April 21, 1888 Vol. III, No. 16Whole No. 68

CONTENTS:

[Note: a subscriber’s mailing label (stamped “104 Dr Walter Mendelson 167 179 w 74th st”, not part of the printed page) is pasted diagonally across the top of the contents list and hides parts of several entries.]

Opening the Fight.

Joining Issue.

The Morals of the Tariff Question.

Setting Niagara in [Harness?].

Dogs that Feed at [illegible] Tables.

The Tyranny that [illegible] [Lehigh?] Miners.

A Solid Timber Sh[illegible]

Paterson Ruled by He[illegible]

For Practical Men.

Free Men and Free Trade.

Straws Which Show the Wind.

Queries and Answers.

The Brewers in a Ferment.

Pen, Paste and Scissors.

The [Tax Reform?] Association.

Women.

A Batch of Interviews.

Mr. Fuggelson’s Children.

A Compound Crime.

Welcoming a Settler.

The Trouble with the Boom.

The Week.—Roscoe Conkling; The Deadlock in the House; What it Cost; The River and Harbor Bill; Minimizing the Issue; Leasing the City’s Wharves; General Warren’s Monument; Showing Off for Charity; Recorder Smyth’s Decision; The Woman Suffrage Bill at Albany; Warden Walsh’s Resignation; Mr. Potter on Mayor Hewitt’s Plan; More Protection Wanted; A Blow at the Fishing Industry; The World’s Advertising Contest; Convict Camp Life; The United Labor Party.

The Time is Great (a poem).

The Common Sense of the Tariff Question.

Why He is a Free Trader.

Stanzas (a poem).

The Chicago Conference.

Personal.

Spirit Phenomena.

OPENING THE FIGHT.

The great struggle on the tariff question—in reality the first engagement on that supreme labor question on which in one form or another our politics are now for the future to turn—was formally opened in the house on Tuesday.

The high honor of beginning the debate on the side of freedom has devolved on Mr. Mills of Texas, chairman of the committee of ways and means. He has proved himself worthy of the occasion and the cause. The democratic party are to be congratulated on having at last found a leader in the house who knows what democratic principle is and is not afraid to avow it. There is in his speech no wavering note, no uncertain sound. From beginning to end there is in it no word of apology for proposing reductions of protective duties, no weakening protest that he and his party are just as much devoted to the “protection of American industry” as any one else. On the contrary, it rings with the clear and emphatic denial that the laborer can be enriched by taxing him; the aggressive assertion that protection is a robbery and a fraud. Confessing that the bill that he has introduced and that is the nominal subject of debate is but a moderate and initiatory measure, Mr. Mills did not waste his time in advocating tariff reform, but went at once to the heart of the real question at issue in an out and out avowal of free trade principles. Showing how one tax after another that bore on the wealthy had been abolished, he demanded that a beginning should be made in abolishing the taxes that the rich have had imposed on the poor; the taxes that have been levied for the direct purpose of enabling a favored few to grow wealthy by levying tribute on the many—the taxes that have strangled commerce, repressed industry, fostered corruption and built up robbing trusts and combinations. He attacked the protective system from base—denied^sic that it could foster industry; denied that it could raise wages; denied that it could benefit any person or anything save monopolists and trusts, and laughed to scorn the idea that the industries of a great nation of over 60,000,000 of the most active and industrious people on earth could be injured if the last shred of a duty of any kind were abolished and trade between us and all the world were made as free as is the trade between our several states. “Not more than ten per cent of the goods consumed in the United States would be imported if all the custom houses were torn down and the government was supported by direct taxes,” said Mr. Mills. He strikes the key note for the coming campaign.

No wonder, as the newspapers say, that the eyes of Judge Kelley flashed as the words of the manly Texan rang out in defiance of his cherished fetich. The “Father of the House.” for such^sic at last the passing years and the grateful recognition of his faithful services by the coal barons and iron lords of his monopoly ridden state have made him—saw the beginning of one great epoch in American history—that which accomplished the destruction of chattel slavery. He now, though he probably hardly fully realizes it, sees and takes part in another great historic occasion—the opening of the struggle for the abolition of industrial slavery.

In all the years that he has served his fetich of protection on the the floor^sic of the house, under the delusion that he was serving American industry—for the old man is doubtless as honest in his superstition as was ever the worshiper of any grinning idol—he has never heard such defiance of protection and all its works from any democratic leader. Time and time again he has hurled what he has considered the damning epithet, “free trader,” but only to have the men at whom he hurled it deny that they were free traders and protest that they were not free traders at all, but only tariff reformers. Now at last the free traders have come! Now at last a democratic leader, having the confidence of a democratic president and the support of his party organization, gets up on the floor of the house and declares that protection from first to last is a robbery of the nation and a swindle of the workingman, p. 1, col. 2 and boldly asserts that American industry could live and be more prosperous if every tax on commerce were abolished and our national revenues raised by direct taxes which would fall on men not in proportion to their needs but in proportion to their wealth.

Mr. Kelley, for his opening of the debate, also deserves our thanks, for he did his part toward making it not one of details, but one of principle. He did not yield an inch or admit that one single duty needed the slightest reduction. He advanced the claims of protection in all their grotesque absurdity. He not only declared for maintaining all the customs taxes that now burden our people, but for putting on more. And he said some good and true things about the stupidity and demoralizing influence of our internal revenue taxation, and the absurdity and injustice of our monetary system and our treatment of the national debt. This will have good influence when the time for attacking the currency question and the internal revenue shall come. In the meantime, he has helped toward making what is now the main issue clear. Mr. Kelley, too, struck the key note from his side. His attitude in defense of protection will be and must be that of all protectionists. They see clearly enough that what the democratic party under the leadership of Mr. Cleveland and Mr. Mills is getting into line against, is not the war tariff, but the protective tariff. And as certain as the buds now swelling will ere long burst into leaf, so certain is it that this fight against the protective tariff must finally pass into an attack on all tariffs.

The great struggle is now on—the issue is made and the discussion begun. The congressional debate will be a long one, and a bitter one, for the democrats must follow their leader, and will get more and more radical as the contest goes on. But the congressional debate is of small importance as compared to the popular discussion to which it will lead in every nook and corner of the whole country, and which will increase in intensity after the nominations are made and the national campaign begins. It is now certain that at last we are to have a national campaign in which living questions are to be discussed. My first opinion was right. It is through the tariff question that the labor question has entered national politics. And for [we?] single tax men there will be in this campaign great work to do.

We of the north have much to thank the southern men in the house for. As Mr. Mills of Texas is leading the fight against protection, so did Mr. Oates of Alabama lead the men who successfully fought off, for the present, the treasury raiding bill which proposed to pay back the direct tax to the states. It is not merely that the attention of the country has been called, as it would not otherwise have been called, to the protectionist proposition to get rid of the surplus, but attention has been called to the direct tax levied on real estate by the national government at the beginning of the war through the various states. This was the best and most economical tax ever levied by the general government, and that it was levied disposes of the only popular defense for any tariff at all—that the national government must have some way of raising revenue. As was long ago shown by Abraham L. Earle, one of the few real free traders among the half hearted tariff reformers who for some years have been masquerading as free traders, all the revenue needed by the general government can be raised, at a tithe of the cost to the people of the present system, through the constitutional provision empowering congress to levy direct taxes through the states. When the protective superstition is dispelled, when it ceases to be believed that a people can become rich by taxing themselves, the way will be open to abolish all indirect taxes, and to make the taxation needed for the federal government fall, through the medium of the states, upon land alone. The discussions of the coming campaign must inevitably tend in this direction. No one can expose the injustice and waste of a protective tariff without at the same time condemning a revenue tariff and, in fact, all indirect taxation.

Henry Abram, who styles himself “the cobbler of Savannah and genius of the national finances,” desires, through THE STANDARD (which, it is to be feared, he never reads), to announce to the voters of the United States that he is a candidate for president. His platform is the payment of the national debt with non-interest bearing greenbacks. This, he says, would make money so plenty that “telegraph, railroad and real estate would go up with a bound.” The surplus he proposes to use for education, so that “no man will open his mouth against the tariff that educates his children by a tax on the people of foreign lands.” Mr. Abram, having determined to run for president, is in need of a candidate for vice-president, which is all he seems to think he requires. If the right kind of a man will pledge to Mr. Abram his hearty support, the candidate for president promises to nominate him for vice-president, and, by way of making this offer more glittering, adds that as he himself will be eighty years old on the 5th of November, p. 1, col. 3 whoever accepts this offer is likely to become president before the term is out.

Mr. Abram, it will be noticed, is quite willing to ignore the tariff—in fact, he proposes to so fix things that no man will open his mouth against the tariff. And for the consideration of those who wish to run a presidential candidate in this election on the basis of ignoring the tariff question, it may be safely said that Mr. Abram, if he gets an associate for vice-president, will cut as much of a figure in the contest as any other tariff ignoring candidate.

The one measure that will do more than any other to purify our politics—to lessen the power of the political machines, to break the rule of the bosses and “deal makers,” to permit the running of independent candidates, and to end bribery and intimidation, is the adoption of the Australian system of voting. The agitation of this reform, which was begun by the united labor party last year, has developed such a strong public sentiment in its favor that it has seemed likely that the election reform bill embodying the principles of the Australian system, which has been matured by the assembly committee, would quietly pass both houses of the New York legislature this session, and, as Governor Hill would hardly dare to veto it, become law—especially as, to minimize the hostility of both sets of machine politicians, the bill provides that the new system shall not go into effect this year. But the vote last week on the proposition to advance the measure in the assembly brought out an almost solid democratic opposition—only five democrats, William Dalton and Joseph Blumenthal of New York, Fletcher [illegible] Defendorf of Monroe, John H. Bagley, [illegible] of Greene, and Thos. F. Magner of Kings voting in the affirmative. This action [is?] credited to the intrigue and influence [of?] Governor Hill, who wants to prevent the bill reaching him.

Governor Hill is notoriously a machine politician of the worst kind, and largely through his running of the democratic party there, his county of Chemung has become one of the most corrupt in the whole state—votes being bought and sold to an extent and with an openness that [is?] not paralleled in the worst wards of New York city. On the morning of last election day the market for votes opened [in?] Elmira, Governor Hill’s town—at $[illegible] apiece, and when sunset came it is said that the ground about the polling places was strewn with broken envelopes in which voters had received their purchase money.

Some very ugly facts are coming out with regard to the relations of Governor Hill to aqueduct contractors and to Ju[illegible] enormous scheme of public plunder which was only frustrated by Chamberlain [Ivins’s?] production of the Squire-Flynn letter, and the consequent removal of the figurehead commissioner of public works. [But even?] if there were nothing else against [him, his?] opposition on his part to the reform of [the?] corrupting system of voting ought to make it a duty and pleasure for all friends of reform to do their utmost to beat [him?] should he get the democratic nomination for governor, which he is now said to be striving for since his presidential boom has collapsed. In the mean time friends of the Australian system ought to lose no opportunity to let their representatives know that they deem this a more [vital?] question than any issue between parties in the coming state election. Mr. [Saxton?], who has the bill in charge, does not despair of its passage, but it is evident that if it is to get through at this session there must be strong pressure of popular support.

The logic of facts is steadily forcing public opinion to the conclusion that the great iron highways which have been so necessary to the industry and life of the people cannot safely be left in the [hands?] of private corporations. The [railroads?] have already found a way to “beat the anti-discrimination clauses of the [inter]-state law by”under billing,” a [dodge?] which they have been accustomed to [use?] at their own pools—that is charging the [favored?] customer for less or different [freight?] than they really carry for him. And the recent threatened suspension of [railroad?] traffic by a general strike has so [con]vinced even the Evening Post that the government has really something to do with railroading that it is advocating a pr[eposter]ous scheme, fathered by Simon [Sterne?], for putting all railroad employes [under?] military discipline—a scheme for which its advocates might get some consideration if they could roll the world back to the [illegible]teenth century.

Representative Albert R. Anderson of Iowa has taken a practical step in that direction by introducing a bill in the house which, besides aiming at getting back some of the money which was stolen [from?] the people of the United States [by?] the managers of the Union Pacific railroad and its branches, proposes to pay [off?] the first mortgage bonds of that [corpor]ation and to take possession [of?] the road by foreclosure of the government’s mortgage. It further provides [that?] the road shall be maintained and operated as a public highway, open to any car of freight upon the payment of uniform [or uniformly?] regulated tolls for the use of the [tracks?], and for the periodical letting [of the?] privilege of running passenger [trains?], the award to be made to the bidder who, binding himself to pay a stipulated [sum?] p. 1, col. 4 for the use of the road, shall agree to carry passengers at the lowest rates. The passage of this bill would bring into practical operation the plan advocated in what is doubtless the most careful study of the railroad question from the standpoint of the people yet made, Mr. Hudson’s “Railroads of the Republic,” and would secure the prevention of discrimination and something like a full utilization of the advantages of the railroad for the benefit of the whole people, with the least possible addition of the functions of government. Mr. Anderson’s bill will be fought by the combined power of the Pacific roads. if not by^sic the whole railroad interest of the country, and it is hopeless at this session at least to look for its passage. But it ought to have full popular discussion and support. It certainly points out the way to the only solution of the railroad question. Whether we like it or not there can be no escape from the dilemma. “Either the state must own the railways or the railways will own the state.”

Quick upon the heels of the great Burlington strike comes the lockout of the pool brewers against the labor associations of their employes. That in this organized labor can fare no better than it has in other recent great strikes is proved by the crowds that gathered around the employment offices opened by the brewers in New York a few days previous to the lockout. Organized labor can, within certain limits, and to a certain extent fight, unorganized capital. But capital can organize more readily and more powerfully than labor; and when the fight is between organized capital and organized labor, labor must succumb. Hard facts are every day making it clearer that the true path for the emancipation of labor is not by way of restriction nor protection in any of its forms, but by the way of freedom. The danger to labor organizations and to all efforts to keep up wages by combination lies in the mass of unemployed labor. Work must be opened for men now unemployed before even the employed laborer can claim what is rightfully his. This can only be done by doing away with restrictions and by opening the source of all employment—the land.

Mr. O’Neill of Missouri has introduced in the house a bill for prohibiting all carrying between the various states of articles produced by convict labor, and a large meeting under the auspices of what is known as the Interstate association was held in New York last week in support of it, which was addressed by District Attorney Ridgeway of Kings, General James R. O’Beirne of this city, ex-Senator Grady and others. The speakers were a unit in favoring restrictions upon convict labor. Some advocated employing convicts in manufacturing by hand what outside of prison walls is manufactured by machinery. Some advocated allowing them to do only enough work to feed, clothe and shelter them, while others advocated the supporting of them without letting them do any productive work at all.

In all this may be seen the great cause which underlies the popular disposition to protection and gives to its transparent fallacies their strength. Shut out from the use of natural opportunities, able only to go to work by securing permission from some other human creature, the mere laborer becomes entirely helpless, and as he can only live and only work by securing permission of some one else, he learns to look upon work itself as a boon, and to desire to lessen the number of those who work, in order that he may have more of it. Yet it is perfectly manifest that if convicts are to be supported in idleness or that if their labor is to be made less productive than it might be, it must be at the expense of honest men. It would only be carrying such propositions one step further to provide not only that convicts should be supported in idleness, but that they should be supported in the most lavish luxury, in order that by their consumption they might create more demand for labor outside prison walls. Yet it is almost useless to point out to men who suffer from want of employment the essential injustice and absurdity of such propositions, without also pointing out to them what it is that causes the scarcity of employment. To this, as the contest waxes warm, the opponents of the protective system must finally be driven. They will be compelled to show what is the cause of that scarcity of opportunities for employment that all through the civilized world makes work itself seem a boon. And when they attempt to do this they will be driven to the only explanation—the denial to labor of all right to the use of land. And thus must the opposition to protection pass naturally into advocacy of the single tax.

The Philadelphia judges sitting as a license court under the new liquor law are reducing the number of saloons in that city with great vigor. In sixteen wards where there are at present 3,134 liquor saloons of various kinds there will be, when the new law takes effect, but 736. The immediate results of this great reductions^sic in the number of drinking places cannot fail to be good, though it is possible that some bad secondary effects may subsequently be discovered to p. 1, col. 5 diminish the net benefit. But the striking thing about this matter is that there has been, on the part of the general public at least, no talk of confiscation and no demand that the liquor dealers should be compensated. These men have expended large sums in buying or fitting up their saloons, and many of them have taken long leases at high rents. The business in which they thus invested their money was at the time as fully recognized by law as is the investment of money in land titles. Yet the value of their investments is at one stroke utterly destroyed without a word of protest from those who declare that to increase taxation on land values so as to take for the benefit of the community that value which the growth of the community creates would be robbery and spoliation.

HENRY GEORGE.

The world moves. It surely does. Galileo said so more than two hundred and fifty years ago; and even the Evening Post acknowledges it now. The Post is going to turn over a new leaf, not all at once, but “by de graduals,” the way the nigger wanted to tumble down the well. It will continue, in its daily edition, to defend those pro-poverty dogmas which it must defend or lose its bankers’ advertisements and its circulation among the best people. But it is going to issue a weekly edition for popular consumption at $1 a year, which it promises shall be devoted to the following objects among others:

To relieve the great body of the people from needless burdens on the necessaries of life and on the materials and tools of industry.

To remove artificial obstructions to the growth of our manufactures, which restrict them to the home market and shut them out from the markets of the world.

To remove the causes of social discontent by giving to every man the whole of his earnings, instead of taxing one class to insure profits for another.

To increase the national wealth by leaving capital and labor free to seek their highest reward.

We congratulate the single tax cause on the accession of a new and able advocate. And we shall watch with interest the spectacle of the Post offering sacrifice to truth once a week and bowing down before the altar of Rimmon daily at 5 p. m.

The city of Brooklyn proposes to sell nearly a thousand building lots, now common property, situated in one of the most promising parts of the city. If these lots were leased instead of being sold, do not the city fathers believe that the next generation would bless them if by any possibility private land ownership as it now exists should continue so long? New York sold her common lands fifty odd years ago, just as Brooklyn proposes to do. If New York had not done so she would to-day, from the rents of those lands, be an untaxed city.

