August 25, 1888 Vol. IV, No. 8Whole No. 86

THE STANDARD

NO. 86—[V]OL. IV, NO. 8. | NEW YORK, SATURDAY, AUGUST 25, 1888. | PRICE FIVE CENTS

p. 1, col. 1 [Owner’s rubber stamp printed over the top of column 1, partly obscuring the following box: “104 Dr Walter Mendelson 167[?] W 74th st”]

Single Tax Free Traders Organizing in the Eighth Congressional District.

NEW YORK, Aug. 21.—Your suggestion to organize the single tax men of this city into a campaign club for Cleveland and Thurman came like an electric shock and rattled the dry bones of some of the men in the Eighth congressional district last Wednesday evening. For the purpose of organizing a single tax club in our district a dozen men, active in advocating the single tax, met in conference at the residence of Morris Van Veen, 279 Division street, and effected a tem porary organization with myself as chairman and William E. McKenna as secretary. The name of Single tax club was adopted.

It was declared that the election of Cleveland and Thurman would be a step toward the attainment of the single tax. It was the sense of the meeting that as an organization we should support no candidate for any office other than the presidency and the vice-presidency.

I can promise you that when we are thoroughly organized we will do some effective work in the district.

The next meeting of the club will take place on Saturday evening, the 25th instant, at the same place. All single tax men of the Eighth congressional district who intend supporting Cleveland and Thurman are invited to join.

HERMAN G. LOEW.

p. 2, col. 3

A REFORM CLUB TALK.

A Republican and Protectionist Does Good Work for “The Standard.”

CHICAGO, Aug. 15.—Inclosed find postal order in your favor for $20, amount of eight annual subscriptions. The names of the subscribers are appended, but as most of them are seekers after “light” they do not desire their names published just yet. Three are jobbing and manufacturing stationers, one is a brewer, one a lawyer, one a manufacturing saddler, one a stove dealer and one is a merchant tailor. While all of them are workers, none of them belong to what is commonly called the laboring classes. Politically one is a rock-ribbed, double-distilled, dyed-in-the-wool democrat, three are democrats of a much milder type and four are mugwumps who have left the republican fold. All are revenue reformers, but not free traders, and five of them have never seen THE STANDARD. They have, however, some curiosity to know what kind of mental pabulum is dispensed by that crank “George.”

The writer is a republican and protectionist, but a firm believer in the idea that paramount blessings would result from so taxing land that a monopolization of it would be an impossibility. It is perfectly obvious that production would be encouraged by the scheme, while holding unused land would be a thing of the past, but the writer is not willing to concede that no benefits accrue from protection. Nor is he willing to see this country ruled by the solid south, the dominant classes of which have no respect for labor, but rather despise it, and who do everything in their power to retard the educational, moral and material development of the “poor white and colored trash.” Respectfully

J. B. CARROLL, 337 South Morgan street.

———

They Mean Business Up in Vermont.

RUTLAND, Vt., Aug. 19.—The democrats held a rally last evening in the town hall, which was packed to its fullest capacity. The principal speaker, Thomas H. Brown, dubbed by the Herald “the silver tongued orator,” was received with tumultuous applause. As I wrote you last week, challenges to debate the “tariff” had been arranged and accepted by the republicans in different parts of the state, but at the last moment they ignominiously squealed, and in one case held their meeting the day before to avoid a possible meeting with the democratic speaker. And now a Mr. Hall of Barre, Vt., offers to deposit $500, and he challenges the Hon. Henry Ballard of Burlington to meet Mr. Brown in joint debate on the “tariff.” Three unprejudiced judges are to decide the debate, and if they decide that Ballard wins he shall receive the $500.

It is safe to say that Mr. Ballard will not meet Mr. Brown, for he is a free trader, though a republican, and is making speeches for protection, thus deceiving those who listen to him on account of his reputation.

The republicans are in a sad plight. It looks as if Mr. Blaine, who must be called the party, is determined to either ruin the G. O. P. or ruin his country. The outrageous statement of Blaine at his own home ought to make every liberty loving citizen of the United States burn with indignation, and to ask if Blaine is a fool or a knave.

EDGAR B. MOORE.

———

The Michigan Knights of Labor Embrace the Singe Tax^sic Theory.

At the annual convention of the Michigan state assembly Knights of Labor, recently held at Jackson, Mich., resolutions were adopted recommending the Australian sys tem of voting, and the delegates selected to represent Michigan at the national assembly which meets next fall, were instructed to urge upon that body the adoption as a part of the principles of the Knights of Labor the the single tax system as advocated by Henry George.

———

The Single Tax Roused Him When Nothing Else Did.

PASSAIC, N. J.—I will have no vote until 1889. Though I have been over ten years in this country it never seemed worth while for me to become a citizen till I came to understand the single tax idea. In August, 1887, I declared my intention to become a citizen, and did so for the specific reason that I might be able to vote for the single tax or any reform leading in that direction.

J. J. BARNARD.

p. 2, col. 6

OHIO CONFERENCE OF SINGLE TAX MEN.

The Kind of Converts the Single Tax Makes

MILWAUKEE, Wis., Aug. 18.—The campaign out here is getting fairly under way, and in a short time we expect to have to stand up to our work with a will. The tariff of course is the issue, and republicans are ringing the changes on the poor old threadbare cries of “Protection to American labor,” “Pauper labor of Europe,” etc. Yesterday Mr. E. P. Allis of the Reliance works addressed his employees in an open letter, in which, among other twaddle, he attributed everything under the sun to the tariff. Now four years ago I was a believer in the tariff myself, and did a good deal of talking in its favor. I made a couple of speeches for Mr. Blaine, and of course voted for him. But since I began looking the matter up, especially since I have “seen the cat,” I have experienced a change of heart, and now see that the whole scheme of protection is a fraud. It was hard at first to brave the taunts of my old friends, who freely applied the terms “mugwump,” etc., to me, but I became so much impressed with the beauty and justice of the single tax and the iniquity of the tariff, that I simply couldn’t keep quiet or stop even at tariff reform, and I now find myself notorious in the city as an absolute free trader. I found people laughed at me when I talked tariff reform, but as a free trader I can drive the heaviest of protectionists into a corner. I am trying to get all my friends to come out for absolute free trade, and I am succeeding, too.

PETER MCGILL.

———

That Derelict National Committee.

NEW YORK, Aug. 17—I have been through four presidential elections and am familiar with the work done by the committees. Never in the course of my experience has any national committee been so far behind hand in its work as the present democratic committee. It has been making a great show of work in turning out vast numbers of the democratic speeches of congressmen, made on old issues in reply to old points raised in the house of representatives; but so far as I can learn, it has not sent out one single document that will give a democratic voter a reply to any of the common and stock arguments used by the republicans, or that will give him one point to make against a republican. The democrat in this canvass is naked and unarmed; the republican is clothed in mail and armed with weapons of precision. The republican committee is flooding the country with live, practical documents, bristling with points on every new question that has arisen. If we win this fight it must be absolutely in dependent of the national committee.

A VETERAN.

———

Paterson Single Tax Free Traders, Attend.

PATERSON, N. J.—To the single tax men of Paterson: Are there not enough of us to form an organization similar to the one formed by the single tax men of New York? There is no question but that we can do a great work if we but try. The opportunity is open to us. Let us profit by it. Let us hold our own meetings, and have Henry George speak for us. The mere announcement that he would speak under the auspices of the single tax club would fill the largest hall we have. Let all those in favor of such a course drop me a few lines as soon as possible.

L. PHILLIPS, No. 118 Warren street.

[Q]UERIES AND ANSWERS.

Hails the Single Tax Cleveland Movemen With Delight.

RIDGEWAY, Orleans Co., N. Y., Aug. 12.—Last winter when you came out for Cleveland I thought you had made a grave mistake. I felt discouraged for the first time in twelve years that I have been in the labor movement. But now I believe you are right, and I am overjoyed to see the move that was begun by the single tax free traders in Cooper union last Monday night, and I think the labor party will have to take the initiative in this free trade movement. I have attended two or three democratic meetings and I am thoroughly disgusted. Their orators will stand upon a platform and denounce the tariff as robbery and then in the same breath disclaim any intention of doing anything more than modifying it in a slight degree. If a 47 per cent tariff is robbery, one per cent must be petty larceny and it seems to me that an orator who denounces the former and pleads guilty of the latter cannot make many converts if his audience is in any degree intelligent. Send me blanks and I will get signers.

D. C. SULLIVAN^sic,

p. 3, col. 4

IRELAND AND PROTECTION

THE BEATING OF THE DRUMS.

The laborer who has a patch on the seat of his trousers can consider the original goods entirely gone—all the rest is tariff.—[West St. Paul Times.

A ballot reform association has just been organized in Providence, the object of which is to have the Australian system, or some suitable modification of it, introduced in Rhode Island.—[Syracuse, N. Y., Herald.

Throttle the tariff system of robbery. It means that the rich shall grow richer while the poor grow poorer. God help some of us poor devils if we continue to grow much poorer. We are about to the poor man’s notch already.—[Wichita, Kan., Union Labor Press.

The tax on lumber is a premium on the destruction of American forests, and a prize for the production of droughts to the ruin of thousands of farmers annually. The democrats say: “Take off this accursed tax.” The republicans say: “Make it higher.”—[Memphis Daily Appeal.

We ask our readers to make a record of the “protection” argument from now until the election, and see if one half of it does not cry out against cheap foreign production, and the other half attempt to prove that we can and do produce cheaper than any other country.—[Rockville, Ind., Tribune.

A New York special in an exchange speaks of Henry George’s “free-raders.” This is a typographical error that is not so much of an error, after all. What George and his followers want is free trade with England and the chance to make a raid on other people’s barns and corner lots.—[Indianapolis Journal.

Tariff reform is bound to win. The people as rapidly as they catch on to the fact that a tariff takes from the pockets of the farming and laboring classes and puts into the pockets of the manufacturers will all fall in line for tariff reduction. There is a principle contained therein, if once grasped will always be adhered to.—[Fulton, Ill., Journal.

The News would be the last journal to deny the transcendent interest of the tariff question. It is the question of the hour, before which all others sink into insignificance. It is the question of the campaign, and after the present campaign is over it must be fought out to the end. Once at the front, as it now is, nothing short of a great war can set it aside even temporarily.—[Detroit Evening News.

