake his final decision.

The doctor’s action in this matter convinced me that he was not actuated by the highest motives, that he was largely controlled by Messrs. McMackin and Barnes, and that he was determined to conduct affairs, not subordinate to the will of the executive committee, but by continued on p. 5 →

[continued on page 5]

ANXIOUS MERCHANTS.

The merchants of New York seem to many to be men to be envied. They live luxuriously and appear to regard this as the best of all possible worlds. They are almost fanatical upholders of the existing conditions and look with either alarm or contempt on the discontent of labor. Yet it is a question if they have any better reason than the working people to be satisfied with the political and business situation. The “trust,” that gigantic menace to all private business and individual enterprise, looms up to add terror to the care that already oppresses thousands of them. No matter what may be their disposition they find themselves forced to leave the old and beaten paths and to enter more or less the field of speculation. Many of them are constantly on the ragged edge alternating between high hope and utter despair.

Here is a case that is largely typical: An apparently successful merchant needs $20,000 in order that he may extend his business in a perfectly legitimate way. He sends for a broker and tells him that he wants $20,000 on single name paper. That is, the merchant proposes to put out promissory notes drawn to his own order and indorsed by himself. This is a common method of borrowing money in this city, and if the house be a solvent one of fair reputation the broker probably reports that he can get the money at eight per cent per annum and his own commission of one-eighth of one per cent. If the merchant wants these notes renewed at the end of three or four months he can probably extend the loan at the same rate. He may be earning far more than this on his investment. He will probably make two and one-half per cent on his goods and turn over his capital eight times a year. Under such circumstances he can well afford to pay eight per cent for all the money he needs, and his manifest prosperity makes it easy to obtain it. Under such circumstances his bills payable account would probably increase rather than diminish.

In course of time there comes to such a man a period of stagnation in business, or perhaps rivals, by more pushing methods, cut into his trade. Instead of borrowing money because he can make a good profit on it over and above the interest he pays, he now has urgent need of a loan to meet maturing obligations for goods on hand and worth what they have cost, but at present unsalable without a great sacrifice. He sends for his broker again, but that individual is not so cheerfully confident. He says: “Mr. Blank, you have $60,000 afloat on this market, and I greatly fear that I cannot float any more of your single name paper at eight per cent.” He comes back presently and declares that twelve per cent is the best he can do. The merchant had better pay that than submit to the loss of forcing his goods in the market.

If there is now a turn for the better and prices rise the goods will probably go off, [t]he new rates be met and the merchant, [hi]mself, will have no hesitation in telling a crony that at such a time a certain fall in prices caught him so badly that he actually had to pay twelve per cent; but if things do not change the case is different. He will have to renew this last loan at twelve per cent. His credit falls to that measure and he must pay twelve per cent [o]n all his other loans, and money is harder [t]o get than it was when he paid but eight [p]er cent. Unless there is a speedy change [f]or the better his credit will fall lower [s]till. The merchant begins to be talked [o]ver by money lenders. Some one holding [h]is paper goes to one of the lenders who

p. 5, col. 2 take big risks for big profits and asks what he will give for $10,000 of Mr. Blank’s paper. The answer is probably eighteen per cent off. The holder thinks Blank will do better than that himself, and probably, if alarmed, offers it to him at fifteen. Blank cannot take it then, but sends for his broker to borrow $10,000 at any rate he can under fifteen per cent. And so the process goes on until Blank must pay eighteen per cent a year for ever dollar^sic he borrows. After this has gone on for a little time he is compelled to “make a statement.” His creditors look through his affairs so that they can judge for themselves the risk that they are taking, and they either force a suspension or help the man through. They wish to help him through if possible, for their money is at stake.

Nor is this situation, fraught with care and anxiety, confined to the merchants whose capital has been impaired. Twenty years ago two young men had a business, partly manufacturing and partly mercantile. They enjoyed wonderful prosperity, and in a single year made $68,000 profits on a capital of $70,000. Of course others were promptly attracted into the business, and though their trade doubled during the following five years, they did not make during the whole period as much profit as they had made in that single lucky year. Then came another good time, and though profits did not proportionately increase, the demand necessitated the erection of a costly factory building. The firm was a prosperous one, but it was now more difficult for it to make a profit of $15,000 on a capital of $165,000 than it had previously been to make $68,000 on $70,000.

Trade was good, but the cost of doing business was greater. The new building and more costly plant increased rent and taxes. Rivalry demanded of the firm new efforts to keep their own goods before the public. Thousands of dollars were spent in advertising and in the employment of traveling salesmen. The business continued to grow, but so did the necessity for its growth. The partners had to keep an eye on the market. A corner in certain metals would seriously affect their business. They had to buy largely of such metals in anticipation of a rise. The same was true of certain other raw materials. They could, of course, have bought for future delivery in the market, but a future bought of a broker who might burst would not meet their wants. At the right season they must have their raw material in their factory at any cost, or cease to do business. They were a solid firm with a large capital, yet exigencies like these might cause them to become large borrowers. If prices of materials thus bought remained high they would make money, but if they fell their smaller rivals in trade who bought materials as they needed them would undersell them because of this fall. It would be easy to imagine conditions under which such a firm might have to pay unreasonable prices for a renewal of its paper, and thereby be led into the difficulties first described.

This is no fancy sketch. A majority of the business men of New York pass through such experiences several times in their career, and an enormous proportion of them are never out of difficulty. The matters claiming their attention become more complex from year to year, and the drain of rent and interest is continuous, the former ever increasing and the latter constantly fluctuating. It is very doubtful if one-third of the business houses in this city could meet their obligations to-day if suddenly called on to do so. Care and anxiety is the rule, and the dread of bankruptcy has for thousands of seemingly prosperous men all the terror that the dread of starvation has for the very poor. Is it any wonder that we read of suicides among those living in wealth? Is it any wonder that, where it is possible, those engaged in one line of business seek security from the fluctuations of the market by forming combinations, pools and trusts?

Yet certainty of a steady business would obviate the main cause of this uncertainty and maddening anxiety. Give labor unrestricted access to natural opportunities and there will never be a dearth of raw materials. Give to the workmen thus kept busy the full fruits of their toil and we shall never fail to see a market for all the desirable things that ingenuity can fashion and skilled labor produce. Mistakes of judgment might be made, but they would have to be enormous mistakes in order to work disaster to every one—such mistakes as never yet have been seen, for there never have been more manufactured goods in this country than could have easily found a profitable market if the people wanting them had had money, and there have never been crops too big to find profitable exchange had trade been free.

Have merchants not more reason than some of them imagine for considering on their own account the remedies for the evils that shut labor out from production and at the same time curtail the purchasing power of the people? Let them ask themselves if they also are not ground between this upper and nether millstone of land monopoly.

THE EVOLUTION OF THE REAL ESTATE BROKER.

The Chicago real estate board recently had its annual banquet, and, if the pictures with which the Chicago Herald garnishes its report of the proceedings are accurate likenesses, the real estate brokers of that city are a jolly, well fed and prosperous body of men. There were speeches, of course, and some of them were more interesting than the speakers themselves intended.

Ex-Governor Hamilton said that during the early days in Illinois real estate brokers

p. 5, col. 3 were known as “land sharks,” and he congratulated them on their improved position. Alexander S. Porter, a real estate broker of Boston, said that in the old days a real estate broker was that and nothing more, but that to-day he is a leader in almost every enterprise throughout the country, be it a building syndicate, a railway line or a water company. “He is,” said Mr. Porter, “the promoter and director of capital, and has done more than any one else to build up our great cities and towns.” Waxing eloquent, he said: “Gentlemen, I believe we have just begun; the play is not half over, and I predict for you an even more brilliant and successful future.”

All of this must have been highly gratifying to the prosperous professional gentleman who has within the memory of men still living been evolved from the despised “land shark.” The latter was the man who ran ahead of the pioneers in the early days of settlement and grabbed the choice places in order that he might make the less nimble settler pay for the privilege of using them. Things have changed since then, and the descendants of the emigrants who cursed the land sharks are anxious, as capitalists, to employ the services of the shrewd specialists who can point out to them (for a commission) the opportunities constantly opening to gain over those still coming here, through birth or immigration, just precisely the advantage that the land shark obtained over the original settlers; and so the real estate broker is the promoter of everything that tends to raise the rental value of land in order to give his clients the power to tax every form of that industry which constitutes or creates what we call our wonderful modern progress.

As the real estate broker reaps large profits from this system he naturally wants it continued, and it is not surprising that in response to a toast declaring that the strength of a republican nation “is in its humble, but well ordered homes” Colonel R. C. Givens should protest against any questioning of the sacredness of the right of private ownership in land. Colonel Givens’s statement of what he called the Henry George theory was as remarkable as his history of the experiences of the Pilgrim fathers in the common ownership of land and as truthful as his declaration that in this country ownership of land is almost thrust upon its citizens, and that the ordinary laborer is the owner of a humble but happy home. Such post prandial eloquence at so late an hour naturally begot courage, and the gallant colonel gave reasons why the progeny of the ancient land shark “cannot permit the Henry George theory to flourish in this country.”

Yet somehow it does flourish like a green bay tree, and the speeches at this Chicago banquet are not in our opinion likely to check its growth.

EXIT BLAINE.

James G. Blaine has formally announced in a letter to B. F. Jones, cairman^sic of the republican national commtee^sic, that his name will not be presented tcthe^sic coming republican national conventi[on] as a candidate for president. Mr. B[la]ine says that he is constrained to this dec[is]ion by reasons purely personal to himse[lf,] of which he advised Mr. Jones more th[a]n a year ago. He predicts an easy victo[ry] for the republican party, and bases his [h]ope on the introduction of the tariff iss[ue] by Mr. Cleveland’s message. Stra[n]gely enough, Mr. Blaine nowhere in the [le]tter discusses the contingency that his [na]me may be put before the republican co[nv]ention without his consent, and he fa[ils] to say that, if nom[i]nated under such ci[rcu]mstances, he would not accept the no[mi]nation. Yet such a contingency is not [me]rely possible, but probable.

Owing to this omission some othe[r] newspapers hostile to Mr. Blaine trea[t] his letter as a bid for the nomi[n]ation, a[nd] his enthusiastic admirer, the Tribune, s[pe]aks of the letter as one in which Mr. [B]laine “withdraws his name so far as it is [in h?]is power to do so.” Thus friend and f[oe ap?]pear to unite in doubting that the [w]ithdrawal in February will prevent the [c]onvention from nominating Mr. Blain[e in] June.

The probability is [t]hat the withdraw[al] will prove effective. There have been [of?] late numerous symptoms of republic[an] impatience with the clamor for Blain[e’s] renomination. John Sherman and oth[ers] are actively seeking the republican no[m]ination, and whatever other effect M[r.] Blaine’s letter may have it will, at lea[st,] offer to any of his former supporters t[he] opportunity to join their fortunes w[ith] those of some other candidate. The eff[ect] of this may readily be so great that a[n] attempt by Mr. Blaine to reconsider [his] determination may prove futile.