The opening of the great political contest over the tariff question brings back into journalism one of the ablest and most vigorous writers of the United States—Donn Piatt of Mac-o-cheek. Colonel Piatt has removed to New York to assume the editorship of a new magazine, the first number of which is to be issued by Belford, Clarke & Co. of New York and Chicago early in the coming month, and is to begin with an edition of 100,000 copies. It will differ from all existing magazines in having a definite political policy, and while purely literary features will not be neglected, its strength will be devoted in Colonel Piatt’s hands to vigorous advocacy, not of mere revenue reform, but of out and out free trade. It cannot fail to prove a most efficient instrument in the great work of breaking down the protection superstition. Like many of the active men who are now beginning to rally around Cleveland’s free trade policy, Donn Piatt was an early and ardent republican. The truth is that in the heat of the campaign now coming on, what is left of the old political distinctions will be melted away. The two parties that will really confront each other on election day will, no matter what their platforms may say. be the party of protection and the party of free trade.

THE MORALS OF THE TARIFF QUESTION.

JOINING ISSUE.

Bradford’s Club Adds a Clergyman to Its Membership List.

BRADFORD, Pa., April 11.—We had a very interesting meeting last night. Mr. Brinton took the opposition and tried to refute our arguments. The proceedings became quite lively, though the best of good feeling prevailed.

Our club has had a valuable acquisition in the enrollment to membership of the Rev. S. D. Day of the Protestant Episcopal church. Mr. Day will doubtless be invited to lecture before the club shortly.

[E.?] J. BERNEY.

Gathering the Workers.

STURGES, Mich.—A copy of your valuable paper, THE STANDARD, by chance fell into my hands before I knew that one of its kind existed. My sensation was that of joy and thanksgiving for the renewed evidence that God in all climes and under all circumstances and conditions raises up strong voices to proclaim his truths. Single handed and alone in this place I have long denounced the tariff as a protection of the strong against the weak, the wrong against the right.

C. D. GRIMES.

An Open Challenge.

The Philadelphia Henry George club challenges “any political organization favoring a protective tariff,” to a public debate on the question of free trade versus protection. The club’s address is 1338 Race street, Philadelphia.

“What Fools These Mortals Be!”

Toronto Grip.

“Same sort of fools all over the world,” said the real estate agent. “Over tnere^sic in Berlin I see some jackass paid $300 for the use of a window to see the late emperor’s funeral go by, and they paid even more for places to watch the queen’s jubilee procession in London last summer.”

“And you call them —— what ?” asked the political economist.

“Fools,” I said. “Any man who would spend so much money for such a purpose, is an idiot,” replied the real estate agent, emphatically.

“Perhaps he is; but what would you think of a man who charged his neighbors a fancy figure for giving them permission to stand on the street to see that funeral?” asked the economist, mildly.

“Oh, what’re you giving us! Do you suppose anybody would pay anything if there was room for everybody?”

“I don’t know. By the way, what do you ask for that corner lot over [there?] I see your shingle is on it.”

“That’s worth $250 a foot. Fine location that.”

“Yes; but I only want to build a factory on it; I don’t want to see any big funeral go by. Better wait for one of those Berlin fools to come along.”

And the political economist departed to give a lecture on the single tax system, which will put in the public till the land values created by the community.

p. 2, col. 3

It Can Make or Unmake Villages as Well as Men—Ruin That Followed the Strike of 1877.

FREELAND, Pa., April 13.—While interest in the condition of the victims of the recent Lehigh miners’ coal strike continues and general attention is being called to their sufferings and appeals made for help, it may be worth while, in order that those not conversant with the situation may be able to thoroughly appreciate the absolute power which the coal operators possess in being permitted to lay exclusive claim to all the vast wealth of anthracite coal with which providence has so generously filled those hills and valleys, to recall one instance which the public has probably long since forgotten.

When the great strike of the brotherhood of locomotive engineers was inaugurated in 1877, the town of Tamaqua was a thriving one. It was a central point in the Reading railroad system, had a population of about ten or twelve thousand, and was surrounded for a radius of from eight to ten miles with smaller villages that as years went on would have grown toward it until all would have been joined together in one great city. The Middle and Schuylkill anthracite coal fields would then have had a central point from which merchants could procure goods cheaper than they now can; manufacturing industries would have started into life, and, instead of being, as it is now, almost a wilderness, it might have been, and undoubtedly was intended by nature to be, a mart at which much labor could find employment.

The hills and valleys in and around Tamaqua contain the richest deposits of anthracite coal in the world. The veins double and treble themselves until, in some instances, they reach a thickness of 120 feet of pure coal, and these beds are practically inexhaustible. When the Reading railroad company, through its president, Mr. F. B. Gowen, conceived the idea of purchasing all the Schuylkill valley coal mines, with the avowed purpose of “squeezing out” all the individual operators and securing a monopoly of the coal as well as the carrying business, Tamaqua and the whole vicinity were caught in the net. When the brotherhood strike and the trouble with the miners began, Mr. Gowen, seeing the men making a very determined stand, made his famous threat that if the trouble continued he would withdraw his favor from Tamaqua and make the town such a wilderness that the “goats would eat grass in the village streets.” The men had the hardihood to continue the struggle, and Mr. Gowen almost literally made good his threat. The large rolling mills and furnace then in full blast have since lain idle, and hundreds of stalwart men have been compelled to go elsewhere to work. I was through that country early last March and drove from Tamaqua to Middleport one bright Sunday morning. Along the road are remains of what were once thriving little towns—Turkey Run, Tuscarora and several others—and the utter desolation which exists there ought to open the eyes of the present sufferers to the evils of land monopoly. I passed what were once summer resorts, fine residences, stone and brick structures, now all gone to decay. The cellar walls have crumbled away; the bottom sills of the houses have rotted. Cows, pigs, chickens, goats and all sorts of domestic animals there make their shelter. Desolation is complete. No man can purchase a foot of the coal lands or farm lands. Coal breakers have been torn down, and mines that would have employed thousands of men and boys are abandoned. The building industry is paralyzed, and manufacturing is not to be thought of.

And all this is because of the law that permits the Reading railroad company to hold that land as their own to the exclusion of all others, and to charge men what they please to live and work upon it.

How long will the ignorance and prejudice of the workers permit this to continue? Cannot they see that just as long as these powers are permitted to remain in the hands of a few men, strikes and boycotts are worse than useless. Tax these lands to their full value, and instead of desolation and suffering, oppression and blacklisting, every foot of coal land would be in use; every miner would be employed at the best of wages. There would then be no necessity for strikes—all men would, indeed, be free.

W. B. ESTELL.

A Freight Saving Contrivance Which May be Intended to Save Customs Duties as Well.

Mr. Leary, the loss of whose great raft last fall caused such a flutter of excitement, is by no means discouraged by the failure of his first experiment. He has figured out that if in any way he can manage to have a raft of timber towed to New York, the mere saving of schooner freights and handling will amount to a small fortune in itself, to say nothing of the regular profit on the importation. So, in one way or another, he is determined that the thing shall be done. He is having constructed at Joggins, Nova Scotia, a gigantic ship, 600 feet long, 54 feet wide and 38 feet deep. She will be built of about 25,000 spruce trees and pieces of piling, the sticks averaging thirty-eight feet in length, running up in size from a diameter of six inches at the small end. The ship has no hold, but her hull is a solid mass from keel to deck, rounding fore and aft, as the boss carpenter says, “in regular ship-shape.”

The vessel will carry six masts, each built twelve feet into the hull and fitted with spring stays and shrouds. She will be square rigged, with fore and aft trysails, and will be fitted with windlass, anchors, rudder and full steering gear. The foremast head and mizzenmast head will be fitted with crow’s nests, each supplied with a powerful, self-feeding lamp, capable of burning for thirty days, so that in the event of the craft being temporarily abandoned at sea she will give timely warning by night to all approaching vessels. She will carry a crew of twenty men, for whose accommodation a large house is to be erected on the deck. It is intended to employ a powerful steamer to tow her to New York, with possibly a smaller steamer as tender, and the builder is confident that the voyage can be accomplished in much shorter time than if the logs were arranged in the form of a raft. The vessel is now more than half completed, and will probably be ready for launching in June.

A correspondent of the New York Herald, who visited Joggins to inspect the new style of vessel, obtained the following information from the contractor in charge:

“There is big money in this business,” said Mr. Robertson. “New York wants more piling, and cheaper piling and longer piling than it now gets. Nova Scotia has the article in endless profusion; it is growing there faster than we can carry it away by schooners, even if these small craft could transport the lengths required, which is totally out of the question. I know this much now, if rafts cannot be towed from the Joggins shore to New York, timber ships can be. It is not more power we want,, but less surface resistance. The tow must be built to assist and not to p. 2, col. 4

thwart the tug; yet the success of the venture must not be contingent on the tensile strength of a hawser. I will build such a structure this time that it will be able, if parted from its leading strings, to ride the seas till succor arrives, or, if need be, to work its own way into port.”

The big ship raft, however, will have other difficulties besides wind and wave to overcome before she can reach New York. She has to force her way through the Canadian tariff wall. Canada believes in protecting Canadian industry, if she has to drive every workingman out of Canada to do it, and accordingly she imposes an export duty of $1 per 1,000 feet board measure on spruce saw logs, and $2 per 1,000 on pine saw logs. The schooner owners, who see remunerative freights slipping away from them, insist that any quantity of saw logs are being built into the big ship; but Mr. Robertson insists that she is made of nothing but piling and should therefore be allowed to sail free. There may be trouble with her clearance; for once she is put together it will be impossible to examine her cargo without taking her to pieces.

Corruption Ran Riot at the Recent Election—Votes Bought for a Glass of Beer.

PATERSON, N. J., April 10.—Our town has [a]gain settled down to its usual condition of disinterested selfishness after a short era of “political” excitement. Paterson is republican, and the excitement over the charter [e]lection was due to the efforts of the saloon [k]eepers to elect democrats to the board of [a]ldermen, to punish the republicans for having [p]assed a high license law, with severe penal[ti]es for Sunday liquor selling. The saloonists [w]ere successful, electing six out of eight [a]ldermen by the free use of boodle, and ac[c]ording to the local democratic organ, they [w]ould have had the other two as well but for [a]n oversight as to the purchasing power of [m]oney. The same organ, in commenting on [th]e democratic (?) victory in one of the [st]rongest republican wards, remarks that [a]lderman —— “enjoyed the free use of all [th]e money he needed.” His majority was [tw]o or three. In another democratic ward [th]ere was a strong fight between an independ[en]t democrat and a regular democrat. It [b]eing unnecessary for the saloonists to con[c]ern themselves with this ward, whatever [b]oodle was used was put up by the candi[d]ates and their friends. The “regular” nom[in]ee was backed by the post office department [an]d the postmaster himself peddled tickets at [th]e polls. However, the post office depart[m]ent was beaten and the independent elected. [H]e had received the indorsement of the labor [p]arty and what support it was able to give. [I]n the strongest democratic ward in the city [th]e republicans indorsed the labor ticket and [w]here the labor party made the best showing, [b]ut one would hardly call such a fusion vote [a] labor vote.

The supply of purchasable voters must [h]ave been largely in excess of the demand, [a]s prices ruled very low. Beer checks, each [g]ood for a five cent drink, seemed to be the [st]andard, although in one instance a spurt [w]as made, and two voters were bought for [fi]fteen cents each. Before the market had [b]een gauged, however, two and three dol [la]rs were asked and paid, and in some in[st]ances more; but by noon the supply was ac[cu]rately estimated and prices fell, until at the [cl]ose of the pells both prices and voters were [d]ecidedly unsteady. If these people would [f]orm a trust, they could get more out of an [el]ection than they did Monday.

The single tax vote was 775 in the city. There was no “labor” vote.

The saloon keepers used the democratic pa[rt]y to punish the republicans, and altoge[th]er it was a great event in local politics. Bu[t t]he leaven of righteousness is getting in its [wo]rk, and there will be general retributio[n a]t the next “turning of the wheel.”

E. W. NELLIS.

Rhode Island’s Opportunity.

L[ON]SDALE, R. I.—After the present year Rh[ode] Island, for the first time in her histor[y] will be politically free. Then any citi[zen] of the United States who has acqui[red] a residence can vote for all civil officer[s e]xcept members of the city council of the[ th]ree cities. The only qualification re qui[red] of such adult males is an annual registrat[ion]. Our suffrage, therefore, will be free[r t]han that of Connecticut, where an edu[cati]onal qualification obtains, and vastly free[r th]an that of Massachusetts, where, in add[itio]n to an educational qualification, the[re is] also required the prepayment of a pol[l ta]x of two dollars.

U[nde]r these circumstances Rhode Island, wit[h ou]r compact population, would seem to be t[he s]tate most favorable for the adoption of t[he ]single tax. The newly enfranchised vote[rs ](they will number next year some eigh[t o]r ten thousand) are located in the citie[s an]d manufacturing towns. They are alre[ady] to a considerable extent united in lab[or o]rganizations, and with their trusted lead[ers] have had a valuable experience in brin[ging] about the extension of the suffrage—of [all?] reforms the most difficult, because thos[e to] be directly benefited could not vote. Abo[ve a]ll else, the new voters occupy the uniq[ue p]osition, and possess the inestimable adv[anta]ge of being unattached to either of the [old? p]arties. Manifestly it is only necessary[ to ]concentrate public attention at the pres[ent ]juncture upon some single vital re form[ in o]rder to secure its early adoption.

Fo[rtun]ately a reform is now known, fundamen[tal i]n its nature, far reaching in its good eff[ects, ]and capable, not only of demonstration[ to th]e popular mind, but also of arousing an e[nthu]siasm which will sweep everything befo[re it?].

A[lread]y land and labor clubs exist in the citie[s of ]Providence and Pawtucket, and indivi[dual ]adherents of the George theory are in e[very ]manufacturing village.

It remains, therefore, to lead a fair shar[e of ]the people of this little state to reali[ze th]at the substitution of a single tax upon [lan]d values for all other taxes will aboli[sh in]voluntary poverty in order soon to bring [abo]ut here a degree of general prosperit[y ]which our citizens in the past have not dreamed.

LUCIUS F. C. GARVIN.

[T]he Women are at Work.

SA[N FR]ANCISCO, Cal., April 5.—Please fill the i[nclose?]d order for tracts. I can do good work [with ]them. Since I read “Progress and Pove[rty,” ]and took up”the cross of the new crusa[de,” ]five years ago, I have tried to sprea[d the?] glorious principles. The name of “cra[nk” I ]have not regarded as a stigma, but as a [compl]imentary title.

The[ doct]rine of the single tax is spreading slow[ly in ]California, but with a certainty that must [befor]e long work a big change. Poverty is ad[vanci]ng apace in San Francisco and chari[table ]institutions are obliged to double their [effor]ts; and this, in face of nature’s wond[rous? ]bounty, must start open minded men [thi]nking.

Am[ong m]y acquaintances there are more wome[n con]verted to your doctrines than men, whic[h I be]lieve is due to the fact that women have [a keene?]r sense of justice than men have and a[re fre]er from the economic sophistries of the [schools?].

S. SOLOMONS.

p. 2, col. 5

A Western Paper Does a Little Figuring on Local Taxation.

Detroit Evening News.

The present method of taxation is to throw out a drag net and seize on everything but churches, graveyards and the Michigan central railroad. So completely has this idea seized the popular mind that, not satisfied with taxing the article itself, the mortgage on it is taxed as well as the paper money representing that intangible thing known as credit, by which the transactions of buying and loaning are consummated. Every legislature that meets tries some new way of digging out “undiscovered” property. But in spite of it all certain kinds continually elude the assessor, though actually increasing enormously in quantity. The assessor is not to blame. The law is at fault.

To remedy inequitable assessments the latest plan is to relieve from assessment all property which is the result of human exertion, and to lay all taxes on land values alone—to exempt all buildings and personal property; to take no notice of bonds and mortgages; to make no account of fencing, or draining, or cultivating—to look on land as virgin soil and lay all taxes on the values created by reason of population or location. This is the single tax idea.

If all taxes in Detroit were placed on land values alone, what would be the result? Who would be relieved? Who would bear an increased burden? Would it be equitable?

The system pursued by the assessors in placing values in this city renders these questions easier to answer than they would be with most other localities. Here the value of the land, the building and the personal property is kept separate. The assessed value of the lots, buildings and personal property of Detroit for 1887 was as follows:

The rate of city taxation last year was 12 mills on the dollar, and the amount raised was $1,714,430.71. Of this there was raised, in round numbers, $760,000 on the land, $513,000 on buildings and $440,000 on personal property. To raise the whole of this $1,714,430.71 on land alone would have raised the rate to 27 mills on the dollar—more than double the present rate. Let us see how this would affect average individuals.

On Lambis place, between Twenty-first and Twenty-second streets, lives a shoemaker. He owns his house and lot, which has been paid for by hard work. He is a typical cottage holder—sober, industrious, intelligent. His lot is 27x107, and is assessed for $270. His house is assessed for $350. At the present rate and under the present system of taxation he pays $7.44 in city taxes. If only land values were taxed he would pay $7.29.

On the corner of Buchanan and Fifteenth streets is a house and lot owned by a printer. The lot is assessed for $250 and the house for $400. The house is on the back of the lot. The assessment on this property last year was $7.80. Under the single tax idea it would be $6.75.

In the great majority of cases the assessed value of buildings on cottage property largely excels the assessed value of the lots. Thus a direct benefit would accrue to small property owners by the adoption of the single tax idea. The benefits that would accrue to them as wage workers are much greater.

E. & A. Fisher and the Fisher estate own the valuable property corner of Woodward and Michigan avenues. It is irregular in shape—about 166x75—and is assessed at $152,500 on the land and $23.000 on the buildings. The present taxes on this property are $2,100. Under the single tax it would be $4,117. So it is plain the holders in this instance have everything to lose and nothing to gain by changing the present system. To be sure, the gain would be $276 on the buildings, but the loss would be $2,287 on the land. Nor could the Fishers shift this added burden on to those who rent from them. If they could do this they could raise the rent without the tax.