The formation of a lumber trust in Minnesota and Wisconsin, involving a combine of over 10,000,000,000 feet of stumpage in the two states, with $60,000,000 of capital to handle it, shows once more the great need of “protection” to this “infant industry.” Trusts, combines, monopolies, aggregations of capital to grind the people more easily and effectually, are naturally the outgrowth of the present system of tariff extortion.—[San Francisco Examiner.

What villainous free traders those revolutionary ancestors of ours were, who threw that cargo of tea into Boston harbor rather than pay the tariff duty on it? It was not a forty-seven per cent duty either, but only a low revenue duty that King George asked them to pay. It is clear these revolutionary ancestors were rabid free traders and probably belonged to the Cobden club, or were bribed with British gold to assist in breaking down our infant industries.—[Council Grove, Kan., Anti-Monopolist.

A New Invention in Telegraphing.

The New York Sun has the following account of a new system ot^sic machine telegraphy, by which, it is claimed, two thousand words per minute can be telegraphed from each end of a single wire simultaneously. The inventor is D. H. Craig, formerly manager of the Associated press. Messages, to be sent over the Morse lines, must first be written or printed; but a message to be telegraphed by the new system must first be perforated, for which Mr. Craig has a beautiful little machine, eight by ten inches, with two banks of keys, called a “composer,” which even a child can operate reliably and quite expertly after an hour’s practice, and after a reasonable amount of practice fifteen to thirty words per minute can be perforated. Simultaneously with the perforations, the machine prints, in plain Roman letters, every word of the message. which is retained, while the perforated message is sent to the telegraph office the same as a message is sent in manuscript to be telegraphed over a Morse line, with this difference—the machine message will be transmitted to its destination at the rate of one or two thousand words per minute, and be legibly and accurately recorded in telegraph characters, and the Morse message will be telegraphed by the hand key system at the rate of fifteen to twenty-five words per minute and be recorded by “sound” reading in ordinary manuscript. It is claimed that the machine record is three times more accurate than “sound” recording. With the regular office perforator experts do reliably fifty words per minute, or 3,000 per hour, and it is claimed by Mr. Craig that the actual cost of transmitting 1,000 words 1,000 miles is not over two cents! The cost of paper to perforate 1,000 words is 1 cent, and 2 cents for recording paper. Experts, young men or young ladies, do perforating for 10 cents per 1,000 words, and the same for copying on the typewriter—total, 25 cents for completing 1,000 words! On this basis it would cost for labor and paper less than $30 to telegraph and complete forty-eight columns of this newspaper from New York to Chicago! Mr. Craig has also devised a new telegraph wire, made of pure copper with a slight mixture of silica, which is said to increase the tensile strength to twice the strength of steel of equal size, the exact tensile strength being reported as 133,000 pounds to the square inch. No. 4 gauge wire weighs over 900 pounds per mile, and has but one ohm of electrical resistance per mile. With such a wire, extending from New York to San Francisco, the electrical resistance would be about 3,000 ohms, while a majority of the telegraph wires between New York and Washington show an electrical resistance of more than 4,000 ohms—thus the new siliconized copper wire will bring San Francisco nearer to New York, electrically, than New York is to Washington. Mr. Craig’s apparatus is now on exhibition at Washington, in a room in the capitol near the senate chamber.

THE STANDARD.

HENRY GEORGE, Editor and Proprietor.

Published weekly at

12 UNION SQUARE, NEW YORK CITY.

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, AUGUST 25, 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.

THE SINGLE TAX CLEVELAND MOVEMENT.

Advocates of the single tax on land values have every reason to feel satisfied with the progress of the movement started at the conference in Cooper union on Aug. [6?]. The committee appointed by the chairman of that meeting is gradually adding to its numbers, care being taken in every instance to put on good workers, who can be depended on to display zeal and energy in the cause. The work of this committee was clearly outlined in the resolutions adopted at the conference. It is, first, to secure an enrollment of the single tax supporters of Cleveland and Thurman; second, to provide for the holding of mass meetings; and, third, to circulate single tax free trade literature.

The last of these three duties will be performed, so far as the means at the disposal of the committee will permit, as soon as possible. In the other directions the work is already making fine progress.

The enrollment, considering all the difficulties in getting a start and in putting the blanks into the hands of men who will vigorously use them, is making really wonderful progress. The work will, however, go on much more rapidly hereafter, as blanks will be sent to all who have already been enrolled in order that they may procure additional names.

Of course the great majority of those thus far enrolled came from New York and Brooklyn, but through the agency of the blanks printed in THE STANDARD names are also pouring in from all parts of the country. As rapidly as possible these names will be grouped and classified so as to enable the committee to enter into correspondence with the single tax men of other states. In many instances this enrollment will give the first evidence to single tax men in distant towns that many of their own fellow citizens are in accord with them in this matter.

The plan of the committee is a very simple one. It proposes to devote itself exclusively to the work assigned to it by the conference. If any single tax men desire to organize clubs for congressional or assembly districts in this city or Brooklyn the committee can facilitate their work by sending out their invitations to the enrolled single tax men of the district. Further than this it does not propose to go, believing that all such work of organization should be voluntary and spontaneous.

So far as New York is concerned, this work may be assigned to a special committee for that city, and in Brooklyn and the New Jersey cities it is expected that the work will be carried forward by men added to the committee for those cities, who will naturally adopt whatever plan of campaign seems best to them. All that the general committee asks is that all names of those joining organizations shall be promptly sent in to take their places in the classified enrollment. We want, for the first time, to secure as complete a list as possible of the single tax men who propose to act together in this campaign, in order that the work this year may be systematized, and that we shall after the election be prepared to counsel together as to the best plan for future action. If, as now seems more than probable, the single tax voters shall cast enough votes for Cleveland and Thurman in this state to assure their election, it may be necessary that they shall still stand together to encourage the democratic party to take further and longer steps toward the removal of all taxes from the products of industry.

It is the possibilities of future action that lend special importance to the enrollment throughout the country. Those now engaged in this fight have “seen the cat.” They know precisely what they want and they have enlisted for the war. The policy of supporting the democratic candidates this year is confessedly a temporary one. Our friends have not entered the democratic party, and do not propose to do so. We are an independent body of voters who propose to encourage any party that goes our way, and that apparently will be our best policy for some time to come. The better we know one another and the more closely we are associated the more easily can we make our growing strength effective for the advance of our principles.

A very large proportion of those who send in their names accompany them with remarks—which is an excellent thing. A good many state their former party relations, and it is exceedingly gratifying to find how many who now avow themselves

p. 4, col. 2 free traders were until quite recently republican protectionists. Many such cannot help making a wry face as they announce their intention to vote for the democratic candidates, but they do make the announcement boldly, now that principles have come to mean more than names to them. I have not space to copy these letters, but here is one that is a fair sample of many others.

In a letter inclosing a list of thirty-six names from West Conshohocken, Pa., the writer says:

Most of these men are shopmates working in one of our highly protected industries—a woolen mill. A number of us here are Georgeites and proud of such a worthy champion. We were formerly republicans, but are going with Cleveland as far as he goes and then we intend to go on further.

Could a better instance be given of the effectiveness of our own propaganda? Yet these free traders in a protected woolen mill are the men that some democrats imagine must be lied to in order to secure their votes. This gives an idea of the spirit in which the work of enrollment is carried on. It is the all important work of the immediate present, and all friends of the cause are earnestly urged to push it forward with all their power. After we get blanks into the hands of those who will enroll themselves at next Monday’s mass meeting a great impetus will doubtless be given to this branch of our work, and we ought by the 1st of September to have well on toward 20,000 names on our list.

The treatment of this movement by the press is instructive and, on the whole, encouraging. The papers that really desire the election of Cleveland are manifestly a little timid, but they give fair notices to the preparations for our meeting and have judiciously restrained their fears. The Sun, the bitterest foe that Cleveland has, openly denounces the movement; the Tribune pretends to believe it will hurt Cleveland’s chances, which is a queer complaint for that paper to make, while the Press ignores it. All this goes to show that the protectionist papers fear the effect of a logical and determined attack on the tariff humbug.

The first great step toward advancing our movement is the mass meeting to be held in the large hall of Cooper union next Monday evening. It cannot be too strongly impressed on the minds of our friends that the one thing of immediate importance is to make this meeting an overwhelming success. The impetus given to the movement at the start will be felt throughout the whole campaign. Cooper union should be crowded with single tax men. It will be the first opportunity for hearing Mr. George on the present issue, and William Lloyd Garrison deserves such a greeting at the hands of our friends as we gave a year or more ago to Judge Maguire. Tickets will be mailed to all enrolled single tax men in this city and Brooklyn, and while admission is free these tickets will admit all who arrive before 7:45 to reserved seats. Come, and bring with you friends of the cause. Let us have a meeting that will inspire us all with the old enthusiasm and encourage those conducting Mr. Cleveland’s canvass to make an aggressive fight against the monstrous delusion that a tax on goods protects labor.

WM. T. CROASDALE.

A SONG FOR WORKINGMEN.

Now, when the protectionists are singing their siren’s song so sweetly to workingmen, it is a good time to look backward and see when and why that particular song with its monotonous refrain was composed.

It is not a very old song.

Prior to the close of the second war with England the theory of protection attracted very little attention here. To a limited extent it was taken for granted as a policy of the mother country, pretty much as we accepted the law of entails and other barbaric notions of aristocratic England. But the embargo and the non-intercourse act of 1807–9, followed by the war of 1812, cut off our foreign commerce and forced some of our people into manufactures which had never yet been introduced in this country. This was the balmy period of protection in America. A Chinese wall securely guarded at every vulnerable point could not have given better protection. Compared with it, a forty-seven per cent tariff is mere baby play.

But the close of the war, which tne^sic masses of the people welcomed, was looked forward to by the manufacturers with alarm. This war, that had brought tears and poverty to thousands, had been to them a veritable Aladdin’s lamp, and they were not disposed to let go their hold on the pockets of their fellow citizens. If the war could not be continued, a substitute for war must be devised. Then for the first time the theory of protection, as old as barbarism itself, was put forward as an American idea, and a cry went up from the throats of our manufacturers for protection to American industries.