The disappearance of Mr. Blaine fr[om] the political field will be a distinct gain [to?] good morals and sound politics. His nomination would at once thrust questio[ns] of personal character into the canva[ss.] His possible flighty and erratic forei[gn] policy would likewise be made an iss[ue.] If the republicans want to try the streng[th] of the protective idea they should p[ut] aside everything that promises to comp[li]cate the situation and nominate a man [of] unblemished reputation on a high tar[iff] platform. Again, Mr. Blaine’s retireme[nt] opens up to them a more creditable an[d] hopeful course. If the present laggar[d] congress fails to do anything effective t[o]ward tariff reform, the republicans who ar[e] committed to tariff revision and reductio[n] in their platform, might suddenly remember their broken pledges and come out fo[r] tariff reform themselves. The change o[f] front would be no greater than that which they made with perfect ease on the greenback question.

p. 5, col. 4 Nothing of the kind is likely to happen, however. No dodging or cowardice on the part of the democratic majority in the house of representatives can save their party from responsibility for President Cleveland’s message, and the protected monopolies will see to it that the republican party shall still champion their interests. The democrats may as well prepare to face the attack to be made on them as free traders, and the absence of Mr. Blaine from the contest will compel them to defend tariff reduction on principle instead of attacking the personal character of the opposing candidate. Mr. Blaine’s act is another in a series of events that prepare the way for a great contest on an economic issue, and nothing so quickly as such a contest can educate the great mass of our people into a readiness for the vastly greater economic question on which they must divide before the march of monopoly shall be ended.

“BREWSTER’S FOLLY.”

The property on Broadway, once known as “Brewster’s Folly,” has recently been sold for $248,500. There was erected on it a fine marble front five-story building, which stood vacant for thirty-three years. It covered lots 627 and 629 Broadway and extended through to Mercer street, the whole lot being fifty feet in width with a depth of 200 feet. Mr. Brewster was an eccentric old bachelor, who had an idea that it was worth a higher rent than any one would pay for it. He accordingly shut it up and held it vacant. The effect was injurious on other property in the block, and the owners of adjacent property stormed and swore, and even talked of bringing suit for damages against Mr. Brewster. They apparently forgot the logic of their own position and seemed to think that, somehow, land ownership does not after all entitle a man to do what he will with h[i]s own. It is now believed that Mr. Brews[t]er’s freak has permanently injured the ne[i]ghborhood, and after his death the executors found difficulty in renting the buildi[n]g even at a reasonable price.

It is said that Mr. Brewster paid his taxes [c]heerfully^sic, and took comfort out of the w[r]ath of his neighbors. He must have [p]ossessed considerable other property t[o] enable him to occupy comfortable bache[l]or quarters at the New York hotel durin[g] the thirty-three years that he indulge[d] his peculiar whim. The papers say th[a]t during the time he paid twenty thous[a]nd dollars in taxes. He must have paid [v]ery much more than that, as the prope[r]ty was assessed in 1883 at $166,000, and i[s] now assessed at $174,000. A good man[y] other occupants of land must have been [p]retty heavily taxed by Mr. Brewster t[o] enable him to pay the taxes on his “foll[y].”

The property, it will be noted, sold for $248,500, and is assessed for $174,000. This is [v]ery near to two-thirds of its auction v[a]lue, which is $175,666. Any examination of ordinary Broadway property shows that, as a rule, the assessment is j[u]st about the selling price of the bare land, and it is entirely safe to assume that the land in this case is worth $170,000.

Experience shows that plenty of men can be found who will gladly lease bare land at five per cent on its selling value and contract to pay the taxes in addition. This demonstrates that the full rental value of bare land is .0716 on its selling price. Suppose that Mr. Brewster’s land had been taxed to its rental value on $170,000, does any one suppose that he would have been ready to pay for his folly $12,172 a year? Under such circumstances his only profit on the property would have been from the hire of the building, and he would doubtless have been very glad to obtain a tenant who would pay him a reasonable profit on his investment. Buildings are the product of labor and their cost is easily ascertainable, so that the craziest old bachelor in the land is not likely to over value them. Under the single tax system the tax or ground rent would always be a known quantity, and merchants could erect buildings for themselves or else find plenty of men ready to erect them on the promise of a fair return on the capital thus expended. The cranky Brewsters and the numerous smaller obstructionists who now maintain unsightly buildings on our leading streets would rapidly disappear under such a system and merchants would not find their rents increased, though they would be relieved from all taxes other than those levied on land.

A committee appointed by the New York chamber of commerce attended the meeting of the committee of railroads of the board of aldermen on Friday of last week and informed the aldermen that Mayor Hewitt’s message concerning rapid transit had been indorsed by the chamber of commerce. Morris K. Jesup, chairman of the visiting committee, declared that he was in favor of having the city undertake the work. Seth Low, ex-mayor of Brooklyn, was a member of the committee, and he declared that he emphatically indorsed Mayor Hewitt’s proposal that the new rapid transit lines should be owned by the city. While mayor of Brooklyn, Mr. Low said, he had daily occasion to regret that many public improvements in [t]hat city had passed from the municipal [a]uthorities. It is encouraging to thus find [e]vidence from week to week that men of [i]nfluence belonging to the old parties are [c]oming to see the value of some of the [p]rinciples embodied in the Syracuse plat[f]orm.

[T]he Light Spreading in the Coal Regions.

[F]REELAND, Luzerne Co., Pa.—I would be [onl]y too happy to send you double the number [of] subscribers this year that I did last, and [ind]eed, hoped to do so, but the strike, which [has] been in existence in this neighborhood for

p. 5, col. 5 five months, makes it impossible. One or two have informed me that they have renewed, but the rest are unable to do so. I purchase as many copies every week as I can and send them where I think they will do the most good. In this vicinity THE STANDARD has indeed done a noble work. The good seed which it has sown is bearing fruit. Men are thinking to-day who never thought before, and the “cranky” notion “of abolishing all taxation save a single one upon land values” now finds defenders wherever it is attacked. The present strike, while deplorable because of the immense damage it is doing to business and the untold suffering which it inflicts upon innocent men, women and children, is nevertheless not without an encouraging aspect. The fact that the operators have refused the just demands of the most oppressed, but best organized, body of coal miners in this country, and have for five months successfully resisted the men without apparently much loss to themselves, while the miners have been compelled to depend upon their toiling brethren, has opened the eyes of many, and they are asking themselves how it is that, although thirty years ago the operators and their employes were equally poor, to-day the employers have scores of millions while the miners who risked life and limb in order to bring this great wealth from the bowels of the earth, and who have undoubtedly been oppressed beyond all endurance, find themselves so poor that they could not have stood this strike for two weeks save for the charity of others? Aided by THE STANDARD and the tracts which we have been distributing, they are beginning to “see the cat.” They have discovered this vast accumulation of wealth in the hands of the operators to be due, not to their superior intelligence and business tact, but to the stupidity of the masses in permitting them to monopolize natural opportunities and acquire franchises contrary to the spirit of our institutions. Whether the miners receive the advance they have demanded or are compelled to return to work at the old rates, this strike will be a success, because it has awakened thought and aroused discussion which will not cease until the true solution of the industrial problem is found, which is, the securing to all men of their equal rights to natural opportunities provided for by their Creator.

W. B. ESTELL.

A Plan for a Single State Campaign.

PROVIDENCE, R. I.—The aim of the anti-poverty society and of the united labor party is to get their views thoroughly understood by a majority of the thinking, reasoning people of the United States. And as Mr. George clearly shows, the tariff issue now coming into discussion between the two old parties may be made the means of bringing the principles of the Syracuse platform before the country, without injury to the infant organization of the united labor party. It seems to me it would be well for all earnest workers to take advantage of the situation.

The anti-poverty society has got on its seven league boots, and is making tremendous strides, not only in this country, but all over the world. During the coming campaign on the tariff issue, the advocacy of its principles will strengthen the wavering ones who are in a fair way of soon seeing the cat, and will start a hundred thousand men on a pilgrimage of thought.

It seems to me as though the political machines that have heretofore plowed and harrowed and sowed the seeds of political disaster in our country, at last propose to mix a trifle of wheat with the other seeds; and the united labor party will do well to go over the ground with the seed sowers and see to it that at least an even quantity of wheat is put in. In this way our principles will gain a firm footing all over the country, and when the next presidential campaign comes round we shall have no groping in the dark, no fear of casting away our votes, but can present our ballots at the polls with as much certainty as we would a $1,000 certified check at the United States treasury.

In the meantime we can, if we wish, mass our forces on whatever state will enable us to put the single land tax into operation with the least expenditure of time and money.

In my native state, Rhode Island, there are 15,000 to 16,000 voters, who could be supplied with THE STANDARD for one year for say $30,000. A sufficient fund would be needed to keep our best speakers steadily at work in the state. And the flame of agitation once lighted would sweep over the whole state and enable us to capture it within a year.

J. NORMANDY.

Virginia Considering the Australian System.

RICHMOND, Va.—A bill has been introduced into our legislature which is an attempt at adjusting the election laws of Australia to elections in Virginia. The passage of such a law would be gratifying to those workingmen whose bread depends on their voting as their employers dictate. Immediately after the recent election in this state several employers discharged those of their employes who had voted the “reform” ticket. Although not a “reformer,” in the sense in which it was used at that election, I am most mightily opposed to the political or religious rights of any one being abridged by those who deem themselves the especial favorites of divinity.

I could not get a STANDARD in town last Saturday. The newsdealer said there had been a great demand for them. Heretofore I have been able to get them, and those which I have had have been worn so thin by borrowers that they are not able to hold themselves together, and those who borrow them do not fail to “see the cat” and make the most earnest advocates of true democracy and absolute individuality. After all, is it not, as remarked by a most eminent gentleman, “only a question of intellectual development?”

CHARLES LEIDY.

Has to Work for a Living and So Dare Not Sign His Name.

OLYMPIA, Washington Territory.—I first heard of THE STANDARD about a year ago, when there was but a single copy to be found in the town. As yet we have no formal organization, but a few of us meet on Sunday afternoon to talk and read and argue with one another, and we try our best to get people to discuss the question. Monopoly is well illustrated here by the concentration of our magnificent timber lands in the hands of the large mill corporations. As I am a laboring man, and depend on some of the officials for part of my work please don’t publish my name.

WEBFOOT.

The Lesson of a Mitering Tool.

NORWALK, Conn.—I have upon the table on which I am writing a mitering tool which cost me seventy-five cents in New York, while my co-laborer has one of the same style which he bought in England costing nine pence, or eighteen cents. Now I would ask Mr. Victor A. Wilder or James Byrns how I am benefited by paying fifty-seven cents more than my neighbor? Does it go to increase my wages? If so, what good is it to me? How much longer would my pen be should you cut an inch from one end and add it to the other end? And, as “time is money,” would I not be wasting money by doing such an unreasonable act? In adding or making believe add to a few industries are you not taking from

p. 5, col. 6 others? I should say that the more you charge me for necessities or luxuries the more you take from my wages.

What have the workingmen of to-day made by the high prices in land? But a few have made and many have been crushed. Some think that an advanced price benefits the workman. If so, why do wages tend to a minimum, while land, gas, oil, coal, etc., are at the top of the pole? This is the part of the “cat” that I saw first; now myself and about twenty of my friends see the whole of it, and I am going to point it out to every one I meet, and if they can’t see it at first I will chase the cat around them till they do.

