March 10, 1888 Vol. III, No. 10Whole No. 62

THE STANDARD

HENRY GEORGE, EDITOR AND PROPRIETOR.

NO. 62—VOL. [obscured by a pasted subscriber’s address label; probably III.] NO. 10. | NEW YORK, SATURDAY, MARCH 10, 1888. | PRICE FIVE CENTS

p. 1, col. 1

THE TARIFF BILL.

A SHOWING OF WHAT ITS PRINCIPAL EXEMPTIONS AND REDUCTIONS AMOUNT TO.

[Diagram: left half of the table (columns 2–3), headings, explanatory note and entries from “Timber” to “Common Window Glass,” each with black bars of proportional length; all words transcribed below.]

Let the first line under each title in the following table be considered as representing one dollar, which the consumer now pays for first cost, duty, and profits on duty, in purchasing a certain amount of the specified articles. The lines following will then show to the eye for how much less, should the Mills bill become law, the consumer could get what he must now pay a dollar for; and also, in cases where the Mills bill only reduces the duty, the still smaller fraction of a dollar for which he would get it were the duty entirely abolished.

OR,

Let the lower line under each title be considered as representing one dollar’s worth of the specified articles were no duties levied upon them. The upper lines will then show how much more than a dollar the consumer of the articles has now to pay for the same quantity on account of “protection.” In the subdivision, headed “Duties Reduced,” the intermediate lines show how much more than a dollar he will still have to pay under the provisions of the Mills bill.

[Note: in each entry below, every “Cost …—” line is followed in print by a solid black bar whose length represents the amount; see the figures of the table for the bars themselves. Where the paper prints two bars joined by a brace, this is noted as “[two bars, bracketed]”.]

DUTIES ABOLISHED BY THE MILLS BILL.

TIMBER, Brick, Flaxseed, Wheel Hubs, Jute, Soap (common), Cement, Garden Seeds, Plaster of Paris, Nickel Ore, Granite and all Building Stone, Potash, Coal Tar, Naphtha, Benzine and Coal Tar Products, except Dyes. Present duty 20 per cent. Proposed duty free.

Cost under present duty— [bar]

Cost without duty as proposed— [bar]

BIBLES, Needles (except Machine Needles), Isinglass, Books in Foreign Languages and for Free Distribution, Essential Oils, Currants, Chlorate of Potash, Crude Glycerine, Osier and Willow for Baskets, Feathers (undressed), Dates. Present duty 25 per cent. Proposed duty free.

Cost under present duty— [bar]

Cost without duty as proposed— [bar]

PAINTINGS, Gelatine. Present duty 30 per cent. Proposed duty free.

Cost under present duty— [bar]

Cost without duty as proposed— [bar]

SULPHUR, Tin Plates, Figs. Present duty 35 per cent. Proposed duty free.

Cost under present duty— [bar]

Cost without duty as proposed— [bar]

WOOL, unmanufactured. Present duty about 36 per cent. Proposed duty free.

Cost under present duty— [bar]

Cost without duty as proposed— [bar]

SALT IN BAGS. Present duty 39 per cent. Proposed duty free.

Cost under present duty— [bar]

Cost without duty as proposed— [bar]

CHINA CLAY, Opium, Iron or Steel Baling Hoops. Present duty 45 per cent. Proposed duty free.

Cost under present duty— [bar]

Cost without duty as proposed— [bar]

COPPER ORE. Present duty 49⅔ per cent. Proposed duty free.

Cost under present duty— [bar]

Cost without duty as proposed— [bar]

MARBLE, Bagging for Cotton, Copperas. Present duty 55 per cent. Proposed duty free.

Cost under present duty— [bar]

Cost without duty as proposed— [bar]

CROTON and Cotton Seed Oil. Present duty 62^sic½ per cent. And Chicory Root. Present duty 65 per cent.

Cost under present duty— [bar]

Cost without duty as proposed— [bar]

BLUE VITRIOL. Present duty 77 per cent. Proposed duty free.

Cost under present duty— [bar]

Cost without duty as proposed— [bar]

SALT IN BULK. Present duty 79⅔ per cent. Proposed duty free.

Cost under present duty— [bar]

Cost without duty as proposed— [bar]

DUTIES REDUCED BY THE MILLS BILL.

COMMON EARTHENWARE. Present duty 55 per cent. Proposed duty 35 per cent.

Cost under present duty— [bar]

Cost under proposed duty— [bar]

Cost without duty— [bar]

FINE DECORATED CHINA, Plaques, Bisque, etc. Present duty 60 per cent. Proposed duty 45 per cent.

Cost under present duty— [bar]

Cost under proposed duty— [bar]

Cost without duty— [bar]

COMMON WINDOW GLASS, in sheets above 24 by 30 inches. Present duty 108 per cent. Proposed duty 66 per cent.

Cost under present duty— [two bars, bracketed]

Cost under proposed duty— [bar]

Cost without duty— [bar]

[Table continues in columns 4–5, below.]

p. 1, col. 4 [Table “The Tariff Bill,” continued: right half, columns 4–5]

[Diagram: right half of the table (columns 4–5), entries from “Plate Glass” to “Tobacco (Wrappers),” each with black bars of proportional length; all words transcribed below.]

PLATE GLASS, above 24 by 60 inches. Present duty, 153 per cent. Proposed duty, 122 per cent.

Cost under present duty— [two bars, bracketed]

Cost under proposed duty— [two bars, bracketed]

Cost without duty— [bar]

LOOKING GLASS, not above 24 by 60 inches. Present duty, 78 per cent. Proposed duty, 55 per cent.

Cost under present duty— [bar]

Cost under proposed duty— [bar]

Cost without duty— [bar]

IRON OR STEEL T RAILS. Present duty 74 per cent. Proposed duty 52 per cent.

Cost under present duty— [bar]

Cost under proposed duty— [bar]

Cost without duty— [bar]

STEEL RAILWAY BARS. Present duty 84 per cent. Proposed duty 55 per cent.

Cost under present duty— [bar]

Cost under proposed duty— [bar]

Cost without duty— [bar]

IRON OR STEEL RAILWAY FISH PLATES. Present duty 93 per cent. Proposed duty 59½ per cent.

Cost under present duty— [bar]

Cost under proposed duty— [bar]

Cost without duty— [bar]

IRON or Steel Beams, Girders, Etc. Present duty 103 per cent. Proposed duty 49½ per cent.

Cost under present duty— [two bars, bracketed]

Cost under proposed duty— [bar]

Cost without duty— [bar]

SUGAR, Ordinary Grades. Present duty, which varies with polariscopic test, about 84 per cent. Proposed duty about 68 per cent.

Cost under present duty— [bar]

Cost under proposed duty— [bar]

Cost without duty— [bar]

RICE. Cleaned. Present duty 113 per cent. Proposed duty 96 per cent.

Cost under present duty— [two bars, bracketed]

Cost under proposed duty— [two bars, bracketed]

Cost without duty— [bar]

CLOAKS, Dolmans. Present duty 68 per cent. Proposed duty 45 per cent.

Cost under present duty— [bar]

Cost under proposed duty— [bar]

Cost without duty— [bar]

CARPETS, Rugs, etc. Present duty 48 per cent. Proposed duty 30 per cent.

Cost under present duty— [bar]

Cost under proposed duty— [bar]

Cost without duty— [bar]

SHAWLS and Worsted Cloths. Present duty 65 per cent. Proposed duty 40 per cent.

Cost under present duty— [bar]

Cost under proposed duty— [bar]

Cost without duty— [bar]

FLANNELS, Blankets, Yarns, etc. Present duty 68 per cent. Proposed duty 40 per cent.

Cost under present duty— [bar]

Cost under proposed duty— [bar]

Cost without duty— [bar]

WOMEN’S AND CHILDREN’S DRESS GOODS.—Present duty, 72 per cent. Proposed duty, 40 per cent.

Cost under present duty— [bar]

Cost under proposed duty— [bar]

Cost without duty— [bar]

CASTOR OIL. Present duty 195 per cent. Proposed duty 98 per cent.

Cost under present duty— [two bars, bracketed]

Cost under proposed duty— [two bars, bracketed]

Cost without duty— [bar]

PATENT MEDICINES. Present duty 50 per cent. Proposed duty 30 per cent.

Cost under present duty— [bar]

Cost under proposed duty— [bar]

Cost without duty— [bar]

TOBACCO (Wrappers). Present duty 82 per cent. Proposed duty 38 per cent.

Cost under present duty— [bar]

Cost under proposed duty— [bar]

Cost without duty— [bar]

[Untitled explanatory article on the table, begins at the foot of column 4 below the table and continues in columns 5 and 6:]

Owing to the fact that some of the duties

levied under our tariff system are ad valorem, or levied on value, some are specific, or levied on number, weight or measurement, and some are both ad valorem and specific, it is impossible in many cases for any one not an expert to understand what a particular duty really amounts to, or to measure a proposed reduction or increase.

The table given on this page, in which p. 1, col. 6 specific and composite duties are reduced to ad valorem rates, and proportions are shown to the eye by diagrams, will enable our readers to get at a glance an idea of what the mere important reductions^sic in taxation proposed by the tariff bill introduced by the committee of ways and means amount to.

The black lines in this table are calculated upon a printer’s unit of measurement—the brevier em. By taking a line of twenty ems as the unit of cost, without duty, we are enabled to show within one and a quarter per cent of the increased cost of any article under the present duty, and the proportionte^sic change in cost which the new tariff bill would effect. Differences of less than one and a quarter per cent are not taken note of in these black lines, as on this scale they would hardly be appreciable to the eye.

No note is taken in this table of the cost of transportation, nor of importers’ and dealers’ profits upon the cost of the article, since these must be borne by the ultimate user or consumer, whether an import duty is levied or not. It is not quite true, however, that these costs would be the same were the import duty reduced or abolished, as the increased volume of trade resulting from the abolition or substantial reduction of a tariff duty tends to lessen both the cost of transportation and the rate of profit upon the handling of an article. Yet as the reduction in cost to the consumer which would thus be effected by the reduction or abolition of duties is difficult or impossible to estimate, I have been content to give protectionists the advantage of assuming that cost of transportation and profits on handling would be the same irrespective of tariff duties.

But the importer who must pay a tariff duty before he can get his goods, does not and cannot calculate his necessary profits merely upon the cost of the goods, plus the cost of transportation. He must, if he is to do a solvent business, get a profit upon what he has to pay out in duties, as upon what he has to pay for the goods and for transporting them. Thus the price at which he sells to the jobber must include a profit on the duty as well as a profit on the cost of the goods. And as the duty thus becomes a part of the cost of the goods, every dealer through whose hands they pass, down to the retail storekeeper who finally sells to the consumer, must make an additional profit upon the amount paid in duty. In the calculations upon which these diagrams are based, it is assumed that from importer to retail dealer, and including both, the profits on the handling and holding of imported goods amount to twenty per cent upon cost, and I have added twenty per cent upon the amount of the duty, in order to show the cost of the duty to the final consumer. In other words, I have assumed that where the importer pays fifty cents in duty to the government, the final consumer, upon whom the duty and all profits and charges upon the capital used in paying it finally fall, must pay sixty cents. There are some cases in which this might be too large an estimate, but there are many more cases in which it is too small. Upon the whole, the estimate will be recognized as extremely moderate.

To obtain the ad valorem equivalent of specific and composite duties I have taken the official figures furnished in the last report (1887) on commerce and navigation of the bureau of statistics of the treasury department. This report gives the actual amount of duties paid upon actual importations, and the rate of duty expressed in percentage of value. For the reason, however, that these returns fail to discriminate between different grades of articles of the same kind subjected to the same duty, the calculations in most cases fail to show the full weight of the duty. For instance, if upon bottles of a certain kind a specific duty of one cent each be levied, this would amount, on bottles costing half a cent apiece, to a duty of 200 per cent, while upon bottles costing ten cents apiece it would only amount to a duty of ten per cent. The effect of this duty would be relatively to decrease, or absolutely to put an end to, the importation of the cheaper bottles, and relatively to increase the importation of the costlier bottles. Supposing the effect to be to so reduce the importation of the cheaper bottles that but one of that grade were imported to two of the more costly grade, then the ad valorem equivalent of the specific duty would appear in the returns of the bureau of statistics as something over fourteen and one-half per cent. While if its effects were totally to prevent the importation of half cent bottles and restrict importations only to ten cent bottles, the ad valorem equivalent of the duty, really amounting on some grades to two hundred per cent, would appear as only ten per cent. The percentage of duty collected on the cost of goods imported would thus be correctly given, but the prohibitive effect of the duty, and its influence in raising prices, would be effectually corrected^sic.

Something of this kind is actually true of the present duty on bottles, which is in effect prohibitive on the cheaper grades of bottles. But I do not attempt to speak with accuracy as to that, but only to illustrate a general principle which in many cases prevents the real weight of duties continued on p. 2 →

[column ends mid-sentence; no continuation line printed — presumably continued on page 2]

THE LESSON OF THE BROWN CASE.

The excitement pervading western Pennsylvania over the case of Ephraim J. Brown appears at first sight to be one of those psychological anomalies, like the tulip craze, or the fifteen puzzle, for which it is absolutely impossible to account on any known principle. That not only a single town or county, but a very considerable section of a large state, should be thrown into a ferment over the question whether an obscure and illiterate farmer is insane or not seems really absurd. Yet there can be no question of the fact that on this ridiculous issue not only the quidnuncs of the village taverns, but families and friends of the better classes are bitterly divided in opinion. The salutation of meeting acquaintances is changed from the old fashioned, peaceable “Huddo?” to the defiant “Well, what do you think of old man Brown now?” The matter is agitated at quilting bees, at donation parties, and within the sacred precincts of the lodge. Indeed, if we may judge by the tone of the local newspapers that reach THE STANDARD exchange desk, the question of Brown’s sanity or insanity will actually be an important local issue in the coming campaign; so that supposing the Keystone state to be closely contested, the policy of the government, for the next four years at least, may be determined by the opinion of a few Pennsylvanians as to the mental condition of a man whom a jury of his neighbors have positively declared to be insane.

All this is at first sight extraordinary, but the wonder disappears when the case is closely examined. For behind the question of poor Ephraim J. Brown’s insanity, there lies a greater question; and what western Pennsylvania is really disturbed about is whether Brown is simply a weak minded individual—a lunatic by the act of God—or a hero, who has sacrificed his mental faculties on the altar of a great principle, and gone crazy out of pure devotion to an economic doctrine.

Twenty-three years ago, in 1886^sic, Ephraim J. Brown returned from the war to his native village of Newsome’s Four Corners, within twenty miles of Pittsburg. He came home to find his father sick unto death, and within three months from the time he doffed the army blue he was the possessor by inheritance of a well stocked and profitable farm of one hundred acres.

For some years all went well with Ephraim. He married a wife, begat sons and daughters, voted the straight republican ticket, traded at the village store, and was altogether a prosperous and thoroughly commonplace agriculturist. But in 1876 an event occurred which colored his whole after life, and started the train of circumstances which has led to his present unfortunate incarceration. He paid a visit to Pittsburg. It was during the presidential campaign, and the air of the smoky city was full of republican oratory. Like a good republican, Ephraim J. Brown went to a mass meeting, and for the first time in his life heard the glorious doctrine of protection expounded in all its fullness. He learned that the true way for a nation to become rich and independent is to send as many things as possible to other nations and get as few things as possible in return; that the secret of national prosperity is the fostering of home industry by wise protection; and that that country is the greatest which most carefully keeps its own work for its own people. He returned to his farm next day an altered man.