But neither then nor at any time during the long and fluctuating struggle between protection and free trade from 1816 to 1840, was protection asked in the interest of American labor. At no time was it claimed that protection would make high wages. The whole contention was that it was necessary to build up infant industries—to give to the manufacturers of this country a bonus which would enable them to put their establishments on a footing broad enough to profitably compete with the older establishments of other lands. And in this connection, to pacify the farmer who then stood in much the same relation to the politician that workingmen do to-day, it was argued that large

p. 4, col. 3 factories here would make a home market for farm produce, and more than compensate the farmer, in the high prices he would receive, for the high prices he would be forced to pay. In the ’40s, however, workingmen began to be a factor in politics. About the same time the farmer had become pretty thoroughly convinced that his home market was a delusion and snare. Then the protectionist, whose object from the first was, as it is yet, to serve special interests in which he has a share or by which he is subsidized, turned his attention to the workingmen. Then he discovered that protection makes high wages and free trade makes low wages! This is the feature of the protective theory that may be said to be American, and it reflects the same credit on American intelligence as does a backwoods grave stone on American art.

But, with variations, that refrain—“protection makes high wages, free trade makes low wages!”—has ever since been sung by the protectionist. Its falsity has long been exposed, but he sings it just the same. Workingmen, in the bitterness of strikes and lockouts, have discovered it to be a fraud; but still he sings it. And though the labor of America should be ground down to the wages level of the clothing makers of New York’s east side, still the protectionist would sing that song. To his mind facts and logic and common sense are useless lumber when the votes of workingmen are wanted! What workingmen require is a song! And the protectionist gives them a song.

Songs are cheap.

THE SINKING OF THE GEISER.

The night is moderately clear. It is raining, but there is no fog or mist. Lights can easily be distinguished at a distance of two miles or more.

In a seafaring sense, there is no sea on. A moderately heavy swell is rolling, but the night is calm, and there is not anger enough in the ocean to disturb the navigation of a whitehall boat.

Across the ocean under these conditions of wind and weather, two steamships are approaching each other from opposite directions. Their relative lines of motion are such that if both hold their courses unchanged, they will pass each other to the left. Imagine two wagons approaching each other, each on the left hand side of the road, and the situation becomes clear. The deck officers of each steamer see the bright head light and green starboard light of the other, and know precisely where she is, and how she is moving.

As the two ships approach, one blows two whistles, signifying her intention to pass to the left. At the same instant the commander of the other decides to pass to the right, and shifts his helm accordingly. The effect is to bring one ship square across the track of the other. The Thingvalla strikes the Geiser a deadly blow amidships. There is a hurried rush, swelling into a wild panic, an utterly futile effort to lower boats, a vain attempt to distribute life preservers among the shrieking passengers; and within less than six minutes the Geiser has sunk, and more than one hundred lives are blotted out. The Thingvalla, sorely injured, still keeps afloat. Her boats are lowered and pick up the few survivors. The tragedy is over, and the surviving steamship slowly makes her way toward Halifax. If to jeopardize and destroy human life by neglect of the precautions necessary to secure it be a crime, then the managers and officers of these two steamers are criminals. From first to last, every act in this awful ocean tragedy was due to the carelessness or parsimony of men who had deliberately accepted responsibilities which they deliberately neglected. The collision was distinctly due to the ignorance or imbecility of the officers in charge. The sinking of the Geiser was distinctly due to the bad management and greed of those who sent her to sea in such a condition that the filling of one of her compartments sufficed to send her to the bottom. One hundred human lives and more have been needlessly sacrificed, scores of families have been bitterly bereaved, women and children are mourning the loss of their breadwinners, and the men who are responsible calmly prate about the “act of God,” and announce, with philanthropic air, that they have concluded to pay the survivors for their baggage. The philosophy which attributes such a disaster to the direct interposition of almighty power would justify the abolition of all sanitary regulations and suffer disease to riot unchecked in our crowded cities, on the plea that yellow fever and cholera were sent to plague mankind by God’s direct volition.

Such disasters as this that has overtaken the Geiser are easily preventable. There is no trouble about getting perfectly competent men for officers, who can be depended on to do their duty thoroughly and intelligently under all circumstances. There is no difficulty about building and loading ships in such a manner that no conceivable accident should prevent their keeping afloat. But so long as ship owners are permitted to transfer to the Almighty the responsibility that should properly rest on their own shoulders; so long as the extension of a protest suffices to relieve them from any claim for loss of goods or life; so long as the system of marine insurance makes it more profitable to risk disaster than to take precautions against it, just so long will men continue to trifle with human life and send ships to sea improperly constructed, imperfectly fitted and incompetently manned. If ship owners were compelled to pay for every life they lost and every case of goods they

p. 4, col. 4 damaged, the sinking of the steamship Geiser would never have occurred.

Mr. Morton, the protectionist candidate for vice-president, who is running for office in the interest of American labor and for the purpose of preventing a decline in American wages, has been afforded a brilliant opportunity for discussing the law of wages in his letter of acceptance. The Ford congressional committee has brought out the fact that Mr. Morton recently imported four foreign laborers. Whether he did it because they were cheaper than Americans or for some other reason, does not appear; but Mr. Morton can give his reason in his letter. If he did it because they were cheaper he should reconcile his theory that the importation of cheap goods lowers wages, with his practice, which, assuming him to be as incere man^sic, implies that the the importation^sic of cheap men and women does not. No doubt Mr. Morton can do this after a fashion, for there are very few irreconcilable things that a protectionist cannot reconcile, after a fashion.

A correspondent of the Press, signing himself W. Brewer, adds his voice “against any and all doctrines that preach free trade,” he having been a sufferer in England^sic through it.” The only interest that suffered in England from free trade was the land owning interest, of which the editor of the Press is a representative. If Mr. Brewer was a son of an English landlord whose power to live on the labor of other people was crippled by free trade in England, we so far sympathize with him that we shall do all in our power to cripple the land owning interest here in the same way, and secure to Mr. Brewer full freedom to earn an honest living by working for it.

The other day the Star (quasi protection) stated that the tariff is a tax collected by the manufacturer, and alongside of that statement printed an interview with a manufacturer who does not want any tariff because he doesn’t make anything out of it. This the Press (protection) says is an illustration of the necessity of catching votes both ways, and wants to know whether its contemporary welcomes the gentleman to the democratic ranks as a fool or as a philanthropist. The inference is that gentlemen who can collect taxes from their fellow citizens and prefer not to, are either fools or philanthropists. The idea that gentlemen may object to engaging in a larcenous enterprise, even when it enriches them and is protected from criminal prosecution, does not occur to the Press. But the inconsistency which it discovers in the two Star articles is of a kind to which the Press itself is sadly addicted. When it argues on the one hand that protective tariffs reduce prices even below what are demanded for foreign goods, and immediately declares that the tariff is necessary to enable manufacturers to get high prices so as to pay high wages, it is guilty of precisely the accusation it brings against the Star. There is a necessity for catching votes both ways in this campaign, but the necessity is far greater with the protectionists than with the democrats. It is not necessary at all with the democrats except so far as they permit their campaign to be managed by men, and their doctrines to be declared by newspapers, that are enslaved by theoretical protection or bribed by practical protection. Senator Chace has introduced a bill reducing the rate of postage on merchandise from one cent to half a cent per ounce. This is a step in the right direction, albeit a very short one, for the bill proposes no change in the limit of weight of packages, which is continued at four pounds.

But if it is a good thing that the government should undertake the delivery in any part of the United States of packages weighing four pounds, why would it not be a better thing that it should deliver packages weighing eight pounds? Why stop at eight pounds, indeed? Why not a hundred pounds, or a thousand? And if the government may properly undertake the transportation of merchandise, why may it not undertake the transportation of passengers as well? These are questions that the discussion of Senator Chace’s bill will bring to the front.

Here is a little item that is going the rounds of the republican press outside of New York, to their evident great comfort:

Henry George’s coming out in support of Cleveland has caused the workingmen of New York to desert him. At the last meeting, held a few evenings ago, at which George was advertised to speak, the audience was less than two hundred, while last winter the hall was packed to its utmost capacity every time.

For the first time this year Henry George is advertised to speak in New York, at Cooper union, on Monday, August 27. William Lloyd Garrison will speak with him, and James P. Archibald, secretary of the convention that nominated George for Mayor in 1886, will preside. Let those who are interested come and see whether or not the audience will be more than two hundred.

At the tenth annual congress of the New Jersey federation of trades and labor unions, held at Trenton on the 20th, a resolution was adoptod^sic recommending the Australian system of voting as adopted in Massachusetts. This is the same system that was adopted by the New York legislature last winter in the bill which Governor Hill vetoed.

The shingle trade is the latest one to organize a trust. The association embraces all the important shingle makers of Oregon and Washington territory; and the small fry of course will be easily frozen

p. 4, col. 5 out. Against the eastern shingle makers the trust will be sufficiently protected by the distance and consequent cost of freightage. And as for the shingle makers of British Columbia, why the beneficent protective tariff will attend to them.

The Press has studied the art of printing things. Replying to a correspondent who wants to know the difference between the principles of the two parties, it says that “the main difference is that the democrats favor free trade to benefit foreign manufacturers and the republicans advocate protection to encourage and develop home industry and employ American labor at good wages.” How much better this reply would have read if put in some such form as this: The main difference is that the republicans favor high tariff to benefit American monopolists and the democrats favor low tariff to benefit American buyers. It would have been nearer the truth, too.

The protection organs have discovered a mare’s nest in the treasury accounts which, as they allege, show a surplus of only $12,000,000. And yet they want to abolish taxes which yield revenue into the public treasury and retain those that yield revenue into private treasuries! They will have to learn that the surplus is a very petty question already when compared with the real issue in this campaign, and that whether the surplus is twelve millions or twelve times twelve millions, the fight of free trade against protection has begun, and will go on until all the private privileges which congress can bestow are abolished.