Out on the boulevard, near Woodward avenue, a real estate speculator owns a piece of ground 216x110, divided into four lots and held for speculative purposes. It is assessed at $6,900, and the taxes foot up $82.80. Under the single tax plan he would pay on these lots $186.30. Of course he is opposed to the single tax idea. His lots—and these are but a few of many he owns—would sell for no more, while they would eat their heads off if not improved.

Freedom from taxation on personal property would result in immediate advantage to consumers. For example: J. L. Hudson pays $1,200 taxes on his stock. Were this tax removed, the public would reap the benefit in lower prices, for all other clothing dealers would also be benefited, and the competition between them would result in lowering the prices by the amount of the taxes. The same can be said of W. H. Elliott, who now pays over $600 taxes on his dry goods in stock. Were Messrs. Elliott and Hudson alone exempt from taxation, it would give them so great an advantage over competitors that they could in time drive their competitors out of the market, other things being equal.

Apply the single tax idea to the manufactories of Detroit, and it would become one of the greatest industrial centers in the country. They would outstrip all competitors or compel other municipalities to be equally generous in the matter of taxation. So the wage working class and the small property owners would not only be benefited through lower taxes on their little buildings and reduced prices for their purchases, but also by steadier employment, if not higher wages.

Thus, were all taxes in Detroit to be levied on land values alone, it would lighten the burdens of manufacturers, the traders and the small property owners. It would neither increase nor lighten the burdens of the bond and mortgage holders, for the great majority escape now. It would lighten the burdens of the borrowers of money on mortgages, for it would take out of the problem the fiction that the mortgagee pays the taxes. It would increase the burdens of holders of unimproved land, and it would press the hardest on land speculators.

Making Use of the Current.

When traveling on the Rhine some time ago I saw what are called, I believe, “flying bridges.” They are constructed in the following way: In the middle of the stream, say 500 feet above the point where one wishes to cross, an anchor is firmly embedded in the bottom of the river. Attached to the anchor is a cable, and at the other end of the cable is a boat some forty feet long; the bow of the boat points up stream toward the anchor. The cable is attached to an iron bar running across the boat some ten feet above the deck and one-third of the way back from the bow. The end of the cable travels back and forth across this bar in such a way that if the boat heads to the right the cable runs over to the left, and vice versa. Now the boat being at one side of the river, all that is necessary is to release it from the moorings and bring into use the very large rudder, when the current of the river swings the boat first to the middle of the stream and then over to the opposite bank. One man, the helmsman, does all the work, except p. 2, col. 6 fastening and unfastening at the dock. All the power is supplied by the swift current.

This is the ingenious and sensible way in which the Rhine people get outside forces to do their work for them; and if we could only apply the principle to our affairs it might be worth our while. Take politics for instance. Let this bank of the river represent where we stand to-day. Let the opposite bank represent the conditions we are striving to attain. Let the anchor represent the principles we hold to. Now all we have to do is to let our little boat swing out and take advantage of the tariff reform and free trade current of public opinion, and, presto! we find ourselves where we wanted to go.

W. BENDEL.

The Anti-Slavery Apostle an Absolute Free Trader.

William Lloyd Garrison, the younger, is throwing himself into the struggle against protective taxes with an energy and ability worthy of his father. The Boston Traveller and other protection papers having intimated that in this he was not following in the footsteps of his father, Mr. Garrison closed a recent free trade speech in Boston with the following extract from a speech made by his father in the same city in 1868:

The cause of human liberty covers and includes all possible forms of human industry, and best determines how the productions thereof may be exchanged at home and abroad for mutual advantage. He is the most sagacious political economist who contends for the highest justice, the most far-reaching equality, a close adherence to natural laws, and the removal of those restrictions which foster natural pride^sic and selfishness. The mysteries of government are only juggles of usurpers and demagogues. There is nothing intricate in freedom, free institutions, the law of interchange, the measure ,of reciprocity. It is the legerdemain of class legislation, disregarding the common interests of the people, that creates confusion, sophisticates the judgment, and dazzles to betray. The law of gravitation needs no legislative props or safeguards to make its operation more effective or more beneficent. It is supposed—other things being equal—that those whose lives are devoted to business affairs and financial matters will have a clearer perception of what concerns their interests than those whose pursuits are simply professional or philanthropic. “Other things being equal;” that is a very important qualification. Alas! they are often most unequal, because of the profligate disregard of principle; and then follow incongruity, entanglement, loss of vision, impaired judgment, desperate expedients, calamitous results. This was strikingly illustrated in the insane conduct of the business men of the nation of all classes, in burning incense and servilely bowing the knee to the southern Moloch for a period of three score years and ten, animated by the belief that it was a paying business investment. What came of it we have all had bitter occasion to know.

Believing that the interests of the American people in no wise materially differ from those of the people of any other country, and denying the rectitude or feasibility of building ourselves up at their expense by an exclusive policy, obstructing the natural flow of material exchanges, I avow my self to be a radical free trader, even to the extent of desiring the abolition of all custom houses throughout the world. That event is far distant, undoubtedly, but I believe it will come with the freedom and enlightenment of mankind. My faith is absolute that it will prove advantageous to every branch of human industry, whether at home or abroad. Its realization cannot fail to bring great and signal blessings along with it, and to foster a more noble and expansive spirit of human brotherhood, through which at last all the nations of the earth shall strike hands in amity and peace.

A True Protective Plan.

Toronto Grip.

Our friend Crankton is working a great scheme, which he says is the only genuine anti-poverty racket. Simply this: Each and every man, woman and child in Canada shall contribute five cents to his (Crankton’s) purse. This will make him a millionaire. Then he and all the rest of the population will contribute five cents each to the purse of the next man, and so on until every individual in Canada has been made comfortably rich. Crankton has a great head.

Minnesota Farmers Denounce the Tariff.

The executive committee of the Minnesota farmers’ alliance, comprising members of both political parties, recently adopted resolutions indorsing President Cleveland’s views on the tariff issue, denouncing the protective tariff and calling for its immediate repeal on all raw material and necessaries of life.

The Law of Rent.

NEW YORK.—So many of my friends deny the correctness of my understanding of the law of rent, without convincing me of error, that I venture to ask you:

1. Is not economic rent to be described as a natural tax on individual production, arising from the fact that in a progressive community a greater degree of desirability attaches to some portions of the earth’s surface than to other portions?

2. Wealth being produced by the labor of individuals, and it being a physical necessity that this labor must be expended in locations of different degrees of desirability, is it not correct to say that, strictly speaking, individual producers are not entitled to all the wealth they produce, but only to the amount the same exertion would have produced on land below the margin of desirability?

3. In the complex processes of civilization capital is used to aid labor, and is it not correct to say that an individual producing 100 on land 10 above the margin of desirability, with the aid of borrowed capital commanding 5 interest is entitled to call “his own, against all the world,” 85—and not 100?

4. Is not the argument in favor of the single tax founded on the recognition of the fact that, in a progressive community, rent is an inexorable law from which individuals cannot escape; but that it is a law which provides a fund (made up of enforced contributions of individuals) amply sufficient for public expenses?

G. W.

1. Your description is correct. As a greater degree of desirability attaches to some portions of the earth’s surface, the owners of these portions are able to compel users to pay a premium for the privilege of producing there. This premium is a tax upon the producer who pays it; but it is a tax for which he receives an equivalent in the permission to work in a more desirable place than other people, whose natural rights are equal to his, must work in; and if the tax were used for the common good it would equalize privileges.

2. Strictly speaking, yes. For the wealth that an individual produces on land lying above the margin of production he is indebted, not to his labor, but to his advantage over individuals who must produce below the margin or not at all.

3. I think so.

4. Yes, except that the “contributions” are voluntary rather than enforced, and payments for a privilege rather than contributions.

Free Trade and Wages.

EAST PEPPERELL, Mass.—The tariff reformers assert that the effect of a radical revision of the tariff would be to increase wages by increasing the opportunities to work. This is basing the increase of wages to labor upon similar grounds to that upon which the land tax advocates base it. Now, the question of an increase of wages under free trade is one which, to my mind, is not perfectly clear. If it was, I would not trouble you with this inquiry.

On page 217 of “Progress and Poverty” I read: “And so in the United States, if we were to reduce public expenditures to the lowest possible point, and meet them by revenue taxation, the benefit could certainly not be greater than that which railroads have brought. There would be more wealth left in the hands of the people as a whole, just as the railroads have put more wealth in the hands of the people as a whole, but the same inexorable laws would operate as to its distribution. The condition of those who live by their labor would not ultimately be improved.” Now, in view of this economic principle which I believe to be true, I wish to inquire whether we are to understand the increase of wages under free trade to be “as a quantity or as a proportion.”

Suppose commercial free trade to be eslished—without the land tax system—and business should be stimulated, and the cost of living reduced to the laborer, would not rent rise and the landlord reap the whole gain, and if so, how would the “poor people who have to work” be benefited?

Yours for the land tax,

D. S. FOSTER.

If you will re-read your quotation from “Progress and Poverty” you will notice that Mr. George says: “The condition of those who live by their labor would not ultimately be improved.” This is true, and it is also true that a radical revision of the tariff would increase wages, both as a quantity and as a proportion. The increase of wages resulting from commercial free trade would not, however, be permanent. It was the ultimate effect to which Mr. George referred; but it is only the immediate effect to which single tax free traders refer.

If commercial free trade were established, land would be cheaper. The tariff benefits only land owners. A tax on coal makes coal mines dear and encourages the cornering of mines without using them. A tariff on lumber produces the same effect on lumber land. And so on. To abolish these tariffs would reduce the value of these kinds of land and by checking speculation in them bring such quantities into market as to still further reduce the value of all. You, as a land tax man, will readily see that a rise of wages would result from this. But the removal of duties, the consequent cheapening of land, the higher profits of capital and the increased wages of labor would ultimately bring about a reaction in land values and land speculation. Rents would rise, and as they rose land would become scarce in the market again. And, as a land tax man, you would also see that this would diminish profits, discourage enterprise and reduce wages.

Commercial free trade in itself would benefit people who have to work, but its chief importance is as a step which the people are now ready to take and which leads directly and inevitably to absolute free trade in its broadest sense—free production and free exchange.

Unearned Increments.

BROOKLYN.—(1) What constitutes an unearned increment?

2. Are there any other unearned increments beside that accruing from the increase of land values?

3. Is the taking (by an individual) of an unearned increment at any time in accord with pure justice?

4. If so, when?

FRED C. GROSS.

1. Unearned increment is an arbitrary term used to describe land value. Two hundred and fifty years ago Manhattan island had no value because there were so few people here that one who wanted to use part of it could get all he wanted for nothing. But as population increased and the land was appropriated, whoever would use any of it was forced to pay some one

p. 3, col. 2 else for the privilege; and now the price of such a privilege anywhere on the island is very high. This price is, strictly speaking, economic rent: but it is frequently called unearned increment, because it is a value that the owner does not earn, and appears to be something added to the land itself.

2. The only thing like it is the value that attaches to other forms of monopoly. Sometimes through fluctuations of prices the owner of a commodity will find that its value has increased on his hands. But this increase bears no resemblance to the “unearned increment” of land.

3. It does not follow that individuals are to be condemned for profiting by what the community approves. It is the system that is to be condemned in these cases, not the individual.

The Rise in Coffee.

NEW YORK.—I read in Queries and Answers in your issue of the 31st ultimo Mr. Lucas’s question regarding the prices of tea and coffee before and after they were placed on the free list. as spoken of^sic by Mr. Edmunds in his article in Harper’s Monthly.

To explain the reasons for the maintenance of prices after the tax was repealed, is it not a fact that at about the same time that coffee was placed upon the free list the Brazilian government imposed a heavy export duty which almost made up the difference? Another probable explanation is that the coffee plant takes some years to come into bearing, and if there were for any reason a suddenly increased demand for the berry, it could only be supplied to the extent of the already existing plantations, and some years would elapse before the supply could equal the demand, when prices would, of course, fall to a normal point.

J. L. DUNHAM.

The Brazilian export duty has been referred to as a factor to account for the rise in coffee after the abolition of our import duty; but the facts do not seem to warrant this explanation.

In a recent issue the Evening Post took the trouble to make an historical presentation of the subject, from which we find that our import duty on coffee was reduced in 1871 from 5 to 3 cents a pound, and in 1873 it was wholly abolished; and that it was not in either of these years, but as long before as 1867, that Brazil imposed an export duty of nine per cent, which has been maintained ever since. When our import duty was repealed coffee rose in price. This could not have been due to the Brazilian export tax, for, as already stated, that has been long in force; but neither was it a result of the repeal of our import tax, as protectionists claim. The rise in coffee began about 1869, when it was worth less than 10 cents a pound, and continued until 1874, when it was as high as 19½ cents, a difference of over 9 cents, which, as the Post truly says, was “a rise so great that the duty removed becomes too insignificant a factor.” On the protectionist theory applied to coffee, the repeal of a 5 cent duty raises the price 9 cents! The proposition is its own refutation. The causes of this rise in coffee must be looked for as we would look for the causes of the rise or fall of any other commodity—silver, for example.

Your suggestion that the coffee plant takes some years to come into bearing is one factor to be considered; Mr. Eastlake’s statement in last week’s STANDARD that importations were kept down in expectation of the repeal is another; an increased demand is another; failure of crops is another, and the fact that coffee production is in some degree a monopoly is another. But whether the explanation be one or all of these conditions, the truth remains that a tariff on a competitive commodity adds to the price of the commodity, and a repeal of the tax diminishes it.

Refunding War Taxes.

KALAMAZOO, Mich.—Will you be so kind as to explain in the columns of THE STANDARD this scheme in congress of refunding to the states the direct taxes levied during the war? I do not understand it. How was it collected, and why should it be paid back when the indirect war taxation is still kept up? If you will explain what this scheme is and the reason given for it you will greatly oblige me. I have not seen anything in any of the papers which has given me any light upon it.

N. G. LESLIE.

During the war several kinds of direct taxes were levied in accordance with the provisions of the constitution. For example: On one occasion a sum—I think it was $20,000,000—was apportioned among the states according to population, and raised by a tax on real estate. It is now proposed to return this and other sums levied in a similar manner to the states according to the quota they paid. There is no reason for returning it. It would not, and in most cases could not, be returned to the people who paid it, and it would furnish a method of keeping down the surplus without diminishing taxation, and thus give the internal and customs revenues a longer lease of life. The latter is the real motive of the scheme, although the ostensible motive is to return to the people out of an abundant treasury taxes that they paid for war purposes. This, as I have already said, it would not accomplish, for the money would stick in the state treasuries; but if, instead of sticking there, it could go back to the people who paid it, that would be returning war taxes to direct tax payers, not alone without similarly reimbursing indirect tax payers for their contribution to the war, but actually at the expense of indirect tax payers.

Notes.

L. L. PELTIER, Montreal, Canada.—The clipping from the Witness presents no new objections to the single tax nor any of the old objections in sufficiently striking form to call for a special answer.

LOUIS F. POST.

Five Thousand Men Out—A Bitter Fight in Prospect—A Strike Probable in the Building Trades.

The action of the journeymen brewers last Sunday deciding to keep on at work and let the central labor unions of New York, Brooklyn and Hudson county do the boycotting of boss brewers who refused to sign the new contracts; also the action of the Brooklyn central labor union in placing a boycott on the breweries of H. B. Scharman, S. Liebman’s Sons, William Ulmer, Ferdinand Muench, Williamsburg, and C. P. Hawkins’ Sons, New York city, have brought about the crisis predicted in this paper last week. At a meeting of the boss brewers, held on Tuesday, April 10, the following was unanimously adopted:

Whereas, A boycott has been placed upon several of the brewers of this city and vicinity, and the brewery workmen of this city and vicinity having been instrumental in procuring and enforcing that boycott;

Be it resolved, Unless the boycott placed upon our product is raised, and we so notified through the public press by Monday, April 16, we, the undersigned, shall immediately proceed to reorganize our working force.

And be it further resolved, That in carrying out the above resolution we pledge ourselves to maintain, in good faith, any existing contracts with our men.

Men desiring steady employment, at good wages, as drivers and workingmen in breweries, are requested to register their names at 108 East Fourteenth street, near Fourth avenue, New York, between the hours of 10 a. m. and 2 p. m., on Thursday, Friday and Saturday of this week.

The resolutions were signed by seventy-nine leading brewing firms of this city, Brooklyn, Hudson county and Newark, and are certain to be indorsed by the brewing trade all over the country.

The employment agency opened by the association on Fourteenth street was crowded last Thursday, Friday and Saturday by applicants for work. About 2,500 names were registered. The men who registered were about twenty per cent brewers and the balance mostly laborers.

Last Monday at noon seventy-nine boss brewers of this city, Brooklyn, Hudson county and Newark locked out all their brewing employes—about 5,000 men—and informed them that those who desired to return to work on the employers’ terms, as outlined in the resolutions above, could report on Tuesday morning. The engineers nearly all remained at work. They had a meeting Monday morning and decided to give up their charter. This is a setback to the strikers.

The fight promises to be a bitter one. The employers say they are determined to win even if they have to keep their breweries closed indefinitely. Money is plenty on their side. The journeymen say they have money enough to last six months. The strongest cards the men can play are two. If all sympathizers will stop drinking beer and ale during the strike it will materially aid the men by the intimidating effect it will have on the bosses. If the saloon keepers will refuse to sell the boycotted beer, that will also help the men.

In the mean time the breweries are being filled up with new men.

The journeymen maltsters and brewers of Chicago, 2,000 men, went on strike last Thursday, because of a circular issued by the brewery proprietors refusing recognition of the brewers’ and maltsters’ union. At last accounts the men were discouraged.

Eight Thousand More Workers May Strike.