For some time the change in his character was manifested only by a constant study of campaign protectionist literature and a certain disputatiousness at the village tavern; but it was not long before more serious results appeared. Declaring that what was good for American citizens as a body must be equally good for them as individuals, he astonished his wife one day by bringing down from the garret, where they had lain for a generation or more, an old cobbler’s bench and tools, at which he seated himself with the grave declaration that he needed a new pair of boots and proposed to encourage home industry by making them himself. It was in vain that Mrs. Brown reminded him that he didn’t know how to make boots, whereas the village shoemaker could make them well and cheaply; that the potatoes needed [cultivating?], [the onions?] must be hoed, the pasture fence repaired, and a dozen other things required attention. Brown had his answers ready. If he didn’t know how to make boots he could soon learn; the village shoemaker was a needless member of the community, who took the work out of honest farmers’ hands; and as for the potatoes, and the onions, and all the rest of it, why the very beauty of his application of the protective theory to private life was that it would furnish occupation for Mrs. Brown in the potato field, while even the toddling little Browns could be profitably employed in weeding onions, and thus the whole family be gloriously supplied with work. Mrs. Brown tried scolding, and she tried weeping, and she tried sulking; and finding that neither course of treatment had any effect in modifying Brown’s economic theories, she dried her eyes, kilted up her skirts, took her infant children by the hands, and went forth to her diversified industries with cheerful resignation.

[Thenceforward?] the protective principle was applied in the Brown family to a constantly increasing extent. Work was plenty and occupations became very diversified indeed. When Mrs. Brown and the children began to want new clothes, Ephraim planted flax, routed out an old spinning wheel and hand loom, and hailed the birth of a new industry. He slaughtered calves and beeves, cut down his growing oaks, and developed the industry of tanning. His coffee was burnt rye, sweetened

p. 2, col. 4 with sorghum juice; his socks and mittens and underwear were knitted by Mrs. Brown and the girls from wool sheared from his own sheep. The busy hum of industry was all about him; from morn to dewy eve there was constant work for himself, his wife and his little ones; and when one of his elder boys spoke disrespectfully of the great protective system, and wished he could live somewhere where it wasn’t all work, good Ephraim J. Brown “lambasted” the recalcitrant youth for his own good, and compelled him to commit to memory three lucid and convincing pamphlets by Judge Kelley, the great Pennsylvania statesman.

And yet, somehow, things didn’t turn out as they should have done. Ephraim became a fair tanner and shoemaker; his wife learned how to weave and spin, and was dexterous at sewing and knitting; the children learned a great variety of occupations. The crops of course were scanty because there really wasn’t time to attend to them, and the pasture lands grew up in weeds and briers. Year after year Ephraim studied books on protection and faithfully applied their principles, but somehow each year found the whole Brown tribe more ragged and poverty stricken than the year before. The mother Brown faded and died; the younger Browns grew up hollow cheeked and stunted. Steadily confident in the great central truth that the way to benefit men is to protect their home industries and give them plenty of work, Brown struggled on, constantly expecting an era of prosperity and not at all discouraged because it didn’t come. The mortgage on the farm grew larger; the interest fell into arrears; and at last the coming of age of the eldest boy, in December [1884?], was celebrated by the foreclosure of the mortgage, and the haling of Ephraim J. Brown before a sheriff’s jury of his neighbors, who promptly decided him to be insane and committed him to an asylum as a lunatic pauper. It was a sad ending to a noble effort.

Our protectionist contemporary, the New York Press, remarks:

The basis of the whole free trade argument, from Adam Smith down, is the practical identity of interest as between the individual and the nation at large.

Then, of course, the basis of the whole protective argument is the practical opposition of interest as between the individual and the nation at large. From this it is easy to see wherein the mistake of Ephraim J. Brown lay. He was misled by the poetic but fallacious idea that the law that molds a planet also rounds a tear. He took it for granted that general principles can be applied to particular cases, and utterly failed to grasp the true inwardness and essence of the protection idea—the great truth that a nation can only grow rich, as a whole, by methods which will reduce its individual citizens to poverty. ’Twas pity of him, for he meant well and labored faithfully.

In the light of this plain narrative of facts, we can better understand why Pennsylvanians should dispute and wrangle over poor Brown’s unhappy plight. What they are really trying to do, though they don’t know it, is to banish the harassing doubt that the doctrine of protection to home industry may after all be a crazy delusion, and the attempt to carry it to its logical conclusion worthy only of a natural born ass.

TO TAX BLOOMINGDALE.

Assemblyman Connelly has introduced a bill for the taxation of the extensive grounds of the Bloomingdale asylum for the insane in the twelfth ward of this city, providing, however, that the property occupied by the asylum buildings shall be exempt, and that there shall be a further allowance and exemption from taxation of $10,000 of the assessed value of the property for each poor insanse^sic person committed to such asylum by the department of charities and correction.

This is intended as a blow at one of the land monopolies that seriously retard the growth of this city. Bloomingdale asylum was originally established as a charitable institution. It has long ceased to deserve that title, and has become an endowed asylum for the wealthy; yet, on the pretence that it is a public charity, it holds thirty-five acres of ground on this island free from taxation. This land is valued at all the way from $5,000,000 to $10,000,000, and, even under the present system of assessment, ought to yield a large sum to the city in taxes. Not only does it escape its just share of taxation, but the society of rich men controlling it has persistently stood in the way of opening streets through the property. Mr. Connelly says he will do his best to press his bill, but he does not talk hopefully as to the prospects of its passage.

This is certainly a measure not merely moderate, but generous to the society, though it may be objected that it does not go far enough. This community is abundantly able to take proper care of its insane, not as a charity, in the sense of alms giving, but as an act of justice toward those who are co-heirs with the sane in the wealth that the community has created. It needs no private assistance in the performance of this duty, and the provision made for these unfortunates should be such that there would be no real necessity for private institutions of the kind. All that is requisite in order to enable the community to meet this just public responsibility is that it shall receive the annual income to which it is entitled on the land values that it has created. These will be ample for every public purpose.

The whole system of exempting from taxation land held by private charitable institutions

p. 2, col. 5 is wrong. Every inch of ground on this island not used by the public authorities for a public purpose should be taxed, and then the public should meet its responsibilities without looking to private individuals for aid, or tolerating the growth of the parasites that have attached themselves to the state, pretending that they can perform public functions better than the constituted authorities. The only advantage to be gained by Mr. Connolly’s^sic bill is the education of public sentiment up to an understanding of the fact that no private establishment, whether charitable or otherwise, must be permitted to hold land free from taxation.

THE LAND MOVEMENT ABROAD.

A movement has been set on foot in London to secure judicial rents for working people. The law exempts houses of a less ratable value than £20 a year from house duty, the water companies are forbidden to charge more than five per cent on this rating and the local authorities allow landlords to compound their rates at from twenty-five to thirty per cent. It seems to have been supposed that these arrangements would assure cheaper rents to workmen, yet, says the Christian Commonwealth, “Not one farthing value from these advantages is shared by the tenants.” The landlords pocket every penny of it and the result is that, while the better class of property pays landlords but five per cent, these workmen’s houses yield to the owners of the soil ten per cent per annum. Following the example set in Ireland, the workingmen of London propose to ask parliament to intervene and fix an arbitrary limit on the rent that can be exacted for such houses. The movement is an excellent one so far as it tends to still further direct public attention to the evils resulting from the existing system of land tenure, but it will probably be ineffective in the long run, since landowners will substitute more expensive buildings and forego the exemptions now enjoyed rather than submit to have the state regulate their rents.

Professor Stuart, M. P., in recently addressing his constituents at Shoreditch, London, said that the value of London homes represented a great deal of toil, saving and thought, while the enormously greater value of its ground rents “represented merely waiting for a rise in value; but the houses are taxed for local purposes and ground rents are not.” He advocated a reversal of the system. A summary of Professor Stuart’s speech, published in the London papers, concludes as follows:

They must take care that the natural unearned increment which arose from the increased number of people in the metropolis should go to the people who created it—namely, to the municipality. He was entirely for the rights of property, especially in these democratic times. But there were two rights of property. One was the right of those who had it to enjoy it; the other was the right of those who earned it to get it. The state had fixed its eyes on the former of those two rights for many a long year, and it had left the second of those rights to look after itself. The consequence was that the laws had been made to keep property in the hands of those who had it, but no laws had been made to secure it to those who earned it by the fruit of their own toil. To remedy that would be the work for the coming year.

Professor Stuart, a man of high standing and great ability, and a son-in-law of Mr. Gladstone, thus puts himself clearly and frankly upon the single tax platform and takes his side in the rapidly growing movement to restore the equal rights of the British people to their native land.

In London the question of taxing ground rents is becoming a practical one, and is now under consideration by the “united committee” over which Lord Hobhouse presides. The London Echo urges the committee to act, but says it is deterred from action by the fear of being drawn into the movement for land nationalization. “Lord Hobhouse,” it says, “has no intention of taxing the landlord at the rate of twenty shillings in the pound, but there are some members of the committee who declare that this is what they want.” The Echo of February 17 says:

Of course, there is no reason why Mr. Saunders, and other disciples of Mr. Henry George, should not combine with men of more moderate views, but it must be for a definite purpose. The “united committee” have yet to agree upon what they want to do, and upon the means for doing it. Last evening Mr. Frank Debenham expressed the opinion that the ground landlord should pay 10 per cent of the local taxation. Lord Hobhouse suggested 25 per cent, and Mr. Handel Cossham 50 per cent. We should hardly like to commit ourselves to either of these propositions. There are properties in the city where the ground landlord receives more than one-half of the rack rental value: there are properties in the suburbs where he does not receive more than a sixth or an eighth. A suggestion was made last night that the land should be assessed separately from the house, but there are plenty of properties at the West end where the original leases have nearly run out, on which, if this principle were applied, the whole of the present ground rent would be entirely absorbed in local taxation.

This will not scare Mr. Saunders nor do any harm to renters. The remarkable thing, however, is the evidence given in this discussion of the wonderful progress made in public opinion on this question. Ten per cent was manifestly considered too low for consideration. Lord Hobhouse himself suggested twenty-five per cent.

Public opinion in other parts of the [Kingdom?] seems to largely favor the crofters in [their?] raid, and Sir Frederick Millbank, a large land owner, writes to the Yorkshire Post severely rebuking that paper for denouncing the crofters as lazy vagabonds and thieves. He bears strong testimony to the honesty and industry of

p. 2, col. 6 the crofters, founded on an acquaintance of fourteen years, and says:

These crofters on the brink of starvation can overlook the beautiful hills and glens, in which their forefathers lived in comfort and happiness, now given up to sheep and deer. Therefore, I say, they should not be judged harshly, but with feelings of pity and sympathy. I deeply regret and disapprove the disturbances now taking place. These men are acting illegally, and none can justify their conduct. No doubt the raid in the park forest was organized for the purpose of bringing their wrongs before the public.

If such were the case they seem to have accomplished their object, and the result may be that the public will see that they deserve something more than pity and sympathy—justice. The laws that compel men on the brink of starvation to see sheep and deer roaming over the land of their birth while they are excluded from all chance to make a living on it, are better broken than kept.

The land movement in Australia is making most satisfactory progress. The land nationalization league has spread throughout the continent and its advocacy is no longer confined to any single paper. An organization has been effected in Sydney recently and the papers of that city are giving much attention to the subject. The New South Wales league celebrated in January the first anniversary of its establishment by a fete and picnic. The Australian republican union has decided to make land nationalization a part of its platform.

In New Zealand the movement has clearly entered the stage of practical politics. We find in the Marlborough Daily Times, published at Blenheim, the address of Mr. John Godfrey, a candidate for parliament, to the electors of the Waimea-Picton district. Mr. Godfrey declares that the land question “is beyond all others the question on which our future well-being depends.” He commits himself fully to the single tax doctrine and quotes extensively from “Progress and Poverty” in support of his position. In New Zealand the English system of land tenure was forced on the natives by the speculators, and there has always remained a strong conservative sentiment opposed to the ruinous innovation of private ownership in land.

That the land movement in New Zealand is not a new one is shown by the following advertisement, which appeared in the Kapunda Herald in 1872:

LAND REFORM LEAGUE.

PRINCIPLES.—1. MORAL—That all men have an equal right to the use of the soil, subject only to such limitations as are necessary to insure proper cultivation and give security of tenure.

2. ECONOMIC.—That the increased value that land acquires from increase of population and progress of civilization belongs to the state, and not to the individual.

OBJECTS.—1. To stop the alienation of the public lands.

2. To provide for the leasing of public lands, subject, inter alia, to the following conditions:—

a. All lands to be leased for a period of 21 years, at rentals to be decided by public competition.

b. At the expiration of a lease, in the event of the former tenant not continuing as lessee, he shall receive from the in-going tenant the value of all his improvements, such value to be decided by arbitration.

WILLIAM LEWIS, Chairman.

Persons desirous of joining the League are requested to send their names and addresses, together with an entrance fee of 2s, 6d., to J. T. TYLEY, Kapunda, Hon. Sec.

Land reform leagues having the same platform were about the same time started in the Australian climes. This movement had the warm support of John Stuart Mill, who thoroughly endorsed this statement of principles and objects. Under the southern cross as under the northern star the work of the men who years ago, labored so fruitlessly and so hopelessly, as it seemed at the time, to propagate the truth that the earth was made for all men, is now showing its effects in the rapid and steady march of the single tax movement. So it always is with those who strive to advance a great truth, no matter how unpopular it may for the moment be.

—Never yet Share of truth was vainly set, In the world’s wide fallow.

POSTAL TELEGRAPHY.

A combination of local interests seems likely to force congress to appropriate over $25,000,000 for the erection of extravagantly expensive public buildings, and an equal sum for river and harbor improvements, many of which will be made exclusively for the benefit of private parties. This tendency to extravagance is due to the existence of the large surplus taken from the people’s pockets and piled up in the treasury by the continuance of our war tariff. Even those who see the necessity of cutting down the tax are engaged in this selfish scramble for a division of the existing surplus. But while millions are thus about to be wasted the daily press dispatches indicate that congress will utterly fail to take a most important step for which the existing surplus paves the way. Instead of authorizing the post office department to build public telegraph lines the probability now is that some such act as the interstate commerce law will be passed to regulate the existing telegraphic monopoly. If Jay Gould has power to prevent congress from adopting the proper remedy, how can a commission be expected to offer any more effective opposition to his power? There is no question that congress has power to establish a postal telegraph, and it is a fact known to every one that it has vastly more than enough money to pay for the work. Yet it proposes to throw away that money continued on p. 3 →

[continued on page 3]

ARE THEY SOCIALISTS?

The New York Sun charges that the advocates of Mayor Hewitt’s proposal that the city shall build and run rapid transit railroads have practically become socialists. The truth or falsity of this charge depends entirely on the definition given to the word socialism. That term is now ordinarily accepted as applicable to the political scheme of which Karl Marx was the best known exponent and which contemplates an assumption by the state of the general conduct of what we call private business. This scheme has a small but active body of supporters in this country, and for all practical purposes it is the only one properly described by the word socialism.

There are also here and there political doctrinaires who insist that the government should be confined to the exercise of mere police powers, and that it should refrain from any interference with trade or commerce. and account^sic even the administration of public charity as no part of its functions. Such people, when consistent, insist that the United States government should have nothing to do with carrying the mails or maintaining post office. In their eyes all who advocate any or all of the measures to which they object are socialists.

If, as is probable, the Sun used the word socialist in its narrower and commonly accepted sense, not only are the gentlemen it criticises not socialists, but they are the advocates of the only policy that will enable men under existing conditions to provide a remedy for existing evils that is not socialistic in its nature. There is a broad and well defined line between functions that are essentially public and those that are essentially private. The establishment of highways suitable to the requirements of the age is a public function, and there are few if any instances of the establishment of such a highway without the assistance of the state in granting a franchise and delegating the people’s power of eminent domain. The general transmission of intelligence is also a public function, and it has rarely if ever been assumed by private parties without similar public assistance.

All businesses that are in their nature monopolies, and are not made monopolies by mere combination and conspiracy or legal assistance, are properly the business of government. It is a recognition of this fact that has forced governments to recognize their duty in the matter of public highways and a public mail service. The supplying of cities with water, gas and local transportation is properly the business of the municipal government, and the more clearly men insist that our various governments shall perform all public duties and cease to farm them out to private individuals the sooner we shall see the end of an agitation to force the government to undertake private business operations.

The real difficulty at present is found in the fact that, while neglecting their proper functions, our local and national governments have undertaken to control private business. The protective tariff is socialism pure and simple. By this device the government undertakes to pervert its taxing power to the upbuilding of certain p. 3, col. 2 private businesses at the cost of the whole community. Bounties to favored persons and the legal granting of monopolies are essentially of the same nature, and it is more than questionable if the laws for the collection of individual debts are not of the same general character.