The Sun has a habit of stabbing at people to whom it professes friendship. It did this with Hancock; it is doing it with Cleveland, and now Governor Hill, of all men, comes in for a jab under the rib with the Sun’s glittering stiletto. It proposes to abolish the whisky trust because the trust “has made itself a mighty power in the politics of the country, dictating nominations, laying its heavy hand on party conventions, inspiring and directing the utterances and the acts of rulers and statesmen.” Governor Hill’s name is not mentioned, but the allusion to his expected renomination is too plain to be misunderstood.

The Tribune makes a ragged hole in its protection theory when it reports a request of the punch tumbler manufacturers of Pittsburg to the organization of their workmen. It says that “foreign manufacturers are shipping punch tumblers here at a lively rate and the importations have become so heavy that the manufacturers found it necessary to ask the union to allow their men to make more tumblers.” We are constantly told by protectionists that foreign importations make less work at home; but here is a statement that the evil effect of foreign importations is to be overcome by doing more work at home.

The single tax men of Baltimore have formed an association, adopting unanimously a series of resolutions such as have been adopted in this city, declaring for Cleveland and Thurman. W. J. Ogden was elected temporary chairman, and J. W. Jones secretary. Mr. Jones’s address is 125 North Bond street. They propose taking headquarters in the central part of the city, pushing enrollment and holding public meetings, such as that which will be held in Cooper union in this city next Monday evening.

The Grand Rapids, Mich., Workman, commenting on the declaration of the Michigan state assembly of the Knights of Labor, in favor of the single tax on land values, says:

The Knights of Labor are gradually placing themselves in a position to successfully fight trusts and pools by aiming the first blow at the parent of all monopolies—the control of natural resources—and it now remains for them to take decisive action by voting for only such candidates as will work tooth and nail for the abolition of all taxes on labor’s products. They also declared in favor of a revision of the electoral system and recommend the adoption of what is known as the Australian system. The present system breeds corruption and makes possible the intimidation of voters, while the Australian method secures to each voter absolute secrecy in the casting of his ballot. The Knights of Labor have taken a long step forward and cannot afford to let their declarations remain dead letters, for the fight has commenced and must be pushed along with vigor. With Texas, New York, Illinois, Michigan and other states working toward the single tax doctrine, Henry George may well feel hopeful of living to see his doctrine the burning issue in a national campaign.

Good for Indianapolis.

INDIANAPOLIS, Ind., Aug. 19.—The independent voters of Indianapolis this morning organized a tariff reform league here. and twenty-nine republicans renounced old party connections and signed the roll. This is the home of Harrison, and with the numerous delegations visiting here we see a great deal of enthusiasm manifested for Harrison, Morton and protection, but the G. O. P. cannot ignore the fact that there is an undercurrent that is steadily and irresistibly drifting toward Cleveland, Thurman and tariff reform. The single tax men, though comparatively few in numbers, are outspoken in favor of free trade, with a little free land thrown in. Petitions to the legislature, similar to those circulating in Texas, have made their appearance in Indiana, and quite a number are signing them.

The single tax league of Indianapolis would like to know what the single tax men of Indiana think of holding a state meeting in this city during state fair week, about October 1, when reduced rates on railroads will be given. All single tax men who favor such a meeting are requested to send their addresses and opinions at once Charles H. Krause^sic, secretary, 18[3?] East Washington street, Indianapolis.

Hoping that this meeting will be held, and that the single tax men of Indiana will be able to work more in concert toward our desired goal, I am,

THOS. J. HUDSON.

p. 4, col. 6

SOCIETY NOTES.

John Nelson of New London, Conn., wa[s] seen early in the morning a few days ago i[n] front of No. 235 West Twentieth street reading the “want” columns of a newspaper. “A few minutes afterward,” says the New Yor[k] Sun, “he was found lying in an alleywa[y] near by with his throat and wrist cut and a razor by his side. In his pocket were two cents. He said he was a stone cutter and that he came here four days ago to look fo[r] work. He was unsuccessful, and yesterda[y] morning he had spent all his money but si[x] cents, and, not finding anything that promise[d] a situation, he had made up his mind that h[e] would kill himself.”

The latest in shoes is the 5 o’clock tea slipper. This is an article of dress which goe[s] with the Greek tea gown. With the Psyche knot and classic draperies the French tie feel[s] sadly out of place and begs to be allowed t[o] withdraw into the background. Its successo[r] is a curious affair, made of glove kid or sof[t] chamois skin, following the natural outline o[f] the foot and clothing the toes separately, a[s] a glove does the fingers. It is really a moder[n] substitute for the sandal. It has a heavie[r] sole than the ordinary slipper, lifting th[e] wearer the veriest trifle above her natura[l] stature, and is without a heel. The tea slipper has an antique look, clumsy, but not unpleasing. It takes greatly with half a doze[n] extreme belles. Flesh colored silk was th[e] material employed for a pair recently seen[,] giving much the impression of a bare foote[d] Venus. The tea slipper is, of course, meant fo[r] the house only, and will prove but an Augus[t] caprice in dress.—[Mail and Express.

Police Marshal Frey reports that the famil[y] of George W. Jones, No. 441 Pinkney place[,] is very destitute and worthy of assistance[.] Mr. Jones was attacked by consumption abou[t] five years ago, and since that time he has no[t] been able to do a stroke of work. Recentl[y] physicians told him that his left lung was entirely gone and that his right was diseased[.] He is also suffering from a complication o[f] diseases. Being a man of temperate habit[s] he accumulated some little savings, but now they are all gone. His wife, who is an intelligent and bright little woman, kept a candy store in the front room of the house, but every cent had to go for bread to give her children[,] four bright little ones. She disposed of he[r] weights, etc., and her only income now is two cents for every piece of underwear that she makes. After waiting on her husband and family she manages to make two pieces a day[.] Ever since the family have been living in the house a kind friend has paid the rent, and they are dependent for their meals on their neighbors, who have given them all the help they can. Mr. Jones is forty-two years old, and before sickness overtook him was employed at the lighthouse.—[Baltimore Sun[,] August 16.

It is said that pet dogs are now clad in mantles with pockets for holding lumps of sugar, bracelets on their paws and a string of little silver bells around the neck.

“I thing there are^sic over a million unemployed persons.”—[T. V. Powderly, Grand Master Workman of the Knights of Labor; testimony before the Ford congressional committee.

Cosy Bell of No. 62 West Thirty-eighth street, died on August 11 of old age, ætas 1[6?] years. Deceased was a Scotch terrier and the especial companion of Mrs. Mary A. Bell[,] into whose family she had been adopted. The funeral was held three days later at Woodlawn cemetery. Cosy had of late lived on beef tea and chicken broth almost exclusively. Last week her condition became alarming, and she died without a struggle Saturday night lying in Mrs. Bell’s arms. A special order was sent to Rochester for a casket to cost $150, and to be in all respects like that supplied by the same company for General Grant’s burial. Cosy’s body was embalmed, and for three days lay in state in Mrs. Bell’s room. Yesterday morning the casket arrived from Rochester. It was two feet long, and made of chestnut. It was lined with copper and covered on the outside with embossed royal purple velvet. The lid was lined with tufted purple satin, and the casket proper was lined with light blue satin. A plain silver plate on the cover was engraved, “Cosy Bell, died Aug. 11, 1888.” In this coffin Cosy was laid on her right side, with her paws crossed over her breast. Her head rested on a pink satin pillow, made by her sorrowing mistress. Beautiful flowers were scattered in the casket. On the day of the interment, at half-past four, a child’s hearse and a coach were drawn up at Mrs. Bell’s house. The coffin was put in the hearse, and Mrs. Bell, with two other women and a man, stepped into the coach and the party took the train for Woodlawn. The cemetery’s hearse was in waiting at Woodlawn and the little party followed it to the grassy slope where the grave had been dug. A tent was stretched on the lawn and camp chairs were set for the party. Mrs. Bell spoke a few touching words in eulogy of the dead. At the marble yard near the railroad Mrs. Bell chose a stone to mark Cosy’s resting place. It is a marble sarcophagus mounted on four pillars. Mrs. Bell’s plot is in the most costly part of the cemetery and all about it are clustered the monuments of rich New Yorkers. The entire cost of the burial will be not less than $500, not including the monument.

An item from the Chicago Mail says: “Kitty Kelly told Justice R. H. White to-day of the hard struggle she had made for existence during the last few years. About four years ago she got married, and a year later she became the mother of a little girl. Her husband proved a worthless fellow, and deserted her. In order to support herself and child she went to work in a factory on Monroe street, sewing overalls. She was paid $4 a week, which was not enough to support her and the baby. She could not obtain employment as a domestic as long as she kept the child with her, and she says she was driven to a life of shame in order to keep herself and baby from starving. Becoming disgusted with the life, she returned to the factory on Monroe street. Two weeks ago starvation again stared the mother and child in the face, and the disreputable life was again resorted to. After she once went on the street she could not get a letter of recommendation; and therefore could not secure work as a domestic.”I could not live on $4 a week, and I was compelled to do wrong,” she said to the judge. To which he replied: “But I know of lots of persons who live on less money than that.” “You do!” exclaimed the woman. “Well, I can’t feed, clothe and shelter two people with that amount.” “Will you promise to keep off the streets?” “I can’t do that, your honor,” said the defendant; “I will not see my little one starve, and I cannot get enough money to support us in any other way.” The woman was fined $25, but the execution of the sentence was stayed, and Kitty was allowed to go. If she is arrested again, she will be sent to the bridewell for fifty days.

There is no Difference.

DuBois (Pa.) Express. Henry George, if you lend your ear, the Express will tell you something. A local exchange says wealthy men of Elk county are about to inclose a section of the Mill creek valley and make it a fishing preserve, where they may fish to the exclusion of all other people. As these same wealthy men have killed with the acids from their tanneries the fish in the Clarion river, which was at one time full of excellent food fish, it is highly appropriate that they should try to propagate fish in the tributary Mill creek. One little difference will result in this case. While the Clarion river contained fish it was free to all, but God in his wisdom seems to have made Mill creek for only a few wealthy men to catch fish in. Henry George, do you listen? Tell us wherein the American nobility differs from the Irish nobility when it comes to appropriating the natural advantages of this country?

To William Lloyd Garrison, 1832.

By John Greenleaf Whittier.