There is a probability of a number of strikes in the building trades. The tin and slate roofers and framers want to make new contracts for the coming season, to commence May 1. The roofers want four dollars for a day’s work of nine hours, and thirty-eight of the employing firms have already said that they will not accede to the demands. M. Harmon, who has the contract for roofing the new Gansevoort market, has refused to go on with the work until this difficulty has been settled. The framers want forty cents an hour and nine hours, except on Saturday, when they want eight hours, and double pay for Sunday work. If these two trades strike they will directly affect 8,000 men, and indirectly the entire building trade.

Sowing the Seed in Washington.

WASHINGTON, D. C., April 9.—The anti-poverty society recently formed here is booming. It is fast gaining recruits, although we have not yet begun to work systematically. We have set a great many to thinking about and discussing the single tax idea who never thought about it before. Mr. Charles Frederick Adams is one of the most ardent of our members. He is a clear, distinct and forcible speaker, and is ever ready to answer questions. Mr. M. Pechin addressed our meeting on the 9th inst. There were a number of strangers present who became deeply interested in his discourse. Professor Lester F. Ward of the anthropological society also spoke. He said he was not prepared to take position for or against the single tax doctrine, as a stress of public and private business had prevented his studying the subject, but he did know enough about Mr. George’s works to say that the author was entitled to the gratitude of all thinking men and women for having demolished forever the theory set forth by Malthus.

Our next meeting will be held in Grand army hall, on Pennsylvania avenue, on Thursday evening, April 19. Mr. Davis will deliver a discourse on “the effect of the single tax on the American farmer.” A meeting will be held every Thursday at the same place, and all interested in the movement are cordially invited to attend. Gentlemen are requested to bring ladies.

WILLIAM GEDDES, M. D.,

221 E street, N. W. Secretary.

Seize the Opportunity.

TOLEDO, Ohio, April 15.—Dr. Alfred S. Houghton of Cincinnati called here last week in the interest of the Cincinnati convention in May. Of course we were glad to meet the doctor, but told him frankly how we felt about the matter. We don’t believe that it is right and just to be crowded into a convention to nominate a candidate until after we have had a conference of single tax men to determine what would be best to do under the circumstances, and we can better judge what would be for the best after the other parties have made their nominations and declared their principles. The more I mingle with the people the more I become convinced that it would be shameful on our part to shirk the national issue and place before the people a good, true man as a candidate to be slaughtered at the polls. This campaign is bound to be (as I see it now) a fight for free trade principles on one side and “protection that don’t protect” on the other. With the corporations, trusts and ignorance on the side of protection and the administration against it, the fight will be bitter to the end. If we had, by some hook or crook, elected a president in 1884, we could hardly expect him to do more for our principles than Cleveland is doing now in the face of the opposition.

p. 3, col. 4 Cleveland, by his message, has given us the inside track and an even start in the race. They own the horses, it is true, but we are the drivers, if we only will take hold of the lines and drive for all the horses are worth toward the single tax. I for one believe after mature thought that we ought to seize the opportunity and go into this fight as individuals, and in it advocate free trade and the single tax on land values in order to kill land monopoly. No one knows how much he can do for the cause until he has tried it, and it is by trying it that I have reached this conclusion. Let us place ourselves at present, at least, on the side of the administration. That act alone will have a tendency to give our ideas respectful consideration, and that is what we must have before they can ever be adopted. Therefore let us seize the opportunity.

We will have at least two delegates from Toledo to the Chicago conference July 4th.

A. R. WYNN.

A Composite Photograph.

Here are some of the answers given at a teachers’ examination at Canton, Ohio, recently to the questions: “Who is Henry George?” ’What principles does he represent?”

“An anarchist.”

“Writer on free trade.”

“Ran for governor of New York, and was defeated.”

“Leader of the liberal republican party of New York.”

“A lecturer.”

“A communist.”

“Mayor of New York, with peculiar principles.”

“Advocates disputes about the fisheries of Newfoundland.”

“Commissioner of the fishery department.”

“A democrat favoring tariff reform.”

“King of Russia.”

’First king of England.”

“A signer of the constitution.”

“Political advocate of temperance.”

PUTTING ITS SHOULDER TO THE WHEEL, AND MAKING THINGS MOVE IN TEXAS.

An Encouraging Report from the State Executive Committee—A Petition to the Legislature for the Adoption of the Single Tax—Better to Be the Leaven Than the Lump.

Under the energetic leadership of H. F. Ring and his co-workers the tax reform association is doing magnificent work in the Lone Star state. The following report, issued by the state executive committee, shows the lines along which the association is working, and the measure of success they are meeting with:

The issuance of this report has been delayed by the pressure of private affairs upon the time of the members of this committee. This delay, however, enables us to state some interesting developments in connection with the work of obtaining signatures in Harris county to the petition to the next legislature.

In the first place, we circulated among a few avowed friends of the cause here a subscription list headed by the tax reform memorial, with the following addenda:

We, the undersigned, agree, so long as it may be agreeable to us, to give each month the sum placed below opposite our respective names, for the purpose of providing a fund to be used by the executive committee of the Texas branch of the national tax reform association, in payment of expenses to be incurred in circulating and obtaining signatures to the above memorial; said committee are to submit to us a detailed account of the receipts to and expenditures of said fund.

In this way we obtained in a few minutes the pledge of some $35 a month. We then agreed to pay one man, whose love for the cause is such that he is willing to work for it on a very small salary, a certain fixed sum per month for his entire time. This party, while circulating the petition, also takes subscriptions for THE STANDARD and the Labor Echo, and gives us the benefit of his commissions, so that the expense of keeping him in the field promises to be very slight indeed.

Mr. N. V. McMahan, the gentleman whom we thus selected, and who, by the way, is the man who first thought of the idea of circulating a petition to the legislature, commenced his work last Tuesday morning, and by the following Saturday night he had obtained 327 signatures. Only two persons approached on the subject expressly refused to sign the petition, though quite a number requested time in which to consider it further, and of these several, after reading the tracts placed in their hands by Mr. McMahan, came to him without further solicitation, and eagerly signed the document. All to whom the subject was presented, with but one or two exceptions, became deeply and most favorably interested in it, and a number volunteered to contribute both time and money to the work. The fact is, we are simply astonished at the response which the circulation of this petition in this community is awakening, and we have not the slightest doubt but that within two or three months we shall have the signatures of a majority of the voters of the county who can read and write, and long before the next legislature meets we believe four-fifths, at least, of the names of the business men of this city will also be on the list.

Our experience in the circulation of this petition has satisfied us that the harvest in Texas is more nearly ripe than we had dreamed of its being, and we are now fully convinced that it is easily possible for the members of this association in Texas to secure from the next legislature the submission of the amendment to the vote of the people. If any one is skeptical about it let him start out with a copy of the petition, and see how eagerly nine men out of ten will sign it, so soon as it is explained to them.

We say that any man of common sense, who has himself seen the cat, can, single handed, set the ball in motion in his own county, and secure a majority of the voters of his county pledged to this reform long before the next legislature meets. Can not each of you at least give a few Sundays’ work to the cause? Can any one, on the Sabbath day, engage in anything holier or more acceptable in the sight of God? Try it next Sunday if you cannot get at it sooner. Put a lot of tracts in your pocket before starting out, for one or two should be left with every one whom you approach. Begin with the first man you meet. Don’t go out of your way to get men of influence to start with. Such men often have such an exalted idea of their influence that they will not throw it on either side until they find out how the popular current is going. You will get them easily enough later. You will not circulate the petition long before finding enthusiastic helpers coming to your aid, as Mr. McMahan has found them, volunteering with enthusiasm to assist him. After you have made them understand the truth, give each of such helpers a petition, and before many weeks there will be dozens of men in your county working with these petitions as enthusiastically as yourself. If each of you will do what you consistently can in this matter, before the legislature meets, we shall certainly have the names of a majority of the voters of the state on our petitions.

Ten days ago this committee did not suppose it possible to do such a thing—now we know that it can be done, and we believe it will be done. The business men of this city, so far as they have been approached on the subject, with hardly an exception, are our quiet but enthusiastic allies. One of the most prominent of them has promised Mr. McMahan to contribute a hundred dollars to our fund, although he does not want it known yet that he is taking a hundred dollars’ worth of interest in the cause.

The great advantage of this petition is that it changes an abstract and remote economic theory into an immediate, practical political issue; hence it is that every one to whom the memorial is presented and explained becomes at once keenly interested in the subject, and is anxious to learn about it and talk about it. It also gives the missionary carrying the petition an object for introducing the subject of tax reform, and an excuse for explaining it thoroughly. At the same time it does not arouse the passion, and prejudice and fear which would be engendered were the agitation being carried on by means of a third political party. We give all an opportunity of expressing their views in practical politics without compelling them to sever party ties.

We are daily becoming more and more convinced that the course for us to pursue in Texas, for the present at least, is to stick to existing parties. If we are democrats let us, to the last man, turn out to the democratic primaries and pull together in democratic conventions to secure, if possible, and whenever possible, the nomination of tax reform democratic candidates for legislative offices. We can honorably, and often successfully, trade with politicians for these offices by giving them the balance, and can, in many ways, exert a powerful influence upon this party and its leaders to the benefit of our great cause. If we are republicans, or

p. 3, col. 6 union labor men, we can do the same thing in these parties. Do not let us think at present of throwing away our ballots in this state as members of a distinct tax reform political party. If our public men can be made to feel assured of a strong following in their own respective parties, we shall soon have on our side some of the most talented men of the dominant party in the state. The writer personally knows of some of the leading public men of the state who are in sympathy with us, and who, he firmly believes, would come out as champions of this cause did they feel that they could do so without cutting loose from the democratic party, and without being snowed under by wire pulling politicians. Let it be our aim to show these men our strength in their own party, and to encourage them in coming out for the truth.

The reports from clubs all over the state are highly satisfactory. About the same amount of work having been done as that shown in the last report. We simply cannot take the time from private matters to make the detailed compilation of these reports required by the by-laws, but it will be shown in next month’s report. Every mail brings us letters from faithful workers all over the state, whose contagious and encouraging zeal and enthusiasm seems never to tire.

Respectfully submitted,

H. F. RING,

J. B. COCHRAN,

L. L. BEACE,

State Executive Committee.

The following is the petition referred to in the report:

To the Twenty-first Legislature of the State of Texas: The undersigned citizens of the state of Texas, including democrats, republicans, prohibitionists and greenbackers, without regard to political parties or ’platforms, respectfully petition your honorable body to submit to the vote of the people the following amendment to the constitution of the state:

AMENDMENT ADDING ARTICLE XVIII TO THE CONSTITUTION OF THE STATE OF TEXAS.

Sec. 1. Improvements on land and personal property shall be exempt from taxation and all direct taxes shall be levied on relative land values only. The word “improvements,” as herein used, shall be construed to include any product obtained by the application to land of human industry, such as from the breaking up of the wild sod and from clearing land and reducing it to cultivation, as well as such improvements as buildings and fences, and any and all provisions of the present constitution of the state, as well as those of existing laws which prohibit the legislature or the proper authorities of any county or municipal corporation from increasing in their discretion the percentage of ad valorem taxes, shall be and the same are hereby repealed.

Sec. 2. This amendment shall go into effect ninety days after the adjournment of the first regular session of the legislature held after its adoption.

Branches of the single tax association are being rapidly formed in other states, and there is no reason why, by equally energetic work, they should not accomplish results as great as those that are being achieved in Texas. There is not a state in the Union that is not ripe for the circulation of just such a petition.

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, APRIL 21, 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.

A Bathing Establishment Devoted to Their Service, Where They Are Washed, Perfumed and Made Beautiful.

It’s a pleasant thing to be a dog—if one has the luck to be a dog of high degree, and to belong to a master or mistress who moves in the first circles of society and treats a dog as a dog ought to be treated. Plenty to eat, just enough exercise to preserve health, no work to do and lots of petting—who wouldn’t be a dog if he could only make sure of being the right kind of a dog and having the right kind of an owner?

Everyday people, who work for a living, and if they keep a dog, feed him on table scraps and compel him to arrange his own toilet in the back yard, have a good deal to learn about the way in which the idlers of society care for their pets. A recent issue of the World, for instance, contains a description of a canine bathing or toilet establishment, which is decidedly interesting reading.

The establishment, we are told, is a very exclusive one. It displays no sign or other external token of its business, nor are any ordinary dogs admitted to its privileges. No dog may enter unless his owner has been properly introduced by some patron of the house. This keeps the place select and avoids the risk of society’s dogs being brought into contaminating contact with curs of low degree. Once admitted, however, the dog may take his choice of luxuries at varying prices, according as he feels extravagantly or economically disposed. For twenty-five cents he may paddle round in the general swimming pool and be afterward sponged dry and combed. An exclusive swim, with the subsequent ceremonies, costs fifty cents. Special perfume for the brushes and combs used in obstinate snarls adds a quarter more to the tariff, and the most luxurious accommodations the house affords are to be had by a big dog for a round dollar of his master’s or mistress’s money.

There is a visitor’s book kept at the dog’s bath house, in which are recorded the dogs’ names and very often the treatment they receive. The World reporter took a look at this volume and copied out some of its entries. Here they are:

Nero, a big black Newfoundland weighing 150 pounds; leather sash^sic; Florida water extra.

Zip, blue Skye terrier, blue ribbon about neck, with medal showing owner’s name and address; infant powder and musk; extras.

Centaur, large St. Bernard, collar of silver and leather showing name and address; oil.

These entries, the World man informs us, are easily understood by the initiated. Nero had his leash taken off and left with the registrar before going into the pool. Then he had a special douche of Florida water when he came out, costing fifteen cents additional. Zip left off his neck ribbon and medal before taking the plunge, was perfumed with a dash of musk when rubbed dry and then powdered. Centaur’s collar was removed when he registered and he had a special treatment with refined kerosene oil, when his ablutions had been otherwise concluded, for fleas.

Civilization is decidedly advancing. The world becomes every year a more and more delightful place to live in—for a dog—that is, for a dog of the right kind.

Roscoe Conkling.

Roscoe Conkling died in this city on the morning of Wednesday, April 18.

It is an old proverb that nothing but good should be said of the dead. Happy indeed is the man of whom, dying, little but good can be said. Such a man was Roscoe Conkling. His virtues were patent to all. His faults must be sought for if one would know them.

Whether or not he was the great statesman his admirers thought him, must he left^sic for a future generation to decide. We of to-day are too close to the man and the events of which he was a part to do more than guess at the proportions of either to the other. But Roscoe Conkling has a claim to our admiration which it needs no perspective to appreciate.

For he was an honest man, amid the strongest temptations to be otherwise. He was honest in his honesty. He was little troubled about what others might think of him, but a great deal about what he thought of himself. While other politicians cared only for their records, he cared for his life. To be, and not to seem, was what he sought. He entered public life and rose to commanding prominence at a time when political leadership was well nigh a synonym for wealth, and he left the senate of the United States a poorer man than at the beginning of his career.

It is an evil thing for the republic when to be an honest man in public life becomes a title to distinction. But all the more is it a noble thing to have deserved that distinction. And Roscoe Conkling deserved it.

The Deadlock in the House.

The deadlock in the house of representatives was broken on the 12th of April, when a motion to adjourn was carried by a vote of 148 to 137. Although the vote took place on Thursday, April 12, it was technically the session of Wednesday, April 4, which was terminated.

The first skirmish of the coming battle between the forces of protection and free trade is thus decided in favor of the latter. The protectionists had every possible advantage in the contest. They had succeeded by a trick in getting before the house a bill in which all the worst features of “log rolling” legislation were combined—a bill which not only commanded the support of a powerful lobby, but also appealed to the interests of no less than twenty-eight states, every one of which would have derived direct pecuniary benefit from the passage of the bill. Although the bill was brought before the house on the distinct understanding that but a single day should be given to its consideration, they managed to expand one day into seven by refusing to adjourn, and consenting only to occasional “recesses.” That in spite of all their advantages and maneuvers they should have been foiled in their attempt to force open the treasury doors is a matter of congratulation. Colonel Oates and the little band who have stood by him so steadfastly deserve well of the republic.

The direct tax bill, had it become a law, would have been but the first of a series of raids, which would rapidly have emptied the treasury. A cotton tax refunding bill would have followed, the overflowed lands bill would have taken $25,000,000—there would have been a general scramble for spoils. The republicans would have gone before the country next fall, pointing to an emptied treasury as an argument against any reduction in taxation, and in the same voice accusing the democratic party of the extravagance of having emptied it. All this is now happily averted.

What It Cost.

The Washington correspondent of the World amuses himself by calculating the daily cost of the deadlock, as follows:

Salaries of members, $4,550; speaker’s room, $12; chaplain, $8; clerk’s office, $240; engineers and mechanics, [$35?]; sergeant at arms’ office, $45; doorkeeper’s office, $325; post office, $70; committee clerks, $225; official reporters, $75; police, $50; miscellaneous, $320; grand total, $5,950.

Say $30,000 for the six working days. Well, after all, it was cheap at that.

The River and Harbor Bill.

The river and harbor bill, at all events in its present shape, is probably killed for this session. There was nothing to be said in favor of it, and everything to be said against it. The fate of the direct tax bill discouraged its advocates.

Minimizing the Issue.

Those who think that the coming contest is going to be over a mere question of tariff tinkering, and that the basic principles of protection and free trade are not going to be thoroughly discussed and compared, will do well to read a few of the utterances of the party leaders in Congress, in their discussion of the president’s message. Here is Senator Morrill donning his war paint, declaring that a tariff for revenue only is a synonym for free trade, and shrieking that “Henry George has characterized the message as a deadly blow at the ugly fetich of protection.” Then he goes on to say that “the protective tariff was originated, as it should now be maintained, by the far sighted farmers and planters for their own special benefit, to create a constant and sure home market of consumers, to bring the manufacturer and the agriculturist together, and to enable the country to maintain two citizens where only one could otherwise find support. . . . It cannot be doubted that a protective tariff has vastly increased and diversified American manufactures and made their economical and multiform production a wide and profound study among the people of every state in the union. It has excited the brain power of not merely the men of science, but the inborn inventive faculties of a great multitude of practical workingmen, and has promoted their happiness and thrift.”