When our government is prepared to perform all its public functions, and to derive its support from natural opportunities, instead of from the products of industry, it can well afford to abstain from exercising any paternal functions, and leave private individuals to conduct their own business without its interference or assistance. The result will be that its operations will be greatly simplified, and we shall drift away from much that is now socialistic in our political system. In urging that the municipality of New York shall establish the kind of public highways demanded by the exigencies of modern life, the gentlemen criticized bv^sic the Sun are working against, and not in favor of, all that is commonly understood by the term socialism. If socialists at all they are only socialists in that higher sense and in that well defined field in which all men who would secure full liberty to the individual must be socialists.

METALS AND TARIFF REDUCTION.

It is pitiful to see how even the good work cf^sic the ways and means committee—bold, conscientious, and logical as it is by comparison with the bungling efforts of congress—is yet marred by the necessity of making politic concessions to the fetish of the protective idea. The public mind has been so poisoned with the heresies that manufactures can be stimulated by hindrances to commerce, and wages raised by propping up monopoly, that it is hardly yet ready for the strong meat of common sense; partially wakened though it has been to some perception of the essential injustice of the tariff system. Selfish local interests must be propitiated with log-rolling expedients, and wrong notions of economic effects catered to by useless rates of duty, inoperative for either good or evil. Mr. Mills is wise to touch the metal industry so lightly, for there is the central iniquity worthy of a separate campaign after the smaller outworks have been carried.

And yet it is a shame that such considerations should have to be taken into account, or that even an honest measure to partially reform an evil like the tariff, which public sentiment is as yet too blind to wholly abolish, should have to go through the childish form of doctoring here and there such an overgrown mass of absurdities. Congress must needs sit in solemn conclave on the entire scale of intricate duties that are intended to protect the labor and capital employed in converting the same material into different forms by building the walls a little higher each time the further the product gets from the raw material. This is what they call scientific protection; and yet, when all the work is done, just one rate in the entire scale on each kind of goods has any effect, and that effect is not to raise wages or increase profits, but to advance rents and heap up royalties. The law under which all protective duties operate—that down through the field of competition no tariff will raise a price, but that up to the line of monopoly the full pound of flesh will be exacted whether the price is raised or not—does not affect wages, which are governed solely by relative freedom of access to natural opportunities, and it does not even affect the manufacturer, unless he is also a land owner.

One of the duties that the new bill reduces is that on bar iron; but this duty might as well be doubled, for all the practical effect that will be produced. The maker of bar iron is’ already^sic shielded by from $18 to $25 a ton duty, and yet the price of his goods is raised only about $7 a ton, nearly the same as the additional price that he has to pay for the pig of which to make the bar. The steel rail men are beneficiaries to a somewhat greater extent. because^sic theirs was a patented monopoly for so many years that they are still intrenched in an established business, to enter which requires a large amount of capital, and which competition will therefore be slower to affect. But even steel rails are only $10 a ton higher in America than abroad, although the duty is $17 a ton. Pig iron, on the contrary, always brings a price that is just under the cost of importation, with the $6.72 duty added, and iron ore will sell at an advance of $2 when the duty is only 75 cents. Here are a set of apparent inconsistencies that are in reality directly correlated links in one chain.

In passing from the crude state of ore to the finished state of bars or rails there is very considerable waste in manufacture during the first process of making pig iron, and very little waste in the further processes of conversion into other articles. The freight charges on this waste stuff in the ore would prevent its importation if there were no duty at all, and free ore would not really diminish the power of taxation in the hands of mine owners. Lords of monopolized natural gifts, they can always add to the price of their product the full advance which the tariff forces consumers to pay for anything made of iron, except where a temporary monopoly, like that in steel rails, intercepts a part of the plunder. A leading protectionist paper has recently made the following pathetic appeal:

Far seeing and frank pig iron manufacturers in the Lehigh valley look with concern into the future, and few of them are not willing to confess, when hard pressed, that at least some of the works must go to the wall if there is any long continued depression, unless, indeed, relief is afforded to them in some directions. The times have passed when, from the ore to the finished manufactured bar p. 3, col. 3 or shape, a round profit could be added by every one who handled the material. [It is?] particularly in the matter of ore royalties in which a reduction is imperative. Few probably are aware of the fact that some of the Lehigh furnace companies are paying $1 and even $1.50 royalty—although, of course, [50?] cents is the usual figure—on New Jersey magnetites. The leases were entered into in 1872 and 1873, and are now drawing to a close. It remains to be seen whether those controlling ore property will be willing to make the concessions which changed conditions call for, or whether they must be taught a lesson by the crippling of the Lehigh pig iron industry and its gradual but otherwise certain decline in its struggle with less hampered sections of the country.

But the mine owners will continue to take their pound of flesh all the same. They are rather modest Shylocks, indeed, in those cases where the mine has been leased on a royalty, as they have foregone so much of the bonus which the tariff confers as lies above the royalty. They are not the only landlords who are beneficiaries of the tariff, for the same law applies to each of the protected industries—that whatever increased price accrues from the working of the tariff is ultimately collected by the owner of land from which comes the raw material used in production; he holding the only right of absolute monopoly which is involved, while both the labor and the real capital employed are subject to competition. As with iron, too, so with all other protected articles, the advance in price will equal—or rather will rule just a trifle under—the tariff rate which is set on that form of the article concerned, which in the industrial chain is the first that does not materially lose weight in the process of further manufacture. As with iron this is pig, so it is dressed boards with lumber, or the resultant from crystalization with sugar; whatever may be the duty above or below that line will not affect the price; and so the arduous labors of our congressmen to erect a carefully graded system of protection are as futile as the whole system itself is to promote the interests of any one, even in the protected industries, except the landlord controlling the original source of wealth.

Copper, lead and tin plate are the only articles in the list of metals on which the new tariff bill proposes any possibly effective change of duty. A reduction in the present outrageous duty on lead would be a real relief to that extent from a toll paid to a handful of western companies that have recently tempted public indignation by banding themselves into a trust, to ensure that by no accident of quarrelling among themselves will they fail to extort from the public the entire tax on industry which the law authorizes them to impose. This is what has happened of late years among the copper producers, the most richly endowed of whom have been so eager to force out of even the domestic market every one but themselves that they have abandoned their old custom of charging a higher price to the nation which was protecting them than they did to more fortunate foreign consumers. So, for the present, American copper actually costs no more in New York than in London, and the proposed reduction of duty from four to two cents a pound will have no immediate practical effect beyond serving as a step to the point of ultimate general free trade. Tin plate being altogether imported, its free admission will relieve industry only of the visible taxation that is paid at the custom house, and not, as with other forms of iron, of an additional taxation paid to domestic producers. While it is to be regretted that the metal schedule will not contribute more largely to the free list, and particularly that the backbone of protection cannot be broken with free pig iron, the tariff reformers are doing so well according to their lights that we can afford to wait a little longer.

EDWARD J. SHRIVER.

“PLATE SIN WITH GOLD!”

The grand jury of this city has failed to indict Jay Gould and Russell Sage for grand larceny on charges arising out of their dishonest conversion to their own use of Kansas Pacific bonds held by them in trust. A strong prima facie case was made out, and the attorney for the bondholders, after many difficulties, got the facts before the grand jury. At this stage, however, the proceedings became extraordinary. Usually, unless the case as presented by the complainant clearly breaks down, the grand jury finds an indictment. The defense on legal and other grounds is made at the trial. All that is necessary to warrant the grand jury in finding an indictment is evidence, which if uncontradicted or unexplained, would warrant a petit jury in convicting. In this case there is no pretense that such evidence was not submitted, and, had the defendants been poor men, they would, beyond the shadow of a doubt, have been indicted.

But the defendants were two great millionaires. The whole ordinary procedure in such cases seems to have been changed. The district attorney granted a preliminary hearing before consenting to submit the facts to the grand jury. When the evidence was given to that body the case was practically tried by it behind closed doors, and, contrary to all custom, witnesses for the defense as well as for the prosecution were heard. Yet, despite all these precautions, the jury was unable to declare that it could find nothing in the evidence needing explanation or contradiction, and it took the most astounding step of filing into court and asking the judge to interpret for it a certain section of the statute of limitations. Judge Cowing gave his interpretation of the statute of limitations as applying, to the case^sic, and the jury then retired and refused to find the indictments on the ground that the prosecution of the offense was barred by the statute.

p. 3, col. 4 The New York Herald has interviewed numerous lawyers on the conduct of the district attorney and grand jury in this case, and nearly every one of them condemns the proceeding. Ex-Judge Arnoux, now in Europe, expressed his amazement and declared that “no such plea should have been entertained by the district attorney or the grand jury.” General Francis C. Barlow said, “I think the disposition made of the case an outrage upon justice. Judge Cowing seems to have been called in to shield a timid jury.” S. B. Chittenden thought it “a queer proceeding” and was not surprised that it provoked severe criticism. The lawyers who attempted to justify the decision merely gave their opinion that the statute of limitations applied, but made no comment on the extraordinary character of the whole proceeding.

The opinion among business men interviewed by the Herald was generally one of indignation. A Wall street man who has had many a fight with Jay Gould confessed that now, for the first time in his life, he was afraid of him. If Gould can walk out of court in such a case as this, he said, “he can ruin me with impunity but I cannot hurt him. There is no law to hold him.” Walter Miller, treasurer of the cotton exchange, said he was not surprised at the failure to indict because “the commercial community is losing faith in judges and lawyers.” The opinion of the general public is probably summed up in an editorial in the Herald commending the grand jury for its economy in avoiding an addition to the expenses of Sing Sing, and saying:

If instead of Russell Sage, the millionaire, charged with grand larceny, this bad been^sic “Johnny, the wharf rat,” accused of the same crime, we doubt if there would have been as much complaisance. Johnny would have had to stand his trial.

We presume it is all right, but it looks very queer.

Queer! Not at all. It is what we are used to. Mr. Walling, for many years superintendent of police in this city, says in his recently published book:

Although, of course, all things are possible, yet I would not count among probable contingencies, under the present system of government in New York, the hanging of any one of its millionaires, no matter how unprovoked or premeditated the murder he might have committed.

Mr. Walling not only makes this startling declaration but he shows how such a condition of affairs has been brought about. He says that this city is actually ruled by some twenty thousand office holders, “most of whom are taken from and controlled by the very worst element in the community,” while “our judiciary and prosecuting officers are elected and controlled in a great measure by the very elements they are called upon to punish and keep in check.” What are the Sage-Gould and other incidents in our courts but illustrations of the truth of Mr. Walling’s terrible indictment of our methods of municipal government?

It is useless for newspapers to lecture and moralize over these results of our evil system. If the methods of our courts are to be reformed, if “pulls” are to be abolished and equal justice is to be administered, the corruption that pervades our politics must be attacked at its root. There is at present but one measure proposed that offers to our people any hope of emancipation from the corrupt rule of the rapacious office holders, “taken from and controlled by the very worst element in the community,” and that is the law to establish the Australian system of voting. This is not all that is needed, but it must be the first step toward any real reform. It will put an end to the bribery and corruption by means of which the office holders maintain and perpetuate their power in defiance of the will of the majority. Instead of wailing over the inevitable results of a corrupt system, let the newspapers bring their influence to bear in favor of the passage of one of the pending bills.

The republicans in congress have indicated their policy so far as the tariff reduction bill proposed by the committee of ways and means is concerned. They may eventually antagonize it with a bill of their own, but they will unquestionably use every means to secure its defeat, and, with Mr. Randall’s aid, they may attempt to prevent its consideration. What they desire is to prevent any tariff legisiation^sic. One of the methods of delay will be by a prolonged debate. The speaker’s list of those who have signified their intention to talk on the tariff already embraces fifty names and more will doubtless be added.

There is also another duty that lies quite plainly before our free traders and tariff reformers. The air is filled with rumors of conspiracies to prevent the support of Mr. Cleveland’s nomination by the delegation from this state. This would not concern those outside the democratic ranks if it were not for the fact that the unconcealed object of these schemes is the repudiation of Mr. Cleveland’s views on the tariff question. But though this is the object, those concerned seek to gain it by indirection. Disappointed aspirants for office are asked to revenge their supposed wrongs by defeating Mr. Cleveland’s nomination. Tammany is urged to demand Postmaster Pearson’s place as the price of its support. It is whispered that Boss Power of the county democracy is playing on the restless ambition of Mayor Hewitt to induce him to seek to control the New York delegation in his own interests as a candidate. Governor Hill is pulling wires in his own behalf, and added to all there is the pestilent activity of the New York Sun, which is again seeking to lead the fatuous democracy into p. 3, col. 5 a trap. It is probable that these intrigues will amount to nothing, but it is almost certain that the delegates sent to St. Louis from this state will not be such men as would look upon these pitiful maneuvers with the contempt that they deserve^sic- The men whose support is essential to democratic success, in case the tariff is made the issue, should make it plain to these traders and hucksters in politics that if the democratic party does not bring the tariff issue into politics they will, and they will bring it in in such fashion that the hopes of any democratic candidate for election will melt into thin air. That party has been betraying its professed prineiples^sic for a long time in order to conciliate protectionists. It must be made now to understand that it will have to stand by its professed principles in order to conciliate free traders and revenue reformers.

Mr. Hitt has introduced in the house of representatives a joint resolution to promote reciprocity of trade between this country and Canada which proposes that the two countries shall make their internal revenue duties and their tariffs against the rest of mankind substantially identical. and^sic then permit free trade between Americans and Canadians unvexed by custom house officers. Mr. Hitt’s proposition is an admirable one, and if congress has the wisdom to adopt it, it may prepare the way for a true reciprocity of trade between the United States and Canada that will afford both peoples an object lesson on a grand scale, showing the folly and stupidity of tariffs in general.

At a recent “industrial convention” held for the purpose of advertising to the world the natural resources of West Virginia, the notorious Stephen B. Elkins, who is the son-in-law of West Virginia’s “coal king,” ex-Senator Davis, declared that in that state coal is cheaper at the mouth of the mine than it is in England. The West Virginia Democrat, commenting on this, pertinently asks:

If it be true our coal is cheaper at the mine than coal in England, why is it that the millionaire mine owners insist on continuing the tariff tax of seventy-five cents per ton. The recent strikes are conclusive that this tax is not in the interest of the miners.

The Democrat sees this phase of the matter very plainly, but if it would push its thought further along it would easily find an answer to its own question. Of course the tariff is not in the interest of the miners; but it is very positively to the interest of the land owners who make their enormous profits out of their power to limit the production of coal so as to keep up the price. If the state of West Virginia taxed its magnificent natural resources to their rental value, instead of permitting private parties to do so, the miners could find constant work through the increased demand for cheaper coal. They could pay the tax and sell coal cheaper than it is now sold, and at the same time reserve to themselves much higher wages than they are able to compel the protected monopolists to pay them. In that event Messrs. Davis and Elkins would perhaps take less interest in developing the resources of the state, but on the other hand the rush of real workers to West Virginia would be such that industrial conventions would not be needed. Meanwhile the state would enjoy a magnificent revenue now appropriated by private individuals who render it no real service but who exercise over its politics a power so baleful that it is bringing the state into universal contempt.

Senator Beck undertook to make an address on a pension bill last week, but hardly got well started before he was in the middle of a speech on the tariff. His remarks called out rejoinders from Senator Plumb and others, and there was for a time a brisk though by no means profound tariff discussion. The incident is not encouraging to those weak-kneed democrats who want to keep the tariff issue out of politics. It shows that the real leaders of both parties can think of nothing else.

The New York chamber of commerce has adopted resolutions opposing any attempt to restrict the immigration of foreigners to this country. These resolutions would be more creditable to the body if the debate on them had not been of a character to show that the animating purpose of those concerned was, in the supposed interests of the class that they represent, to make human labor abundant and cheap. In the course of the debate one member declared that it would be “as reasonable to require babies to present passports as a legal preliminary to the privilege of being born as to attempt to tamper with the world wide human right of changing from one place to another.” The first criticism on this simile is that it would be reasonable, if it were practicable, to exact such conditions of babies if we are to maintain a system that denies them any right to a place on the earth into which they are born and only makes existenoe^sic possible to them on condition that they buy the right to live or receive it as a charity.