Champion of those who groan beneath Oppression’s iron hand, In view of penury, hate and death I see thee fearless stand, Still bearing up thy lofty brow In the steadfast strength of truth, In manhood sealing well the vow And promise of thy youth.

Go on—for thou hast chosen well; On in the strength of God! Long as one human heart shall swell Beneath the tyrant’s rod. Speak in a slumbering nation’s ear, As thou hast ever spoken, Until the dead in sin shall hear— The fetter’s link be brokeu!

I love thee with a brother’s love, I feel my pulses thrill, To mark thy spirit soar above The cloud of human ill. My heart hath leaped to answer thine, And echo back thy words, As leaps the warriors at the shrine^sic And flash of kindred swords!

They tell me thou art rash and vain— A searcher after fame; That thou art striving but to gain A long enduring name; That thou hast nerved the Afric’s hand, And steeled the Afric’s heart, To shake aloft his vengeful brand And rend his chain apart.

KREUSCHER’S WIFE.

Last Sunday about 11.30 in the morning Mrs. Kreuscher was just putting up the grocery store shutters—Kreuscher always keeps his store open till 11.30 precisely on Sundays. She saw me coming along and said, “Hullo, Henry Cheorge; how you do?”

“Hullo, Mrs. Kreuscher,” I said, “I’m pretty well. Where’s Mr. Kreuscher?”

“Ach, he go vay; ya, he go vay by ten o’glock already. He take dose childrens und go to Cooney island.”

“And left you home?”

“Ya; I go no more by dot Cooney island mit dose finf childrens again. Ach! it was terrible. Die heat, und dose growded cars, und dose sleepy childrens, und all, it was someding terrible.” And fat Mrs. Kreuscher shrugged her shoulders at the recollection of some previous trip. “Und dot bier; dot vas shameful; dot vas really shameful. I I can here on die gorner store get more bier for eight cents als in Cooney island for dwendy-fife cents. Dot was really shameful.”

I laughed and helped her put up the last shutter. Then she led the way through the store and upstairs into their sitting room. This room was in the front of the house and had two windows looking out on the street. A picture of Emperor William hung over the mantel, and opposite was one Unser Fritz. On the mantel were two busts, cheap plaster casts, one of Goethe the other of Schiller; and the mantel itself was covered with some cheap, red stuff which hung over the edge and was bordered with a row of bright yellow tassels. For the rest it was plainly furnished, and the piano was one of the old-fashioned square kind. It was the first time I had been up there. We sat down near the windows. “Well,” I said, “you work pretty hard, don’t you, Mrs. Kreuscher?”

“Vork! I guess I do. Dot store is efery day but Sunday from finf o’glock in der morning bis ten o’clock at night open. Und Sundays und holidays bis haf-past elefen in der morning; und I must, ven dot pizness is lifely, vait on dose gustomers, und also ven mein mann his dinner und supper eats und sometimes in der efening when he goes by dot singen glub. Den dree times a veek must mein mann go to dot Vashingtone market mit dot vagon: he gets up den at dree o’glock und gomes home nefer before haf-past eight. Dose mornings I must get up and see to dot pizness from fife o’glock bis he comes home. I vork almost so hardt als mein mann. Ya,” she said, “und I haf already fife childrens since I been here.”

“Well, I suppose you’re growing rich, so you don’t mind a little hard work,” I said.

“Rich! I grow rich! You tink anyding vould make me vork like dot unless I vas afraidt does childrens^sic vould haf noding to eat?” She stopped a minute, and then said earnestly, “If I hat not dose childrens I vould die before I vork like dot.”

I was startled at the emphasis she laid on her words. but I said lightly^sic, “Why, I should think you would rather be home in Germany.”

“Ach, if I vos only vonce again dere, by mein heimath in Wendefurth! You tink I gome back again? Nefer! Ach, ya, dere in Wendefurth is mein bruder der oberseer for a big goot—you know vat I mean—a goot—a—

“A big farm,” I said.

“Ya; a big farm. Mein bruder is oberseer, und dere are on dot goot more as tventy yung girls und many men und families. I vork on dot goot ven I vas yung. Ve must milk does gows^sic und vork also in dose fields. I somedimes hear dose American men vot vos a few days^sic in Germany say ‘how bad dot vos; dose yung girls must vork in dose fields all day in Germany.’ Dose fools, dey know noding. You tink dose yung factory girls here in New York, und dose shop girls, haf so much fun as ve did on dot goot? You tink dey are so strong und happy und vell all de time? Dose fools, dey know noding.”

“But there are very poor people in the country in Germany, Mrs. Kreuscher, aren’t there?”

“Ach, ya. Fiel, fiel poor peobles. Und dey must vork hardt, und dey get not so much pay—perhaps a man he gets by my heimath one mark und fifty pfennigs a day in summer time—dot vas 37 cents, aindt it? But dot costs so little to lif; und almost efery man he haf his own little house, und he haf no coal to buy; he can haf all dot vood free. Dose forests belong to dot koferment.”

“Then you would like to go back.”

“Ach, ya; you can belief it, if dose childrens vos bik. But mein mann he don’d vant to go back. Venefer I dalk like dot he say, ‘See how much money I make.’ Und den I say, ‘Ya, und see how much money you must spendt.’ How much money you tink we haf in dot spar bank?”

’Well, I never could guess, Mrs. Kreuscher, but I believe you German people

p. 5, col. 2

are said to have a great deal of money in the savings bank.”

“You tink so? Vell I tole you. Ve haf not one cent in dot spar bank. It takes efery cent ve make to lif decent und pay dot rent. Dot rent, dot was someding terrible, someding terrible.”

“Yes, that’s what I say to Mr. Kreuscher, but he won’t believe it.”

“You are righdt. Our landlord he is a humbuk. He haf no brains, no sense; his vife, she twists him her finger aroundt. He know noding, and do noding but grow efery year richer; und I must vork for him. Ya, you haf quite righdt. Vell,” she said, I must now go^sic und see my sister-in-law. Gome roundt to-morrow und see mein mann. He talk politics mit you.”

And I left. W. B. S.

NOTES FROM CORRESPONDENTS.

Robert Baker of Albany, N. Y., wishes to obtain the address of every single tax free trader in that city, with a view to adopting some means for an active part in the campaign. His address is 178 Madison avenue, Albany, N. Y.

L. H. Young, Buffalo, N. Y.—Shame on the democrats for standing on the defensive. They ought to be aggressive and attack protection and make the republicans take the defensive. I am afraid the democrats will lose if they continue to pursue their present course.

E. B. Swinney, Wessington Springs, Dak.—During the course of a conversation with a prominent man of this town, he emphatically stated that the value which attached to land was not caused by increase in population, but by “the protection government afforded the occupant.” Rather a queer definition, isu’t it?

David McWilliams, Rockford, Wilmington, Del.—After I read my copy of THE STANDARD I pass it around, and in this way it has done a great deal of good. Some of my friends read it now who would not before look at it. It does my heart good, as a workingman, to see how you expose “protection;” and while I believe that free trade in itself would not be a permanent good, yet I believe it will lead to the establishment of the single tax.

D. C. David, Villa Platte, La.—I read one of Ring’s tracts and the McCready tract, entitled, “The Story of My Exile,” to a friend the other day. I had been working on the man before. “The Story of My Exile” lifted the fog. Articles by me continue to appear in the Farmers’ Union, and the St. Landry Democrat prints all the articles I can find time to write. Our single tax friends are working with energy. I have cheering reports from New Orleans and Baton Rouge.

G. P. of Pennsylvania.—I should like to do some good, but my circumstances are very poor, though I have always worked hard and lived economically and kept sober. If you could send some tariff tracts to the address I inclose in Coal valley, Allegheny county, they will without doubt prove effective. There is a good deal of confusion of thought just now in both parties, but great numbers of men now see plainly who it is who gets the cream of “protection.” All that is needed in this very stronghold of protection to upset the protective idea is some good clear headed speaker. Don’t publish my name. It’s risky around here to be openly and squarely on the side of truth, Verily, sir, “the land of the free” should be struck out of our national air.

Edmund Yardly, Pittsburg, Pa.—Here is a little illustration of the way our present system encourages improvements and the ornamentation of towns. The Pittsburg, Fort Wayne and Chicago during the past year improved the station grounds at New Brighton and Rochester, Pa., among other places—that is, they gathered up the rubbish and scrap iron lying around, sodded the grounds, and set out flowers, and at the latter place put up a fountain. These little parks are in the centers of the town, and are really of more benefit to the citizens than to the railroad. Here is the way they are encouraged to do some more work of the same kind. The taxes, which were nothing previous to 1888, are now as follows: New Brighton, valuation, $1,000; tax, $8.55. Rochester, valuation, $1,500; tax, $12.83.

Frances M. Milne, San Louis Obispo, Cal.—My mother joins with me in earnest interest and hope in the new “plan of campaign.” Mr. Urner’s letter and Mr. Croasdale’s arguments in a late STANDARD put the value and wisdom of it beyond dispute. If single tax men and women have souls at all they would surely respond to Mr. Pentecost’s dollar contribution fund. I know too well how much even a dollar may seem to one sometimes, but to miss such an opportunity! If we all rallied even with that mite, what a magnificent reproof of the cowardice and time serving and political corruption of our democratic allies. Please find inclosed $2 from my mother and myself as our contribution to the one dollar subscription fund, to be used in the campaign proposed in New York or elsewhere, as they think best. When I think of the speakers our cause possesses, my very heart burns at thought of their enforced silence.

CAMPAIGN WORK.

PERSONAL.

Readers of THE STANDARD, to all of whom T. L. McCready’s name is familiar, will sincerely sympathize with him in the death of his wife. Mrs. McCready died at Plainfield, N. J., on Saturday last, after several weeks’ illness, which did not threaten to be fatal until the day before her death.

John R. Dunlap of Brooklyn, business manager of the New York Engineering and Mining Journal, and a member of the executive committee of the New York single tax league, was on board the steamship Thingvalla when she collided with the Geiser last week. Mr. Dunlap was returning with his wife and child from a trip to Scandinavia and Denmark. In an interview published in the Herald he says the discipline on the Thingvalla was very loose, and intimates that the accident could have been avoided. He said: “Both the captains were in their night clothes when the collision occurred. I believe they were both in bed and asleep just before the accident. There was no fog or danger signal previous to the accident, except one occurring the instant before the crash. The lack of discipline I particularly observed. When a heavy rain or fog came on the officer on watch did not seem to appreciate the importance of giving signals immediately. Consequently in this case they delayed until too late. It could have been avoided had our ship given warning, so I believe.”