On the other side comes Senator Coke, no less eager for the fray and not at all inclined to minimize the issue:

If reduction should be made in the tariff, $5 of tribute paid by the people to the manufacturers will be cut off for every dollar cut off from the revenue. The tariff out of which these results grow is the most monstrous sys

p. 5, col. 3 > tem of taxation that this or any other country has ever known. . . . > > This high tariff protection is universally defended on the ground of the necessity of protecting American labor against European pauper competition. This is all that there is of the protection argument, and no effort has been made to place it on any other ground. But a more false, heartless and groundless pretext has never been invented to justify or cover up a great wrong.

If United States senators talk like this before the campaign is opened, what bounds will they be likely to set to their eloquence when their blood is heated by the conflict and the air is full of the thunder of the captains and the shouting? Avoid the issue! Sooner look to see two bulldogs in the very act of flying at each other’s throats, lay animosity aside and amicably discuss a bone. The fight is on! And nothing but a miracle can stop it.

General Warren’s Monument.

On April 8, 1877^sic, the Continental congress voted that a monument be erected in the town of Boston, to bear this inscription:

In honor of Joseph Warren, major-general of Massachusetts bay. He devoted his life to the liberties of his country, and in bravely defending them he fell an early victim in the battle of Bunker hill, June 17, 1775. The congress of the United States, as an acknowledgment of his services and distinguished merit, have erected this monument to his memory.

On April 11, 1888, the United States senate passed the bill appropriating $15,000 to be applied to carrying into effect the resolution adopted 111 years ago. The unfinished business of the government is being rapidly disposed of.

Leasing the City’s Wharves.

Thirty-six one-year leases of New York city wharves have been sold at auction by order of the dock commissioners for $89,175. The average of prices realized was considerably better than at the last annual sale.

It is universally conceded that this method of administering the wharfage facilities of this city is an eminently just one, since it secures to the community that steady increase of wharf values which the community creates by its commerce. Precisely why the community should have a right to the whole increase in value of land utilized as a landing place for cargoes, but no right whatever to the increase in value of the land utilized as a storage place for the same cargoes, is one of those mysteries of current economics that are past finding out.

Showing Off for Charity.

The loving kindness of fashionable New York fairly overflowed on Thursday of last week, and the Hahnemann hospital got the benefit of it. A number of young men and women, more or less prominent in “society,” danced in public at the Metropolitan opera house, and a large audience paid money to see them do it. The young men and women claim to have been actuated by charity in thus placing themselves on exhibition, and it is to be presumed the spectators went to look at them in the same spirit.

Another exhibition, which realized about $5,000 for the skin and cancer hospital, was given by the members of the New York riding club on Saturday evening last. There was a grand entering procession, with flourishing of trumpets, a lot of marching and counter marching, a waltzing horse, and a few other of the more ordinary performances of the circus ring. The show was witnessed by a large and enthusiastic audience.

Recorder Smyth’s Decision.

The manner in which the press and public have received Recorder Smyth’s refusal to allow another grand jury to investigate the charges against Jay Gould and Russell Sage is instructive. Theoretically, at least, the recorder’s decision should represent the wise and careful judgment of an unbiased judge; practically, it is assumed by very many people, it represents nothing of the sort. Gould and Sage must have been guilty of the crime they are charged with, because they are Gould and Sage; the recorder’s decision must have been corruptly secured, because it was in favor of Gould and Sage; such is the unconscious train of reasoning in the minds of many men, not generally given to prejudice or hasty conclusions.

It is not the least alarming symptom of our social condition that men are thus losing confidence in the impartiality of our courts where the interests of any leading members of our corporation aristocracy are at stake. Mr. Smyth may or may not be a thoroughly upright judge. He is certainly a fearless one. Had he been otherwise the temptation to defer to popular clamor in his decision would have been well nigh irresistible.

The Woman Suffrage Bill at Albany.

The woman suffrage bill came within three votes of being passed by the assembly at Albany. One statesman, Mr. Tim Sullivan, explained his vote thus:

A month ago I intended to vote for this bill. Since then I have found two new avenues of employment of women. One is drawing spirit pictures in New York; the other is killing patent medicine bills at Albany. I vote no.

Then the house of assembly of the state of New York laughed.

Warden Walsh’s Resignation.

Mr. Thomas P. Walsh, better known as Fatty Walsh, has resigned his position as warden of the city prison, and retires into private life until such time as he can be provided for in some equally profitable, but less conspicuous office.

It was a mistake to make a warden of Fatty in the first place. It ought not to have been done. It wasn’t merely that he was unfit for the position—most city officials are unfit for their positions. But there was an added something about Fatty—a flavor of gangs and low liquor saloons, and petty rascalities—that made his unfitness peculiarly conspicuous. It was right that he should be sent to the Tombs, but altogether wrong that he should be sent there as warden. The public gorge rose against the appointment.

Still, it is clear that if our statesmen use Fatty Walshes they must pay for them. It’s all very well to talk about touching pitch and being defiled, but if you can’t

p. 5, col. 4 get along without using pitch you must touch it, defilement or no defilement. Fatty was a political necessity. His price was the wardenship of the Tombs, and he got it.

But it is curious to see how all the papers pitch into poor Fatty—who in his administration of the Tombs has only obeyed the instincts of his nature—and have no word of reprehension for the higher authorities who have maintained him in his position for fifteen months. When a savage dog is allowed to run at large, it is customary to blame his owner for not keeping him chained up. But principles of that kind have no force in politics.

Two years ago Mr. Walsh wanted to go to congress and had arranged matters in his district to give himself the democratic nomination. But ex-Mayor Cooper and prospective Mayor Hewitt wanted to have young General Bryce, the son-in-law of one and the nephew-in-law of the other, go to congress. So, as was understood at the time, a “deal” was made with Mr. Walsh by which he was to have the wardenship of the Tombs on consideration of letting General Bryce go to congress in his stead. Whether Mr. Walsh would have been more of a public scandal as a representative in congress than as warden of the Tombs is not worth discussing, but it is unquestionable that more than half the power of the “disreputable element” in our politics comes from the readiness of the so-called “respectable element” to dicker with and buy them.

Mr. Potter on Mayor Hewitt’s Plan.

Mr. Orlando B. Potter is a citizen of New York who differs from most other citizens in that he really owns a part of New York. Not only can he eat, sleep, sit around, and transact his business in the city without leave asked from any man, but he is in a position to levy a tax on a very considerable number of his less fortunate fellow citizens for the enjoyment of those franchises. Mr. Potter, in short, has what is called a stake in the country, and a very considerable stake it is. Under these circumstances Mr. Potter has felt it a duty to go to Albany and tell the senate committee on railroads what he thinks about Mayor Hewitt’s scheme for rapid transit in New York.

Mr. Potter objects to Mayor Hewitt’s plan because it would permit the mayor to control “the property interests of its citizens.” He also thinks that as the present rapid transit roads pay taxes toward the support of the city, it would be a terrible injustice for the city to force them to compete with roads which, paying no taxes, could be operated at less expense. He is of opinion, too, that there might be danger of dishonest administration, that property along Broadway might be depreciated in value, and that the city couldn’t borrow funds at three per cent. Altogether Mr. Orlando B. Potter doesn’t like the idea, and would much prefer that things should be left as they are.

What is noticeable about Mr. Potter’s speech before the senate committee is, not the somewhat trifling objections he advances, but the tone of self assertion and class assertion that runs through it. He poses as a member of an oligarchy, and not in the least as a citizen of a democracy. He feels that in any question affecting the government and administration of New York city the only interests proper to be consulted are those of the land owners. He has a confused idea that the ownership of a few thousand square feet of New York’s surface makes him a useful citizen, whose counsel should be sought about city affairs, and whose advice should be carefully heeded. It would probably astonish him to be told that a disinherited resident of an east side tenement house has as much right to a voice in city affairs as himself. He regards the Declaration of Independence, like the sermon on the mount, as “a tissue of glittering generalities.”

More Protection Wanted.

Boston is importing beans. It’s dreadful to think of—terrible to have to believe—but the customs returns can’t lie. And the customs returns show that 67,869 bushels of beans have been brought into Boston from foreign ports within the past three months. And this in spite of a ten per cent duty! What won’t the pauper labor of Europe and Nova Scotia do next? We had become resigned to potatoes and cabbage from Germany, and eggs from Denmark and elsewhere, but the bean should have been held sacred. The need of the hour is a higher duty on beans.

A Blow at the Fishing Industry.

Fisherman’s luck has passed into a proverb, but the luck of the American fisherman is too hard for even a proverb to do justice to it. Not content with trampling on his rights in the most barefaced manner, refusing to blow Canada out of water for his satisfaction, and shamelessly allowing foreign caught fish to be landed and sold on mere payment of a tariff fine—not content with all this, the wicked democratic free trade government of the United States last week struck a foul blow at his very existence and absolutely forbade him to come into the country. A vessel arrived at Boston from Liverpool, Nova Scotia, having on board two entire crews of American fishermen—true blue-nosed Nova Scotians, every man of them—one intended for the schooner Minette, and one for the schooner Iolanthe. Will it be believed that the collector of the port actually refused these American fishermen permission to land, on the paltry pretense that they were imported contract laborers, and sent them back to Nova Scotia?

There are two things necessary to a well developed fishing industry—fish and fishermen. If Canada refuses to let us take the first, and our own government forbids her furnishing us with the second, our fishing industry is doomed to extinction. Let Congress look to it.

The World’s Advertising Contest.

The New York World has adopted a novel method of demonstrating the value of its advertising columns. It offered a series of rewards—$50, $25 and $15—to the advertisers receiving the largest number of replies to bona fide advertisements during the month of March; each advertisement to be inserted but once, and the

p. 5, col. 5 letters received in reply to be turned over to the World for verification and counting. The result of this unique contest was announced in the World of Sunday last.

A single insertion of a four line advertisement for a young man to fill a position of trust at a salary of $1,200, with good prospects, brought 913 applications. A call for two men and a boy for office and store work—men to be willing to work till 8 p. m. every second Tuesday, salary $15—was answered by 802 men and boys. And an announcement that a clerk was wanted at $10 a week resulted in 743 applications for the situation.

Judging from these figures, a man or boy has about as much chance of obtaining employment in New York as of drawing a prize in the Louisiana lottery. And yet there ought to be no want of work in New York. Outside the circle of fashionable society, there is probably not a man standing idle in the city to-day who cannot do something that plenty of other people want done, and who does not need plenty of things that other idle people can do. Why should there be any idle people?

Convict Camp Life.

The horrors of exile in Siberia are well matched, if not surpassed, by those of convict camp life in Arkansas. The board of penitentiary commissioners of that state has made an investigation into the condition of the convicts at a single mining camp, the result of which is given in the Memphis Appeal. It was found that the convicts were worked more than ten hours a day in badly ventilated mines and places dangerous to health and life; that they were insufficiently clothed, poorly fed, forced to work on Sunday and refused hospital accommodation. The Appeal, commenting on the report, remarks that the fault is not in the board of commissioners, but in the law, which makes living human bodies the subjects of competitive hire and thus puts a premium on rapacity. “The state that works its convicts on the leased camp system,” says the Appeal, “will inevitably be disgraced.” We are much of the Appeal’s opinion.

The United Labor Party.

The state executive committee has notified the members of the state committee to call congressional conventions in their respective districts for the purpose of electing delegates to the Cincinnati conference. The basis of representation in these conventions will be: For the first fourteen districts, one delegate for each 100 votes or fraction thereof cast for Henry George at the last election; and for the remaining twenty districts, one delegate for each 25 votes so cast. If any committee man fails to call a convention in his district, the state executive committee is to do so in his stead; or. “if the emergency shall seem to require it, they shall designate the delegates to the national conference, who must be residents of the congressional district for which they are appointed.”

WAKING UP A PENNSYLVANIA TOWN.

A Big Tariff Reform Meeting in Philadelphia.

A tariff reform meeting of workingmen will be held under the auspices of the workingmen’s tariff reform association No. 1 of Philadelphia, in St. Michael’s T. A. B. hall, Germantown avenue, above Columbia avenue, on Tuesday evening, April 24, 1888. The meeting will be addressed by Thomas G. Shearman and Everett P. Wheeler of New York and others. Congressman Raynor of Maryland is also expected to speak. Manufacturers who are in favor of tariff reform will be heard from. The association meets at northwest corner Front and Berks streets every Tuesday evening. Discussions are free. All are invited.

p. 5, col. 6

Dover Beach.

Matthew Arnold, died in Liverpool April 15.

The sea is calm to-night, The tide is full, the moon lies fair Upon the straits; on the French coast the light Gleams and is gone; the cliffs of England stand Glimmering and vast out in the tranquil bay. Come to the window, sweet is the night air! Only from the long line of spray, Where the ebb meets the moon blanched sand, Listen! you hear the grating roar Of pebbles, which the waves suck back and fling, At their return, up the high strand, Begin and cease, and then again begin, With tremulous cadence slow, and bring The eternal note of sadness in.

Sophocles long ago Heard it on the Ægean, and it brought Into his mind the turbid ebb and flow Of human misery: we Find also in the sound a thought, Hearing it by this distant northern sea. The sea of faith Was once too at the full, and round earth’s shore Lay like the folds of a bright girdle furled; But now I only hear Its melancholy, long withdrawing roar, Retreating to the breath Of the night wind down the vast edges drear And naked shingles of the world.

Ah, love, let us be true To one another! for the world which seems To lie before us like a land of dreams, So various, so beautiful, so new, Hath really neither joy, nor love, nor light, Nor certitude, nor peace, nor help for pain; And we are here as on a darkling plain, Swept with confused alarms of struggle and fight, Where ignorant armies clash by night.

Shaking Things Up in Jersey City.

JERSEY CITY, April 16.—Since the hot debate here last week as to whether “a protective tariff has aided in promoting our manufacturing industries,” and whether “its continuance is essential to the prosperity of the country,” between ex-Judge Morrison of Indiana for the affirmative and Joseph Dana Miller of Jersey City for the negative, there has been considerable discussion on the subject. Newspaper reports and reports of those who were there have excited no small amount of interest, and single tax men are busily fanning the embers into a flame. Arguments used and claims made on the protectionist side have aroused the suspicion of men who hitherto thought they were protectionists. We do not propose to let the matter rest here, but shall carry on the good fight until we set the whole city thinking.

H. W.

SOCIETY NOTES.

The late Emperor William, though he lived for his country, also paid careful attention to the main chance. His majesty, “resting in God,” died worth 51,000,000 marks ($12,750,000).

Paul Schwartz, seventeen years old, swallowed a dose of phosphorus in the Spencer house, No. 93 Bowery. He screamed with pain and was found rolling on the floor. He has been in the country two months and failed to secure work. The day before he had purchased two newspapers, and after reading the want columns remarked, ’I am afraid I shall never be able to get anything to do.” He then bought and swallowed poison.

The Princess Wilhelmine, the little heiress to the throne of the Netherlands, was recently sledge riding with her mother when they came upon a party of children snowballing. The princess asked to be allowed to join them, and the queen gave her permission at once. The royal sledge waited for half an hour while the future queen of the Netherlands took her share in the mutual snow pounding which was was going forward^sic. The little princess has been brought up to mingle in the sports and enjoyments of children of her own age.—[London Star.

As a horse car was moving down Poplar street, in Memphis, it was boarded by four men, one of whom held a revolver to the driver’s head while the rest robbed him of $55. Poplar street is one of the most fashionable streets of Memphis. The men escaped.

The gift of $100,000 from Mr. William Massey of this city to the house of refuge to enable that institution to remove from its present location to the country, where the boys may be profitably employed on a farm, is not only unusually generous but also thoroughly practical. It will help the community by lessening the number of those who would otherwise be likely to swell the ranks of crime or mendicancy. Mr. Massey’s noble benefaction will assist many unfortunate boys into paths of industry and enable them to become valuable factors in the social and industrial development of the community.—[Philadelphia Record.

Among the cases brought before a district court in New York a few days ago was an application for the eviction of Mrs. Pauline Ahle, who occupied a floor at No. 410 Water street, and owed $7.50 rent. The woman appeared in court with her six children. She stated that her husband was in the insane asylum on Ward’s island, that she was trying to support her children, was sick and couldn’t pay the money The judge and lawyers made up a purse and paid the rent, leaving something over for the woman’s support. The landlord, Patrick O’Brien, was asked to waive his statutory costs, but refused.

The entrance hall is the biggest, the most imposing, the costliest and by long odds the handsomest apartment in a modern New York house of the first rank. New Yorkers of wealth and taste have entirely abandoned the straight hall of the narrow block house where the stairs go straight up and the narrow passage to the back parlor and basement stairs go straight back. Instead they have made the hall the central feature of the establishment, to which, [if?] necessary, everything else is subordinated. The new type of hall is elaborate in its architectural features, richly antique in its furnishings, and if the mistress of the establishment has any taste whatever for large decorative effects, it is upon the hall that she lavishes them. The hall, indeed, is so much of a hobby that people build new houses in order to have halls.—[Brooklyn Review and Record.

The Pittsburg poorhouse now contains two hundred pauper lunatics, for whom the city pays at the rate of $5 a week each. The overcrowding is so great that many of the inmates are compelled to sleep on the floor, and those afflicted with infectious diseases mingle freely with the others. Surgical operations have to be performed on the dining room table. The other day a man had an arm amputated in full view of the entire population.

Senator Stanford’s mausoleum, which will be finished this year, will cost $100,000.

The latest craze in Philadelphia society is said to be the “poverty party.” The guests appear in garments carefully old, and of unfashionable materials and cut. The music is furnished by colored men with fiddles. The rooms are lighted with tallow dips, and everything is arranged to produce the effect of poverty, the supper consisting of bread and herring, with, occasionally, beer. The “poverty parties” are said to be very enjoyable. They are attended only by amateurs in poverty. Professionals are not admitted.