The Herald has added a new chapter to the history of rascality by an elaborate exposure of the great Mendocino land grab, by which a few people acquired possession of 20,000 acres of rich timber land in California. The case is bad enough, but no worse than thousands of others. What a pity it is that a great journal like the Herald cannot, instead of unearthing individual instances of the evil results of an evil system, be brought to use its powerful resources for an attack on the system itself.

Deacon White of Brooklyn, is the most p. 3, col. 6 persistent defender of the rascally management of the Pacific railroads to be found in the present congress. Though the deacon pretends to be governed by public considerations in his attitude on this question it has been conclusively proven that he is constantly speculating in the stocks of these roads in this city. He is using his voice and vote in congress to affect the price of stocks and attempting at the same time on the street to make a profit out of any changes in value that he may succeed in bringing about. He ought to be expelled from congress.

The all-absorbing character of land monopoly has recently been amusingly illustrated in Massachusetts. Last summer the president’s wife spent some time with General and Mrs. Greeley at the little town of Marion. This led a number of people who delight to bask in the smile of the nearest approach we have to royalty to flock to the town, and there was a general belief that another visit from Mrs. Cleveland during the coming summer would make Marion a place of fashionable resort. Thereupon General Greely’s landlord notified him that he should feel obliged to increase his rent. General Greely refused to thus pay for the advantage Marion had derived from his hospitality to a charming woman. and decided^sic to remove to another town. In this instance the grasping landlord overreached himself. Had he possessed more of the wisdom of the serpent he would have so arranged matters with his brother landlords that General Greely would have been able to entertain Mrs. Cleveland on a second visit without expense. Rents and prices might then have been safely advanced on all the surrounding lands, and the local papers would have chronicled the growing prosperity of Marion and blessed Mrs. Cleveland for the wealth increasing influence of her presence.

The attempt of the London authorities to dispose of the errors of socialism by policemen’s clubs instead of arguments is doing much to overthrow the old time respect for the liberty of the English citizen which has, up to this time, been one of the most marked and creditable characteristics of English public sentiment. There is a growing disposition in official circles to sustain the police in the commission of outrages on suspected persons that calls forth remonstrance even from the tory London Standard and moves the liberal papers to indignant protest. In this respect the New York press compares most unfavorably with that of London.

In a recent issue of the New York Press a correspondent states that he has been informed that an American sewing machine, costing $45 in this country, can be bought in England for less money than in the United States, and asks an explanation. To this the Press responds glibly:

When you consider the difference in the cost of labor here and in England it is quite possible. Many of our large sewing machine companies have shops on the other side of the Atlantic, notably the Singer company. As the wages paid are about half the American rates it is not surprising that they should produce machines cheaper.

And yet there were exported from this country in 1887 to Great Britain and Ireland $813,225 worth of sewing machines and parts of sewing machines. According to the Press theory, this should go far to prove that workers in sewing machine factories receive only half the wages in this country that they do in England.

The Kings County Committee Reconsider.

The Kings county committee of the united labor party met on Tuesday evening, about sixty delegates being present. Victor A. Wilder, in spite of the fact that he had been withdrawn by his district and his re-election was not yet announced, took the chair. The first two hours were passed in an attempt to adopt a set of by-laws and in making and deciding innumerable points of order. The Wilder faction, who had attempted to force the consideration of the proposed by-laws and constitution to the exclusion of other business were voted down, and the committee, after reading the minutes of the last meeting, then proceeded to consider the proposition that the resolutions denouncing Henry George, which were passed at that meeting of the committee, should be reconsidered. Charles O’C. Hennessy, president of the Twentieth ward association, moved the reconsideration, which was bitterly opposed by Gaybert Barnes, Victor A. Wilder and James J. Clancy. Mr. Hennessy made a vigorous speech denouncing the original resolution as part of a conspiracy to transfer to Kings county the McMackin-McGlynn-Barnes’ attack on Henry George in New York. Other members spoke at length, and the discussion lasted until after midnight. The motion for reconsideration was finally carried, and the resolutions were rescinded amid much cheering.

Mr. Wilder then made a speech admitting his defeat and announcing his intention of resigning the chairmanship.

Anti-Poverty in Indianapolis.

INDIANAPOLIS, Ind., March 5.—The meeting of the anti-poverty society last night was well attended, and a very pleasant and enjoyable evening was spent. The society has adopted a systematic programme, commencing last night, which proved much more satisfactory than the former way of conducting our meetings. The regular exercises will hereafter consist of reading a chapter from the Bible, singing, reciting, and an address by a selected speaker or a volunteer, followed by questions by those desiring information. T. J. Hudson was the speaker last night.

Our society promises better than ever before, and there is no such thing as thinking of giving up the work. Several new visitors were present last night, and they were all well pleased with the meeting, and promised to come again and often. These persons were all well known people, and will add much strength to our society, just what we need at this time.

A resolution was passed asking Warren W. Bailey of Chicago to call a conference for the 4th of July, giving Indianapolis as our first choice and Cincinnati as second for place of meeting.

L. P. CUST[ER.?]

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, MARCH 10, 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.

QUERIES AND ANSWERS.

WESTERN PRISONERS OF POVERTY.

CINCINNATI, O.—Cincinnati started on her career one hundred years ago, in 1788, when a few emigrants from New Jersey settled here. At the beginning of the century the population was 750. In 1820 it was 9,602; in 1840, 46,338; in 1850, 115,436; in 1860, 161,044; in 1870, 216,239, and in 1880, 255,139. The area of the city is about twenty-four square miles, or say 16,000 acres. Cincinnati therefore has a population of about sixteen to the acre, and cannot be said to be densely settled.

As might be expected where men congregate together and aid each other in their work, the wealth of Cincinnati has increased as marvelously as her population. In 1880 the city had 3,276 manufacturing establishments, producing 126 different lines of goods. The aggregate capital of these establishments was $51,000,000, the material they used cost $62,000,000, and the gross value of their products was $105,000,000. Cincinnati’s yearly profit on her manufactures alone was thus $43,000,000, which, after deducting six per cent interest on the capital invested would leave an average profit of $800 for every family of five persons within the city limits. Nor is manufacturing the only source from which the people of Cincinnati derive an income. Their city is a great center of distribution, to which traders resort from a vast extent of country to exchange the products of their various neighborhoods against each other, and for goods brought from distant points. On all this commerce Cincinnati justly collects a profitable toll.

In a city so advantageously situated, so populous and so thriving in its various industries, a visiting stranger—say from the planet Jupiter or from the moon—would certainly never expect to find any one in want of the common necessaries of food, clothing and shelter. But lest there should be any such, the good people of Cincinnati have erected, at a cost of several hundred thousand dollars, a magnificent brick building 515 feet long by 55 feet wide, standing in the midst of a park of twenty-six acres, at which any resident of Cincinnati has the right to apply for relief in case of need. Ample provision is also made for the sick in the way of public hospitals. Surely if poverty and the gnawing anxiety of impending destitution can be banished from any place on earth they should be banished from Cincinnati.

And yet, somehow, it isn’t so. Strange as it may seem, there are poor people in Cincinnati. Indeed, there are very poor people there. People so poor, so destitute, so crushed by misery, that a great religious newspaper, the Cincinnati Western Christian Advocate, tells us that “so far as the comforts of life are concerned, and freedom from the harrassing^sic thought of providing for their loved ones, the oonvicts^sic in the penitentiary are better off than they.” And these people are not the viciously idle and dissipated. On the contrary, they are—Christ help them!—delicate women and innocent children, who toil “every moment from early in the morning until 10 or 12 o’clock at night, and sometimes until 1 or 2 o’clock in the morning,” and withal earn wages “so small that they are scarcely able to make enough to procure the simplest food and pay rent for an uncomfortable room.” Twenty-five thousand of these unhappy creatures, the Western Christian Advocate says there are. Twenty-five thousand of them! Twenty-five thousand wives, widows, mothers, sisters, daughters, writhing in the infernal slime pit of poverty, praying to a deaf God for their daily bread, and often serving the devil to get it, within the borders of a city whose growth and riches are one of the marvels of the western world.

An exaggeration, did you say? Well, if it is, it is the exaggeration of a Christian newspaper. Here are some of the things the Western Christian Advocate tells us on the subject:

A larger proportion of these women and children than is generally supposed are obliged thus to struggle for a living through no fault of their own or of their friends. Many, it is true, have been reduced to their present condition by the dissolute habits of husbands or fathers: but there are thousands whose husbands and fathers are, or were, sober, industrious men, and provided well for their families until striken^sic with disease, or inpoverished^sic by business misfortunes. . . .

Miss R. and another lady rent a floor in a large building, and sub-let the rooms at a profit. She stated that many working women were able to make a living only by some similar means. Many working girls, she said, to get money to buy good clothes, such as a girl clerking in a store or serving in a restaurant is expected to wear, take up with young men, witn^sic whom they live without being married. Sometimes they are afterward married, but very frequently are cast off and go to the bad. . . .

The lady was formerly a member of the Baptist church, but has not attended any church for several years. Her children attend an Episcopal Sunday school. She was apparently of the respectable poor. She occupied two rooms, for which she paid $8 a month rent. The one seen was plainly furnished, but was in good order. Her husband lost his health during the flood several years ago, and suffers from rheumatism. He is able to work occasionally. Her little boy, who is a newsboy, makes more wages than she does. . . .

Some oash^sic girls are required to work for several weeks without pay. They are then given small wages, sometimes not more than fifty cents a week, which in the course of months may be increased to $1.50. The average wages, it is said, do not exceed $1. Worse than the small wages is the unkind treatment to which many of these children are subjected by heartless employers. . . .

One Saturday evening, not earlier than 10 o’clock, one of the little cash girls, aged about ten years, was observed to be crying. While the lady clerks were endeavoring to soothe her, the proprietor came up and in a very rough tone asked what was the matter. The child replied that she lived in Newport, Ky. (a suburb of Cincinnati on the opposite side of the Ohio); that she had been kept the previous Saturday night until 11 o’clock and was afraid to go home. The explanation angered the proprietor, who passionately exclaimed, “This thing must be stopped!” and he took the child to the cashier’s desk, paid her her wages and discharged her. Think of a little girl of ten or twelve making her lonely and perilous way at 10 or 11 o’clock at night from Cincinnati across the Ohio river to her home in Newport. It is enough to send a shudder through one’s soul.

A somewhat similar case received notice in one of the daily papers, a little girl being found delivering millinery goods on Walnut hill one Saturday night, too late to catch the midnight car and ride to her home in the city.

In considering such facts as this article contains it is to be remembered that many of these sewing women have little children to support; that all of them must have rooms to live in, and that these rooms cost on the average from half a dollar to a dollar a week each; that they are sometimes obliged to employ physicians, and medicines; that there are times when illness makes it impossible for them to work; that the cost of living in cities is always much higher than in the country; and when these and similar facts are remembered, the story of these prices becomes a wail of woe. Sharp pangs are the daily experience of many of these weary and overworked slaves of want, and agitation for re

p. 4, col. 4 > lief becomes no mystery when the facts are known.

Something wrong somewhere. Perhaps the visitor from Jupiter or the moon could tell us what it is. I wonder if God has so ordained the universe that not only this earth of ours, but all the other myriad myriad worlds with which He has sprinkled space, are held as private property, each by a few planet owning heirs of God, who exact a tax from their fellow beings for the mere privilege of using the attraction of gravitation to avoid shooting off into space, and hurl them neck and crop into the filthy slough of poverty if they cannot pay. If it be so, what a mighty wail and lamentation must be forever rising to the throne to drown the music of the spheres.

SERVUS.

A QUEER SORT OF PROTECTION.

EXTRACTS FROM LETTERS.

J. Hamilton Dillon, Secretary Twenty-third Assembly district, United Labor party, New York.—We would be cowards and worse to ignore the tariff issue. Such a course would be to turn the united labor party into a mere tail for the republican high tariff kite. And what single tax free trader proposes to be calmly led by the nose in that direction, whether by a central committee or a national conference? The answer is obvious; our duty is clear.

E. Q. Norton, Mobile, Ala.—I have not heard a single dissenting opinion among our single tax men as to your course with regard to the presidential nomination and Dr. McGlynn’s position. Your dignified attitude has pleased all.

Land and Labor club No. 2, Memphis, Tenn.—Resolved, That it is the sentiment of this club that the nomination and running of a presidential candidate this year by the united labor party would be unwise and impolitic, and that we do hereby record our protest against any such action of the party

N. G. Leslie, Kalamazoo, Mich.—I wish to say that I have changed my mind concerning the nomination of candidates and am now of the opinion that it would be rank folly for us to do so unless the democrats back out entirely on the tariff issue, which it hardly seems possible they will be idiotic enough to do. It is plain that we are to have a red-hot campaign, in which tariff is to be the only issue, and if the democrats try to straddle the fence it will cause a much greater split in their party than it has in ours. After free trade comes free land, and even though we are derided and scorned, the politicians are, nevertheless, fighting our battles. Let us help them destroy one another; then the field will be left clear for us.

A. W. Cumins, Woodstock, Ill.—As to the question of nominating a ticket to be beaten this fall just for the fun of the thing—excuse me, if you please, I have been in that boat too many times. We can take our choice of one of the old twins, or go with the new infant industry called the prohibition party, or we can call ourselves anarchists and remain away from the polls, as we please; but I can see nothing to be gained in allowing ourselves to be “counted out” once more. Go straight ahead, heaving the lead occasionally, and I think we shall get there quite as soon as to enter the fight this fall as a party.

John Stewart, Matawan, N. J.—Since reading the views of Mr. George, Mr. Shearman, Judge Maguire and various others, as printed in THE STANDARD, I firmly believe it would be foolish to run a presidential ticket if the democrats come out square against that infernal relict of barbarism called “tariff.” It is beyond my comprehension how any one who is a sincere believer in the doctrines of Mr. George can at the same time be a protectionist, and when I hear men proclaim themselves as the sons of the sons of protectionists I always feel glad that I never belonged to any political party whatever. Great principles for me, free land, free trade, free thought.

J. J. Carbery, Cincinnati.—I am confident that the divorce of McGlynn’s personal fight with the ecclesiastical machine from the land value tax agitation will greatly aid the cause of true free trade.

Rev. J. C. F. Grumbine, Syracuse, N. Y.—I thoroughly sympathize with you in your attitude toward Cleveland and the great aims of the united labor party. I am sure that Dr. McGlynn will acknowledge his error before long.

A Miner, Lehigh Co., Pa.—As a reader of your paper I feel in duty bound to speak in commendation of it. Never, heretofore, have I had an opportunity of studying principles so far reaching and, to my mind, so practicable. The action you intend to take in the coming struggle I am completely in accord with. To me it seems madness to dream of forming a national political party at the present time. By so doing nothing is more certain than that you would return to power the party which is your worst enemy.

F. C. Thompson, Concord, N. H.—As an early and still faithful member of the anti-poverty society, as a Knight of Labor in good standing, as an American citizen without prejudice, as a farmer with free trade proclivities, allow me to express my sympathy, gratification and enthusiastic admiration for your present course and counsel in regard to the future of the united labor party and yourself.

J. G. Kennedy, Cedar Rapids, Ia.—Since the formation of the united labor party and their active part in politics last fall I have till lately hoped that we could enter a national campaign with advantage to the cause of “free land.” The wish to do so was, no doubt, in a great measure father to the belief that we could do so unitedly. I never for a moment supposed that in a national campaign we could take any other stand that of^sic the free trade party. But the letter of Victor A. Wilder in THE STANDARD for Jan. 21, opened my eyes to the fact that we were not yet sufficiently educated in the principles of our cause, that we had not all seen “the cat” in its completeness. Running a presidential ticket while ignoring the tariff question, would be like entering a state campaign and ignoring the questions of taxation and special privileges.