Richard F. George, second son of Henry George, was married in Brooklyn, August 15, to Mary Emily Robinson of that city.

CLEVELAND AND HILL.

FROM BROOKLYN.

Joseph McAlery, 314 Greenemore avenue.—“I stumped and voted for Blaine and protection in 1884. I shall vote this year for Cleveland, because he has given us an opportunity to bring the principles laid down in”Progress and Poverty” to the front. The free trade side in the controversy is gaining ground. Men who would not listen to free trade talk two months ago are now attentive listeners. Hill will be downed if he runs again for the governorship. The men I come in contact with are very bitter against him on account of his vetoing the electoral reform bill.”

A. L. Voorhees, 1248 Herkimer street.—“I was a Blaine man in 1884, but shall vote for Cleveland this year because I believe that the position he has forced the two great political parties to take on the tariff question will incite such study and discussion as will ultimately lead to free trade and the adoption of the single tax idea, and I further believe that we single tax men will accomplish more in one year by supporting Mr. Cleveland in the position he has taken than we could possibly have done as an independent party in eight years. I believe that we will have a grand opportunity to convert a majority of the most intelligent and honest men of both parties, especially the democrats, to the single tax doctrine. Judging Brooklyn from my experience, I should say about three-fourths of those who voted for George last year will support Cleveland. I don’t know personally of any who will vote for Harrison, except perhaps Mr. V. A. Wilder. Free trade is gaining

p. 6, col. 2 ground of course; how could it be otherwise? There is a very strong feeling in favor of the electoral reform, and it will undoubtedly defeat Hill if he is renominated. I have yet to find a single tax man that will vote for him, and I have found several democrats who say they will cut him. Will I vote for him? No! in big caps. I may add that the democrats are waking up. I have been asked to debate the question of protection vs. free trade at a Cleveland and Thurman club, and to explain the position of the single tax men in this campaign, which of course I cannot do without explaining the principles of the single tax. They seem anxious to know all about this free trade bugaboo that they hear so much about.”

Albert E. Schalkenbach, 446 Central avenue.—“I voted for Blaine in 1884. This year I vote for Cleveland because I am a free trader and single tax man. Free trade is gaining. I find many business men will cut Hill on account of the electoral bill. I will not vote for him.”

John P. Nordgrew, 162 Twelfth street.—“Had I been entitled to vote I would have voted for Blaine in 1884. This year I shall vote for Cleveland for the reason that every sincere single tax man should, namely, because he is taking the first step toward the abolition of all taxes on industry and its products, whether he is aware of it or not. Free trade is making giant strides, and the single tax is having telling effect in the discussion. I have not met a single man that does not favor electoral reform after it has been explained to him. I shall not vote for Hill.”

George Walker, 208 Warren street.—“I have heretofore always voted the republican ticket, although a free trader, and have voted with the republicans because the democrats before Cleveland’s time had not the courage to proclaim their convictions. I shall this year vote for Cleveland because he and his party are more nearly in accordance with the policy which I consider essential for the welfare of the nation than the republicans. As far as my personal experience goes, I think free trade is gaining. The discussion is favorable to the single tax idea, but it by no means fol- lows that those who accept the first accept the last. I shall certainly not vote for Hill.”

Everett Glackin, 1254 Herkimer street.—“I voted in 1884 for Cleveland. This year I will vote for him because he is in favor of a reduction of the tariff. The people should do away with all tariff laws, and all interference on the part of the government with their right to buy and sell to the best possible advantage. I believe the protectionists will elect Harrison, but in the discussion the single tax idea will most likely come to be better understood. Electoral reform, in my opinion, has not taken much hold on the people. Hill’s action in connection with electoral reform will not be apt to injure his chances of election if he should be the candidate. I will not vote for him.”

Jos. Brown, 169 Tenth street, South Brooklyn.—As a mugwump I voted for Cleveland in 1884. As a single tax man, I will vote for him again, for he is going my way. Cleveland will get the bulk of the George vote of last year, who understand the single tax. Free trade is growing like a colt. I find all honest men in favor of electoral reform. All that I am afraid of is that Hill will not be put up again, so that we can have a shot at him.”

W. T. Ruffle, 10 Furman avenue.—“Cleveland and Thurman will receive my vote. To get even a small reduction of the robbery of the people will be such a lesson that neither party will in the future dare to oppose a more radical step. In the free trade-protection controversy the free trade side seems to me to be gaining. Wherever the single tax is understood it meets with favor. I certainly will not vote for Hill if he is renominated.”

Albion L. DeGout, 23 Raymond street.—“My first vote was cast for Grover Cleveland. My second presidential vote shall be cast for the same candidate. I will do so because I am a single tax free trader. Grover Cleveland has taken a step which must inevitably lead to the destruction of that monstrous fraud labeled ‘protection,’ and to the adoption of the single tax. I sincerely believe that before election day Henry George’s logic will bring to his side the majority of those well meaning men who deserted him at the time of the”split.” He will also gain new followers, for in this hot discussion free trade is gaining ground, protection is tottering and the cause we advocate is steadily marching onward. By supporting the democrats in the national campaign I shall be doing my duty, but if I have to support them in the state fight, I will be recreant to it. This to some may seem a paradox, but my reason is clear. The republicans in the state propose to reform the ballot; therefore vote for them in the state. The democratic national candidates propose to reform the tariff; vote for them. Governor Hill having vetoed one of the best bills ever passed by the legislature, deserves the censure of every honest man, and should he be renominated single tax men should discard all petty differences and vote in a body to defeat him.”

C. Dornhein, 199 Greenpoint avenue.—“I shall vote for Cleveland and Thurman because the platform which they represent tends toward the single tax. About two-thirds of last year’s George vote will this year be cast for Cleveland, and one-third for Harrison. Free trade is gaining gradually and steadily. I am an insurance agent and speak a great deal with my people about this presidential contest. I find it a very difficult task to con- vince the republicans of the good derived from a free trade policy. The most of my republican people will not listen to any criticism whatever on protection; they seem to have but one single thought, and that is that protection protects America labor^sic. The single tax will get a good foothold during this discussion. Those who see the need of electoral reform feel very much offended by Hill’s veto. I think if he is renominated he will meet with defeat. No, sir; I will not vote for Hill.”

John F. Thompson, 480 Pacific street.—“I voted for Cleveland in 1884. I will vote for him this year because I am a free trader and because he has started the ball toward free trade. If the single tax men work hard the most of the voters for George can, I think, be swung into line for Cleveland. Free trade is gaining enormously where it is being preached, and the single tax is correspondingly acquiring favorable consideration. Popular feeling is very decidedly in favor of electoral reform, and Hill will have an immense vote cast against him on its account. I will not vote for Hill.”

E. O. Roscoe, 109 Reid avenue.—“Not having an opportunity to vote for the single tax in 1884, I did the next best thing and voted for the candidate of the party which loved the tariff least—Cleveland. I shall do likewise this year, because we can never get the single tax while other taxes exist. I know of none who voted for Henry George last year who will not vote for Grover Cleveland in November. Only one result can possibly come (and according to my observation ever has) from tariff discussion, and that is the increase of free traders. People are naturally protectionists, because they seldom look below the surface of any economic question, and the surface indication of the tariff question are^sic decidedly favorable to the idea that protection to home industry is the correct thing. My observation is that the strongest protectionists are those whose desire for political preferment is strongest, those who think they gain something personally by existing tariff laws, and those who know no more about the

p. 6, col. 3 effect, actual, probable or possible, of the tariff than a clam. The effect of this discussion will be to make way for the propagation of the single tax idea. I have yet to find a reputable citizen who did not favor the Australian system of voting as soon as he understood it, no matter what “his previous condition of servitude,” politically, may have been. If renominated, D. B. Hill of Elmira will be snowed under for his veto of the ballot reform bill. I will get out of bed in the middle of the night, or stay out entirely, to render more overwhelming the defeat of that pettifogging politician.”

G. W. Thompson, 480 Pacific street.—“Did not vote in 1884. I will vote for Cleveland and Thurman this year because they represent those in the coming struggle who will stand for equality and against those favoring monopoly. Of the George votes last year about one-half will vote for Cleveland and Thurman and the other half for Harrison. The cause of free trade is gaining on protection, however, though”protection” will die hard. Free traders are naturally turning toward the single tax. There is a general feeling in favor of electoral reform which will defeat Hill if he is renominated. I will not vote for Hill; further than that, I will work to defeat him, unless the republicans nominate some one worse than him.”

Theodore Atworth, 475 Carlton avenue.—“I have been a republican; when Blaine was nominated in 1884 I could not indorse him, and not being in the frame of mind to support a national democratic ticket I voted with the prohibitionists. This fall I shall vote for Cleveland and Thurman, for I wish to have the childish ‘protection’ idea weeded from the mind of my fellow workmen. So far as I am able to learn, all those who voted for George in 1887 will vote for Cleveland. Free trade tendencies are developing satisfactorily, with an encouraging leaning toward the single tax idea. There is a strong feeling in favor of electoral reform, regardless of political affiliation, which is calculated to be very damaging to Hill’s prospects. I will certainly not vote for Hill if he is renominated. My cry will be, ‘Anything to beat Hill.’ Thus far I find advocates of protection wauting^sic in argument, most of their replies consisting of personalities and venom. I experience great difficulty in ‘nailing’ them down to logical discussion and consecutive argument. While they are defending monopoly in manufactures, they persist in claiming a monopoly of affection for the Stars and Stripes.”

George Marsh, 638 President street.—“I voted for Grover Cleveland last time. This year I intend to vote for Grover Cleveland because I think the cause of free trade will in this way be best helped, and with this, of course, the single tax. Free trade is gaining immensely. Every tariff reformer I know of I have helped to make a free trader. Men who have any sense at all understand that Hill played his card for obnoxious politics in vetoing the electoral reform bill and his supporters to-day are men who have use for him. I certainly will not vote for him.”