JAS. H. BABCOCK.

The United States as a Landlord.

NEW YORK CITY.—In Dr. McGlynn’s recent speech at Pythagoras hall he suggested that we demand that congress should tax all land in the territories to its full rental value, and take the proceeds for the public treasury. The good doctor evidently needs to read “Progress and Poverty,” or attend Mr. Post’s class in political economy. To turn the United States government into a gigantic landlord, exacting rack rents from its tenants and robbing them besides with tariff and internal revenue taxes would be rather a curious step in the way of economic reform.

J. F. LOEFFNER.

Land and Labor in Akron.

AKRON, O.—The land and labor club here is flourishing and gaining new members at every meeting, and there are many sympathizers here outside of our ranks. Rev. C. E. Nash of the Universalist church has delivered several Sunday evening lectures on “The Land for the People,” and on last Sunday he made an admirable reply to the speech of Mr. Horr. Dr. McGlynn’s lecture here on January 13 did much good, and we owe to it much of our success. At a recent meeting of the club a resolution was adopted declaring in favor of a national convention for president and vice president.

J. L. SHUNK, R.S.

Land and Labor in Denver.

DENVER, Col., Feb. 4.—At the regular weekly meeting of the land and labor club, held at Harmony hall, 1517 Lawrence street, on last Friday evening, Charles G. Buck delivered a lecture on the land question. At the conclusion of his remarks several persons in the audience availed themselves of the invitation to ask questions of the speakers. Tracts, kindly furnished by J. W. Harvey, were freely distributed. The meeting was the largest and by far the most enthusiastic yet held, and the active workers are very much encouraged.

G. H. PHELPS, Secretary.

Never Fear! The Principles are Living and Moving.

DENVER, Col.—I noticed in the Toledo Blade of Jan. 5, an article to this effect: “The Henry George party is practically as dead as a Pharaohnic^sic mummy.” Thirty years ago the air was full of the like predictions concerning anti-slavery people. Probably all of the out and out abolitionists in the United States did not number then half as many as the united labor party in New York alone now. We think our principles will be living law in this country long after the Toledo Blade is out of print.

WILLIAM HOLMES.

George Ripley on Land Monopoly.

In Frothingham’s “Life of George Ripley” occurred the following quotation from one of Mrs. Ripley’s articles: “Gerrit Smith is one the increasing number^sic who, with Moses, Jefferson and Fourier, believe that the monopoly of land is at war with the principles of divine justice; that the usufruct of the earth belongs to the living generations of the race, but its absolute proprietorship to no one but the creator. This principle is capable of demonstration.”

Louis F. Post in Hartford, Conn.

HARTFORD, Conn., Feb. 13.—A lecture on “Free Trade and Free Men” was delivered by Louis F. Post, esq., of New York, on Sunday evening, in the auditorium of Mr. Kimball’s church. There were about two hundred and fifty in attendance. This was the initial lecture of a course which it is intended to give on social and economic subjects.

Interesting to Michigan Readers.

Labor societies and others in Michigan who may wish to obtain a lecture from Rev. Albert Walkley of Manistee on labor and tariff questions are invited to address W. R. Hall, 105 Pine street, Manistee, Mich.

A Suggestion for a Tract.

WHITMAN, Mass.—I would like to suggest that President Cleveland’s message and Mr. Blaine’s manifesto be printed side by side for use as an anti-poverty tract.

C. P. BOLIN.

Absurd?—Not Much!—It’s Good Protectionist Argument.

Toronto Globe.

> Now, Montreal wants another pot of public money spent to make Montreal a free port. > > What for? So that freight charges can be reduced. > > Why? To reduce the cost of European goods laid down in Montreal, to stimulate exports, to facilitate trade. > > With what object? So that we can import more and export more. > > But is not the chief object of the protectionists to make us import and export less? > > Yes, but we want to increase importations in order that we may discourage them by increasing customs taxes which we will spend in encouraging imports on which we will levy more taxes to discourage imports, so that we shall have to spend further money in encouraging imports on which we can levy more taxes to discourage imports—and so on ad infinitum. > > Now, is not this absurd? We do not mean the next foregoing paragraph—the absurdity of which we cheerfully admit to be undeniable—but the situation. Here we are taxing ourselves black in the face for the purpose of strangling our import and export trade. Then having added millions to our customs taxation, we propose to add millions to our debt in order that we may reduce freight rates in order that we may offset customs taxation. > > What do our lords the manufacturers say to this insidious attempt to place the “pauper labor” of Europe in a position to “ruin” this country by flooding it with cheap goods?

No Landlords Yet on the Rivers.

Burlington, Iowa, Justice.

> The laborers of Burlington, and the merchants and citizens and other parties whom these laborers patronize have reason to be thankful that the “trusts” have not yet secured from congress or some other usurping authority the exclusive ownership of the Mississippi, otherwise the surface of that stream would be like that of the earth, private property, whose owners would neither cut ice nor permit others to do so without paying rent for the privilege. While the river is free to all a man can work for himself or for someone else, as he chooses. But were the river owned the the owners would demand all they could get as rent, the ice men would cut down wages, the men would compete for employment and both sides would combine—no, the employers would combine and the laborers conspire; strikes and lock outs would take place on the river and the ice lords, water lords, untaxed or lightly taxed, would draw their rents regularly and enjoy the conflicts between capital and labor as the landlords do under the present tax system.

THE NEW YORK POST OFFICE EMPLOYES.

Talk About the Message Leads to Talk About Genuine Free Trade.

MONTREAL, Canada.—I am glad to be able to say that the single tax is making good progress here. There is no longer any difficulty in finding men to discuss its merits with.

I took a trip through Vermont a few weeks ago, and was much surprised to find what progress our cause has made in that conservative old state. Conversations which I listened to and took part in on the subject of President Cleveland’s late message all seemed somehow to end with: “Well, what about Henry George’s free trade?” And then there was sure to be a discussion, in which the grand central idea of the single tax always found a champion.

You are right in discouraging the running of a candidate by the united labor party at the next presidential election. It will not do to waste any shots. I am satisfied the democrats are doing our work for us, perhaps better than we can do it ourselves.

With such a band of noble men and women as are engaged in the new crusade, leading the van of thought, why should we waste time and money to get votes? Would it not be best to take the money required to run an election and place at least six STANDARDS in every town in every state in the Union?

I inclose $2 for some tracts to distribute among railroad men, farmers, clerks and others.

L. L. PELTIER.

Believes in Capturing a Single State.

I heartily agree with those who believe in concentrating our forces on one state. And the state of New York should be the first attacked, because our friends in that state have had two years’ experience and have become experienced workmen, while in other states they are only apprentices.

L. [PHILLIPS?]

p. 6, col. 3

THE SLAUGHTER OF THE INNOCENTS.

The Woodyard Charity in Toronto.

Toronto Globe.

A deputation of the House of industry directorate waited upon Mayor Clarke yesterday morning to talk over the “tramp” question. It appears that last night nearly one hundred persons sought temporary shelter at the house, and as there is nothing for them to do in the shape of work the solution is rather perplexing. Formerly tramps were compelled to saw wood for a couple of hours daily, but more wood was piled up than could be disposed of and this punishment was abandoned. The result of Toronto’s philanthropic treatment of tramps is that every year they swarm into town rapidly in increasing ratio. The deputation consisted of Rev. A. H. Baldwin, J. J. Allworth, George Goulding, Henry Cawthra and Chas. Burns. His worship was supported by Aldermen McMillan and Carlyle and the city commissioner. Various propositions were made for utilizing the physical energy of the applicants for relief, but the schemes proposed were not of a beneficial character, being merely such useless labor as building snow forts and the knocking them down, etc. A suggestion was made to set these men working cleaning culverts and gutters, but it was said that the adoption of the local improvement by-law would make this an impossibility. (This is a mistake, by the way, as the city can do the work and assess it against the property, as it will have to do in all matters of street cleaning.) If any reasonable scheme can be devised for employing men out of work and the House of industry indigents, the mayor is prepared to give it his favorable consideration; meanwhile the question is in abeyance.

Abolish Taxes on Industry and the Rest Will Follow.

Central New Jersey Herald.

Anti-poverty is a good thing if accomplishable. We favor such a theory from top to bottom. It is said that Elizabeth has more believers in the McGlynn idea than any other city in the states. An organization of that character has been perfected here under glowing auspices. There is one thing the society holds as a cardinal principle that we readily and heartily indorse, and that is “to abolish all taxes upon industry.” That is a democratic doctrine of sacred, we may say, origin, dating back to the political dissertations once mouthed by Thomas Jefferson. Let us abolish all taxes on industry and brains as rapidly as intelligent congresses can give us enabling acts.

p. 6, col. 4

MR. POST’S CLASS.

Studying Political Economy.

DENVER, Col.—Professor G. S. Robbins, A. B., a graduate of Hamilton college, New York, has organized in Denver a class in political economy and social science, which meets every Saturday evening at the rooms of the Scott-Saxton college in the Tabor opera house block. The professor delivers a lecture, at the conclusion of which he answers any questions that may be asked pertaining to the subject of the evening. The class now numbers twenty-five persons, among whom are some of the most prominent professional and business men, as well as several of the leading ladies of the city. Professor Robbins has recommended to the class Mr. George’s “Progress and Poverty” as the most scientific treatise on political economy. At the first lecture in the proposed course of four months, which was delivered this evening, a lively interest was manifested and promise given of a [healthy?] growth.

CHARLES G. [illegible]

p. 6, col. 6

A LETTER WORTH READING.

Among the many signs of the progress which the anti-poverty cause is making there are none more encouraging than the aggressive energy with which its advocates are compelling attention to it through the columns of the press. The exchanges of THE STANDARD show that in scores of places believers in the single tax are becoming prompt to expose erroneous reasoning, to point out illustrations, and to criticise false economic doctrines, by means of letters to the local papers. The letter republished below from the Toronto Mail is a specimen in point:

TORONTO, January 30.

To the Editor of the Mail—SIR: That is a very touching story from Hamilton referred to in your editorial, headed “Home Mission Work,” in last Friday’s issue, and your remarks with reference to the poverty and distress in Toronto certainly deserve more than ordinary consideration. You tell us, what we know is true enough, that “those who have been instrumental in relieving the necessities of such people could tell harrowing tales of cold and hunger, patiently borne, practically in the midst of plenty.” It does seem strange why there should be such poverty and cruel suffering among the poor of the city while many hundreds of dollars were absolutely squandered in providing for the eight hundred or the thousand of Toronto’s well-to-do people who spent such a pleasant evening at the grand ball at Government house last week. It may be true that a ball of this kind now and again is a necessity to give the requisite eclat to the society season, but to the minds of many the thought will occur that such scenes are a terrible satire on our society, which can thus enjoy itself while, to use your own words, “were they to make a tour of the poorer localities their hearts would bleed, and doubtless so would their pockets, for the unhappy poor.” And this brings me to consider three other questions, namely: What is the cause of this bitter poverty? what is the best way to relieve poverty? and why are these poverty-stricken people herded together in all large cities in “poorer localities?” It is generally admitted that the cause of poverty is the scarcity of opportunities to labor. If this is so, the best way to relieve poverty is to create more opportunities to labor.