Theo. Buehler, Alma, Wis.—Well, what sort of attention should we engage by going into a tariff campaign and saying nothing about the tariff?” You ask me this question in THE STANDARD of the 11th inst^sic., but I don’t think it worth while to speculate upon the result of such an absurdity. The united labor party can do nothing of the kind without stultifying its record. The tariff is a tax upon the products of labor, and the Syracuse platform proposes to substitute a single tax on land values for all other methods of taxation, and “by abolishing all taxes upon industry or its products to leave the producer the full fruits of his exertion.” If this don’t mean death to the tariff I don’t understand the English language. It means full free trade and not partial free trade. I cannot stand upon any platform that closes its eyes to or evades the tariff question for the purpose of catching a protective voter.

A Clergyman, Portland, Me.—I thank you for your manly editorial in this week’s STANDARD. I deplore Dr. McGlynn’s course very much. God bless you ever. I am “almost persuaded” to accept your position, but not quite. But I esteem greatly and warmly applaud your earnestness, your candor, your courtesy, your patience, your courage. Let the great debate go on! The truth will become plain and will win its way. I am with you in your opposition to protection. I may yet accept your plan of the single tax. But whether I do or not I shall always declare in private and public, my interest in your writings and my faith in the nobility of your purpose.

Martin J. Meagher, Skaneateles Falls.—You are right and I am with you. I carefully read the THE STANDARD^sic and I am convinced your judgment is sound.

A Clergyman, ——, ——.—Allow me to congratulate you upon the stand you have taken. For many years I have been convinced that your position as regards the ownership of land was impregnable. I arrived at my conviction thereupon after reading Herbert Spencer’s “Social Statics.”

——, Poughkeepsie.—I am more than sat

p. 4, col. 6 isfied with your statement in this week’s STANDARD. The level headed men here are in decided accord with you. I am surprised at the strong undercurrent of opinion in favor of the land movement. The weekly land and labor club meetings are well attended, and they all so far as I can ascertain sustain your views as to the course now to be pursued.

Thomas P. Turner, Healdsburg, Cal.—I have been an absolute free trade advocate for more than half a century, and am more sanguine of its triumph since the publication of your unparallelled^sic work, ’Protection or Free Trade?” and the forcing of the issue in the presidential campaign. I am much distressed about the disagreement with Dr. McGlynn. It is not difficult to understand who is in error. Your editorial, “Personal and Political,” fully explains the necessity of educating the masses thoroughly before making a direct appeal to their political duties.

George F. Lewis, Victor, Iowa.—I inclose 35 cents, for which please send a copy of “Protection or Free Trade?” to the address below. I sincerely regret, as all true friends of the new crusade doubtless do, the unjustifiable conduct of Dr. McGlynn. It seems to me incomprehensible; but it confirms the truth that we are all “poor critters.” The best of us have our weak and frail sides, that some unlooked for accident may at any time make manifest.

A. C. Campbell, Ottawa, Can.—As a journalist of twelve years’ standing, allow me to compliment you on THE STANDARD. It is worthy of you in every way, but most of all in its outspoken style. I read it with the very greatest pleasure.

Land and labor club, Mobile, Ala., March 1.—At a regular meeting of the land and labor club of Mobile the following resolutions were unanimously passed and ordered to be forwarded to THE STANDARD for publication:

Whereas, Certain late oocurrences^sic in New York city having in a measure distracted the attention of some of the friends of the single tax measure; therefore, be it

Resolved, That we have unbounded confidence in the single tax upon land values to solve the industrial problem.

Resolved, That we have in Henry George a leader in whom centers great ability, purity of purpose and keenness of perception, combined with patience, which distinguishes the statesman from the mere politician.

Resolved, That in view of the magnitude of the great question he has solved and so ably set before the people to carry out, we deem it wasted time to give attention to events of a purely local character in New York city; that we are greatly impressed by his wisdom and generous self-sacrifice on behalf of the good of the cause, and we hereby pledge ourselves to renewed efforts in spreading the light, and send to him and to all who work in good faith for the adoption of the single tax our greeting and well wishes.

Resolved, That we favor the idea of all single tax societies sending to THE STANDARD for publication an expression of their views as to the desirability of holding, at an early day, a conference for the good of the cause.

Charles A. Siringo, an Anti-poverty member, Denver, Col.—I glory in the noble stand you have taken on the presidential question. A man with a principle and the nerve to back it up regardless of what friends and party say or think, should have a warm place in the heart of every true Christian.

Alexander Walls, Seattle, W. T.—In my opinion those who are insisting on the party running a presidential candidate are either scheming politicians or have failed to see the whole cat. The united labor party is essentially a free trade party, and protectionists have no business in it. If the united labor party would not forfeit public respect and confidence it must be above the suspicion that its leaders are trafficking in the influence and power that they wield. The power of the united labor party to do good depends in great measure on the belief of the public in its purity of motive and singleness of purpose. Would not the general public have just grounds for suspecting crookedness with two free trade candidates in the field? Is it not much better to help the candidate who stands for free trade as against the candidate who stands for protection, no matter whether he sails under democratic colors or republican colors? It seems to me that our duty is plain in this matter. Indirect taxation (tariff and internal taxes, etc.) is the sentinel who guards the great robbers, and without which the great robber could not exist. It would be absurd, as well as morally criminal, on our part, to help the great robber by refusing to challenge the little robber or help others who wish to do so. To abandon principle in a petty whim to get even with any party or persons is unworthy of men, and would be inexcusable in school boys.

William G. Stade, Smith Center, Kansas.—Inclosed find $2, for which send copies of “Social Problems,” “Progress and Poverty” and THE STANDARD as far as the balance will pay for it. I had one “Progress and Poverty,” but it has been loaned so much that it is about worn out. It seems as though I could not do without THE STANDARD now. I am very sorry to see the division in the ranks in New York. I did hope that a party had at last arisen composed of men that would not sacrifice everything to secure a little worship of themselves. I can’t see how any single tax men could go into the coming campaign and ignore the tariff question. I always thought that when we went into national politics the tariff would be the main issue we should make.

William Maloney, Kansas City.—In the beginning of the presidential controversy in the columns of THE STANDARD I was inclined to favor a presidential nomination; but after more matured thought, and reading the arguments advanced pro. and con., I think such an act would be extremely foolish.

SOBER SECOND THOUGHT.

ALL ALONG THE LINE.

ANTI-POVERTY IN PHILADELPHIA.

ANTI-POVERTY SOCIETY.

UNITY CONGREGATION.

TRINITY’S TAXING POWER.

Suppose that some zealous member of the Methodist Episcopal church should introduce in the assembly at Albany a bill authorizing a private corporation, composed entirely of reputable and pious members of that communion, to levy a tax of five per cent on certain lands on Manhattan island for the support of struggling Methodist churches in this and adjacent states, how would the proposal be received by the public? Is there any doubt that it would be repudiated by intelligent members of that denomination and denounced by the public generally? Even those who might, from interested motives, accept such a measure as applicable to this city, would protest that it would be unfair to tax the residents of New York city for the maintenance of churches to which, in the nature of things, but few of those paying the tax could have access.

Yet this is precisely what is done by the corporation known as “The rector, wardens and vestry of Trinity church.” In the course of the controversy that took place in the legislature in 1857, concerning the right of all members of the Episcopal church in the city to participate in the election of the wardens and vestrymen having control of the property granted by King William “to the use and behalf of the inhabitants from time to time inhabiting and to inhabit” the city of New York in communion with the church of England, an appeal was made to the fears and prejudices of rural assemblymen in order to induce them to vote against the then pending bill to permit the members of the Episcopal communion throughout this city to elect half of the wardens and vestrymen. It was declared by those making this appeal that Trinity corporation had liberally aided Episcopal churches in all parts of the state, and that the result of the participation of the city Episcopalians generally in the choice of wardens and vestrymen would be the restriction of the corporation’s benefactions to city churches.

The advocates of the pending measure did not dare contend that such a course would not only be just, but in strict accord with the conditions of the grant, but they denied that there was any probability that Episcopalians generally in the city would be any less generous toward country churches than the corporation as then controlled had been. The idea that there was any impropriety in levying a heavy tax on land in the business portions of this city for the purpose of aiding churches of a single denomination beyond the city limits never appears to have dawned on the mind of a single man engaged in that exhaustive and acrimonious debate.

On the contrary, the propriety of such a course seems to have been admitted by all, and this perversion of the funds of the trust was dwelt upon by the friends and advocates of the Trinity corporation as one of its chief claims to honor and recognition. Rev. William Berrian, rector of the church, published in 1855 a plaintive pamphlet entitled “Facts Against Fancy, or a True and Just View of Trinity Church,” in which he gave a minute list of Trinity’s benefactions. Included in the list of beneficiaries are Episcopal churches in Westchester county, Hudson, Albany, Long Island, Poughkeepsie, Fishkill, Peekskill, Ballston, Duanesburg, Catskill, Schenectady, Philipsburg, Troy, Lansingburg, Waterford, Cooperstown, Utica, Geneva, Newburgh, Delni^sic, Auburn, Rochester, Le Roy, Genesee county; Constantia, Oswego county; Syracuse, Westfield, Chatauqua county; Elmira, Seneca Falls, Kingston, Rome, Oswego, Otsego, Holland Patent, Batavia, Olean, Saratoga, Tarrytown, Sag Harbor, Ticonderoga, and dozens of other towns and places throughout the state. In many cases lots were deeded to those outside churches, by which congregations remote from this city are still empowered to maintain themselves and support their pastors by means of a tax levied directly on business men and others in this city. St. Peter’s church in Westchester was in 1809 given in perpetuity the right to levy an ever increasing tax on five lots of land on Reade, Chambers and Warren streets, in this city; Grace church at Jamaica, L. I^sic, was in the same year granted power to levy a similar tax on three lots on Lumber street and one on Reade street; St. George’s at Flushing was given a similar power over five lots on Warren and Chambers streets. Similar grants were made to several other out of town churches in 1809 and much more extensive grants of the same kind were made from time to time to various city churches. As a rule, however, the corporation preferred to hold this taxing power in its own hands and bestow some portion of its proceeds on other churches. Among those thus assisted were churches at Stamford, Conn.; Portsmouth, N. H.; Newark, Jersey City, and Hoboken, N. J., and others outside this state.

Nearly all gifts and donations were made to Episcopalians, many of them taking the form of pensions and subsidies to sick or worn out ministers or their widows. The cost of the publication of the proceedings of the general convention were for years paid by Trinity, and in many other ways it contributed to the general expenses of the denomination. Its gifts for other than sectarian purposes up to 1855 were easily enumerated and did not occupy much space in the good Dr. Berrian’s pamphlet.

In 1752 a lot of land on Barclay and Murray streets, extending from Church street to the Hudson river, was deeded to what was then King’s college, and this property is now part of that over which Columbia college exercises the taxing power which gives it a magnificent revenue. As this gift was accompanied by a condition that the Episcopal form of worship should be maintained in the chapel of the college, this gift cannot be considered as wholly unsectarian.

In 1765 two lots were conveyed to the city to enable it to establish a ferry to Powles Hook.

In 1771 $500 in cash was contributed toward building a market, and the ground on which it was to be built was exchanged p. 6, col. 2 for certain water lots belonging to the corporation.

In 1775 two lots on the north side of Vesey street were given for a pier and slip.

In 1800 $250 in cash and several lots were given toward building markets in Brannon, Duane and Christopher streets.

In 1810 and again in 1815 a few lots were granted for the benefit of the free school society.

These were all the grants for a public purpose recited in Dr. Berrian’s pamphlet, and most of these seem to have been made with a view to improving the property of the corporation. Such was clearly the case so far as the aid given in establishing markets, ferries and slips are concerned.

Among the Episcopal churches in this city to which Trinity surrendered its power to tax land and aided directly with money are Grace, St. George’s and St. Mark’s. To Grace it deeded twenty-five lots on Rector, Vesey, Barclay, Warren, Chambers, Church and Reade streets; to St. George’s thirty-three lots on Reade, Church, Greenwich, Murray, Chambers, Warren, Barclay and Beekman streets, and to St. Mark’s twenty-eight lots on Warren, Church, Reade, Harrison, Greenwich and Provost streets. These lots in the very heart of the business center of the city are now worth an enormous sum and must yield to the churches named a magnificent revenue. Yet these churches were among those active in calling Trinity to account in 1855. Referring to this fact Dr. Berrian says:

With such liberal arrangements in the case of Grace church, and such noble gifts and ample endowments to St. Mark’s and St. George’s, does the charge of niggardliness against Trinity church come from this quarter with decorum and grace? Could it have been supposed that this munificent corporation would ever be made, as it lately has been in a public assembly, the object of denunciation and menace, of sarcasm, vituperation and scorn, with tongues steeped in the gall of bitterness, and imaginations luxuriating in all the wantonness of abuse, by the very persons who were sharing most largely in its bounty? . . . It is confidently believed, and, as it is thought on very just grounds, that the united incomes of St. Mark’s church, Grace church and St. George’s are equal at least to one-half the net income of Trinity church itself. If this conjecture be true, then, after all the suitable arrangements in these parishes are made, and all needful expenses incurred, there would still remain a considerable surplus beyond their own proper and peculiar wants. Now what becomes of this surplus? To what purposes is it applied? To whom is it a boon, a blessing and a relief? I have never learned, neither have I ever met a man who had.

This is clearly one of these fallings out through which rightful owners now and then benefit. Dr. Berrian’s argument is that Trinity has made the best possible use of the vast estate held by it in trust for public use and benefit; but even if this were not the case, he insisted that other churches to which Trinity had delegated and abandoned its taxing power had made no better use of it than Trinity had made. It was a good enough retort, not inapplicable to the question then under discussion, but having no bearing whatever on the great question that looms up before us in the future as to the right of individuals and corporations to levy for private, sectarian or any partial benefit a tax on the common property and to take to themselves the annually increasing rental values created by the people of all creeds, denominations, conditions and avocations.

Trinity has had a stormy time in the nearly two centuries that have elapsed since William III granted it its original charter and Queen Anne granted and confirmed to the rector and inhabitants of New York “all those our severall closes, peeces and parcells of land, medows and pastures formerlly called the Duke’s farme, and the King’s farme, now known by the name of the Queen’s farme.” Private individuals have with vigor and persistence urged a costly legal battle for the possession of the lands held by the corporation. Representatives of the great body of Episcopalians in New York city have asserted their claim to a voice and share in the direction of the estate. All such demands have been met and successfully resisted by the self-perpetuating corporation. No claim, however, seems ever to have been urged on behalf of the people. This is remarkable because there were obvious and excellent grounds for such a claim. Between the years of 1776 and 1783 the power of the king and queen who made these grants was overthrown by armed revolution, and with the overthrow of their power was also overthrown in this country the idea that it is any part of a government’s duty to establish or maintain a state church. How, under these circumstances, a grant made specifically for such a purpose was held to remain good enough to withhold this land from the common domain, but not good enough to assure the devotion of the income of the trust to the purposes designated in the grant, is one of the mysteries of the legislative mind and practice.

There is certainly nothing in the original charter to show that there was the most remote purpose in the mind of William of Orange to make a grant for the support of a sect. The laws of England in his time had been brought to tolerate sects, but certainly not to pet or favor them. The church of England was substantially a part of the government, and the king of England, who called himself in this very charter, “William III, King of England, Scotland, France and Ireland, Defender of the Faith, etc.;” was the recognized head of that church. It was obviously his duty as head of the church and state to extend his spiritual authority over the people acknowledging his political dominion in America. The grant of a charter to the rector and inhabitants of the city of New York was simply an exercise of that authority. It was, in part, a formal ratification of an act previously passed by the colonial assembly for the express purpose of establishing a state church in the colony. The corporators were alluded to in the charter as “the present managers of our said church of England within our said city of New York,” who had petitioned to be incorporated as “The rector and inhabitants in communion of the Protestant Church of England as now established by our laws.”

p. 6, col. 3 Under these circumstances the king granted the charter and appointed Henry, lord bishop of London and one of his privy council, first rector of the parish. The lands granted were “to the use and behalfe of the inhabitants from time to time, inhabiting and to inhabit, within our said city of New Yorke, in communion of our said Protestant church of England as now established by our laws, and to no other use or purpose whatsoever, any statute, law, customs, or usage to the contrary in any way notwithstanding.” The church wardens and vestrymen were made subject to the laws and statutes regulating the choice of such offices and of overseers of the poor and other parish officers in other parts of the realm, and the dues of rector and others were to correspond with those in the parish of St. Mary Bow in London. Furthermore, in this charter, and in the colonial act proceeding^sic it, authority was distinctly given to the wardens and vestrymen to levy a public tax for church purposes on all of the inhabitants of the parish. There was no qualifying clause here exempting those not communicants of the church of England from this tax, and in this and all other matters there is conclusive evidence that the grant was made for the express purpose of establishing a state church.