David B. Swanson.—“I am for Cleveland because I am a single tax man and a free trader.”

A. Van Dyke, Sixth ward.—“Single tax and mugwump. I will support Cleveland, and I will not support Hill. The sentiment in my neighborhood is the same.”

J. R. Abarbanell.—“I will support Cleveland and oppose Hill.”

Joseph McGuinness, 25 Rose street.—“I I voted for Grover Cleveland in 1884. I shall again vote for him in 1888—primarily because I am a single tax man and realize that a single tax cannot be obtained without abolishing other forms of taxation; and secondarily, because I approve and applaud his courage in forcing a great economic question into national politics. We shall have a contest this year that will be far-reaching in its educational effects. At its close I am confident the single tax cause will have won many recruits and some earnest advocates. I should judge that 60 per cent of those who voted for George in 1887 will this year vote for Cleveland, 30 per cent for Harrison and 10 per cent for Cowdrey. I never knew or heard of a free trader being converted to protection; but do know of many protectionists who have become absolute free traders. I have often inwardly thanked God that Grover Cleveland gave me so many opportunities to preach the cause I have at heart. In the discussion of the tariff the gain to the single tax idea must be of incalculable value, if all its friends have the same experience as myself. It seems to me that when the tariff question is settled the next question must be—Shall the single tax be adopted? Electoral reform holds the fort against Hill. In discussing the question with those who were with us in the last campaign I find but one who intends to vote the straight democratic ticket. I should judge that at least 80 per cent of those who voted for George in ’87 will vote for Hill’s opponent this year.”

Edward Ferguson, 762 Myrtle avenue.—“I voted for Grover Cleveland in 1884, the first democratic vote I ever cast, and I was expelled from the republican ward organization for it. I shall vote for Grover Cleveland this year, because I believe that by so doing I shall further the single tax movement more than I could by any other means. Among my fellow craftsmen (book compositors) the free trade bug-a-boo is doing its work, and they are too afraid of it to approach sufficiently near to take a good look at it. Nevertheless, every time the tariff is discussed it leads to the single tax. Good educational work is in this way being done. Out of over one hundred men (forty-two of them democrats) I found but seven who would vote for Hill if nominated, and one of those seven is a republican. They almost to a man gave as their reason for opposing him the fact of his vetoing the electoral reform bill. Of course I shall not vote for him.”

J. W. Moore, 360 DeKalb avenue.—“In 1884 I voted for Cleveland. I have been a republican since 1856. I will vote for Cleveland this November on account of his position on the tariff. I should suppose nine-tenths of the George voters of last year would vote this year for Cleveland. I think free trade is gaining, though it is not to any great extent affecting the single tax men. Electoral reform is earnestly desired among all thinking, honest men, and Hill’s action will cost him thousands of votes if renominated. I will not vote for him.”

O. J. Gale, 17 Galliton place^sic.—“At the election of 1884 I voted for Grover Cleveland. At the coming election I will vote for Grover Cleveland because he stands opposed to monopoly. About 80 per cent of the George vote of 1884^sic will go for Cleveland, and 20 per cent for Harrison. Free trade is gaining. The single tax idea is very largely aided by the discussion. The failure of Governor Hill to sign the electoral reform bill has caused great disappointment in the old parties and to every advocate of the single tax idea. Should Governor Hill be renominated he will certainly be defeated. I know several men who voted for him before who will now work against him. I shall most certainly not vote for him.”

Frederick C. Gross, 100 Powers street.—“In 1884 my sympathies were with Benjamin F. Butler, although I had no vote. I shall support the democratic nominee for president this year because he is pledged to the policy of freedom as against the policy of restriction; because he is boldly leading in a fight against a popular delusion, and principally because his message of last December has pushed to the front the question of work and wages as never before. Here in the eastern district the united labor party is practically defunct. Our members are gravitating to

p. 6, col. 4 the old parties from which they came; and this I believe to be true generally. I find some thoughtful men, supporters of our party last year, who are convinced of the essential injustice of private property in land, intense haters of monopolies, who will support the republican national ticket. They hold that our greater prosperity as a people is due to the forty-seven per cent tariff, and it must therefore be maintained. On the other hand, I find that in the watch case trade (in which I am engaged), while there are many who are for Harrison and high taxes, yet all the leaders of our organization, without an exception of which I know, are for the democratic ticket. Among them are Edward Kunze, secretary of D. A. 49; Walter MacKintosh, secretary of executive board of watch case makers, Daniel McMurray, superintendent of Solidarity watch case company (co-operative), and many others whose names it would be unwise to publish. To me it seems as though the protectionists are gaining ground—they certainly are the most active. In the factory their literature is seen daily, but I have not yet seen any from democratic headquarters. Delay in this matter is dangerous, for early in the campaign, before men have committed themselves and before prejudices are fully aroused, it is easiest to make converts. As to the single tax, I broach it only when in conversation with those whom I consider ripe for its reception. Free trade is regarded by many as free love is by all. The storm which the name arouses extinguishes in many minds reason’s feeble flame, and therefore, when arguing with men who see with jaundiced eye, I find that better results are obtained by approaching the subject as a matter of percentage than as a matter of principle. In this respect the experience of Messrs. George, Croasdale and Post seems to differ from my own. I doubt even if their policy is the best in the long run; for while the reasons which prompt a man to cast his ballot for Cleveland and Thurman are of rare importance to single tax men, yet the securing of the largest possible number of votes in this pivotal state is of still greater importance to the success of our cause. To fully appreciate this it is only necessary to ask, What will republican success mean to us? In that event the question of revenue will be regarded as settled, the present policy will be continued for an indefinite number of years, and we can then again take to the spreading of light among the select few in the small halls of the side street. But democratic success promises—instead of barred doors—portals thrown wide open; instead of the end of the lane, we will have reached the highway that leads to our goal. I would rather direct my efforts just now to the winning of votes for Cleveland than to the making of converts to the single tax. I would rather leave to the logic of events those things which experience teaches cannot be accomplished in a heated and bitter campaign, when prejudices are aroused to the highest pitch, and passion sways the masses of men. The Saxton electoral reform bill was regarded with great favor by all to whom I spoke about the matter, and in the veto of the measure Governor Hill has shown himself to be a politician of that nasty demagogic type which has discouraged so many honest men with both of the old political parties. Hill’s renomination—which by the way would be a disaster to our national ticket—with the active opposition which organized workingmen will doubtlessly make, will result in well deserved defeat.”

O. J. Gale, 17 Gallatin place.—“I voted for Grover Cleveland in 1884. I will vote for him this year because I believe the party electing him will be more likely to bring about some share of the reform that we, as single tax men, are contending for—the abolition of monopoly in products and the opportunities for employment. Seventy-five per cent of the George voters of last year will vote this year for Cleveland; fifteen per cent will vote for Harrison; the balance will scatter. Free trade is gaining rapidly. The discussion, I think, is largely helping the single tax idea. Regret is frequently expressed at the failure of Governor Hill to sign the electoral reform bill, and if he should be renominated the result will be disastrous to his ambition. I shall not vote for him.”

W. H. Marvin, 179 Thirteenth street.—“I was not eligible in 1884, but would have voted for Blaine, having been brought up in a republican family. I shall vote for Cleveland and Thurman, because they point in one direction, namely, the abolition of unjust taxation, which bears heaviest on those like myself. This step leads to the single tax on land values. As near as I can see, with but few exceptions, all the George voters of last year are for Cleveland and tariff reform. Among my friends free trade is finding more favor than heretofore, when a high tariff was thought by them to afford protection. We want electoral reform in the worst way, and Governor Hill’s record on that question is enough for me and my friends.”

F. W. Moore, 360 DeKalb avenue.—“As a true republican I voted for Cleveland in 1884. I will vote for Cleveland and free trade this time. I think a very large majority of the men who voted for George in 1887 will vote for Cleveland. I will not vote for Hill, principally because he vetoed the electoral reform bill.”

George White, 52 Concord street.—“Study of Cleveland’s message and of the democratic speeches on the Mills bill has led me to believe that the leaders of the democratic party are willing to be as radical free traders as practical politics will allow. I consider that single tax men should be busy in any kind of tariff discussion, as consistent believers in laissez faire, laissez passer doctrines, and that their activity will give the single tax a big boom in the public mind. I shall vote for Cleveland, and I tell people so, because he seems to have made a big and bold step in our direction. I should say about 70 per cent of the George voters will vote for Cleveland. Free trade is gaining all the time—absolute free trade, too. The single tax, of course, is being constantly mentioned as an appropriation of a revenue now going into private pockets, which should be exhausted before any other direct taxation is resorted to. There is no difference of opinion regarding electoral reform. Every man I know, if not a politician, is in favor of a ballot furnished by the state. If Hill is renominated I believe every man who voted for George in 1887 will be inclined to vote against him, if there be not opposed to him some very objectionable candidate.”

James B. Connell, 448 Central avenue.—“I voted for Ben Butler in 1884. This year Cleveland and Thurman will have my vote, because the efforts on the part of the party they represent is for the best interest of the toiling massess^sic. Ninety per cent of the Georgeites will vote for Cleveland and Thurman; ten per cent will vote for Harrison, swallowing John Chinaman very hard. The single tax makes easy progress, about the only argument against it being that ‘You’ll be gray headed before that theory comes into practice!’ Governor Hill’s veto of the electoral reform bill will be the cause of his retirement from politics, if the expressed opinions of my friends go for aught. I shall not vote for him.”

J. W. H. Maclagan, 261 Clinton street.—“I did not vote in 1884, but have generally voted with the republican party. This year I shall vote for Cleveland and Thurman, because I cannot conscientiously vote for candidates whose party platform upholds a system that I know enables the rich to rob the poor, and because I desire to encourage any movement in practical politics, however slight, in the direction of international and individual free trade.

p. 6, col. 5 At least ninety per cent of those who voted for George in 1887 will, in my opinion, vote for Cleveland this year; very few will vote for Harrison. In July 5,000 copies of the Tax Reform Advocate, our local single tax paper, containing a synopsis of ‘Protection or Free Trade?’ were mailed to the voters of the Sixth ward, and many tracts distributed. Free trade converts are becoming more numerous every day in this district. Many have commenced to look into the single tax proposition, and I frequently hear such remarks as, ‘I think George’s taxation scheme is all right, but I can’t agree with his other theories.’ When asked to mention the ‘other theories,’ they reply, ‘dividing up the land,’ or ‘taking away people’s land,’ etc, but^sic free trade is seldom mentioned, which shows that an explanation, together with a few tracts, will start them on the way to a firm conviction. I have made many converts to free trade among my republican friends, all of whom intend to support Cleveland; and, if Harrison is defeated, it seems to me it will be by the votes of republican and single tax free traders rather than by the regular democratic voters. Seth Low resides in this district. About 1,000 votes were cast for George in this district in 1887, and all of these can be depended upon as against Hill if renominated. Should he stand, I shall use my influence and vote to defeat him.”