A New York man calls $1,000,000 only “respectable poverty.”

A dog in Brooklyn, belonging to Dr. Taylor, recently had a cavity in one of its teeth filled with gold.

Miss Jennie Flood, daughter of the California millionaire, is said to possess $5,000,000 in her own name.

IS THE QUESTION COMPLICATED?

In just the same way and for the same reasons, an undoubted majority of American people believe that the abstract question of free trade is too complicated for them to decide, and that the immediate and unconditional abolition of the entire protective system would be a greater evil than protection itself. I deny both propositions, and assert that the question is perfectly simple, and that the immediate and unconditional abolition of every shred of protection would be the greatest blessing to this country which has ever befallen it, except the Declaration of Independence, the formation of the federal constitution and the abolition of slavery. I maintain, moreover, that the immediate establishment of perfect free trade would be the greatest blessing to the manufacturing interests of this country, taken as a whole, which could possibly be conferred upon them.

WHAT IS FREE TRADE?

What is there so complicated about this issue? By free trade we mean nothing more than that we shall all be allowed to buy and sell across one side of Sandy hook, just as freely as we can on the other. There is a little strip of barren sand—turn your face toward the west and you are at liberty to buy and sell at your heart’s content. Turn your face toward the east, and if you persist in buying and selling, the United States government stations its officers with instructions to murder you in cold blood. I say to murder you, not merely to fine you or imprison you—that is altogether an under statement of the case. If any foreign vessel, large or small, undertook to deliver goods to you on the eastern side of Sandy hook, a revenue cutter would promptly fire upon it, without giving you the option of paying duties. If you persevered in taking out goods and resisted the marines who would be speedily landed to seize you, they would kill you, as a matter of course.

WHAT IS PROTECTION?

No one asserts that free trade in and of itself does anything affirmatively for any one. There is no magic about it, no philosopher’s stone, no alchemy. It simply recognizes the fact that men have to make their own living, and that no power outside of themselves and the ordinary forces of nature will or can do anything for them. Protection is founded upon the theory that the collective wisdom of congress can manage our business better than we can manage it ourselves, and that a conference committee, meeting at midnight on the last day of the session, has wisdom enough to tell the people of the United States where to buy their pig iron, thair glass bottles, their wool and their clothing, to greater advantage than the people themselves can do. In the last conference committee of this kind the balance of power was held by the distinguished Virginian senator, William Mahone. And if it had not been for the wisdom of this illustrious man, no one knows what ruinous purchases might have been made abroad by the American people during the last five years.

THE FREE TRADE IDEA.

The free trader prefers not only that he himself, but that every citizen of the United States should manage his business in his own way, without the guidance and supervision of

p. 6, col. 2 Senator Mahone or even of Judge Kelley. He believes also in the truth of the homely maxims, “Give and take,” “Live and let live,” “A fair exchange is no robbery,” “Do unto others as ye would that men should do unto you.” He believes that there can be no honest trade without a profit on both sides; each parting with something which he does not very much want in order to receive something which he does very much want. He believes that every man must earn his living by the use of his own brain and arm, and, therefore, that he can receive no possible benefit from having either of his arms tied up, or from being prohibited from dealing in trade with other honest men.

THE PROTECTION IDEA.

The fundamental idea of protection is that the industry of our people can be advantageously diverted by the legislature into channels through which it would not naturally flow. This is the definition given by Professor Robert Ellis Thompson and other leading protectionists; and it is a very fair one. The free trader believes that human industry, like other natural effort and like water, will find its own best channels if left alone; that however imperfect the judgment of each individual may be, and however much he may be benefited by listening to advice and suggestion, it is, nevertheless, impossible for any human government to drive him out of the channel of industry which he has selected into another which he does not like and will only undertake when forced to do so, without injury not only to the producer himself, but to the whole community.

THE QUESTION SIMPLE.

The question is really exceedingly simple. Is there any person who will admit that congress can manage his business better than he can himself, or can even lay down general rules for his guidance, which, if he is compelled to follow, will not result to his disadvantage? Is there any woman who will for a moment admit that congress, whether made up of men or women, can pass any law regulating the kind of brooms which shall be used to sweep her carpets, the kind of cups from which she shall drink her tea, the kind of cloth which she shall have on her table, the kind of clothing which her children shall wear, the kind of bedding on which she shall sleep and the kind of window through which she shall look from her house, more wisely than she can herself? Is there any woman who will even admit that congress can do these things for her most stupid female neighbor, with the least advantage? But, if you believe that congress cannot do these things for any one of you, what makes you believe so firmly that congress can do all these things, and more, for sixty millions of you? Does that which is folly and absurdity, when applied to one person, become supreme wisdom when applied to sixty million persons?

THE WISDOM OF CONGRESS.

Yet this is precisely what congress does for all of you, for each one, individually, and for the whole sixty millions of American people. It makes it literally impossible for nine-tenths of the American people to sleep under foreign blankets, to walk upon a foreign carpet, to dress themselves or their children in foreign clothing, or to eat their food off a foreign plate. Suppose that it were true that the American-made articles in all these cases were better than the foreign articles, yet who is to judge of this? Would any woman submit her purchases to the inspection and final judgment of the illustrious Senator Mahone, or would she prefer to take the judicial opinion of our venerable but infirm friend, Judge Kelley?

The burden of proof then lies upon the protectionists, as their ablest advocate, Professor Thompson admits; and they ought to make out a simple and plain case. Let us ask briefly what they have to say for themselves.

“FREE TRADE ONLY A THEORY.”

They say that free trade is a mere theory; and, generally, they say that it is sound enough in theory but will not work in practice. This is a palpable absurdity. Every sound theory works well in practice; if it will not work in practice it is not correct in theory.

The truth is that free trade is really the universal practice of all men of sense in their own affairs. It is now the universal practice of every really civilized nation within its own borders. It is only in benighted or barbarous countries like Turkey, Mexico and some Asiatic countries that any nation can be found which does not have internal free trade. Germany is often pointed out, with most ridiculous inconsistency, as an example of the benefits of protection, on account of its greatly increased prosperity since the establishment of the Zollverein. The Zollverein was really a free trade measure; that is to say, it established entire free trade within the boundaries of northern Germany, abolishing all tariffs between the different states and reducing the tariff even upon strictly foreign goods in most of those states. The establishment of the federal tariff in the United States, in 1789, is constantly referred to as a proof of the benefits of protection, whereas it really proves just the contrary. Before the adoption of the federal constitution, each state imposed such duties as it pleased upon importations from the other states. All these were swept away by the new constitution. The tariff adopted under that constitution was an extremely moderate one. The rates of duties averaged only about one-half of those which were levied by the state of New York, upon all importations from abroad, prior to 1789. The great influx of prosperity which followed the adoption of the federal constitution was due to its effect in regulating the currency, in establishing absolute free trade between all the states and in establishing uniform duties, very much lower than those which had previously been enforced in an irregular way by the principal commercial states, such as Massachusetts and New York. So the moderate increase of prosperity in France, under the administration of Colbert, is often referred to as an evidence of the benefits of protection when it really proves the contrary. It is quite true that Colbert, like most statesmen of his time, was a protectionist in theory; but, fortunately for France, he was, in two-thirds of his acts, a free trader in practice, and introduced a large measure of internal free trade. So far as he did this he benefited France, and so far as he maintained the previously existing system of protection there remains no doubt that he greatly injured France.

PROTECTION A MERE THEORY, AND AN IMPOSSIBLE ONE.

In reality, protection is a mere theory, never carried into consistent and effectual practice, and a theory so thoroughly unsound that its most energetic defenders, when entrusted with the responsibility of practical affairs, shrunk from carrying it into full effect. It is not worth while for us to review the frantic attempts which were made by half-consistent statesmen in old times to carry out this theory in Great Britain, France and other countries. Let us look only at what has been done in America.

No tariff ever was formed in this country, or ever will be, which is even half consistent in its details with any theory advanced by protectionists, whether intelligent or unintelligent. Every American tariff has always been flatly opposed to any theory ever offered by the advocates of protection. By way of encouraging manufactures, the materials used in manufactures have always been and still are, to a large extent, taxed p. 6, col. 3 more highly than the finished manufacture itself. In a number of cases the tax upon the crude material is fixed at a rate two or three times as high as that upon the finished article. This has been especially the case with regard to woolen manufactures. It has been shown again and again, by the testimony of experienced manufacturers, that in many cases a tax of 100 per cent is imposed upon the wool out of which articles are made, which, when finished, are taxed only 60 per cent. The truth is that every tariff is a kind of grab bag, into which duties of 10, 20, 50, 100 and 150 per cent are thrown at random; and the man with the longest arm and the greatest persistence and impudence succeeds in thrusting his hand first and securing the best prize. Thus the tax upon one size of glass is only 20 per cent, while the duty upon another size of precisely the same article is 150 per cent. The duty upon one kind of wool is 30 per cent; and the duty upon another kind, equally necessary, is 100 per cent. The duty upon the rich man’s grade of woolen cloth is about 60 per cent; but the duty upon the poor man’s grade of woolen cloth is 85 to 150 per cent. Articles intended for wearing apparel of women and children are, by an express provision of law, taxed much higher than articles of the same general nature which are used only by men. When that famous conference committee, of which Judge Kelley and Senator Mahone were the ruling spirits, ground out the tariff bill of 1883, which was blindly adopted by a congress, knowing next to nothing about its contents, they raised the tax upon glass bottles to three times its former amount, while reducing the amount of other kinds of glass by a small fraction, and increased the tax on iron ore, while reducing it on iron. In the final adjustment of every tariff, taxes are put up or put down, without the slightest regard to the needs of the revenue, the interests of the people, or even the interests of manufactures in general, but solely in accordance with the dictation of a few rich men, who are personally interested in taxing their fellow citizens under the guise of a tariff. The idea of reason or public consideration having anything to do with the settlement of such questions is something which which^sic, to an experienced congressman, is ineffably ridiculous.

The truth is, that the framing of a really protective tariff would require superhuman wisdom. When such a tariff is let down from heaven. like the great goddess Diana, we will all promise to look at it with reverential awe; but the tariffs which are now framed are really the production of about the smallest amount of wisdom, consistent with the possibility of writing a statute. There is not enough sagacity, skill, sound judgment and accuracy of expression to be found among all the wisest men of the world to frame one single line of a tariff which shall work exactly as its framers intend, or even with reasonable nearness to such exactness, unless the framers are actuated by a purely selfish interest in the manufacture of one particular article.

TARIFFS DESTRUCTIVE TO INDUSTRY.

No increase can be made in the tariff taxes upon any single article, without immediately destroying some industry at home; because, even though such a tax may encourage the production of that particular article in this country, that production cannot possibly increase instantly to an extent sufficient to supply the home demand, while the foreign article is instantly, to some extent, shut out. If this exclusion lasts for three months, that will suffice to put an absolute end to some branch of useful industry, in which this article is a necessity, and even when the domestic supply of the taxed article increases, it may be too late to revive the original domestic industry. Thus, in 1883, a surreptitious increase of taxation upon certain fine cottons was made, with the expectation of introducing their manufacture in this country, where at that time they were not made at all. The machinery for making these grades of cottons had to be manufactured or imported and to be fitted up in new mills or extensions of mills. This work could not be accomplished in less than from twelve to eighteen months. Meanwhile, the enormous increase of taxation upon the foreign article shut it out from our markets, and thus instantly threw out of employment about three thousand women employed in this city of New York in making ruches; because, if the material for their work had been imported, the new tax would have made it cost more than the ruches were worth when finished. Accordingly, foreign ruches were imported, made by foreign workwomen, while American workwomen were thrown out of employment and compelled to seek for their bread in some line of work to which they were entirely unaccustomed. But what of that, provided some rich man in Connecticut or Rhode Island could, at the end of two years, get his mill going and have a monopoly of the market for his productions? I do not know how it was in this particular case, but it is certain that in similar cases the result of such a change in the tariff has been, not only to destroy the whole manufacture to which the taxed material was indispensable, but also, owing to the laziness or incompetency of those who attempted to manufacture at home the article thus excluded, to demonstrate their inability to compete on any terms with the foreign makers of that article, and thus the industry which previously existed has been permanently destroyed, while nothing has been substituted in its place.

DESTRUCTION OF AMERICAN SHIPPING AND COMMERCE.

Perhaps no better illustration of the way in which such laws now work can be found than in the shipping business. American ship owners secured from congress an absolute monopoly of American ships and of the coasting trade. It was impossible for them to secure this monopoly without also conceding to American ship builders a monopoly of the right to build all ships which should sail under the American flag. But in their turn, the ship builders could not secure this monopoly without conceding to the pig iron men of Pennsylvania a heavy tax upon foreign iron and steel. What is the result? The ship owners of the United States have seen their business almost perish, while the largest and oldest shipping houses have gone absolutely out of existence. The commerce of America has fallen almost entirely into foreign hands. The ship builders, in their turn, have found their monopoly a barren gift, seeing their business shrink and fade into nothing, for the simple reason that they are not allowed to have iron and steel on the same terms as their foreign competitors. Had all the duties on iron and steel and all navigation laws been repealed together thirty years ago, the ship builders of Maine would have imported cheap iron from Glasgow, and would to-day have been building three times as many ships as would have been built upon the Clyde. American ships would have completed that triumph over all foreign rivals to which they were rapidly approaching under an era of low tariffs and before the substitution of iron for wood. That substitution would have done them no harm whatever, had they been allowed to procure the iron upon the same terms as their rivals, and the great superiority of American enterprise and American ship building skill would have more than counterbalanced the cost of freight upon British iron. With free iron and free ships New York also would have been lined with ship building and ship repairing yards, and p. 6, col. 4 its commerce would have been in the hands of its own citizens. The equalization of prices between British and Pennsylvania iron would have speedily resulted in such an immense development of the use of iron (for which in reality the field, at a low price, is almost unlimited), that the capacity of Great Britain for furnishing iron would have been altogether inadequate, and the market for Pennsylvania iron would have been larger than it is now. All classes would have been benefited and none would have been injured.

Looking now at the arguments which are advanced by the great philosopher of protection, Mr. Henry C. Carey, you may be surprised to learn that they are substantially based upon two points. The first, which may shock you, but which he nevertheless tells with such emphasis that he constantly prints the word in small capitals, is the necessity of retaining our MANURE at home. This is positively the foundation of his whole protective theory. In order to accomplish this indispensable result he propounds a system, the very object of which is to promote the growth of factories, while these factories necessarily gravitate toward towns and cities, and it is notorious that the manure of towns and cities is all absolutely wasted and never returns to the soil in any productive form. We do not therefore need to discuss this savory theory at any length, since its very first act is to commit suicide.

The second fundamental idea of Mr. Carey is the importance of what he calls the rapidity of “societary circulation.” From the moment of leaving the subject of manure Mr. Carey always abounds in big words. What he means by this portentous phrase is that the interchange of traffic between different members of society is like the circulation of the blood, and that prosperity depends chiefly upon the rapidity and ease with which this circulation takes place. This is a very excellent proposition and is precisely what we free traders assert. We differ from Mr. Carey as to the means by which the rapidity of circulation is to be secured. We agree in comparing the circulation of trade and traffic to the circulation of blood in the human body. But Mr. Carey says that, when this circulation of traffic extends from New York to London, it reaches over too long a space and occupies too long a time. Therefore he proposes a policy which shall cut off the trade with London and give us trade between New York and Philadelphia. To be consistent he ought also to have proposed to cut off all trade with San Francisco, which in his day was three times as far off, in point of time, as London. But consistency is not and never can be the virtue of a protectionist. We shall not however trouble ourselves upon this point because the fallacy of the whole argument is apparent, on a moment’s thought. Mr. Carey’s remedy for the supposed evil of the slow interchange of traffic between New York and London is to cut it off. Upon the same principle. since^sic the blood undoubtedly requires a longer time to circulate from the heart to the toes than it does from the heart to the head, we should cut off our feet in order to make our circulation more rapid. Mr. Carey was radical enough for this. He constantly prayed for a wall of fire between the United States and Great Britain, in order that our trade with Europe might be absolutely cut off. But most of his disciples content themselves with the moderate remedy of a blessed tariff. In other words, they do not want you to cut off your feet entirely, but only ask you to pass a tight bandage around the arteries in your ankles. Thus by wisely preventing the circulation from traveling too great a distance, you will secure its more rapid movement within a limited range.

The proposition to increase the rapidity of “societary circulation” by restricting the freedom of that circulation in any particular direction, whether to Europe or to China, is just as absurd as would be a proposition to bandage an artery in the human body in order to make the blood move faster within its limited scope. The blood will take care of itself, if you leave it alone; and so trade and societary circulation will take care of themselves if you leave them alone. If foreign trade is slower than domestic trade, it will not be resorted to, unless it also produces advantages sufficiently greater than domestic trade to compensate for this slowness. If it is possible, as Mr. Carey insists, for us to make thirty profits upon thirty daily transactions between New York and Philadelphia, while we can only make one profit in a single transaction between New York and London, the answer is that business men know that well enough, and that they will not send their money to and fro, between New York and London, unless they can make thirty times the amount of profit which they can by sending to Pennsylvania. What does congress know about this? What did even Mr. Carey know about this? How can they intelligently decide for the merchants of New York whether they will make more profit by dealing with London or with Philadelphia? Let the merchants manage this matter for themselves. They will stop foreign trade quickly enough if it is unprofitable.

WAGES.

All the fine spun arguments are now ignored by the practical men who have assumed the lead; and they are never weary of stating that the whole question is one of wages. As Senator Frye stated in his Brooklyn speech, capital needs no protection, and if wages in Europe coupled with the price^sic of food here, no tariff whatever is needed for the protection of American industry. This proposition has been repeatedly affirmed by all the principal champions of protectionism in this country within the last fifteen years. Nobody ever heard of such an argument in favor of protection prior to [1840?]; and, indeed, very little was heard of it prior to 1860. But now it is the universal argument that the maintenance of a protective tariff is necessary in order to maintain high wages for workingmen.