Now, how best to secure this very desirable object is one of the most important questions of the day. A great many theories which it was claimed would solve the problem have been put forward, but have proved inefficient; the latest theory, that of taking the taxes off income, personalty and improvements, and concentrating them on land values only, is attracting a great deal of attention. Its leading advocate, Mr. Henry George, has advanced his arguments with ability and courage; while all over the land believers in the doctrine are advocating their claims with a persistency which shows that they are thoroughly convinced of the righteousness of their cause. If, by taxing land values only, people who are at present holding parcels of vacant land would be compelled to either use the land themselves or to throw it on the market, so that any who wanted could use it, a staggering blow would be struck at the primary cause of the poverty; because, with all this land open for use, opportunities for labor would be open for thousands of people who under our present system are condemned to poverty because there is no work for them to do. It is likewise now very generally conceded that the “unearned increment” should go to the community, and not into the pockets of private individuals. But another very strong argument in favor of the single tax is this, that under that system the “poorer localities” of large cities would disappear, for land would not then be so scarce as it seems to be at present, and there would then be no need of building houses on the rear as well as the front of lots, to the detriment of religion, virtue and morality, as is done right here in this good city of Toronto; nor of building the tenement houses of the larger cities—these terrible evidences of the need of Christian brotherhood in the midst of our boasted civilization.

I would ask if our present system of allowing men to hold parcels of land, and sell this land only with the proviso that the buyer will build a house to cost not less than a specified sum, is not direct class legislation, and a menace to the well-being of the community? Under such a system there is an evident tendency to draw a sharp distinction between the rich and the poor—keeping the rich together and of necessity grouping the poor in certain sections, where their sufferings will not be brought too prominently or too frequently under the notice of the well-to-do. Surely the idea of the single tax, which would give the death blow to this state of things, should commend itself strongly, on this point alone if on no other, to Christian and philanthropist alike. This is the mission work to which the adherents of the new crusade have set themselves—to carry to their brethren, rich and poor alike, the belief in the universal brotherhood of man, and the truth that every man being born free and equal is entitled to an equal right with all to the use of the bounties of nature which an almighty God has so mercifully provided for his children; but this can never be realized so long as our present system of taxation is in force, a system which enables one class to withhold from us vast portions of that most indispensable of all requisites to life—land. Yours, etc.,

R. T. LANCEFIELD.

Honesty Rewarded.

Chicago Herald.

“The enormous scope given to the taxing powers of the assessor,” said a real estate agent yesterday, “makes it possible to levy an annual tax upon the property in the state of Illinois, should they so elect, of more than ten per cent of its assessed valuation. The limit is: State tax, no limit; county tax, seventy-five cents on $100 of valuation, which can be increased for the payment of interest or indebtedness acquired prior to the adoption of the constitution of 1870; city and town tax is two per cent of $100 valuation, and a proportionate per cent for school, education and for building purposes. In addition to this there are the library, road, bridge, park and other kinds of taxes, different in different localities throughout the state. As it is well known, a tax eater is always able to spend all the money raised and more; the only barrier that stands between the rapacity of the office holder and the people is the election of an assessor who will violate his oath, who will not do his duty, and such is the law of the state of Illinois. An illustration of the point was had recently in Lake View. An honest old parson took his tax schedule and filled out the amounts of valuation on his personal property as fairly as he could. He was the possessor of $2,000 in railroad bonds drawing six per cent interest. Just here let it be said that there is $100.000,000^sic in bonds owned in the state; there is less than $10,000,000 returned for taxation. But the honest old preacher put in his whole $2,000, and look at the result. The list went to the town assessor, and from there to the county board, where it was raised twelve per cent; going to the state board of equalization it was raised fifty-two per cent more. Where was the parson’s profit now? Twelve per cent made the bonds [$2,240?], fifty-two per cent made them $3,400, and the rate of tax was eight per cent, making a tax of $272 against his $120 received in interest. Surely there is need of reform here.

TRINITY’S HIDDEN MILLIONS.

Some months ago, while looking over some maps and records in one of the public offices of this city, I asked one of the clerks if he could show me a map of the property owned by Trinity church. He laughingly replied: “I would be much obliged if you would show me such a map.”

“Is it not necessary that the men in this office should now and then see such a map?” I asked.

“Yes,” he replied, “but we are only allowed to see precisely so much of the map as is necessary, and no man can get a look at a map showing the whole of Trinity’s property.”

This struck me at the time as a remarkable exhibition of the reticence and caution that marks the conduct of all custodians or trustees holding large bodies of real estate in this city, and I was determined, as opportunity offered, to give more attention to the estate of this great religious corporation, which, by virtue of certain grants made long ago by kings and queens of a people from whom we have been politically separated for more than a century, still exercises a right to levy an enormous tax on people for the privilege of living or transacting business on certain portions of Manhattan island.

The work is one that might easily occupy a man’s whole time for many years; but in a literary junk shop I recently ran across a large number of pamphlets that show that Trinity’s policy of concealment is not of recent origin, and that not only has this corporation refused information to public officers in this city, but more than thirty years ago it defied the power of the state of New York to exercise any power over it or even to examine into its affairs.

For some years prior to 1856 there was much excitement in Episcopal circles in this city over the alleged favoritism of Trinity in granting assistance to congregations belonging to the Protestant Episcopal church. The standing committee of Trinity was strongly imbued with what are known as high church ideas, and the low church people, under the lead of Rev. Thomas House Taylor, rector of Grace church, strongly remonstrated against the policy of Trinity in granting liberal aid to high churches, however rich, and refusing any aid whatever to low churches, however great their necessities. Fuel was added to the flame by the positive refusal of Trinity to save a free low church from sheriff’s sale for a debt of only $1,500. It was further alleged by the complainants that Trinity took mortgages for all of its advances to struggling churches, and that through these mortgages it exercised undue control over aided churches, and practically forced them to vote with it on all questions arising in the diocesan conventions. It is entirely uunecessary^sic to my present purpose to go further into this dispute than to remark that the evidence was such as to convince the investigating committee appointed by the state senate that the charge was well founded.

In the course of the controversy the opponents of the then existing management in Trinity became convinced that Trinity church and its vast estate belonged to all of the people in the city of New York who were members of the Protestant Episcopal church. They found that Trinity’s title to all the property held by it rested upon the original charter granted in 1697, which merely included the church and church yard and the grant of the king’s farm made by Queen Anne in 1705. The original charter in set terms conveyed the property for “the use and behalf of the inhabitants from time to time inhabitating and to inhabit within our said city of New York, in communion with our said Protestant church of England,” the title of the corporation being “the rector and inhabitants of the city of New York in commuuion^sic with the church of England,” and the charter provided that two church wardens and twenty vestrymen should be elected annually by the majority of the votes of such inhabitants. In 1697 the colonial legislature confirmed this grant in an act couched in the identical language of the grant so far as rector and inhabitants were concerned. Queen Anne in 1705 gave the king’s farm to the rector and inhabitants thus constituted a corporation, and no further legislation affecting the matter was had until after the revolution. In 1784 a law was passed by the New York legislature ratifying the old charter and grant which substantially made no change except to substitute the words “Episcopal church” for “church of England,” but which still included in the corporation inhabitants of the city and county of New York in communion with the Episcopal church.

There was no further legislation until 1814, when an act was passed changing the title of the corporation to “the rector, church wardens and vestrymen of Trinity church in the city of New York,” and confining the right to vote for wardens and vestrymen to male persons of full age who, for the space of one year preceding the election had been members of the congregation of Trinity or any of its chapels. The opponents of the existing management of Trinity in 1855 insisted that this act of 1814 was a direct violation of the rights originally granted to all of the inhabitants of New York city who were communicants or members of the Episcopal church, and they petitioned the legislature for the repeal of that law and the restoration of the right to vote for church wardens and vestrymen of Trinity to all of the Episcopalians residing in New York and qualified to vote in other Episcopal churches. The petition was accompanied by charges against the administration of Trinity’s estate and a request for an investigation. The request was granted and, as a result, one of the most interesting and exciting controversies that ever occupied the attention of the legislature took place at the session of 1856-57.

Trinity appeared by counsel and fought the investigation step by step. It denied the jurisdiction of the legislature, denounced its action as an interference with p. 7, col. 2 vested rights, and brought the most powerful influences to bear for the defeat of the proposed bill granting the demands of the petitioners. Rev. William Berrian, D.D., then rector, wrote a pamphlet in defense of Trinity. John A. Dix, afterward governor of the state, appeared as a vestryman to oppose the pending bill, and Erastus Brooks, then in the state senate, championed the cause of the corporation on the floor of that body. The record of the speeches and debates and the printed testimony of witnesses is even yet interesting and lively reading, and it is not without importance as demonstrating how firmly rooted the policy of concealment was, even thirty years ago, and how little restraint religion exercised over the agents of a religious corporation in their efforts to conceal from a prying public the extent of its possessions and the sources and disposition of its income. Contempt of a legislative committee’s authority does not appear to have then been a punishable offense, and refusals to appear before the committee or to answer inconvenient questions without appearing were numerous. The only thing that appears to have induced the Trinity people to appear before the committee at all was the apparent determination of the committee to close the case with the testimony of their opponents and to base a bill on the testimony.

Though many persons now living must vaguely remember this celebrated and exciting case, the great majority of our people know nothing of it, and a resume of the facts then elicited cannot fail to prove interesting as a preliminary to any further examination into the affairs of this great corporate landlord.

In 1855 the senate of this state proposed certain questions to the corporation of Trinity church, and to these questions no answer was made. A committee of investigation was next appointed, which, prior to the opening of the session of 1856-57, met in New York city, and served notice on the officers of the corporation to appear before them. No official response was made by Trinity, and one of the vestrymen refused to answer questions put to him on the ground that the whole matter was a controversy between the corporation and the committee, and that it would be improper for him to answer questions put to him by the latter. Other witnesses came forward freely, however, and the testimony taken by the committee was damaging to the corporation. Senator Noxon, of the investigating committee, in the course of a speech in the senate delivered March 25, 1857, said:

The senate knows and I know the difficulties this legislature has experienced in investigating this matter. The first thing we did when the abuses of the corporation were brought to our notice was simply to press her with resolutions designed to elicit the facts in the case. But they were useless, for she defied us. Trinity church haughtily defied the state of New York. She was a corporation with grants with which we could not interfere. She had vested rights which it was out of our power to touch. No legislature, she said, could call her to account for the manner in which she discharged the duties conferred upon her in her grants. . . . But Trinity church does not stop here. Not only does she deny the right of the legislature to interfere in any manner with her affairs, but when deeming it prudent to report, how does she do so? She reports by spreading out on your tables no names of her corporators, and when taxed with the omission says she did not suppose you needed them. . . . But although Trinity church would not then allow us to have the names of her corporators, she finally does so. She yields inch by inch—protesting at every step—until finally what do we find her doing? Why, she comes to us at last, not insolent and protesting, but begging—humbly begging—and petitioning the legislature of the state of New York to let her alone and not take away her powers.