Under these circumstances it is difficult to imagine the course of reasoning by which the legislature of New York state was brought to pass the act of 1784 confirming in possession the persons then claiming to hold the Trinity estate in trust, and making the inhabitants of the city then in communion with the Protestant Episcopal church—one of the several Protestant sects then in existence—the sole beneficiaries of the trust. The preamble to this act declared that those parts of the charter “which render necessary the induction of a rector of the said church by the governor, according to such instructions as he shall from time to time receive from his Britannic majesty, and such other portions of said charter and law as admit and acknowledge that rights exist in the bishop of London in and over said church, are inconsistent with the spirit and letter of the constitution of this state.” It further declared that certain other parts of the charter were “contradictory to that equality of religious rights which is designed to be established by the constitution of this state.” The new statute, therefore, repealed and annulled the power of the wardens and vestry to levy a public tax for the maintenance of the church and all other portions of the charter and colonial acts that recognized this as a state church.

There were no facts justifying this act, and it was in form and spirit an attempt to legally sanction a breach of contract and a diversion of trust funds. The preceding government recognized the existence of a state church and the obligation of the civil power to support and maintain such a church as a part of the public policy of the government. Its grant of franchise and lands was therefore for what it deemed a public purpose. The new government succeeding that of George III denied the propriety of such an exercise of power by the state and was by its constitution inhibited from establishing or maintaining a state church or discriminating in favor of any particular church or sect. It found itself the successor to a government that had made a grant the conditions of which were legally as impossible of fulfillment under the change as would have been a grant of certain rents for the purchase of jewels for the crown of the sovereign of a country that no longer acknowledged any personal sovereign.

As the trust could no longer be administered and the conditions of the grant for the establishment and maintenance of a state church in New York had become impossible of fulfillment and void in law, the land reverted to the new sovereign power—the people of New York—and the constitution of the state forbade in specific terms any such favoritism as was shown by the legislature in its grant of this property to trustees for the use and benefit of a single religious denomination. The Protestant Episcopal church of the United States is no part of the church of England. It acknowledges no allegiance to the English monarch as its head, and no subordination to the bishops and archbishops who still rule over the church of England as established by law. It is simply one among many churches in this country, and it resembles the English church in its form of worship and general belief. It is not, as was the church chartered by King William, a state church and a part of the government, and it was not in equity the successor of that state church which ceased to exist through the success of the revolution that overthrew all the power, political and ecclesiastical, of the English monarchs in these states.

I have no present access to the records of the debate in the legislature of 1784, if such records exist; but if no objections of this kind were raised to the passage of the act the failure must have been due to inadvertence, or to the fact that any likely to oppose such act were themselves anxious to preserve other grants made by the English king. There was much sensitiveness on that subject just then. Perhaps it was run through as quickly as was the act of 1814 by which all Episcopalians in New York city, except communicants and pew holders of Trinity church, were deprived of any right to a voice in the management of a trust which even the act of 1784 declared to be for the use and benefit of all the inhabitants of the city within the communion of the Protestant Episcopal church. Be the facts as they may, had the question of the justice and constitutionality of the act of 1784 been questioned on behalf of the people, the grip of the corporation on this great estate, dedicated to public uses, would have been more severely shaken than it was by private lawsuits and legislative investigations.

Is there, then, no remedy for vested wrongs that masquerade as vested rights? Apparently not under existing laws as now administered. Trinity church, the Dutch Reformed church, and numerous other corporations and private individuals hold possession of valuable tracts of land on this island by a title clearly traceable to illegal acts. They hold by “adverse posses p. 6, col. 4 sion” as firmly as though their title deeds ran back without flaw or omission to the only true source of a land title, the Maker of the earth Himself. An investigation of these land monopolies would be as fruitless under existing conditions as the investigation of the great trusts into which other monopolies are merging themselves appears likely to be. The law is on the side of the monopolists and the law cannot be broken, and perhaps it cannot be constitutionally amended so as to secure justice.

But there is, nevertheless, a remedy that goes to the very root of this and most other evils, which is legal, constitutional and effective. Happily none of the dead kings, governors, legislators and citizens whose ignorant blundering has tied the hands of the present generation in so many things ever attempted to grant or barter away the people’s sovereign power to tax the soil on which they live. In the exercise of that power lies the remedy for all such evils as arise from the blunders of William and Anne and all their predecessors and successors on the British throne, and from the mistakes, or worse, of the legislatures of 1784 and 1814. Not merely the lands held by Trinity and the churches to which she has granted her taxing power, but all lands to which the presence of millions of people in this metropolitan district has given an enormous annual value are a sacred trust to be held in perpetuity for meeting the public wants of the whole of this vast population. This trust is created by no king or legislature, but it was made by Him whose word declares that “the profit of the earth is for all.” “One generation passeth away and another generation cometh, but the earth abideth forever.” In it the generations that have come must find not only all that is necessary to their wants, but the remedy for the evil deeds and ignorance of the generations that have passed away.

Trinity church now has the legal power to tax large portions of the land on this island for such purposes as may suit the whims or fancies of her twenty-two wardens and vestrymen, who are practically responsible to no one but themselves for the administration of their trust. Men struggling to maintain a business in New York must not merely pay a tax on lands and houses and many other things to meet the expenses of our government, but they must pay a far heavier tax to put stained glass windows in churches that they never visit, and to maintain a religious service that is perhaps obnoxious to them. They must likewise contribute to the maintenance of preachers whom they do not know, to sects with which they have no sympathy, in towns that they will never see. All of this may now be done in strict accordance with law. Yet no one denies that the same law gives to the city and state of New York the right to tax this same land, and, since private experience shows that for purposes not public in their nature it is capable of yielding a much greater revenue than the city now draws from all existing taxation, it is clearly the duty of those who now pay this tax to demand that their government shall cease to burden business and industry by its imposts and draw from land all the expenses of existing government and all the expenses necessary for the government that ought to be, which will make this an ideal city, with perfectly paved, clean streets, an abundant supply of water, gas and heat, and a publicly owned system of rapid transit that will be managed with regard to public necessity, safety and comfort, and not for the earning of dishonest dividends on fraudulently watered stock. Let the thousands who see the injustice of Trinity’s possession of the best part of this island turn their eyes from a single instance to a whole system of wrong, and consider then what is involved in the proposal to shift all taxation to land values and increase the tax until it approximates the full rental value—or, in other words, to gradually appropriate ground rents to public use. After that Trinity’s charter from King William and its grant from Queen Anne would be chiefly valuable to the historical society.

WM. T. CROASDALE.

The Tax Reform Club of Brooklyn.

The tax reform club of Brooklyn held its regular weekly meeting on Wednesday evening, Feb. 29, at Everett hall, 398 Fulton street. The attendance evinced an increasing interest in the objects of the club, and several new members were added to the roll.

After the transaction of regular routine business, Mr. T. Atwood opened the discussion of the question of “state and municipal taxation” by reading an interesting paper on the subject. Beginning by pointing out the importance of the question, he traced the history of taxation from its first inception to its present complicated system; and showed how, under present arrangements, not only is the amount necessary for the support of government exacted from those least able to pay it, but an enormous additional impost is levied for the benefit of private parties. He showed that the present system is really an invasion of the sacred rights of property, and claimed that whatever a man produced should be his as against all the world. He quoted approvingly Ruskin’s celebrated resolution that: “Whereas, It has long been known and declared that the poor have no right in the property of the rich, I desire it to be known and declared that the rich have no right in the property of the poor.”

Mr. Atwood pointed out the folly of levying taxes on personal property, and commended Mayor Hewitt’s recent utterances on the subject. The logical outcome of placing all taxes upon real estate would be the simple, just and reasonable single tax on land values.

Mr. George White spoke briefly, pointing out the true incidence of taxation and showing how all taxes on production are shifted inevitable^sic to the consumer. The only tax, he showed, which could not thus be shifted would be the tax on land values, which must be paid by the user or abuser of natural opportunities out of his own pocket.

Owing to the lateness of the hour it was decided to postpone the discussion of the taxation of personal property to the next meeting, which will be held at the same place, on March 14. At the same meeting a debate will be held on the question “Is the wealth producer entitled to all he produces?” Mr. R. W. Jones supporting the affirmative and Mr. George White the negative. Persons desiring to take part in the debate are invited to send their names to the secretary or chairman before the date of meeting.

A. L. VOORHEES, President, 106 Livingston street.

p. 6, col. 5

Our Hope.

There’s a hope that is fair as the dawn, When the darkness of night turns to day; ’T is the light of that glorious morn When black poverty’s night melts away.

Now crushed hearts are weary and sad, And eyes are grown dim with their tears; Then hearts shall be joyful and glad, For the day star of glory appears.

The earth, which lies idle and dead In the grasp of monopoly’s hand, Shall give to the millions their bread, That abundance may reign in the land.

No more in foul tenements bound Shall they drink in disease with each breath; No more in dark mines underground Shall they pray for the blessing of death.

But the kingdom of God shall appear, And his will shall be done upon earth, When love conquers envy and fear, And the sighs of the poor turn to mirth.

We are battling now for the right, The cross shines to guide our crusade; And Jehovah of Hosts is our might, For we march in his armor arrayed.

New York city. JOHN ANKETELL, A. M.

ANSWERING SENATOR SHERMAN.

A Word from Professor Wilmarth.

LONDON, Feb. 19.—I have spent some weeks in a quaint old town in the agricultural districts of Essex. The land for miles around is owned by a “lord.” He not only claims the ground rents, but the “grand tithes.” The small tithes support the vicar of the established church, and after they are paid, the people (of whom the great majority are dissenters) may pay for the support of their own churches. The farmers are complaining bitterly. They pay an annual rent of from £3 to £5 per acre, with tithes and rates in addition. The price of their produce is lower than ever before. What wonder that they are emigrating? The population of this part of the country has decreased heavily during the last decade. In politics the great majority of townsmen, as well as farm laborers, p. 6, col. 6 are liberals and in favor of home rule for Ireland. I became acquainted with nearly all of the dissenting ministers and found them willing (after the ice was broken) to talk upon the subject of ownership of land. Several of them granted the complete justice of our claim, but were frightened away from even a closer examination of the subject by the magnitude of the obstacles that stand in the way of its establishment. Strange how little faith men have in the omnipotence of truth and goodness. I believe with Swedenborg that “all power is in truth.” Our work is to clear the way that truth may act, and our lesson is—to wait.

L. E. WILMARTH.

TEACHING HOME TRUTHS AT HOME.

FACTS VS. THEORIES.

The People’s Estate.

Bligh, N. S. W., Watchman.

The colony of New South Wales is the estate of the million or so of people who inhabit^sic it. They have no other source of revenue. If merchants in Sydoey^sic make money by trading with other countries, by shipping or otherwise, they can only do so by having some land in the colony, rented or purchased. It is for this privilege that persons are willing to pay many thousands of pounds for the best sites, say in George street. It will thus easily be seen that those who get this favorable site should pay its annual value, not to any one person, but to the “firm,” the whole people, who are partners in it.

p. 7, col. 3

THE TENANT FARMERS OF THE WEST.

Why Not Extinguish the Greatest Monopoly of All in the Same Manner by Taxing It Out of Existence?

Philadelphia Record.

The people of this country are by no means helpless in the presence of the new form of monopoly known as “trusts.” Nothing more would be needed than for the legislature to tax the mischief and monopoly out of them. It may be said that the property held by these “trusts” is so elusive that its value could not be ascertained for purposes of taxation; but there would be no great difficulty in this matter. If the confidential managers of a “trust” would not disclose its property the state authorities could make an approximate estimate of it, and upon that estimate could tax the property for public use. . . .

There is no necessity for congress to interfere in this matter by using its taxing power to favor one of these products for the advantage of the other; on the contrary, there are important reasons why congress should not interfere. The chief of these reasons is that the several states, in vigorously exercising their police power, could tax out of existence every monopoly or “trust” that might be organized to control the market of the food supplies of the people. The people could thus be relieved from this form of oppression without violence and without discouraging legitimate business enterprises. Whenever a “trust” rears its head for the purpose of usurping control of the supplies of a necessary of the American people the watered certificates should be heavily taxed till the owners willingly resume fair methods of business.

A Curse Everywhere.

Topeka Post.

“Land speculation,” says the Chicago News, “is one of the curses of the city of Washington. Senators, congressman, department clerks^sic, doorkeepers, and messenger boys are inoculated with it. Newspaper correspondents as a class are especially liable to catch the epidemic. Once in the system there is no way of getting rid of it.”

Land speculation is a curse everywhere else as well as in Washington and for advocating a removal of the curse the land reformers are called cranks. Some day, perhaps, when the land sharks have every inch of mother earth in their possession, the fools who ridicule the men who are endeavoring to rescue the land from the grasp of the speculators will beat their breasts and regret they did not listen to the advice of the “cranks.” The recent developments of land steals of resident and alien speculators should enlist every man and woman who has the least spark of regard for the declaration of the founders of this government into one grand movement for land reform. Henry George’s theories may not suit the general idea of land ownership, but the great mass of the people, if

p. 7, col. 4 they can be made to study the land question, cannot but see that a change in our system of land ownership is necessary too if our boasted “unalienable rights” are to be preserved. Land speculation a curse? Do not doubt it. All the “trusts,” “corners” and other speculating enterprises will be the easier wiped out when the corner in land is wiped out.

Cardinal Manning’s Theory in Practical Operation.

Riverside (Cal.) Enterprise.

HELENA, Mont., Feb. 19.—A Billings (Mont.) special to the Independent says: About 7 o’clock this evening a force consisting of eighty or more Rocky Fork graders proceeded to the place of business of Commissioner Hoskins, and, there surrounding him and firing into a corner of the building, demanded food, with threats of violence, both personal and general, should relief be refused them. This morning the county assumed no further responsibility in the matter, and food has in consequence been refused them to-day. Commissioner Hoskins, having no authority to act alone, and both other commissioners being absent from the city, he was forced to give his personal guarantee for two meals to avoid personal injuries and the general destruction of property.

As nothing can be done on Sunday it will be necessary for him to accede to the demands of the hungry horde till Monday, when an issue will be brought. Riot and arson are to feared^sic. Public safety demands prompt action on the part of the higher officials of the road to satisfy the demands of the men for wages, and thus free this city from its unwelcome load of desperate men, whose actions have long been watched with apprehension.

Land and Labor in New Zealand.

The Christian Commonwealth, London.

A correspondent of the Daily News sends from Nelson an interesting account of the land reforms introduced by the New Zealand government.

The leading features of the scheme are: A recognition of the principle of state proprietorship and antagonism to land monopoly. The scheme is one to provide farms on easy terms for those requiring them. Instead of selling the land, perpetual leases are granted, the rental being based on the capital value. The charge for rent is fixed at five per cent on this value. No allotment is to exceed 320 acres. The holdings may be sold or subdivided, subject to the approval of the commissioners for crown lands, but subletting is for bidden. No one may hold two allotments. Every leaseholder must, under the conditions of his lease, actually reside on his holding for a period of six consecutive years; must bring his land into cultivation within a reasonable period, and must put substantial improvements upon it.

NEW PUBLICATIONS.

[Advertisement] The Railway News

[Illustration: cover of The Railway News, a heavily inked engraved title page with landscape, train and the words “THE RAILWAY NEWS,” flanked by vertical lines of type. Legible wording: “DEVOTED TO” | “RAILWAY INTELLIGENCE” | “CONSTRUCTION, OPERATION, MANAGEMENT, EXTENSIONS & PROJECTS, EARNINGS, ELECTIONS, APPOINTMENTS, PERSONAL MENTION.” | “PUBLISHED BY [illegible] RAILWAY NEWS PRINTING & PUBLISHING CO” (some small lettering illegible). Vertical type at left and right: “ANNUAL SUBSCRIPTION $2.”]