In the first place, how can wages be raised by a tariff? Let us take, for example, iron. It is said that, if you shut out foreign iron, which is made by foreign workmen, you will make it at home by American workmen; while, if you admit the foreign iron, you will leave the American workman, who would otherwise be employed in making it, unemployed, thus driving him to seek employment in other industries, and so cut down wages.

IMPORTS PAID FOR IN EXPORTS.

But the foreign iron must be paid for. The foreigner will not give it to us for nothing, and whatever may be paid for it will have to be made by American workmen. It may be paid for in wheat or in cotton, or even, if you please, in gold; but all these things are produced by American workmen. Suppose it is paid for in gold and silver. Workmen have to be employed in this country to produce gold and silver; and they receive, upon the whole, better wages than other classes of miners. Quite as large a proportion of the cost of gold and silver is expended in wages as is the case with any other article. If the American miner is therefore not employed to dig for iron, because the foreign iron is imported, he will be just as well employed in digging for gold and silver, and he will get quite as good pay. But, as a matter of fact, we never did and never can pay for more than a fraction of imported goods by exporting gold or silver. If the foreigner would not take anything in payment for his goods except gold and silver, he certainly could not sell them to us. He must take grain and cotton p. 6, col. 5 and provisions; or else he cannot sell his goods at all. But no matter what he takes, one thing is absolutely certain, that he must and will and does take, in exchange for his iron, some article of American production. Practically the same amount is expended in wages upon any article which is produced, whether iron, gold, wheat or cotton. The admission of a flood of foreign goods, at which our protectionist friends are so terrified, could only result in the exportation of a flood of American goods; and therefore a flood of wages must follow to the American workmen from the production of these goods for export. At the very least, therefore, the American workman can be no worse off for the admission of unlimited quantities of foreign goods, since he will certainly receive at least as much wages for making goods for export as he would for making goods which would otherwise be imported but for the exclusion by a tariff.

FOREIGN WORKMEN IN PROTECTED INDUSTRIES.

But this is not all. In the very nature of the case, the articles which are shut out by a tariff must be articles which are not readily and naturally made by American workmen. This is so true, that the iron masters themselves have repeatedly testified before congress, beginning with their first examination on the subject nearly fifty years ago, that they have always been obliged to import foreign laborers in order to make iron at all. So, upon the introduction of any new branch of manufacture, such as the superior grades of glass, the testimony of the manufacturers themselves, in 1884, showed distinctly that they could not get American workmen to make the article and that they had to import foreigners.

WAGES CUT DOWN BY PROTECTION.

In the first place, therefore, if there were any particular advantage in the wages thus to be paid for making iron, glass and other protected manufactures, that advantage goes to foreigners. In the next place, so far as Americans are employed in this line of production, they are necessarily less skilled at the beginning in their new employment than they were in their old employment. They therefore produce less value in proportion to^sic he does not produce as much in proportion to the time employed. Thus it results that the cost of production in iron is greater here than it is in Europe, and therefore that the farmer and planter receive a smaller amount of home made iron in exchange for home grown wheat and cotton, than they could recive^sic of foreign iron. The farmer and planter, receiving less, are necessarily less able to pay wages; and the margin between wages and the price of goods sold being less in farming than in any other branch of industry, the farmers are obliged to cut down wages or discharge their laborers, which amounts to the same thing, and, taking the country at large, the rate of wages is less than it would have been if congress had not interfered.

It must always be remembered that wages come and can come only out of production. They never for any considerable length of time can possibly exceed or even equal the value of the laborer’s production. Now the very object of protection is to direct production into channels^sic, and therefore the amount of production is necessarily less. This being the case, it is absolutely impossible that wages should not also become less, and therefore it is as certain as any mathematical proposition that every kind of protective tariff inevitably reduces wages.

DO HIGH WAGES MAKE PROTECTION NECESSARY?

The argument, however, is constantly turned round, and it is said that because Americans have high wages, and had these wages before there was any protection, as they certainly did prior to 1776, therefore these high wages make protection necessary. Wages in this country were higher than in Europe, before 1776, when there was absolutely no protection to American industries. Some of the oldest colonial legislatures, being then composed exclusively of the employing classes, attempted to compel workmen to accept the same rate of wages which existed in England. This, however, proved utterly ineffectual; and these records show that not merely scores of thousands emigrated freely from Great Britain and Ireland to this country, but also that thousands of Germans and others sold themselves into slavery for short periods, in order to pay their passage to this land of promise, knowing, as was the fact, that the high wages which they would receive, after their term of slavery expired, would compensate them for the sacrifice of their liberty during periods ranging from five to seven years. The tremendous difference which must have existed between the conditions of the working classes in the two countries at that time is sufficiently attested by this fact alone.

Now, prior to 1776, this country was not only not blessed with any tariff for its own protection, but it was cursed with all manner of restrictions upon its exports, imposed by the British government, for the very purpose of keeping Americans down. Everything which England manufactured came in free of duty; and nothing was admitted into England from America without the payment of heavy duties. This country certainly had as one-sided a system of free trade as could possibly be conceived. Yet in spite of this and a multitude of other disadvantages, its progress in population, wealth and prosperity was immensely rapid, more rapid, indeed, than it would be at the present time, if deprived of the resources derived from immigration and foreign trade.

WAGES LOWEST IN “PROTECTED” COUNTRIES.

Before discussing this question on theory, let us look at the facts. Russia, Spain and Italy in Europe, and Mexico in America are the countries which have the highest protective tariffs. Do such tariffs make wages high in those countries? No; on the contrary, wages are lower in those countries than in any other part of the same continents. Did the existence of high wages, before the establishment of protection in these countries, make it necessary to adopt a protective tariff in order to keep them up? No; on the contrary, wages have always been low in those countries; there having always been some obstacles to commerce, even before that ingenious device was thought of.

On the other hand, where do high wages exist? It is well known that the highest wages in the world, next to those in the United States, are to be found in New South Wales, under a practical free trade system, and in England under free trade.

HIGH WAGES COUNTRIES COMPETE BEST.

What countries fear competition most? Again, here we find, with the single exception of the United States, those countries which pay the lowest wages.

What countries are those whose competition they most fear? That of England, in manufactured goods, and of the United States, in provisions; both of those being the countries which pay the highest wages as compared with any other exporting nation in the world. The manufacturers of continental Europe unanimously declare to their governments that they must have high tariffs in order to protect them from the overwhelming competition of English manufactures, because the Englishmen pay high wages.

HIGH AND LOW WAGES IN THE UNITED STATES.

Let us look at the United States. It is a perfect delusion to suppose, as so many Americans do, that there is any uniform rate of wages in the United States, and that all our laborers are paid high wages. On the contrary, immense numbers of laborers in America receive lower wages than the average rate paid in England; although still larger numbers receive higher rates than any paid in England. The differences between the average rates of wages in the same departments of business in different parts of the p. 6, col. 6 United States are greater than the differences between the average American wages and the average English wages in the same occupations. The census of 1880 proves this in a most striking manner.

Thus the average annual wages of carpenpenters in Brooklyn were $698; in New York, $[641?]; in each of the cities of Philadelphia, Pittsburg, Providence and Chicago, only $500, and in small towns and villages less than $400.

In the cotton manufacture, wages in Massachusetts were $258; in New York, $216, and in North Carolina only $136.

In the woolen manufacture, wages in Massachusetts were $316; in New York, $289, and in Ohio, $193.

In wool hats, wages in Massachusetts were $351, while in Pennsylvania they were only $277.

Even within the same state, the differences are very great. Thus, in the state of New York, the general average of wages paid in manufacturing industries collectively in 1880 was, in Brooklyn, $468: in Albany^sic, $[537?]; in Schoharie county, only $178. The wages of carpenters in Brooklyn were $698, and in Poughkeepsie only $362.

In the manufacture of iron and steel, there is always an enormous difference between the wages paid in eastern states and those paid in the western states. When wages were at high water mark, the price paid for puddling iron per ton in Pittsburg and Chicago was $5.50, while in Philadelphia and other points east of the Alleghany mountains it was only $3.75, and a corresponding difference prevailed in all departments of the iron manufacture.

MANUFACTURES GROW BEST WHERE WAGES ARE HIGHEST.

Did, then, this difference of wages make protection necessary to the high wage paying districts as against the others? One thing is certain, that they did not have any such protection. Did, then, the manufacture of iron and steel die out in the west, as upon the protection theory it ought to have done? No; on the contrary, it has rapidly increased there, until nearly or quite two-thirds of the iron and steel manufacture of the country is conducted west of the Alleghany mountains and in those districts where the highest wages are paid, while it is absolutely dying out in those districts where the lowest wages are paid.

The same thing is true with regard to all other branches of industry. New England pays the highest rates of wages in the cotton and woolen manufacture; and therefore these manufactures concentrate more and more in New England. But New England pays low wages in iron manufacture; and that is dying out, or rather is almost dead in New England. Skilled mechanics receive higher wages in New York and Brooklyn than anywhere else; and the consequence is a continual growth of manufactures which require the services of skilled mechanics in those two cities at the expense of the low wage paying districts within a radius of more than 200 miles. In short, here, as all over the world, the tendency of manufactures is to gravitate towards those countries and parts of countries where the highest wages are paid, and to die out, in spite of all attempted protection, in countries where wages are low.

HIGH WAGES MEAN CHEAP LABOR.

These being settled and incontrovertible facts, it may now be permissible even for a free trader to explain the undeniable facts by a little theory. The truth is that high wages never are and never can be paid, except to workmen who are capable of making a large relative production, and the higher the workman’s wages the larger, other things being equal, are his employer’s profits. Brooklyn’s boss carpenters pay their men $3 a day, not out of mere sentiment or sympathy, although they could find thousands of carpenters in the country districts of New York and New Jersey who would be very glad to come and work for them for $2 a day. The reason why they pay $3 a day is that, roughly stated, the $3 men turn out $4 worth of work, while the $2 men can barely turn out the worth of $2.50. High wages, all the world over, mean cheap labor; and low wages mean expensive, wasteful and unprofitable labor.

AMERICAN LABOR CHEAPEST IN THE WORLD.

The short of the matter is that employers in the United States of America have really the cheapest labor in the world. They make larger profits upon the wages paid by them to their workmen than any other manufacturers on the globe, and those employers who pay the highest wages are precisely those who make the largest profits. A few figures may serve to illustrate this general and undeniable truth.

By repeated tests it has been shown that the wages actually paid in the great German center of Crefeld to the silk weavers of the district amount to over 60 per cent of the whole value of the goods; while the whole amount of wages paid for the production of similar goods in Paterson, New Jersey, amounts to less than 36 per cent of the value. Yet wages in Paterson are much more than twice as high as in Crefeld. Again, to compare different parts of our own country. The wages paid in the cotton manufacture of Massachusetts averaged $[256?], but the net production amounted to $592; the wages paid in New York were $216, but the net production was only $391; the wages paid in the woolen manufacture in Massachusetts were $316, but the net production was $737; the wages paid in New York were $289, but the net production was only $597; the wages paid in Ohio were $193, but the net production was only $[419?]. Of course there is no exact ratio running through all these industries by which any one can say with certainty that for every difference of 1 per cent in wages there will be a difference of 2 per cent in production; but these statistics show a sufficient approach to uniformity to establish beyond all doubt the general law. In view of these general facts and of many others, for which we have now no time, I do not hesitate to say that the continental manufacturers are right in saying that, if any country needs protection against another, the country in which low wages are paid is the one which needs protection against the production of any country which pays high wages.

DIVERSITY OF INDUSTRIES.

There remains the argument that protection is necessary to secure a diversification of industries.

This diversification of industries is constantly spoken of as though it were some ideal blessing in and of itself, and absolutely essential to the enjoyment of intelligence, prosperity and high wages. In point of fact, it is of very little importance and of small influence with regard to any of these things. Let us drop theory, and look at the facts.

So far as high wages are concerned, what is there to show that these are necessary or probable results of the diversification of industries? It is easy to spin an abstract theory on the subject; but common experience shows that wages are apt to be highest in precisely those countries in which some one industry flourishes as an absorbing occupation, and where industries are for natural reasons the less diversified. Wages were never higher in California than when it had but one industry, the pursuit of gold. Since numerous industries have developed in California, assuming an importance overshadowing this, wages have steadily declined. Precisely the same thing is true of Australia, Colorado and other districts producing precious metals.

We none of us find that it is necessary to diversify our industries in order to secure intelligence or prosperity. On the other hand, the man who concentrates himself most upon one pursuit is apt to attain the greatest success.

INDUSTRIES DIVERSIFY FASTER WITHOUT PROTECTION.

Nevertheless, there are certain advantages arising from the diversification of industries, both with men and with nations. The man gains relief from monotony by changing, to some extent, his daily pursuits; and the nation very likely gains a similar benefit upon its part. But there is not the least trouble about attaining such a diversification. It comes by natural causes, if we pursue natural methods. It is a consequence, not a cause, of prosperity and increasing population. No prosperous nation can avoid diversifying its industries. They diversify themselves. It is simply impossible for any considerable number of people to live near together without various industries springing up for their ac- continued on p. 7 →

[continued on page 7]

A Shoe Manufacturer Who Was a Protectionist Until He Realized What it Meant.

A shoe manufacturer of this city, who employs between four and five hundred people, told a party of friends last Friday evening why he is now a free trader:

“I had been for many years,” he said, “a protectionist, because, as I had been told, the tariff duties, from the manufacturers’ standpoint, kept up prices. Well, a month or so ago a buyer for a large firm in our line in Brazil came to New York and brought a letter to me. Of course I paid him considerable attention, took him to my house, and we became well acquainted. One day I said to him:

“’What is the objection you South Americans have to trading with us?

“‘We do not object to trading with you,’ answered the Brazilian; ‘in fact, the Brazilians would prefer to trade with the United States if they could do so on as favorable terms as with the English.’

“‘Wherein are the English terms more favorable than ours would be?’ I asked.

“‘Oh, well,’ he answered, ‘they probably do not pay so much for their labor, and as a consequence they can undersell you.’

“I thought over his last words; they worried me; I thought to myself, if that obstacle could be removed I might come in for an order. I talked with my superintendent, my foremen and with some of my hands about the matter of wages, and how our higher priced labor made it impossible for me to do business with our southern neighbors. One of my foremen gave me a pointer, which was that shoe workers in this country did more work in a day, owing to our improved machinery, than they did in the old country, and that when I came to find out the amount of work done for, say, a dollar in this country and England, I would see that, if anything, the shoe worker here got less for his work than the shoe worker across the water.

“If that was so–and upon investigation I found it was–I concluded I ought to be able to come pretty near getting an order from my friend from Brazil. So at the next opportunity I told him that if he had any loose orders he wanted filled I would like to figure on them. He had one, and a large one, that he had intended forwarding on to England, but if I could fill it at the English figure I could have it.

“It was for fine French calfskin shoes– genuine French calfskin–the kind of calfskin which only the French appear to be able to make. Well, I figured and figured away, with the assistance of the superintendent and foremen, and I got the labor item way down fine, and I put the calfskin and material in at cost, for I wanted to get the order if I could; and by the time all of us had got through figuring there was a mighty narrow margin for us, but we seemed to be certain that the order was ours.

“The next time my buyer friend and I met at the office I told him what we would fill the order for.

“His answer was, ‘Too high.’

“I thought he must be mistaken, and I pointed out to him what I have explained to you, but he assured me that the same order had been given time and again in England and that the figure had always been so and so.

“I confess I was astonished. I knew that we had figured the labor down to below the English rate, and the materials had been put in at cost. I would have to get them from precisely the same country as my English competitors, so I couldn’t understand it. The order went on its way. The more I thought over it the madder I got. Finally I determined to probe the matter to the bottom, and after persistent inquiry and considerable examination I found the reason:

“The duty on French calfskins coming into this country was what knocked me out of the Brazil order.

“To say that I was astonished, paralyzed; that I kicked; that I wanted some one to kick me; that I jumped, swore and tore the ground up, would hardly express my feelings. A pair of great big horse blinds, window blinds, the biggest kind of blinds, fell from before my eyes. I thought to myself, ‘What an ass I have been!’ Here had I been for years a protectionist, because ‘protection protected manufacturers,’ only to suddenly find out that protection had done me out of an order, which, if I had got it, would have been certain to have brought me other orders which would at the least calculation have doubled my business. I could have doubled my working force, and paid them at least the same wages I do now. I tell you I was disgusted.

“Yes, gentlemen; I am now a free trader, and for business reasons. I have been spending all my spare time since I lost that order–and I have paid others to spend their time–in a close examination of the various tariffs and their relations to the interests of legitimate capital and legitimate labor in this country, and I have demonstrated, to my own satisfaction, at least, that free trade means money in my pocket and more prosperity to the men who work at shoe making.

“And I am further convinced that when we have free trade in this country we can take all the South American markets away from England, and can give her a tight rub in nearly all the other markets she now has a monopoly of.

“And I am also convinced from what I have learned in the last month that the Englishmen feel now that American free trade means business death to the English manufacturers.” p. 7, col. 3

Letters from Mr. La Shelle and Mr. Williams.

CHICAGO, April 8.–All those who contemplate attending the national conference of single tax advocates to be held in this city July 4 will confer a great favor on the committee by notifying the secretary of their intentions as soon as possible. The work of the committee will be made much easier if it may know about how many visitors to expect. Where a number of persons will come from any club or organization let the names be given. Where there is no concerted action it is requested that each person will write, saying that he will come. This will enable the committee to proceed in its arrangements intelligently, and also be a great aid in bringing the conference prominently before the local public. Address all letters to

M. K. LA SHELLE, Secretary Provisional Committee, Times Building, Chicago, Ill.

VINCENNES, Ind., April 9.–On the 22d day of February I issued a circular letter inviting the friends of the single tax clause^sic to join me in a request to Warren W. Bailey of Chicago to appoint a committee on arrangements and issue a call for a national convention of single tax advocates, to convene on the 4th of July. Since the circular was issued I have received more than a thousand letters on the subject. I could not find time to answer all of these, and I wish, through THE STANDARD, to explain that it would have afforded me much pleasure to have written a personal letter to each correspondent if the labor had not been too great for the time at my command. The responses were favorable and the call has been issued.