Trinity did not depend on begging alone. Able counsel were employed by the corporation. Powerful political and social influences were exercised in its behalf. From all the churches that were pensioners on Trinity’s bounty petitions came pouring in praying the legislature to leave the close corporation undisturbed in its powers. Senator Sickels devoted several days to a labored defense of the management of the real estate. Yet the evidence demonstrated that a small number of men had obtained possession of a vast public grant which they were determined to manage as best suited their own convenience and without accountability to any one beyond their own small circle.

The opponents of the bill introduced by the committee insisted that it would be dangerous to permit all of the communicants of the Protestant Episcopal church in the city of New York to participate in the election of the wardens and vestrymen of Trinity church. When the legislative committee sought to ascertain precisely who it was that already enjoyed this important power every conceivable difficulty was thrown in their way. It was seen that the list was a profound secret. Bishop Wainwright, at one time an assistant minister of Trinity, tried in vain to get a list. The rector of the church refused to permit him to see it. Minor officials made like refusals. It was only after occasional attempts that extended over a period of eighteen years that Bishop Wainwright was by a vote of the vestry given the privilege of inspecting the list. John De Wolf testified that though for ten years a vestrymen^sic he never saw the list. The reluctance to show the list to the legislature has already been noted.

When at last the list was furnished to the legislature it was found that it contained the names of NINETY-TWO COMMUNICANTS of Trinity church and all its chapels, together with TWO HUNDRED PEW HOLDERS, or less than three hundred persons who possess the right of choosing the managers of this vast estate. But even this list, furnished reluctantly by the corporation, was found to be inaccurate. Of the ninety-two persons named as communicants it was found that two were dead, twenty-two had no directory address, seven had removed from the city. and four^sic had gone to other churches. Of the fifty-seven remaining ten were vestrymen and nine rector and clergymen, so that of the communicants there were not more than thirty-six who had not a direct interest in the existing management. A similar analysis of the list of pew holders reported by the corporation reduced the actual number to sixty-eight, so that the

p. 7, col. 3 total number of voters nominally controlling this vast estate was at that time one hundred and twenty-five. Nor was this all. It was made clear from the evidence that rarely, if ever, did more than thirty of those entitled to do so vote for wardens and vestrymen. There were twenty vestrymen, nine clergymen and three or four paid officers of the corporation included in the list of voters, and these were doubtless the people who did the voting.

Yet small as was the body of voters, the corporation was even yet not “close” enough to suit the views of the ruling spirits. The real work of control was committed to a standing committee which, while reporting from time to time to the vestry, had power to do as it chose in the leasing of property. Beyond the vestry no knowledge of the estate’s affairs were permitted to go. To the one hundred and twenty-five members of the corporation no report of any kind was ever made. Practically the vast property bequeathed to the inhabitants of New York, and those to become inhabitants in communion with a certain church, was in the possession of a self-appointed and self-perpetuating body of men who were determined that no others should ever examine into the manner in which they administered the estate that they had thus seized.

When resistance to the legislature appeared to be futile, the managers began to cover up the facts by falsehood. Trinity church had been required by a resolution of the senate to set forth the value of her real estate. The answer was about $1,500,000. An examination made by the committee showed that the property was worth fully $10,000,000, and one of the men asked to value it by the committee declared his willingness to pay $7,000,000 cash for it. When the representatives of the corporation were taxed with their deception in this matter, they replied that they had taken the valuation of the assessors, yet every one knew then, as well as all know now, that the valuation of the assessors is not even intended to represent the true value of real estate. The corporation’s estimate was given in detail, and the committee’s examination proved that property on which the corporation was receiving a ground rent of $5,000 at five per cent, thus making its value $100,000, was put down in the estimate as worth $28,827.40. There were numerous instances in which deliberate falsehood was thus brought home to the corporation.

The result was that the committee made a report declaring, in effect, that the charges of favoritism had been sustained, and that under the original charter all members of the Episcopal church within New York city had a right to vote for wardens and vestrymen, and that they had been improperly and unconstitutionally deprived of this right by the law passed in 1814. The committee reported a bill returning to all Episcopalians in the city the right to vote in the choice of the Trinity wardens and vestrymen, and requiring the vestry to furnish annually to all voters a printed statement of the income and expenditure of the corporation.

Senator Brooks introduced a substitute of the kind then called conservative, which instead of deciding in favor of one or the other of two conflicting and irreconcilable claims, proposed to allow the existing corporators to elect one-half of the wardens and vestrymen and to allow the remaining Episcopalians in the city to elect the other half. This bill was passed by the senate on April 6, 1857, and late in the session sent to the house, which failed to take it up.

The fact that the house succumbed to the powerful influences massed at Albany for the defeat of the bill in no way answers the testimony brought out in the senate’s investigation, so it appears that the insolent corporation that to-day conceals its property from public officers, thirty years ago defied the state and resorted to falsehood and trickery in order to conceal the truth. The necessity for examining into its affairs is as great to-day as ever it was, and a legislature that attempted such an investigation would doubtless compel witnesses to answer.

WM. T. CROASDALE.

No Taxes and a Pension for Everybody.

London Democrat.

“No taxes and a pension for everybody,” sounds like a fairy tale. It may be converted into sober fact, not by confiscating property, but by putting a stop to confiscation. Why should it seem a thing incredible that 100,000 persons, having worked hard and honestly, should at the age of sixty-five receive a pension of £10 per annum to make the remainder of their lives more in accordance with the bountiful provision which nature and art have provided for mankind?

We now give to one landlord what might with justice be distributed to one hundred thousand families. The income of the duke of Westminster is reported to equal one million sterling per annum, and probably this is an under estimate of what he actually receives, and far below what he will get in a few years, unless common sense and common justice are allowed in the meantime to prevail.

For this million sterling per annum the duke confers no advantage whatever upon the community. All the labor by which he benefits has been performed or paid for by others. Through the operation of unjust laws, made by landlords for landlords, he obtains the power to make these exactions. Year after year adds to his rent roll, while he stands with folded arms and simply absorbs the value for which thousands toil and remain unrewarded.

This gigantic and heartless fraud has called law and religion to its aid. While it defies the ten commandments it invokes them in the pulpit and in the press.

While it tramples on all just laws, human or divine, it bribes lawyers to contend for its unjust privileges and crushes all opposition by the weight of its untold and ill-gotten wealth.

Think for a moment of this fact—every one of the twenty millions of shillings which the duke pockets every year without exercising a single useful function, every one of these shillings has to be earned by the labor of some one who remains unpaid for his labor.

Workingmen in London earning 12s. per week pay 4s. in rent, and of this sum 2s. goes to the ground landlords for doing nothing.

Fancy the duke of Westminster demanding and receiving 2s. per week, or £5 4s. per annum, from working families whose whole income is far less than the cost of food alone in cases where the worn-out and improverished families are taken to the workhouse in order to postpone actual starvation.

This is thought to be right, reasonable, and just.

Whereas, to propose that a man who has been all his life long defrauded in his wages by means of landlordism, should have £10 per annum after he is sixty-five is absurd, utopian and, indeed, positively mischievous.

p. 7, col. 4

STRAWS WHICH SHOW THE WIND.

The New York Sun now joins Mayor Hewitt in advocating a single tax on real estate in lieu of all other direct taxes. Mr. George seems to be getting in his work since the late Waterloo at the polls.—[Boston Globe.

“What is to be done with the unemployed?” asks the Guelph Herald. “Haven’t they the tariff?” rejoins the Toronto Globe. They have that, but then perhaps their taxes are not high enough. The theory of the men who believe in tariffs as agencies of prosperity is that the more a man is taxed the better off he is.—[Hamilton, Ont., Times.

Henry George’s paper, THE STANDARD, has entered its second volume and Mr. George says it has succeeded far beyond anything he had calculated upon. Considering its mission, which some ignorant noodles affect to despise so much, the paper certainly has found a field among a class of advanced thinkers which is growing very rapidly. It is now circulating 20,000 copies. What do croakers think of the work?—[Western Watchman, Eureka, Cal.

Labor invention is designed to benefit labor, but so far it has not benefited it a particle, because these inventions can only be used upon the earth, and the earth owners have been able to dictate the terms upon which they can be used and thus reap all the benefit. To make work by discouraging invention would be as wasteful as to set fire to our cities to make work. The true remedy is to grant equal rights to the earth.—[Ceresco, Neb., Times.

The landlord and tenant system now in vogue in many parts of the coal regions of Pennsylvania is worse than that employed in Ireland. Many of the coal miners in this state are so completely at the mercy of their employers that when they refuse to work at the wages offered to them they are unable to get food because the employer controls the only store near the mine; and if the workingmen can contrive to live in spite of this stoppage of their food supplies, they are then evicted from the company houses occupied by them as dwellings.—[Philadelphia Record.

There are in Cincinnati, it is estimated, 25,000 women and children working for wages. The condition of many of these is such that, so far as the comforts of life are concerned, and freedom from the harassing thought of providing for their loved ones, the convicts in the penitentiary are better off than they. The wages of these are so small that they are scarcely able to make enough to procure the simplest food and pay rent for an uncomfortable room, by toiling every moment from early in the morning until 10 or 12 o’clock at night, and sometimes until 1 or 2 in the morning. Some even feel obliged to work as diligently on Sundays as on week days.—[Cincinnati Christian Advocate.

Several gentlemen have invented methods for the prevention of rich men, schemes by which property could be equalized and divided per capita instead of per capital. The result of this could be easily figured out in advance. To-day Jay Gould would be wealthy and Henry George hungry, we will say. To-morrow Jay Gould and Henry George would have $65 apiece. Tuesday Henry George would have [$55?] and a case of colic. Jay Gould would have [$60?] and be at the head of a Jamaica ginger trust. Wednesday Mr. Gould would have $130 and an order on Henry George’s agent for the proceeds of his next lecture on anti-poverty.—[Bill Nye in the World.

An Encouraging Sign.

Brooklyn Standard-Union.

There is no more encouraging sign of the times than the general movement now being made in behalf of pure elections. At the north, and particularly in the large cities, bribery, ballot box stuffing and false counting have been practiced since the war. Tweed, the monumental thief of the nineteenth century, the man who stole $20,000,000 from the people of New York in a few years, was the product of the ballot box stuffing system. The boodle aldermen and the hundreds of other thieves who have disgraced public office and stolen the money of the people, gained their opportunities to steal through corrupt elections. Occasionally the people, angered by some steal of more than ordinary magnitude or by some glaring public iniquity, have waked up and gone to the polls in such numbers as to defy even the trained powers of the ballot box stuffer and briber. That is the safety of universal suffrage. But the periods of anger on the part of the people, busy with the ordinary affairs of life, are spasmodic, and the professional manipulator of elections soon gains control once more. The object of the movement now on foot among the honest men of all parties and of no party is to secure the enactment of a law which shall at all times be as effectual as any human agency can be made to prevent bribery and secure a free ballot and a fair count.

Why Not Take This Value For the People Who Make It?

San Francisco Examiner.

The Presidio is simply a huge bite taken out of the best part of San Francisco. It contains 1,500 acres, admirably adapted for building, and still more perfectly adapted for a pleasure ground. It cuts off the residence portion of the city from its natural extension along the Golden gate. This great domain cost the government nothing. When it was reserved it was in the country. It is now in the city, and by the growth of the neighboring population has acquired an enormous value. It is worth at least $10,000,000 to-day for building lots, and its value within a few years will be incalculable.