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

Mechanical and technical articles by leading experts.

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

[Advertisement] The New Christianity

THE NEW CHRISTIANITY.—A bi-weekly independent journal, recognizing the fatherhood of God and brotherhood of man as the essentials of religion, and Emanuel Swedenborg as the illumined instrument of the new dispensation and era now so manifestly beginning.

In sympathy with every movement toward the realization of the Lord’s kingdom on earth, and having no desire to build up a sect or to interfere with any one’s church relation, it opens its columns to all religious, moral and social questions, guided by one principle alone—the thought and love of USE.

Editors, B. F. Barrett and S. H. Spencer. Price, $2 a year. Sample copies free. Address NEW CHRISTIANITY, Germantown, Pa.

[Advertisement] Machine Politics and Money in Elections in New York City

MACHINE POLITICS

AND

MONEY IN ELECTIONS IN NEW YORK CITY,

by

WILLIAM M. IVINS.

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

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

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

Address THE STANDARD, 25 Ann street, New York.

[Advertisement] Labor Library

$5.00 LABOR LIBRARY.—30 STANDARD works by 24 authors—Marx, Darwin, Spencer, Huxley, Krupotkin^sic, Rechus^sic, Hyndman, Gronlund, Bebel, Annie Besant, Lassalle, Bradlaugh, George. Speeches of anarchists and trial, etc., bound in 3 vols.; cloth, $5; postpaid, $5.50. Complete list mailed free. MODERN PRESS, 250 1-2 Bowery, New York.

[Advertisement] Photographs

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

[Advertisement] The Single Tax

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.

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, 284 Asylum st., Hartford.

Pennsylvania—Henry George club, box 190, Philadelphia.

Indiana—Warren Worth Bailey, Vincennes.

Kentucky—Land and Labor Club No. 1, box 99, 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] First Assembly District, Albany

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

[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 enrollment 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.

p. 7, col. 5

[Advertisement] HENRY GEORGE’S WORKS.

NEW PUBLICATIONS.

[Advertisement] The Land and Labor Library

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

The following have already appeared:

No. 1. “First Principles.” By Henry George. 4 pages. No. 2. “Land and Taxation.” A conversation between David Dudley Field and Henry George. 4 pages. No. 3. “The Right to the Use of the Earth.” By Herbert Spencer. 4 pages. No. 4. “A Christian Minister on the Remedy for Poverty.” A sermon by the Rev. Hugh O. Pentecost of Newark, N. J. 2 pages. No. 5. “A Sum in Proportion.” By T. L. McCready. [2?] pages. No. 6. “The Settler’s Nightmare.” By Louis F. Post. 4 pages. No. 7. “New York’s Docks. The True Mode of Raising Revenue.” By. J. W. Sullivan. 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 Stateo^sic.” A speech by H. F. Ring before the Knights of Labor at Houston, Texas. [2?] 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^sic. (German.) 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^sic, “A Practical Illustration.” Hugh B. Brown. 2 pages. No. 62. “Progress and Poverty.” Henry George. Price, 35 cents. No. 63^sic, “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.” Bartholomew Appleby. 2 pages. No. 66. “A Lawyer’s Reply to Criticisms.” Samuel B. Clarke. 16 pages. No. 67. “A Piece of Land” By the late^sic Francis G. Shaw. 2 pages. No. 68. “The Tax on Buildings.” William T. Croasdale. 8 pages.

[Advertisement] Heaven and Hell

HEAVEN AND HELL,

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

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

[Advertisement] Anti-Poverty Doctrines in a Nutshell

ANTI-POVERTY DOCTRINES IN A NUTSHELL.

Thirty pamphlets on various phases of the social problem. The question of the hour. All should understand it. Will be sent post paid on receipt of fifteen cents in stamps, or will be sent free to any one sending twenty-five cents for six months’ subscription to the Tax Reformer, a sixteen page journal. Address, ANTI-POVERTY PRESS, 1791 Lexington ave., N. Y.

[Advertisement] The Democrat

THE DEMOCRAT.

A RADICAL REVIEW MONTHLY.

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

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

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

PROTECTION AND WAGES

BY HENRY GEORGE.

From Chapter XIX of “Protection or Free Trade?”

We have in previous chapters sufficiently seen the effect of protection on the production of wealth. Let us now inquire as to its effect on wages. This is a question of the distribution of wealth.

Discussions of the tariff question seldom go further than the point we have now reached, for though much be said, in the United States at least, of the effect of protection on wages, it is a deduction from what is asserted of its effect on the production of wealth. Its advocates claim that protection raises wages; but in so far as they attempt to prove this it is only by arguments, such as we have already examined and disproved, that protection increases the prosperity of a country as a whole, from which it is assumed that it must increase wages. Or when the claim that protection raises wages is put in the negative form (a favorite method with American protectionists) and it is asserted that protection prevents wages from falling to the lower level of other countries, this assertion is always based on the assumption which in previous chapters we have seen to be fallacious, that protection is necessary to enable production to be carried on at the higher level of wages, and that if it were withdrawn production would so decline, by reason of the underselling of home producers by foreign producers, that wages must also decline.

Bat although^sic its whole basis has already been overthrown, let us (since this is the mos important part^sic of the question) examine directly and independently the claim that protection raises (or maintains) wages.

Though the question of wages is primarily a question of the distribution of wealth, no protectionist writer that I know of ventures to treat it as such, and free traders generally stop where protectionists stop, arguing that protection must diminish the production of wealth, and (so far as they treat the matter of wages) from this inferring that protection must reduce wages. For purposes of controversy this is logically sufficient, since, free trade being natural trade, the onus of proof must lie upon those who would restrict it. But as my purpose is more than that of controversy, I cannot be contented with showing merely the unsoundness of the arguments of protection. A true proposition may be supported by a bad argument, and to satisfy ourselves thoroughly as to the effect of protection we must trace its influence on the distribution, as well as on the production of wealth. Error often arises from the assumption that what benefits or injures the whole must in like manner affect all its parts. Causes which increase or decrease aggregate wealth often produce the reverse effect on classes or individuals. The resort to salt instead of kelp for obtaining soda increased the production of wealth in Great Britain, but lessened the income of many highland landlords. The introduction of railways, greatly as they have added to aggregate wealth, ruined the business of many small villages. Out of wars, destructive to national wealth though they be, great fortunes arise. Fires, floods and famines, while disastrous to the community, may prove profitable to individuals, and he who has a contract to fill, or who has speculated in stocks for a fall, may be enriched by hard times.

As, however, those who live by their labor constitute in all countries the large majority of the people, there is a strong presumption that no matter who else is benefited anything that reduces the aggregate income of the community must be injurious to workingmen. But that we may leave nothing to presumption, however strong, let us examine directly the effect of protective tariffs on wages.

Whatever affects the production of wealth may at the same time affect distribution. It is also possible that increase or decrease in the production of wealth may, under certain circumstances, alter the proportions of distribution. But it is only with the first of these questions that we have now to deal, since the second goes beyond the question of tariff, and if it shall become necessary to open it, that will not be until after we have satisfied ourselves as to the tendencies of protection.

Trade, as we have seen, is a mode of production, and the tendency of tariff restrictions on trade is to lessen the production of wealth. But protective tariffs also operate to alter the distribution of wealth, by imposing higher prices on some citizens and giving extra profits to others. This alteration of distribution in their favor is the impelling motive with those most active in procuring the imposition of protective duties and in warning workmen of the dire calamities that will come on them if such duties are repealed. But in what way can protective tariffs affect the distribution of wealth in favor of labor? The direct object and effect of protective tariffs is to raise the price of commodities. But men who work for wages are not sellers of commodities; they are sellers of labor. They sell labor in order that they may buy commodities. How can increase in the price of commodities benefit them?

I speak of price in conformity to the custom of comparing other values by that of money. But money is only a medium of exchange and a measure of the comparative values of other things. Money itself rises and falls in value as compared with other things, varying between time and time, and place and place. In reality the only true and final standard of values is labor—the real value of anything being the amount of labor it will command in exchange. To speak exactly, therefore, the effect of a protective tariff is to increase the amount of labor for which certain commodities will exchange. Hence it reduces the value of labor just as it increases the value of commodities.

Imagine a tariff that prevented the coming in of laborers, but placed no restriction on the coming in of commodities. Would those who have commodities to sell deem such a tariff for their benefit? Yet to say this would be as reasonable as to say that a tariff upon commodities is for the benefit of those who have labor to sell.

It is not true that the products of lower priced labor will drive the products of higher priced labor out of any market in which they can be freely sold, since, as we have already seen, low priced labor does not mean cheap production, and it is the comparative, not the absolute, cost of production that determines exchanges. And we have but to look around to see that even in the same occupation, wages paid for labor whose products sell freely together, are generally higher in large cities than in small towns, in some districts than in others.

It is true that there is a constant tendency of all wages to a common level, and that this tendency arises from competition. But this competition is not the competition of the goods market; it is the competition of the labor market. The differences between the wages paid in the production of goods that sell freely in the same market cannot arise from checks on the competition of goods for sale; but manifestly arises from checks on the competition of labor for employment. As the competition of labor varies between employment and employment, or between place and place, so do wages vary. The cost of living being greater in large cities than in

p. 8, col. 2 small towns, the higher wages in the one are not more attractive than the lower wages in the other, while the differing rates of wages in different districts are manifestly maintained by the inertia and friction which retard the flow of population, or by causes, physical or social, which produce differences in the intensity of competition in the labor market.

The tendency of wages to a common level is quickest in the same occupation, because the transference of labor is easiest. There cannot be, in the same place, such differences in wages in the same industry as may exist between different industries, since labor in the same industry can transfer itself from employer to employer with far less difficulty than is involved in changing an occupation. There are times when we see one employer reducing wages and others following his example, but this occurs too quickly to be caused by the competition in the goods market. It occurs at times when there is great competition in the labor market, and the same conditions which enable one employer to reduce wages enables others to do the same. If it were the competition of the goods market that brought wages to a level, they could not be raised in one establishment or in one locality unless at the same time raised in others that supplied the same market; whereas, at the times when wages go up, we see workmen in one establishment or in one locality first demanding an increase, and then, if they are successful, workmen in other establishments or localities following their example.

If we pass now to a comparison of occupation with occupation, we see that although there is a tendency to a common level, which maintains between wages in different occupations a certain relation, there are, in the same time and place, great differences of wages. These differences are not inconsistent with this tendency, but are due to it, just as the rising of a balloon and the falling of a stone exemplify the same physical law. While the competition of the labor market tends to bring wages in all occupations to a common level, there are differences between occupations (which may be summed up as differences in attraction and differences in the difficulty of access) that check in various degrees the competition of labor and produce different relative levels of wages. Though these differences exist, wages in different occupations are nevertheless held in a certain relation to each other by the tendency to a common level, so that a reduction of wages in one trade tends to bring about a reduction in others, not through the competition of the goods market, but through that of the labor market. Thus cabinet makers, for instance, could not long get $2 where workmen in other trades as easily learned and practiced were only getting $1, since the superior wages would so attract labor to cabinet making as to increase competition and bring wages down. But if the cabinet makers possessed a union strong enough to strictly limit the number of new workmen entering the trade, is it not clear that they could continue to get $2 while in other trades similar labor was only getting $1? As a matter of fact, trades unions, by checking the competition of labor, have considerably raised wages in many occupations, and have even brought about differences between the wages of union and non-union men in the same occupation. And what limits the possibility of thus raising wages is clearly not the free sale of commodities, but the difficulty of restricting the competition of labor.

Do not these facts show that what American workmen have to fear is not the sale in our goods market of the products of “cheap foreign labor,” but the transference to our labor market of that labor itself? Under the conditions existing over the greater part of the civilized world, the minimum of wages is fixed by what economists call the “standard of comfort”—that is to say, the poorer the mode of life to which the laborers are accustomed the lower are the wages and the greater is their ability to compel a reduction in any labor market they enter. What, then, shall we say of that sort of “protection of American workingmen” which, while imposing duties upon goods, under the pretense that they are made by “pauper labor,” freely admits the “pauper laborer” himself.

The incoming of the products of cheap labor is a very different thing from the incoming of cheap labor. The effect of the one is upon the production of wealth, increasing the aggregate amount to be distributed; the effect of the other is upon the distribution of wealth, decreasing the proportion which goes to the working classess^sic. We might permit the free importation of Chinese commodities without in the slightest degree affecting wages; but, under our present conditions, the free immigration of Chinese laborers would lessen wages.

Let us imagine under the general conditions of modern civilization one country of comparatively high wages and another country of comparatively low wages. Let us, in imagination, bring these countries side by side, separating them only by a wall which permits the free transmission of commodities, but is impassable for human beings. Can we imagine, as protectionist notions require, that the high wage country would do all the importing and the low wage country all the exporting, until the demand for labor so lessened in the one country that wages would fall to the level of the other? That would be to imagine that the former country would go on pushing its commodities through this wall and getting nothing in return. Clearly the one country would export no more than it got a return for, and the other could import no more than it gave a return for. What would go on between the two countries is the exchange of their respective productions, and, as previously pointed out, what commodities passed each way in this exchange would be determined, not by the differences in wages between the two countries, nor yet by differences between them in cost of production, but by differences in each country in the comparative cost of producing different things. This exchange of commodities would go on to the mutual advantage of both countries, increasing the amount which each obtained; but no matter to what dimensions it grew, how could it lessen the demand for labor or have any effect in reducing wages?

Now let us change the supposition and imagine such a barrier between the two countries as would prevent the passage of commodities, while permitting the free passage of men. No goods produced by the lower paid labor of the one country could now be brought into the other; but would this prevent the reduction of wages? Manifestly not. Employers in the higher wage country, being enabled to get in laborers willing to work for less, could quickly lower wages.

What we may thus see by aid of the imagination accords with what we do see as a matter of fact. In spite of the high duties which shut out commodities on the pretense of protecting American labor, American workmen in all trades are being forced into combinations to protect themselves by checking the competition of the labor market. Our protective tariff on commodities raises the price of commodities, but what raising there is of wages has been accomplished by trades unions and the Knights of Labor. Break up these organizations and what would the tariff do to prevent the forcing down of wages in all the now organized trades?

A scheme really intended for the protection

p. 8, col. 3 of workingmen from the competition of cheap labor would not merely prohibit the importation of cheap labor under contract, but would prohibit the landing of any laborer who had not sufficient means to raise him above the necessity of competing for wages, or who did not give bonds to join some trades union and abide by its rules. And if, under such a scheme, any duties or commodities were imposed^sic, they would be imposed, in preference, on such commodities as could be produced with small capital, not on those which require large capital—that is to say, the effort would be to protect industries in which workmen can can readily engage on their own account, rather than those in which the mere workman can never hope to become his own employer.

Our tariff, like all protective tariffs, aims at nothing of this kind. It shields the employing producer from competition, but in no way attempts to lessen competition among those who must sell him their labor; and the industries it aims to protect are those in which the mere workman, or even the workman with a small capital, is helpless—those which cannot be carried on without large establishments, costly machinery, great amounts of capital, or the ownership of natural opportunities which bear a high price.

It is manifest that the aim of protection is to lessen competition in the selling of commodities, not in the selling of labor. In no case, save in the peculiar and exceptional cases I shall hereafter speak of, can a tariff on commodities benefit those who have labor, not commodities, to sell. Nor is there in our tariff any provision that aims at compelling such employers as it benefits to share their benefits with their workmen. While it gives these employers protection in the goods market it leaves them free trade in the labor market, and for any protection they need workmen have to organize.

I am not saying that any tariff could raise wages. I am merely pointing out that in our protective tariff there is no attempt, however inefficient, to do this—that the whole aim and spirit of protection is not the protection of the sellers of labor but the protection of the buyers of labor, not the maintaining of wages but the maintaining of profits. The very class that profess anxiety to protect American labor by raising the price of what they themselves have to sell, notoriously buy labor as cheap as they can and fiercely oppose any combination of workmen to raise wages. The cry of “protection for American labor” comes most vociferously from newspapers that lie under the ban of the printers’ unions; from coal and iron lords who, importing “pauper labor” by wholesale, have bitterly fought every effort of their men to claim anything like decent wages; and from factory owners who claim the right to dictate the votes of men. The whole spirit of protection is against the rights of labor.