The next point to which we should turn our attention is that of securing a large and representative attendance at the meeting. It is important that every friend of the cause who can do so should be there. The work to be done is important, and the meeting is certainly destined to be a historical one. I suppose the work of the conference might be outlined as follows:

1. Select a national name.

2. Adopt a national declaration of principles.

3. Appoint a national committee composed of one member from each state and territory.

4. Determine upon a line of policy.

The committee appointed is a good one, and I see no reason why the meeting should not be a grand success.

SAMUEL W. WILLIAMS

DONN PIATT’S ADDRESS.

The president of the United States has thrown the political arena in a tumult that is as novel as it is important. For nearly a quarter of a century the elections have been controlled by what we are pleased to call the issues of the late civil war and the personal praise and abuse of candidates. In these the contestants have resolved themselves into a mere struggle for power to be found in the possession of the offices. No measures founded on antagonistic principles of administration have been suggested or discussed. The country, divided into two hostile camps, has rallied to one or the other side on a mere difference of names. The platforms solemnly promulgated by republican and democratic conventions nominating candidates for the presidency are so adroitly worded that to the keenest investigation they afford no material difference. The contests that follow are a shame to our manhood as a nation of civilized people.

This sort of political life has so degraded us that the blind following of party has degenerated to a stupid following of men. Each leader has his body of retainers; and is considered valuable in proportion to the number he can control. This is called personal magnetism. It really means the struggle for office and the fascinating hope of plunder through a possession of the government.

The prospect of success depends upon the number of votes, and as opinions are apt to offend, opinions are carefully suppressed. Each party pledges itself, for example, not to disturb the business relations of the country. Now, as these business relations are based on the interference of the general government in the private enterprises of the citizen, the successful party must hold itself to the condition which it finds; and the result of a change to one or the other, is merely the putting out of office one set to install another.

There is but one plane of degradation lower than this, and that is the one that exists in some of the Central and South American governments. There the factions, made up of personal following, appeal from the brute force of such voting to the brute force of arms. Failing to vote in a man because he is their man, the factionists seize their muskets and inaugurate what they are pleased to call a revolution, and go out to kill and get killed. We are edging closely on such a condition, and really it is about as sensible as the one to which we have come.

President Grover Cleveland in his sturdy self-reliance, independence and clear-sighted statesmanship, recognizing this condition of the country, has thrown himself and his political fortune into the arena with an appeal to reason that makes of his message a startling platform of principle. The business relations of the country are as much disturbed, and its dealers are as much stupefied and astonished as ware^sic the money changers of the temple when our Saviour ordered them out.

How brave this act of our president was, the more observant and thoughtful recognize. We all know that he is president because he is a democrat, but for that the solid south voted him in. Now the south was and is solid not from any belief in or love for the democracy. It was driven into that condition by necessity. When Lee surrendered and his brave followers laid down their arms and returned to the peaceful pursuits of civil life, the republican party went into the business of reconstruction. Instead of appealing, as Lincoln sought to do, before he was so cruelly murdered, to the governing element of the south found in its intelligence, it appealed to its ignorance. This was a brutal assault not only on the political structure, but the social as well. An attempt was made to put the power of the state under the control of the plantation negroes, supplemented by carpet-baggers to instruct, and bayonets to protect them in their newly found power. The consequences of this statecraft are matters of history. The white population of the south was driven to union and revolt to save its social existence. They had but two courses open to them–either to abandon their country to the negroes and cease to exist, or fight.

To realize this condition, let one picture New York city, for example, given over to its worst population, the toughs, as they are called, and this through a process that not only robbed the intelligent of their votes but gave the toughs the power of the government, realized through its bayonets.

But we are assured that the negroes are not criminals. That they are citizens, possessed of all the rights of such, and it was and is the duty of the government to protect them.

Let us see. We have at this writing a bill pending in the congress of the United States, which has passed that august body of millionaires called the senate. This is “blair’s educational bill.” This measure, which should be entitled “An act to abolish, by act of congress, the Constitution of the United States,” proposes to take from the treasury of the central government enough money to deprive the states of their right to educate the masses. This proposal is based on the assertion made by its author and his republican associates, such as Edmunds, Evarts and Hoar, that all ignorance is vicious, and that to protect the government, the people must be taught. This was as strong an argument in the shotgun of the south as in the mouths of their dignified senators.

Such condition made the south solid for the democracy, and so long as manhood remains and this disgrace threatens it, the south will be found solid.

This left the presidential contest at the north to turn on personal abuse, and there President Cleveland, had he been an adroit politician, instead of a brave, conscientious statesmen^sic, would have left it. He defeated his opponent on that issue, and as his late secretary Manning left the business relations untouched, there was every prospect of a successful return to power. Fortunately for his party and our country, he is of different material, and scorning to hold office merely for the sake of office, he has thrust into the political field a great measure, upon which to base an issue and supply a discussion.

To comprehend clearly all that is before us we are forced to remember that our government some twenty-five years since passed under the control of a so-called political party that had no claim to such a title because it is held together under property privileges, and these privileges have so shown themselves in our business relations that to disturb them is to revolutionize both political and business conditions. They are so unnatural and unjust that if left to themselves they must inevitably break down the government and bankrupt the country. The tariff, for example, passed from one of a purely marine character to one of high protection at a time when the government was in a death struggle, under the pretext of raising a heavy income on which to prosecute the war. The war came to a successful close and for twenty-three years after the government has been kept on a war footing until the accumulated treasure threatens capital and oppresses labor and all healthy enterprises are paralyzed.

It is hard to realize that the government with its horrible weight is in the field of private enterprise crushing out the weak and lifting the powerful into a class that belittles the strongest aristocracy of Europe. With a vile lobby made up of fast men and loose women, crowding the corridors of the capital, whose sole purpose is to suggest and carry through measures that will insure a profit to certain interests, the great masses of the people, mainly the agriculturists, have no voice in this unconstitutional plunder at their expense. This is but one illustration of evils that have come to us through the degradation of our government in passing the political fabric erected by the fathers to a commercial machine that enriches the few to the utter ruin of the many.

This issue is on us. It cannot be ignored. Even were the startled democracy robbed through long defeats of its traditional courage to meet in convention and nominate some other candidate, the issue would remain. The Cæsar, assassinated in the first part of Shakespeare’s play, holds the boards until the last scene of that immortal tragedy. The great public is being aroused. It will not content itself with killing a fly. Unrequited toil hungers in desperation in mines and manufactures. The farmers stand dismayed in exhausted fields for whose product they have no paying markets. Alien flags alone float over the vessels that on the high seas convey American products. Millionaires multiply from government sanctioned monopolies while the masses see the gulf between a bare sustenance and a competence widen and deepen from year to year. Even the business interests are startled by the augmentation of capital in the government treasury, which threatens bankruptcy to business while it depresses labor.

Belford’s Magazine, thus introduced to the public, will be devoted to a fair discussion of the crime thus put upon the people. We are promised the aid of the ablest pens in the United States; and relying on the intelligence of the people, we count upon success in our earnest endeavor.

DONN PIATT. p. 7, col. 5

HENRY GEORGE’S WORKS.

PROGRESS AND POVERTY,

An Inquiry Into the Cause of Industrial Depression and of Increase of Want With Increase of Wealth–The Remedy.

BY HENRY GEORGE.

[250?] pages.

CONTENTS:

Introductory.–THE PROBLEM. Book I.–WAGES AND CAPITAL. Chap. 1. The current doctrine–its insufficiency. 2. The meaning of the terms. 3. Wages not drawn from capital, but produced by the labor. 4. The maintenance of laborers not drawn from capital. 5. The real functions of capital. Book II.–POPULATION AND SUBSISTENCE. Chap. 1. The Malthusian theory–its genesis and support. 2. Inferences from fact. 3. Inferences from analogy. 4. Disproof of the Malthusian theory. Book III.–THE LAWS OF DISTRIBUTION. Chap. 1. The inquiry narrowed to the laws of distribution–necessary relation of these laws. 2. Rent and the law of rent. 3. Interest and the cause of interest. 4. Of spurious capital and of profits often mistaken for interest. 5. The law of interest. 6. Wages and the law of wages. 7. Correlation and co-ordination of these laws. 8. The statics of the problem thus explained. Book IV.–EFFECT OF MATERIAL PROGRESS UPON THE DISTRIBUTION OF WEALTH. Chap. 1. The dynamics of the problem yet to seek. 2. Effect of increase of population upon the distribution of wealth. 3. Effect of improvements in the arts upon the distribution of wealth. 4. Effect of the expectation raised by material progress. Book V.–THE PROBLEM SOLVED. Chap. 1. The primary cause of recurring paroxysms of industrial depression. 2. The persistence of poverty amid advancing wealth. Book VI.–THE REMEDY. Chap. 1. Insufficiency of remedies currently advocated. 2. The true remedy. Book VII.–JUSTICE OF THE REMEDY. Chap. 1. Injustice of private property in land. 2. Enslavement of laborers the ultimate result of private property in land. 3. Claim of land owners to compensation. 4. Property in land historically considered. 5. Property in land in the United States. Book VIII.–APPLICATION OF THE REMEDY. Chap. 1. Private property in land inconsistent with the best use of land. 2. How equal rights to the land may be asserted and secured. 3. The proposition tried by the canons of taxation. 4. Indorsements and objections. Book IX.–EFFECTS OF THE REMEDY. Chap. 1. Of the effect upon the production of wealth. 2. Of the effect upon distribution and thence upon production. 3. Of the effect upon individuals and classes. 4. Of the changes that would be wrought in social organization and social life. Book X.–THE LAW OF HUMAN PROGRESS. Chap. 1. The current theory of human progress–its insufficiency. 2. Differences in civilization–to what due. 3. The law of human progress. 4. How modern civilization may decline. 5. The central truth. Conclusion.–THE PROBLEM OF INDIVIDUAL LIFE.

The new Land and labor library paper edition of “Progress and Poverty” is now ready, price thirty-five cents. This is printed on better paper, in larger type, is better bound and a considerably larger book than the previous twenty cent edition.

SOCIAL PROBLEMS.

BY HENRY GEORGE.

342 pages.

CONTENTS:

1. The increasing importance of social questions.
2. Political dangers.
3. Coming increase of social pressure.
4. Two opposing tendencies.
5. The march of concentration.
6. The wrong in existing social conditions.
7. Is it the best of all possible worlds?
8. That we all might be rich.
9. First principles.
10. The rights of man.
11. Dumping garbage.
12. Over-production.
13. Unemployed labor.
14. The effects of machinery.
15. Slavery and slavery.
16. Public debts and indirect taxation.
17. The functions of government.
18. What we must do.
19. The great reform.
20. The American farmer.
21. City and country.
22. Conclusion.

PROTECTION OR FREE TRADE?

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

BY HENRY GEORGE.

CONTENTS:

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

THE LAND QUESTION.

What It Involves, and How Alone It Can Be Settled.

BY HENRY GEORGE.

[87?] pages.

PROPERTY IN LAND.

A Passage-at-Arms Between the Duke of Argyll and Henry George.

77 pages.

FORTSCHRITT AND ARMUTH.

(Progress and Poverty in German.)

TRANSLATION OF C. D. F. GUTSCHOW.

430 pages.

PRICE LIST.

Progress and Poverty, paper ………. $ 35 ” ” cloth ………. 1 00 ” ” half calf or half morocco ………. 2 50 Social Problems, paper ………. 20 ” ” cloth ………. 1 00 ” ” half calf or half morocco ………. 2 50 Protection or Free Trade? paper ………. 35 ” ” cloth ………. 1 50 ” ” half calf or half morocco 3 00 Property in Land, paper ………. 15 The Land Question, paper ………. 10 Progress and Poverty, German, paper ………. 35

For sale by all booksellers, or sent postpaid on receipt of price. Foreign editions of these books imported on order.

HENRY GEORGE, 12 Union square, New York. p. 7, col. 6

THE TRUTH ABOUT TRISTREM VARICK.

By Edgar Saltus, author of “Mr. Incoul’s Misadventure,” etc.

12mo., Cloth, $1. Paper Covers, 50 cents.

In this novel Mr. Saltus has treated a subject hitherto unexploited in fiction. The scene is Fifth avenue, the action emotional, the plot a surprise. “There is,” some one has said, “as much mud in the upper classes as in the lower; only in the former it is gilded.” This aphorism might serve as epigraph to “Tristrem Varick.”

Thirteenth thousand ready April 1.

THE TARIFF ON IMPORTS INTO THE UNITED STATES AND THE FREE LIST,

As contained in act of March 3, 1883, also the Hawaiian Reciprocity Treaty, and extracts from the Navigation and Oleomargarine acts.

Indexed. 12mo., Paper Covers, 25 cents.

ASHES OF THE FUTURE.

By Edward Heron-Allen.

Beautifully printed in the best French style, with an illustrated cover, 50 cents.

“The story is of absorbing interest.”–Chicago Journal.

“The work of a very vigorous and cultivated pen, as well as of a deep thinking and fervid brain. It is the story of a restless lover of too many things, and of too many good women whose hearts he breaks and whose lives he shatters.”–Brooklyn Eagle.

“MES AMOURS.”

Confessions: Passionate and Playful.

Written to me by people, celebrated and obscure, and my answers to some of them. With an introduction and notes. Illustrated, small 4to, with portrait, $1.25. Selina Dolaro, author of the play, “In the Fashion.”

“It is seldom that the English reader happens upon a book of verses so full of French humor as this pretty volume. ‘Ma Belle Amie,’ the opening selection . . . is edited with a running [fire?] of comments that renders it delightful. The ‘afterthoughts’ affixed to all the verses are often very clever and womanish.”–New York Herald.

PRINCE COASTWIND’S VICTORY;

OR,

The Fairy Bride of Croton Lake.

By Mrs. Miles H. McNamara.

With illustrations. Small 4to, cloth, illustrated cover, [$1.50?].

“A pretty fairy story, which will delight while it taxes the credulity of young readers. The book is tastefully printed and in handsome covers, and inclosed in a box ready for mailing.”–Chicago Inter Ocean.

THE ROMANCE OF A QUIET WATERING PLACE.

12mo. Cloth, $1.00. Paper, 50 cents.

Thirty French illustrations by Graves. By a New York Society Lady.

A SLAVE OF CIRCUMSTANCES.

By E. DeLancey Pierson.

12mo. Cloth, $1.00. Paper, 50 cents.

A Novel of Incident, Plot and Action. Scene, Fifth Avenue, New York.

IN PRESS:

A DREAM AND A FORGETTING.

By Julian Hawthorne.

12mo. Cloth, $1.00. Paper, 50 cents.

Mr. Hawthorne’s latest and most interesting novel.

HIS WAY AND HER WILL.

Author unknown.

12mo. Cloth, $1.00. Paper, 50 cents.

A great New York Society Novel.

SOPHIA-ADELAIDE.

Illustrated with Portraits of the Princess.

Paper covers, 50 cents.

“The Deserted Daughter of Queen Victoria and Prince Albert.” An awful story of romantic life by a Princess.

CHESTNUTS NEW AND OLD.

By Bill Nye.

12mo., cloth, $1; paper cover, 50 cents.

His Last and Funniest Book.

THE POLITICS OF LABOR.

By Phillips Thompson.

Cloth, gilt top, $1.25.

“An original and masterly work on the great question of the hour, the relations between capital and labor.” Written for workingmen in a clear, plain and forcible style. Competent critics predict that it will be the hand book for laboring men wherever the English language is spoken.

PECK’S IRISH FRIEND, PHELAN GEOGHEAGAN.

By George W. Peck, jr.

Illustrated by True Williams.

12mo., cloth, $1; paper, [25?] cents.

“Mr. Peck has made quite a reputation as a dialect writer, and his Geogheagan Sketches have been well received.”–Milwaukee News.

THE QUESTION OF THE DAY.

ANTI-POVERTY AND PROGRESS.

By Sister M. Frances Clare (The Nun of Kenmare.)

12mo., paper, [50?] cents.

“Discusses some of the questions recently brought to public notice by Henry George and Father McGlynn.” She is opposed to the land theory of the former on the ground that it is not in accord with the Christian religion. . . . She criticises somewhat severely several of the clergy of her own church.”–New York Sun.

THE LAND OF THE NIHILIST RUSSIA.

By W. E. Curtis.

12mo., cloth, $1.

Over one hundred engravings. A guide book.

Send for complete catalogue.

BELFORD, CLARKE & CO., PUBLISHERS, Chicago and New York.

MISCELLANEOUS.

NEW PUBLICATIONS.

GERMAN TRACTS.

No. 41. The Syracuse Platform. 2 pages.

No. 42. “First Principles.” Henry George. 4 pages.

No. 43. “Socialism—Its Truth and Its Error.” Henry George. 4 pages.

No. 45. “Taxing Land Values.” Henry George. [8?] pages.

No. 47. “It is the Law of Christ.” Rev. S. H. Spencer of Henry, Ill. 4 pages.

No. 48. “The Case Plainly Stated.” H. F. Ring. [8?] pages.

No. 50. “Progress and Poverty.” Henry George.

No. 52. “The Case Plainly Stated.” (Swedish.) H. F. Ring. 8 pages.

No. [53?]. “Sailors’ Snug Harbor.” Wm. T. Croasdale. 12 pages.

SWEDISH.

No. 52. “The Case Plainly Stated.” H. F. Ring. [8?] pages.

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

Four-page tracts—25 copies, 10 cents; 100 copies, [35?] cents; 1,000 copies, $2; 5,000 copies, $8.50.

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

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

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

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

A special selection, comprising thirty or more of the most popular tracts, will be sent for 20 cents.

Other numbers in preparation.

Address HENRY GEORGE, 12 Union square, New York city.

PRINTING.