NEW PUBLICATIONS.

[Advertisement] The Railway News

[Illustration: cover of the Railway News, framed engraving of a railway scene with trees; lettering on cover: “RAILWAY NEWS” (partly obscured by the engraving), “RAILWAY INTELLIGENCE”, “CONSTRUCTION, OPERATION, MANAGEMENT, EXTENSIONS, EARNINGS, PROJECTS, APPOINTMENTS, ELECTIONS, PERSONAL MENTION” (partly illegible), “Published by the Railway News Printing & Publishing Co.” (partly illegible). Printed vertically on either side: “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] MACRINE POLITICS^sic AND MONEY IN ELECTIONS IN NEW YORK CITY

MACRINE 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 of his pamphlet entitled “Machine Folitics, 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] Labor Library (Modern Press)

$5.00 LABOR LIBRARY.—30 STANDARD works by 24 authors—Marx, Darwin, Spencer, Huxley, Krupotkin, 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] 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.

p. 7, col. 5

[Advertisement] HENRY GEORGE’S WORKS.

[Advertisement] NEW PUBLICATIONS. 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^sic.

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 of the United Labor Party^sic. 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.” Henry George. 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 Appleby^sic. 2 pages.

No. 66. “A Lawyer’s Reply to Criticisms.” Samuel B. Clarke. 16 pages.

[Advertisement] HEAVEN AND HELL, (New Church Board of Publication)

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 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 Press)

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, 134 William st., New York.

[Advertisement] THE DEMOCRAT.

THE DEMOCRAT.

A RADICAL REVIEW MONTHLY.

The Democrat advocates Land Resumption and those eforms which are necessary^sic 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] Cabinet Photos (McGill)

DR. M’GLYNN, POWDERLY, HENRY GEORGE, Pentecost. 4 Cabinet Photos, 25 cents. McGILL, 304 Henry street, New York city.

THE TARIFF AND THE SUGAR TRUST.

In 1886 we imported raw sugar valued at $71,296,007, on which there was paid by the refiners a tax of $50,252,540, an average of 70 per cent. The table sugar imported paid an average duty of 87 per cent. The refiner was protected by 17 per cent on his products. The gulf planter was protected by 70.

Germany protects its refiners by an average of 13 per cent. It imposed in 1884 a tax of $5.71 on 220 pounds of raw sugar worth $9.50, or 60 per cent. On raw sugar that could be used without refining it imposed a duty of $7.14 per 220 pounds, worth $10.20, or 70 per cent. On refined, $7.14 per 220 pounds, worth $9.70, or 73 per cent

France does better yet. It admits raw material free of duty and imposes a tariff of 52½ francs on every 220 pounds of refined sugar, worth 63 francs—a duty of 83 per cent. It has built up by this policy, at the expense of its own people only, a gigantic sugar monopoly beside which the proposed American sugar trust is a puling infant.

The American tariff on the raw material has twenty-five different rates ranging from 1.4 to 2.4 cents per pound, and averaging 2 cents. The refiner’s margin ranges from ¾ to 1½ cents per pound. In 1880 it ranged from 1½ to 3 cents per pound. What does the census of 1880 tell us of their business?

Number of refineries, 49; total workmen, 5,857; wages paid, $2,875,032; cost of material, $144,698,499; sold product for $155,484,915; capital invested, $27,432,500.

This is all the information that has been made public for seventeen years past concerning this industry, which, through the forty-nine firms, has in that time collected from the American people over $1,000,000,000 in taxes, about two-thirds being paid into the treasury at Washington and the remainder kept by the forty nine farmers-general. Not a question has ever been asked them as to the amount collected or how it was collected. The revenues from sugar have been farmed out to them as if each state and territory were an Egyptian pashalik, for there is exactly one refinery to each state and territory and a little one for the district of Columbia. The eighty-six internal revenue collectors tax the people about $116,000,000 yearly under the most careful supervision that congress can devise, and must account for every penny. The forty-nine sugar firms tax the people $70,000,000 yearly, and so long as they pay about $50,000,000 for the privilege they are at liberty to collect as much more as they please and are accountable to no one and subject to no control.

In 1879 we imported, for refining, raw sugar worth $67,015,831, and the domestic crop was worth $8,696,616. The total market value of material was $75,712,447; the cost of wages, $2,875,032. The forty-nine refiners reported in May, 1880, that they had sold their product for $155,484,915, an advance of $76,897,436. The advance was not gross profits, for the refiners paid into the United States treasury $39,107,256, and paid in blackmail to the gulf planters $4,831,454. Let us tabulate it:

This is not accurate. It supposes that the whole product of each year is refined, and that nothing is left over from one year to another. As a rude blocking out, however, let it stand until something better is found.

In 1886 our refineries bought under a burden of 70 per cent and sold at 87. In 1880 they bought under a burden of 58 and sold at 90. They paid an average tax of [2½?] cents per pound on raw material, and sold at an advance of 2½ to 3 cents per pound, an advantage that was reduced one-half by the tariff act of 1883.

Under the old tariff law of 1880 the actual value of their sugar sold that year by them was $81,000,000; the duty and tax on it was $46,000,000; total, $127,000,000. Sold product for $155,000,000; gross profit to the 49 refiners, $28,000,000. But as it is hard for the reader to verify the figures of a dead and gone tariff, let us take the present tariff and see what the $155,484,915 would have represented at the present reduced prices and profits; in other words, what would have been their profit in 1886, provided they had received that amount for the product. We would then have:

This is not only fair and more than fair to the planter and refiner, but it is the lowest assumption that can be made.

The blackmail of $20,152,627 wrung from the people by the forty-nine refiners, includes $6,087,631^sic which they hand over to the planters. The $14,064,996 left with the refiners does not represent net profit, but merely what should have been their extra profit with careful management, over and above the normal profits of business in Cuba or Demerara. It is the premium put upon the refining business in the United States, the bounty or assurance paid the forty-nine firms to make good their losses from experiments, ignorance, waste. From this must be deducted the losses of the fool in business, the careless manager, the speculative trustee, the theoretical experimentor^sic and those unfitted by nature and training who are induced by the broad margin against loss to embark in it. The forty-nine refiners reported in 1880:

Some refineries are bonanzas; others make very little. There is so much wasted in a business like this where each one is presented yearly with fifty per cent of a new capital. and where^sic incompetence is “protected” against loss by a tax on the people, that a sugar trust is a very wise and a very proper thing. If by better management the whole $14,064,996 can be saved to the forty-nine firms instead of only $7,911,384, why should it not be done?

If protection is right, the forty-nine firms should be compelled by law to form a sugar trust, making monthly or quarterly reports to the secretary of the treasury, and each refinery should be subjected to government supervision in the same manner as each distillery. A sugar trust does not mean higher taxes and higher rates for sugar, necessarily. Is means, first of all^sic, the saving of some portion of $6,153,612 now lost by waste and extravagance. It means the closing of refineries whose crack brained managers try costly experiments in crystalization. It forbids kite flying at ruinous rates of discount. It stops wild speculations. If, when once welded into one well managed business, it chooses to raise the present rate of taxation, the people will

p. 8, col. 2 be no worse off then than they are now, if, indeed, so badly off. Some refineries now earn one hundred per cent, others nothing; and the average is twenty-nine per cent. The people pay in blackmail to them for their profit fifty per cent on their capital, and the main object of the sugar trust is to enable each refinery to get the fifty per cent on the capital invested that the people now pay.

The poorly managed refineries must be kept running, and, without a sugar trust, the price of sugar must be put up till the worst manager of the forty-nine makes a living profit. This is the sine qua non of protection. With each refinery making thirty per cent at least, which it can do under a trust without increasing the present tax (or price of sugar), there will be less temptation than now to raise prices. The public must accept a sugar trust or it must pay more for its sugar to keep open the refineries now losing money.

The proposed trust capitalizes the refineries at $60,000,000, and guarantees to each ten per cent. Nothing could be fairer. The profits reported in 1880 were $7,911,384, or twenty-nine per cent, while this trust calls only for $6,000,000 yearly, or twenty-two per cent on the money actually invested.

To make twenty-nine per cent without a trust it was necessary to tax the people $20,152,627 more than the sugar was worth, duty added, or ten per cent on a capital of $200,000,000. Instead of opposing a trust it is the duty of a wise man to welcome it. “It isn’t the rich as breaks into houses and steals.” The refiner, controlled by a trust and sure of twenty-two per cent yearly profits, will not be so apt to put up prices as the reckless refiner never sure of even two per cent.

The key of this whole sugar question lies in the small item of $14,784,247 paid by the refiners to the sugar planters of the gulf states. The sugar crop of 1879 was 169,972 hogsheads of 1,137 pounds, or 193,258,164 pounds. At an average of four cents per pound this was worth abroad, in 1886, $7,730,326, and the forty-nine refiners would have had to pay that year seventy per cent more than it was worth as raw material, or $5,411,228, so that it would have cost them, in 1886, $13,141,554. The largest possible extra profit is given to the planter in order to be more fair to him [and?] to the refiner and to their side of the [question?]. The real value in 1880 of the [Louisiana?] crop was four and one-half cents per [pound?], or $8,696,616. It was protected by a tariff of about two and one-half cents or fifty-eight per cent average, making the blackmail $4,831,454 and the total cost to the refiners $13,528,070. As every supposition is in favor of the refiner, the crop of 1880 is given the price of 1880 and the seventy per cent protection of 1886, raising the blackmail to $6,087,631.

That these sugar planters may blackmail the refiners out of $6,087,631, the refiners are permitted to blackmail the people out of $20,152,627, and the people are compelled to submit to taxation amounting to $72,337,904 levied and raised by forty-nine private firms—one for each state and territory and one for the district—according to their own sweet will and pleasure, taking from each head of family $8.64, under no supervision by congress, and under no restriction by the legislature beyond a proviso that they shall not choke the man and take the money from him by force if he and his family refrain from using sugar.

Why? Is it that 227,776 acres may be planted in sugar cane in seven states, producing 178,872 hogsheads of sugar? Is not $329 per acre, $425 per hogshead and thirty-seven cents per pound a pretty dear price to pay for such vanity? Isn’t the whistle too dear?

Is it that 5,857 workmen in forty-nine refineries may receive $2,875,032 yearly in wages—$494 yearly each? Is not a tax of $12,000 yearly for each workman receiving $494 a pretty dear price to pay for such vanity? Isn’t that whistle too dear?

T. E. WILLSON.

That Beneficent “Protection.”

——.—I read in the Macon, Ga., Telegraph some “elegant extracts” from other southern papers, whose sentiments the Telegraph piously approves, showing what a good and pleasant thing our “protective” tariff is and how wicked are the misguided men who oppose it. I don’t know that these particular extracts are much more striking than a thousand others that one might glean from the press; but they will serve the purpose of a “text,” as well as any others.

One paragraph, from a Nashville paper, asks to know how calico came to be four to five cents a yard under a “robber tariff?” When a woman can purchase material for a neat frock for from 48 to 60 cents, where, it demands of a candid world, is the robbery?