. . . . . . .

What would be thought of the congressman who should propose, as a “workingman’s measure,” to divide the surplus in the treasury between two or three railway kings, and who should gravely argue that to do this would be to raise wages in all occupations, since the railway kings, finding themselves so much richer, would at once raise the wages of their employes; which would lead to the raising of wages on all railways, and this again to the raising of wages in all occupations? Yet the contention that protective duties on goods raise wages involves just such assumptions.

It is claimed that protection raises the wages of labor—that is to say, of labor generally. It is not merely contended that it raises wages in the special industries protected by the tariff. That would be to confess that the benefits of protection are distributed with the partiality, a thing which its advocates are ever anxious to deny. It is always assumed by protectionists that the benefits of protection are felt in all industries, and even the wages of farm laborers (in an industry which in the United States is not and cannot be protected by the tariff) are pointed to as showing the results of protection.

The scheme of protection is, by checking importation to increase the price of protected commodities so as to enable the home producers of these commodities to make larger profits. It is only as it does this, and so long as it does this, that protection can have any encouraging effect at all, and whatever effect it has upon wages must be derived from this.

I have already shown that protection cannot, except temporarily, increase the profits of producers as producers; but without regard to this it is clear that the contention that protection raises wages involves two assumptions: (1) that the increase in the profits of employers means increase in the wages of their workmen; and (2) that increase of wages in the protected occupations involves increase of wages in all occupations.

To state these assumptions is to show their absurdity. Is there any one who really supposes that because an employer makes larger profits he therefore pays higher wages?

I rode not long since on the platform of a Brooklyn horse car and talked with the driver. He told me, bitterly and despairingly, of his long hours, hard work and poor pay—how he was chained to that car, a verier slave than the horses he drove; and how by turning himself into this kind of a horse driving machine he could barely keep wife and children, laying by nothing for a “rainy day.”

I said to him, “Would it not be a good thing if the legislature were to pass a law allowing the companies to raise the fare from five to six cents, so as to enable them to raise the wages of their drivers and conductors?”

The driver measured me with a quick glance, and then exclaimed: “They give us more because they made more! You might raise the fare to six or to sixty cents, and they would not pay us a penny more. No matter how much they made, we would get no more, so long as there are hundreds of men waiting and anxious to take our places. The company would pay higher dividends or water the stock, not raise our pay.”

Was not the driver right? Buyers of labor, like buyers of other things, pay, not according to what they can, but according to what they must. There are occasional exceptions, it is true; but these exceptions are referable to motives of benevolence, which the shrewd business man keeps out of his business, no matter how much he may otherwise indulge them. Whether you raise the profits of a horse car company or of a manufacturer, neither will on that account pay any higher wages. Employers never give the increase of their profits as a reason for raising the wages of their workmen, though they frequently assign decreased profits as a reason for reducing wages. But this is an excuse, not a reason. The true reason is that the dull times which diminish their profits increase the competition of workmen for employment. Such excuses are given only when employers feel that if they reduce wages their employes will be compelled to submit to the reduction, since others will be glad to step into their places. And where trades unions succeed in checking this competition they are enabled to raise wages. Since my talk with the driver, the horse car employes of New York and Brooklyn, organized into assemblies of the Knights of Labor and supported by that association, have succeeded in somewhat raising their pay and shortening their hours, thus gaining what no increase in the profits of the companies would

p. 8, col. 4 have had the slightest tendency to give them.

No matter how much a protective duty may increase the profits of employers, it will have no effect in raising wages unless it so acts upon competition as to give workmen power to compel an increase of wages.

There are cases in which a protective duty may have this effect, but only to a small extent and for a short time. When a duty, by increasing the demand for a certain domestic production, suddenly increases the demand for a certain kind of skilled labor, the wages of such labor may be temporarily increased, to an extent and for a time determined by the difficulties of obtaining skilled laborers from other countries or of the acquirement by new laborers of the needed skill.

But in any industry it is only the few workmen of pecular^sic skill who can thus be affected and even when by these few such an advantage is gained, it can only be maintained by trades unions that limit entrance to the craft. The cases are, I think, few indeed in which any increase of wages has thus been gained by even that small class of workmen who in any protected industry require such exceptional skill that their ranks cannot easily be swelled; and the cases are fewer still, if they exist all^sic, in which the difficulties of bringing workmen from abroad, or teaching new workmen, have long sufficed to maintain such increase. As for the great mass of those engaged in the protected industries, their labor can hardly be called skilled. Much of it can be performed by ordinary unskilled laborers, and much of it does not even need the physical strength of the adult man, but consists of the mere tending of machinery, or of manipulations which can be learned by boys and girls in a few weeks, a few days, or even a few hours. As to all this labor, which constitutes by far the greater part of the labor required in the industries we most carefully protect, any temporary effect which a tariff might have to increase wages in the way pointed out would be so quickly lost that it could hardly be said to come into operation. For an increase in the wages of such occupations would at once be counteracted by the flow of labor from other occupations. And it must be remembered that the effect of “encouraging” any industry by taxation is necessarily to discourage other industries, and thus to force labor into the protected industries by driving it out of others.

Nor could wages be raised if the bounty which the tariff aims to give employing producers were given directly to their workmen. If, instead of laws intended to add to the profits of the employing producers in certain industries, we were to make laws by which so much should be added to the wages of the workmen, the increased competition which the bounty would cause would soon bring wages plus the bounty to the rate at which wages stood without the bounty. The result would be what it was in England when, during the early part of this century, it was attempted to improve the miserable condition of agricultural laborers by “grants in aid of wages” from parish rates. Just as the grants were made, so did the wages paid by the farmers sink.

The car driver was right. Nothing could raise his wages that did not lessen the competition of those who stood ready to take his place for the wages he was getting. If we were to enact that every car driver should be paid a dollar a day additional from public funds, the result would simply be that the men who are anxious to get places as car drivers for the wages now paid would be as anxious to get them at one dollar less. If we were to give every car driver two dollars a day, the companies would be able to get men without paying them anything, just as where restaurant waiters are customarily feed by the patrons, they get little or no wages, and in some cases even pay a bonus for their places.

But if it be preposterous to imagine that any effect a tariff may have to raise profits in the protected industries can raise wages in those industries, what shall we say of the notion that such raising of wages in the protected industries would raise wages in all industries? This is like saying that to dam the Hudson river would raise the level of New York harbor and consequently that of the Atlantic ocean. Wages, like water, tend to a level, and unless raised in the lowest and widest occupations can be raised in any particular occupation only as it is walled in from competition.

The general rate of wages in every country is manifestly determined by the rate in the occupations which require least special skill, and to which the man who has nothing but his labor can most easily resort. As they engage the greater body of labor these occupations constitute the base of the industrial organization, and are to other occupations what the ocean is to its bays. The rate of wages in the higher occupations can be raised above the rate prevailing in the lower only as the higher occupations are shut off from the inflow of labor by their greater risk or uncertainty, by their requirement of superior skill, education or natural ability, or by restrictions such as those imposed by trades unions. And to secure anything like a general rise of wages, or even to secure a rise of wages in any occupation upon ingress to which restrictions are not at the same time placed, it is necessary to raise wages in the lower and wider occupations. That is to say, to return to our former illustration, the level of the bays and harbors that open into it cannot be raised until the level of the ocean is raised.

If it were evident in no other way, the recognition of this general principle would suffice to make it clear that duties on imports can never raise the general rate of wages. For import duties can only “protect” occupations in which there is not sufficient labor employed to produce the supply we need. The labor thus engaged can never be more than a fraction of the labor engaged in producing commodities of which we not only provide the home supply but have a surplus for export, and the labor engaged in work that must be done on the spot.

No matter what the shape or size of an iceberg, the mass above the water must be very much less than the mass below the water. So no matter what be the conditions of a country or what the peculiarities of its industry, that part of its labor engaged in occupations that can be “protected” by import duties must always be small as compared with that engaged in occupations that cannot be protected. In the United States, where protection has been carried to the utmost, the census returns show that not more than one twentieth of the labor of the country is engaged in protected industries.

In the United States, as in the world at large, the lowest and widest occupations are those in which men apply their labor directly to nature, and of these agriculture is the most important. How quickly the rise of wages in these occupations will increase wages in all occupations was shown in the early days of California, as afterward in Australia. Had anything happened in California to increase the demand for cooks or carpenters or painters, the rise in such wages would have been quickly met by the inflow of labor from other occupations and in this way retarded and finally neutralized. But the discovery of the placer mines, which greatly raised the wages of unskilled labor, raised wages in all occupations.

The difference of wages between the United States and European countries is itself an illustration of this principle. During our colonial days, before we had any protective

p. 8, col. 5 tariff, ordinary wages were higher here than in Europe. The reason is clear. Land being easy to obtain, the laborer could readily employ himself, and wages in agriculture being thus maintained at a higher level, the general rate of wages was higher. And since up to the present time it has been easier to obtain land here than in Europe, the higher rate of wages in agriculture has kept up a higher general rate.

To raise the general rate of wages in the United States the wages of agricultural labor must be raised. But our tariff does not and cannot raise even the price of agricultural produce, of which we are exporters, not importers. Yet, even had we as dense a population in proportion to our available land as Great Britain, and were we, like her, importers not exporters of agricultural productions, a protective tariff upon such productions could not increase agricultural wages, still less could it increase wages in other occupations, which would then have become the widest. This we may see by the effect of the corn laws in Great Britain, which was to increase, not the wages of the agricultural laborer, nor even the profits of the farmer, but the rent of the agricultural landlord. And even if the differentiation between land owner, farmer and laborer had, under the conditions I speak of, not become as clear here as in Great Britain, nothing which benefited the farmer would have the slightest tendency to raise wages, save as it benefited him, not as an owner of land or an owner of capital, but as a laborer.

We thus see from theory that protection cannot raise wages. That it does not, facts show conclusively. This has been seen in Spain, in France, in Mexico, in England during protection times, and everywhere that protection has been tried. In countries where the working classes have little or no influence upon government it is never even pretended that protection raises wages. It is only in countries like the United States, where it is necessary to cajole the working class, that such a preposterous plea is made. And here the failure of protection to raise wages is shown by the most evident facts.

Wages in the United States are higher than in any other countries, not because of protection, but because we have had much vacant land to overrun. Before we had any tariff wages were higher here than in Europe, and far higher, relatively to the productiveness of labor, than they are now after our years of protection. In spite of all our protection—and, for the last twenty-four years at least, protectionists have had it all their own way—the condition of the laboring classes of the United States has been slowly but steadily sinking to that of the “pauper labor” of Europe. It does not follow that this is because of protection, but it is certain that protection has proved powerless to prevent it.

To discover whether protection has or has not benefited the working classes of the United States it is not necessary to array tables of figures which only an expert can verify and examine. The determining facts are notorious. It is a matter of common knowledge that those to whom we have given power to tax the American people “for the protection of American industry” pay their employes as little as they can and make no scruple of importing the very foreign labor against whose products the tariff is maintained. It is notorious that wages in the protected industries are, if anything, lower than in the unprotected industries, and that, though the protected industries do not employ more than a twentieth of the working population of the United States, there occur in them more strikes, more lock outs, more attempts to reduce wages, than in all other industries. In the highly protected industries of Massachusetts official reports declare that the operative cannot get a living without the work of wife and children. In the highly protected industries of New Jersey many of the “protected” laborers are children whose parents are driven by their necessities to find employment for them by misrepresenting their age so as to evade the state law. In the highly protected industries of Pennsylvania laborers, for whose sake we are told this high protection is imposed, are working for sixty-five cents a day, and half clad women are feeding furnace fires. “Pluck-me stores,” company tenements and boarding houses, Pinkerton detectives and mercenaries, and all the forms and evidences of the oppression and degradation of labor are, throughout the country, characteristic of the protected industries.

The greater degradations and unrest of labor in the protected than in the unprotected industries may in part be accounted for by the fact that the protected employers have been the largest importers of “foreign pauper labor.” But, in some part, at least, it is due to the great fluctuations to which the protected industries are exposed. Being shut off from foreign markets, scarcity of their productions cannot be so quickly met by importation, nor suplus^sic relieved by exportation, and so with them for much of the time it is either “a feast or a famine.” The violent fluctuations tend to bring workmen into a state of dependence, if not of actual peonage, and to depress wages below the general standard. But whatever be the reason, the fact is that so far is protection from raising wages in the protected industries, that the capitalists who carry them on would soon “enjoy” even lower priced labor than now, were it not that wages in them are kept up by the rates of wages in the unprotected industries.

Encyclopædia Britannica.

We have received Vols. VII, VIII, IX and X of Henry G. Allen & Co.’s reprint of the ninth edition of the Encyclopædia Britannica. This is the handiest and cheapest of the reprints of this famous encyclopædia—a library in itself. Being reduced by photographic process it is a fac simile of the original English publication with all its plates and maps, in sufficiently large type and more manageable form. Each volume consists of about 850 octavo pages and is sold at the remarkably low price of $2.50.

[Advertisement] Miss Agatha Munier

MISS AGATHA MUNIER IS NOW forming classes for instruction in vocal sight reading for ladies and gentlemen, as well as in solo singing in all its branches, and in elocution. For terms, etc., address MISS MUNIER, [225?] East Thirty-second street, New York.

[Advertisement] Concord Co-operative Printing Company

PRINTING.

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.

[Advertisement] 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

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; lettered “THE KEY STONE WATCH CLUB Co.”]

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

AGENCIES:

New York, N.Y. Chicago, Ill. Pittsburgh, Pa. Boston, Mass. Philadelphia, Pa. Detroit, Mich. Harrisburg, Pa. Denver, Col. Baltimore, Md. St. Louis, Mo. Wilmington, Del. Etc., etc.

[Advertisement] Canned Goods — Hand Made Stamp

[Illustration: circular trade-mark stamp, lettered around the rim “HAND MADE STAMP” (letters partly indistinct), with a small emblem in the center; display lettering at right.]

Canned Goods

WITH THIS STAMP IN THE BOTTOM OF CANS ARE

Free from Poison,

AND ARE MADE BY

ORGANIZED LABOR.

Trade-Mark.—Registered.

[Advertisement] Piso’s Cure for Consumption

[Illustration: boxed display advertisement with heavy black bands top and bottom and “25 CTS.” printed vertically at each end.]

PISO’S CURE FOR CONSUMPTION

CURES WHERE ALL ELSE FAILS.

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

25 CTS. [printed vertically at each end]

[Advertisement] The Great American Tea Co.

[Illustration: T-shaped trade-mark block; legible lettering “GREAT AMERICAN” across the top bar, “T E A” down the stem and “COMPANY” across the base; top line indistinct.]

GOOD NEWS TO LADIES.

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

THE GREAT AMERICAN TEA CO.,

P. O. Box [289?].

31 and 33 Vesey St., New York.

[Advertisement] Coogan Bros.

[Illustration: engraved front of a five-story store building with horse-drawn delivery wagons and pedestrians in the street. Lettering on the building: “COOGAN BROTHERS”; “WHOLESALE & RETAIL FURNITURE CARPETS &c.”; “[illegible] BEDDING WAREROOMS”; “[illegible] MANUFACTURERS”; across the shop front “125 COOGAN BRO’S 121”.]

COOGAN BROS.,

CARPET AND FURNITURE DEALERS,

COR. BOWERY AND GRAND STS.

[Advertisement] Notice — Samuel Williams

NOTICE.—Those who believe that the public revenues should be raised by a single and direct tax upon relative land values, and who favor the holding of a National Conference, are requested to send address immediately to

SAMUEL WILLIAMS,

Vincennes, Ind.

[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,

1[2?]3 Fourth avenue,

Bet. 13th and 14th sts.

[Advertisement] James Bogan

JAMES BOGAN, PRINCIPAL AGENT for James Means’ $3 and $4 shoes. [225?] BOWERY, near Prince street.

[Advertisement] Briggs’ Pianos

[Illustration: engraving of an upright piano in a frame decorated with foliage, with a tag lettered “SEND FOR CATALOGUE”; display lettering at right.]

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.