Of course it is broadly hinted here that this “beats free trade.” May not a simple-minded alien from the realms of trade ask, What do you want, then, of protection? Are the benevolent manufacturers robbing themselves, and do they only want foreign goods kept out lest we should be cheated by importers into paying more for our calico and other things than these self-denying patriots are charging us now? Are these virtuous friends of the poor only demanding protection against foreign wares that they may keep us, the consumers, from emptying our own shallow pockets by buying at too dear a rate the products of “foreign pauper labor?”

In the name of common sense, what can be plainer—all sophistry apart—than the inequality, injustice and, therefore, robbery of the protective tariff? Is it a crime to resist men who plunder us? Is it a crime to advise men to vote against a measure that they may protect their own wives and children against the danger of being unjustly deprived of the the necessaries of life? As justly may the wolf rebuke the sheep for bleating when the said wolf is seeking to make mutton of the latter’s carcass.

If any people in America ought to oppose protection surely the southern people ought. But we have some “infant” manufactures down here, and “infants,” as Gulliver justly remarks, apropos of his experience in Brobdingnag, want to put everything into their mouths. The giant baby, by the way, that got Gulliver’s head into his mouth, pretty well represents our “infant” industries. It may be an “infant,” but it is a child of the giants; and we are less fortunate than Gulliver, for our heads are still in the mouth that has partly eaten us already, and will finish us if we let this innocent baby have its way.

Will the laboring men of America, even those who work at the manufacture of protected goods, never learn that protection can do them no good, and that, even if it could, it would be at the expense of monstrous injustice to the great body of their toiling brethren and in utter violation of the golden rule?

CLERICUS.

Will Keep on Reading.

OAKLAND, Cal.—I have read every issue of THE STANDARD from the first to the fifty-fifth with interest and profit. I think I am a better man for having read it, better able to discharge the duties of citizenship; and I will be better able to meet and understand the questions of the future by continuing to read it, whether I fully understand and agree with it in all things or not. I, however, heartily agree with it in regard to the single tax on land values, and may yet come to see why free trade should take the place of protection. Kittens do not see the cat until their eyes are open.

D. S.

p. 8, col. 3

CHURCH GOSPEL AND CHRIST’S GOSPEL.

Hugh O. Pentecost in the Christian Union.

To formulate criticisms upon the church is an ungracious business; and, too, it is difficult because “church” is not easy to define, and there are many things which one may be perfectly well satisfied are true but which are difficult to put into words without overstating the truth. Nevertheless, I think I may say, without exaggerating, what is clear to me at least, that the defect of the church which is most serious and apparent is that she does not teach nor practice the religion of Jesus Christ.

Christianity is, to my mind, in its teaching and practice, judged by its creeds or the opinions of the majority, and by its acts and policy as an organized institution, no more, essentially, the religion of Jesus Christ than Buddhism. There are more doctrines and practices in Christianity which slightly ally themselves to what Jesus said and did than in Buddhism. But in being essentially unlike the religion of Jesus, Christianity must take her place with other religions. Do organized Roman Catholicism, or Episcopalianism, or Methodism, or even the simpler polities of Protestantism, bear more than the slightest resemblance to the religion of Jesus? But for certain catch-words I am sure the gospels might be studied by one who knew nothing of them, until he was familiar with the life and sayings of Jesus, and afterward the creeds, books of discipline, canons and institutes of organized Christianity examined by him in the same manner, without his recognizing the supposed relationship between them. So marked is the difference between Christianity and the religion of Jesus that one must practically make choice whether he will be a follower of Jesus or a Christian. He cannot be both. A minister or priest who becomes a follower of Jesus, as I understand him, can neither get nor keep a pulpit of organized Christianity.

To particularize: As to doctrine: When a lawyer asked Jesus the pivotal question, “What must I do to have eternal life?” Jesus told him he must love God and his neighbor; and to another, who declared he was accustomed to do this, he added, “Sell all thou hast and give to the poor.” This, then, is the gospel of Jesus. But the gospel of the church is not only not this, but it is the open denial of it. It declares that in order to have eternal life something must be believed. If the church should admit that Jesus taught the truth on this point, orthodoxy, “old” and “new” alike, would be destroyed. I have heard more than one good man declare from the pulpit that the gospel was not preached until after the death of Christ, because there was no gospel to preach till then. The gospel of Jesus was preached by himself, but, true it is, the gospel of the church was not preached till later. They are so unlike that one cannot believe them both.

Jesus said, “Take no anxious thought for the morrow”—the gospel of trust. The church, from every pulpit, says accumulate money “for a rainy day”—the gospel of economy. Jesus said, “When you pray, go into your inner chamber”—the gospel of modesty in our relations with God. The minister prays openly in the synagogue for fifteen minutes, more or less, at each public service—the gospel of spiritual parade. Jesus said, “When you give, let not your left hand know what your right hand does”—the gospel of sincere benevolence. The church says, “Get your large givers to head the subscription list, and publish their names with the amount they give”—the gospel of phariseeism. Jesus said, “Do unto others as you would have others do unto you”—the gospel of transparent rightness. The commercial laity of the church say, “If you do, you will fail in business”—the gospel of getting on in the world. Jesus said, “Resist not evil”—the gospel of non-resistance. The majority opinion of the church shows contempt for his teaching by upholding wars, murder in defense of person or property, a punitive prison system, and capital punishment. I know of but two pulpits and one Christian newspaper that did not laud the hanging of the Chicago communists—the gospel of violence and revenge. Jesus said, “If a man smite you on one cheek, turn to him the other also”—the gospel of courageous self-control. The church, by a majority opinion, smiles superiorly at the precept. Jesus said, “Lend, hoping not to receive again”—the gospel of persons. Christians say, “Lend at the highest rate of interest, upon gilt-edged security”—the gospel of property. Jesus said, “It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to get into the kingdom of heaven.” The simple truth, when we consider that no man gets rich except by defrauding, legally or illegally, some one else. The church opens a wide door for the entrance of the rich, and makes it harder for the poor man to enter than for a camel to go through a needle’s eye.

The practical precepts of Jesus, some of which I have cited, and which mark his moral greatness to the spiritual mind, are rarely chosen for texts, and when they are it is generally to explain them away. There is not one Christian in a hundred who believes them workable or makes any attempt to practice them. But much is made of the command to “baptize all men” and the institution of the eucharist; and more is made of the opinion of the author of the gospel of John concerning the extra-natural character of Christ.

We have the curious anomaly of Christianity which insists upon worshiping him as a divine being whose doctrinal teaching it repudiates, and whose practical precepts it declares impracticable and makes no attempt to follow.

I may not trespass on your space too freely, and must very briefly mention what seem to me three well-nigh, if not quite, incurable defects in the church.

She does not live to do good in the world, but to strengthen and perpetuate herself. She ought to be purely and solely a missionary. But expensive ministers and mortgaged buildings compel her to seek for money more than souls. She itches for respectability with the restless desire of a parvenu. Socially approved and well-to-do people who will increase her revenues and raise her prestige she struggles to catch, but her fishing for those to whom she can only give, and from whom she can nothing get, is languid. Witness the complaisance with which the minister names the notables in his congregation. Witness the speed with which the churches abandon the poor down town many and follow the rich up town few. Instead of using herself for the betterment of this world, the church seems to me more than willing to use this world for her own aggrandizement. Her aim, that for which she works most enthusiastically, is the exact reverse of what it should be. A hundred persons love their church and will work for it where one loves men and will serve them.

The church is always on the side of “things as they are.” She is ever against the oppressed and the poor. She gives money lavishly in charities; she builds mission chapels for the poor, but she does nothing for them that is not as pleasing to her complaisant pride as it is helpful to the poor. The gentleman before whom the beggar doffs his hat and to whom he says, “God bless you,” is about as pleased with his giving as the beggar; and the pleasure is equally injurious in either case; the pauper’s delight and the pharisee’s delicious sense of the difference between them.

p. 8, col. 4 The church’s goodness to the poor is all of that sort; she is gentle and benevolent as long as the poor are docile and grateful; she is a patroness of the poor. But when it comes to righting the wrongs of the oppressed and defrauded, or even seriously attempting to discover if there are wrongs to right, the church always shows that she has no such love for the poor as Jesus had. She never was known to attack a vested wrong until popular opinion drove her to it. She dabbles in dilettante reform slightly, more missions, better tenement houses, cooking schools, associated charities (all but the missions begin and end in essays and newspaper articles, for the most part); but let a prophet point out a radical defect in the social system, which must be changed before anything of worth can be accomplished, and the church is as deaf as an adder. She would not see the evil of slavery until everybody else had. She will not even try to see the evils which make and keep the people poor. “As much charity as you like for the worthy poor,” says the church, “but talk not of social injustice, else we shall have to look upon you as one who threatens vested rights. Let the poor be contented, sober and industrious in this best of countries, and cultivate habits of church-going and Sabbath-keeping, and all will be well. If they suffer, it is their own fault.” I believe that history and passing events alike attest the truthfulness of what I say.

The last criticism which I shall make is that the church does not allow, much less encourage, freedom of thought. She permits you to think as you like, but not within her communion—that is, if you happen to be a minister. You may think what you like, Roger Williams, but not in Massachusetts! This is not freedom of thought. In taking this position the church becomes the enemy of truth, the enemy of the mind. There is not a distinctive denomination in Christendom that does not put an imperative check on the mind at some point. And yet Jesus said: “And why even of yourselves judge ye not what is right?”

I hope my “criticisms” will not seem bitter. There was a time when I felt bitterly upon these subjects, but it has passed. I know how many good men and women are in the church, doing God’s work happily and conscientiously. They are contented in the church. I am happy out of it. We may each do our appointed work.

Many good friends have said to me: ’But even though these things are true, why abandon the church? Why not remain within and do what you can to reform her? Why not live out your discipleship of Jesus within the church?” My reply is that I tried to, but I became such a disturber of the peace by preaching the gospel of Jesus in the church that I thought I ought to go, before some number of persons disgraced themselves. If any one thinks he can follow out his honest thought within the church, if that thought leads him to discard the received opinions of the church and to attack vested wrongs which are as yet popular, or to accept the precepts of Jesus as workable, if he is a minister he will probably discover how mistaken he is. The church always has a place for priests; never any place for prophets.

A Matter Canadians Should Attend To.

TORONTO, Canada.—Will you kindly permit me to call the attention of your Canadian readers to the necessity of sending their names to our secretary, S. T. Wood, 85 Shuter street, Toronto. We are now circulating petitions asking the legislature to grant to each municipality the power to adopt its own method of taxation. Of course we are anxious that these petitions should have very wide circulation, and we therefore require the individual assistance of every man in Ontario to get signatures at once and have them forwarded without delay to the legislature, now sitting in this city.

We expect soon to have a bill prepared and brought forward in the house, and if once we get this power of local option we shall expect to make short work of the personalty tax and the income tax. Having gained these outworks we shall then proceed to storm the taxes on improvements. By that time we trust that we shall see a break in the superstitious reverence that bows to the yoke of indirect taxation and holds up its hands for a tax that leaves the toiler open to the full blast of foreign competition while it shields the capitalist from such competition—the tax that “makes no difference between the last dollar of the widow and the one among millions of the millionaire.”

Such, in brief, is our plan of campaign, and we trust that every Canadian who sympathizes in our movement will feel it an honor to step into the vanguard of one of the grandest movements the world has ever seen. One man now is better than a thousand when we become the majority.

W. A. DOUGLASS.

Anti-Poverty in Cincinnati.

The seventh regular meeting of the anti-poverty society of Cincinnati was held at Elks’ hall, No. 200 Vine street, on Sunday February 5, and was more largely attended than any of its predecessors. Mr. Paul Garrupy presided. After the opening hymn, “There’s a wideness in God’s mercy,” by the Jubilee choir, the chairman delivered an address, giving for the benefit of any new visitors the objects and aims of the society. A solo, “Rock of Ages,” by Miss May Smith, was then sung, with Mrs. H. W. Harrison at the piano. Then came a very entertaining ethical address by Mr. C. H. Fitch, entitled “A Matter of Book-keeping,” followed by Mr. L. W. Shott with a recitation, “The Printers’ Angel.” A solo by Miss Dee, “The New Kingdom,” then an economic address by Mr. C. S. Walker, entitled “The Why, the How and the What,” and the closing song, “New Crusaders’ Marseillaise,” completed the exercises.

At the next meeting the members will be expected to give their experiences, each speaker to be limited to three minutes in which to relate how he or she has “seen the cat,” so aptly illustrated by Judge Maguire of California.

Justice in Taxation for Gas and Water Works.

FINDLAY, O., Feb. 2.—According to the ground hog theory, we are to expect six weeks’ winter yet, so that except perhaps in Findlay and a few favored localities fuel is an important item to the American citizen. I see by THE STANDARD of the 14th ult. that Mrs. McCreery of Washington, D. C., suggested to her husband that all the citizens of Chicago should be allowed to participate in the benefits of natural gas underlying that city by a reduction of the expense of lighting and heating their houses and business places, instead of the Cook brewing company only. But Mrs. M. and her husband neglect to suggest a practical method of reaching the best possible results, even to a public mind familiar with the fact that natural gas is plentiful, and may and should be free to every citizen of this city as air or water.

In recent special correspondence to the Cincinnati Commercial Gazette, W. P. A. said “that the city had purchased all the gas wells within a mile of the court house . . . were charging the general consumer five cents per jet per month for light, and fifty

p. 8, col. 5 cents per store or grate^sic per month for fuel, and were taking active measures toward abolishing even this small price; that the citizens in September last voted to bond the city $100,000 for building a water works system,” etc.

The active measures referred to amount to some of the citizens inquiring why the consumers should pay forty or fifty thousand dollars per annum for gas that costs simply the sinking of wells and service pipes laid, or cost of plant, represented by $140,000 at six per cent, for payment of which the city is bonded and a levy authorized of three-tenths per cent upon all the taxable property. Why not elect a city council which will place the price of gas under such rules and regulations as will make it practically free to manufacturer and laborer alike. And believing that fifteen or twenty thousand per annum is sufficient to pay the current expenses, interest and sinking fund, and that justice in taxation demands the whole should be placed upon the tax duplicate and collected as other taxes, leaving no need for another gas corporation under the title of gas trustees and superintendent, with an army of employes and all of their attendant political and personal preferences and prejudices, to be paid for by the people. They propose to push this question to the front in the coming municipal election.

If this be wise public policy and justice in taxation, why not abolish water rents, place the cost of supplying water upon the general tax duplicate, and make it free to consumers? And if not, why should consumers of either pay double the cost of production to the city, knowing the larger the amount the more there is always squandered by city officials? In other words, if natural gas and water works are benefits to a city and enhance the value of property therein, why not tax the property to pay for them and allow all citizens to consume in proportion to their needs, and thus equalize the participation of all in the benefits?

The public mind of Findlay is not yet prepared to place all taxes on land values, but desire those who have sold their lands at large valuations and are loaning the money at ten to fifteen per cent to others who are improving and building up the city and encouraging industry, to pay taxes on their money values toward the expense of public improvements.

Getting to the Root.

Toledo News.

> Leipsic, O.—As an example of the evil of mere speculation and hoggish selfishness on the one hand and a liberal and enterprising spirit of live and let live on the other, “the good of one the good of all,” on the 26th of September, 1887, the Buckeye stave company of this place purchased the 160 acre tract of land known as the Jones land, on the south side of Pike road, No. 6, and a half mile east from the D. and M. railroad and corporation line, for $10,700 cash, after a long negotiation. This land has been carefully kept, and had perhaps the best and largest amount of timber of any place near here, but still in a state of nature. During the past twenty-five years of rapid progress all around it, the proprietor always raised a few dollars higher in price when a purchaser applied. Immediately, as if by magic, the scene was changed from a solitude to busy and active work; the woodman’s ax and saw resounded and echoed all along the north line; numerous teams were seen moving from and to this former solitude, and at this writing a steam saw mill is at work on the land, and at least one-quarter clear across the north end nearly smack smooth cleared, except the brush heaps. Ship timber, lumber, stave bolts and wood for use, and a small army of workers made happy by employment and good wages.—G. W. H.

A few words of reference to the above. Here is 160 acres of land bought from the United States for $200 and sold for $10,700. Now, what has added $10,500 to the value of that piece of land? Simply the money and work of the owners of the surrounding property. Is it right for the law to allow or compel a community to contribute to the building up a fortune for one man out of the hard earnings of his neighbors?—[Ed. News.

MISCELLANEOUS.

[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,

2280 Third avenue, cor. 124th street. New York.

Children’s Photographs by instantaneous process a specialty

[Advertisement] Holland’s Coffee and Dining Rooms

HOLLAND’S

COFFEE AND DINING ROOMS,

[113?] Fourth avenue,

Bet. 13th and 14th sts.

[Advertisement] James Bogan, Principal Agent

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

[Advertisement] Coogan Bros., Carpet and Furniture Dealers

[Illustration: engraved view of the Coogan Brothers building, a five-storey shop front with horse-drawn carriages and pedestrians in the street. Lettering on the building: “COOGAN BROTHERS” (top band); “[illegible] RETAIL FURNITURE CARPETS &c” (second band, partly illegible); “BEDDING WAREROOMS” (third band); “MANUFACTURERS” (fourth band, partly illegible); “125 COOGAN BRO’S 121” (sign over the ground floor).]

COOGAN BROS.,

CARPET AND FURNITURE DEALERS,

COR. BOWERY AND GRAND STS.

MINING NOTICE.

ANNUAL REPORT OF THE LA ABRA Silver Mining Company.—The amount of the capital of said company is [$300,000?]; the amount actually paid in on said capital is [$235,000?], and the existing debts of said company amount to [$165,831.06?]. Dated New York, January [26?], 1888. J. G. Baldwin, President. J. G. Baldwin, S. S. Ely, Fletcher Westray, George C. Chase, majority of trustees.

State of New York, City and County of New York, ss.—James G. Baldwin, being duly sworn, says that he is the president of La Abra Silver Mining Company, the corporation above named, and that the foregoing report, which is signed by him and a majority of the trustees of said company, and the matters therein contained are correct and true according to the best of his knowledge, information and belief.

J. G. BALDWIN.

{ Notarial Seal. } Sworn to before me, Jan. 25. Wm. E. Trotter, Notary Public, N. Y. Co.

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. 6

[Advertisement] Unity Congregation

UNITY CONGREGATION.

REV. HUGH O. PENTECOST,

MINISTER.

MASONIC HALL,

Sixth avenue and Twenty-third street.

SERVICES,

Sunday Morning, 11 o’clock.

[Notice] Anti-Poverty Society in Philadelphia

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.

WM. J. ATKINSON, President.

J. H. M’INTYRE, Secretary.

MISCELLANEOUS.

[Advertisement] Braham’s, “Who Wouldn’t Be Dressed Well”

[Display heading: white lettering on a black ground, “WHO WOULDN’T BE DRESSED WELL” (apostrophe not visible: “WOULDNT”).]

SUITS TO ORDER FROM $13.50.

PANTS TO ORDER FROM $3.50.

Samples and self measuring chart mailed on application by stating price and as near as possible design desired.

BRAHAM’S.

212 Bowery, New York city.

[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 appearance, 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.

[Illustration: keystone-shaped trade mark enclosing an open-faced pocket watch; lettering “THE KEY STONE WATCH CLUB Co.”]

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

AGENCIES:

[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] Canned Goods, C. M. M. P. A. stamp

Canned Goods

[Illustration: circular stamp, white lettering on black, “HAND MADE” above and “C. M. M. P. A.” below a small central emblem.]

WITH THIS STAMP IN THE BOTTOM OF CANS ARE

Free from Poison,

AND ARE MADE BY

ORGANIZED LABOR.

Trade-Mark.—Registered.

[Advertisement] Piso’s Cure for Consumption

[Display advertisement in a black frame; vertical side panels read “25 CTS.” each side.] PISO’S CURE FOR CONSUMPTION. CURES WHERE ALL ELSE FAILS. Best Cough Syrup. Tastes good. Use in time. Sold by druggists.

[Advertisement] The Great American Tea Co. 

[Illustration: T-shaped black emblem with white lettering “THE GREAT AMERICAN T E A COMPANY”.]

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.

UNITED LABOR PARTY.

UNITED LABOR PARTY—Citizens of the following named states who indorse the principles of the United Labor Party and desire to lend active aid in the movement, are requested to communicate with the State Organizers of their respective states, as follows:

California—Judge James G. Maguire, San Francisco.

Connecticut—Robert Pyne, 234 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.

[Notice] 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 [63?], [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 to write.

[Notice] All Readers of The Standard in favor of a united labor party in the First assembly district

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.

[Notice] 23rd Assembly District

23RD ASSEMBLY DISTRICT MEETS every Monday evening. German speaking members every Tuesday evening at Vincent hall, 1897 Third avenue, corner 105th street. Open every evening for enrolment of members. Thursday and Saturday evenings free debates of the Progress and Poverty club

[Notice] Voters of Maryland

VOTERS OF MARYLAND WHO ARE desirous to aid in propagating the principles of the united labor party, as set forth in the New York platform, adopted at Syracuse, Aug. 19 are requested to send their names and addresses to

JOHN SALMON,

415 N. Eutaw st., Baltimore, Md.

[Advertisement] Henry George, Dr. McGlynn and Pentecost photographs

HENRY GEORGE, DR. McGLYNN AND Pentecost. 3 cabinet photos., 25c. SIDNEY ULRICH, 184 Chrystie street, N. Y. City.

[Advertisement] Briggs’ Pianos

[Illustration: display advertisement with an engraving of an upright piano at left framed by foliage, a ribbon reading “SEND FOR CATALOGUE”, and display lettering.] BRIGGS’ PIANOS. C. C. BRIGGS & Co. [5?] APPLETON ST. BOSTON MASS. MANUFACTURERS OF GRAND SQUARE & UPRIGHT PIANO FORTES. GRACEFUL DESIGNS. SOLID CONSTRUCTION. MATCHLESS TONE. BEAUTIFUL FINISH.