John Filmer, 481 Macon street.—“I voted for Cleveland in 1884 because I was sure that no new issue could come into politics until the republican party had been defeated. I shall vote for Cleveland this year because he has been instrumental in forcing a new issue on his party—tariff reform, so called, but really free trade—which is the stepping stone to the single tax. So far as my acquaintance goes I do not know any one who voted for George in 1887 who will not vote for Cleveland this year, and I do know several republicans who voted for Blaine four years ago who have stopped worshiping protection, and are now most enthusiastic free traders. In the discussion of the tariff question I have not found any that have forsaken free trade to become protectionists, but several of my acquaintances have left protection for free trade. This is easily accounted for, as all the reason is on the side of free trade, and a protectionist, as soon as he permits himself to think, always ends in becoming a free trader. To illustrate: On Saturday afternoon of last week I changed a protectionist into a single tax free trader. All my friends, of all shades of politics, are favorable to electoral reform. All single tax men that I know are in favor of it and bitter against Hill for vetoing the electoral reform bill. I would not vote for Hill for governor on any consideration; and what is more, I will use whatever influence and ability I may have to defeat him should he be renominated. I know of no action on the part of Governor Hill, or any other governor, that shows such an utter disregard for clean politics, good morals and the public welfare as his veto of the electoral reform bill, and I think this is the general opinion of the decent men of all parties.”

John Britton, 73 Devoe street, eastern district.—“James G. Blaine’s puffery and the superstition of protection had so perverted my reasoning powers from childhood up that had I voted in 1884 I should have voted for him, but fortunately I did not vote. This year I shall vote for Grover Cleveland because I am a lover of freedom, because he is the first chief magistrate within my time who has paid any attention to the condition and necessities of the common people of the country, and because I can no longer sanction knowingly the robbery and plunder of the workers for the benefit of monopolists and trusts. About ten per cent of those who voted for George in 1887 will this year vote for Harrison because they do not know what they are voting for. I have lately seen many a convert to free trade, but never one to protection; and though this question for the present overtops single tax, yet once let us have free trade and the road to the single tax will be a four track railroad. The feeling toward electoral reform among honest men is unanimous in its favor, and its veto by Governor Hill will seriously impair that gentleman’s chance of election if he is renominated. I, for one, cannot vote for the champion of bribery, corruption, intimidation and ultimate slavery of American citizens.”

James F. O’Neill, 396 Hicks street.—“I will vote for Grover Cleveland this year because the tariff discussion will bring economic ques- tions before the people in a manner that we alone could not hope to do at present. The cowardly attitude of the democratic leaders must give way to a more independent and manly position on the side of free trade, and they will have to use our arguments to prove the fallacy of protection. Already things are begining^sic to assume a brighter aspect, and the democratic papers are becoming more radical in their tone every day. In the discussion of the tariff question the free trade idea is undoubtedly gaining ground. The tracks made by protectionist literature are easily covered up if the work be done in a proper way. It is our duty to force the democratic machine workers to put down their foot for the abolition of the tariff. The discussion of the tariff is the greatest boom the single tax has ever had. Our arguments are used, and the real reason which the democrats must give for our having higher wages in this country than in England is that wages depend on access to land. The feeling with regard to electoral reform is steadily increasing in the right direction, and I am sure that if Hill is renominated he will be defeated. I will not vote for Hill, but on the contrary I will use every means at my disposal to make his election impossible. A good deal can be done and we will do it. If Cleveland is elected and Hill defeated by about the same number of votes it will be apparent that the single tax men hold the balance of power, and it would be the grandest thing that ever happened in the state of New York and the greatest boom for the followers of Henry George.”

Adolph [Pettenkofer?], 253 Evergreen avenue.—“I voted for Grover Cleveland in 1884. On November 4 next^sic he will again get my vote, but for different reasons. He will get my vote this year because I am a single tax man, and by voting for him and electing him, we encourage the democratic leaders to advocate the reduction of taxes, which is the very thing single tax men will begin with when we send them to congress. Of the 2,288 George votes in the Eighth assembly district of Kings county Cleveland will get about sixty per cent, Harrison twenty-five per cent, Cowdrey fifteen per cent. Free trade is gaining. The discussion gives us an opportunity to show the injustice of all taxes on the products of labor and the exact justice of the single tax. Governor Hill made a great mistake in not sign- ing the Australian bill; it will cost him many votes in this district.”

William J. Horan, 335 Wyckoff street.—“I will vote the democratic national ticket because the policy of that party leads toward freedom. Of the George voters whom I know a large majority will vote for Cleveland. I think the free trade idea is gaining ground, and the discussion of the tariff so far has done more to enlighten the people on the problems of taxation than the united labor party could in ten years. I will vote against Governor Hill because he is unfit for the high office he holds; his recent veto of the ballot reform bill has only added strength to my bad opinion of him.”

Frank P. Rand, 6 Willow street.—“I was for Cleveland in ’84 and am for Cleveland in ’88. This time I vote for him because I am an abolitionist. As the friends of freedom in ’60 used Lincoln and the republican party, so may they in ’88 use Grover Cleveland and the democratic party. About one-half of the

p. 6, col. 6 George voters will vote for Cleveland, and of the other half, perhaps, a majority will vote the Harrison ticket. The free trade forces are increasing. The discussion of the tariff question has done more to set people to thinking than anything else could have done, and this thought is favorable to the single tax. Every voter that I know of that was with us last fall, and I personally knew one hundred, will to a man vote against David B. Hill should he secure the nomination. I, of course, shall not vote for Hill.”

Fred. J. Deverall, 351 Bedford avenue.—“In the last presidential year I voted for Cleveland as a protest against that shallow trickster, James Guano Blaine, the owner of the G. O. P. This year I shall vote for Cleveland, as the slightest tax reform is a gain. I think seventy-five per cent of the George voters will vote for tax reform through Cleveland. Free trade is gaining strength, although some democrats try to evade direct free trade talk, but then the position of the protectionists is also one of evasion. Some time ago Darwin R. James, a protectionist, at a Thirteenth ward meeting, ‘enlightened’ us. Some single tax men in the audience tried to get more enlightened by asking some questions, but were informed that they were very discourteous in asking such questions. Although no statesman myself, I find no ‘real statesman’ aching to lock horns with me when other wage workers are present, and I openly challenge all comers, knowing well that all debates pushed to a logical end will run into the solid rock of the single tax. No one I meet denies the supreme necessity for ballot reform. His position cannot do otherwise than damage Hill. I would not vote for him. I look upon him as a trickster.”

Alexander ana J. M. Flandrau^sic, 144 Monroe street.—“Grover Cleveland received our votes in 1884, and he will receive them this year, because he has proved true to his trust and because he is a progressive man, and, recognizing a great evil in the present system of taxation, has recommended the next great step in the march of freedom. We think that about nine-tenths of those who voted for George in 1887 will vote for Cleveland. We think that Governor Hill’s veto of the electoral reform bill will materially hurt, if not defeat, him should he be renominated. We will vote against him.”

Geo. J. Klingler, 414 Thompkins avenue^sic.—“I cast my vote for Cleveland in 1884. I will again vote for him because I am opposed to the monopolistic tendencies of the republican party. As far as my acquaintance with ‘George’ men permits me to know, I should say that ninety-five per cent of those who voted for George in 1887 will support Cleveland this year; three per cent will vote for Cowdrey and two per cent for Harrison. The ‘free trade’ idea is gaining ground rapidly, though it has not, as far as I have been able to observe, affected the spread of the single tax theory. Every person I have spoken to favors the electoral reform bill lately vetoed by Hill. Will I vote for him if he is nominated? How could I?”

FROM STATEN ISLAND.

F. J. Kustenmacher, Box 444 Port Richmond, Staten Island.—“I voted for Cleveland in 1884 to see if it was yet possible to effect a change in national affairs. This fall I shall vote for him because he has shown himself in some degree a leader, not a follower, of public sentiment, as the average”statesman” is. I consider his election of the greatest importance in ending the insane delusion that high wages result from a protective tariff. Once this fallacy is exposed to wage earners, the cause of the single tax will grow with the swelling volume of a mountain torrent. I find that the thoughtful men, who gave character and force to the united labor party in the last campaign and to the mayoralty fight two years ago, are all for Cleveland as the best means for pushing the cause at present. I judge that sixty per cent of our vote last year will be cast for the democratic ticket this fall. Tariff talk is daily growing hotter, and the trend of opinion is toward lower duties. The tariff will not be abolished in a day because the people will only accept an important economic change like this step by step. But that they seem to favor the first step is a promising augury. If democratic “statesman” and editors^sic would pluck up heart enough to fight like men they would find that the people generally have learned much in the past two years and are more receptive to new ideas than ever before. Hill’s veto of the electoral reform bill will cost him thousands of votes. I regard him as a shifty, hypocritical politician, and will not vote for him under any circumstances.”

Samuel Shoup, West New Brighton, Staten Island.—“Since 1861 I have voted the republican ticket. I have supported the republican party for more than a quarter of a century, for the reason that I then believed the republican party stood for the greatest good to the greatest number. For this same reason at this next election I shall vote for Cleveland and Thurman. It may be best for me to say why I now believe that the democratic party stands for the greatest good. I have been reading Henry George’s writings, and am to-day a single tax man because I now believe that his doctrines on social and political economy are based upon natural laws, and as God, the creator of all, made them, they must work for the greatest good to the greatest number; and as protection is made to prevent the harmonious action of God’s laws, it therefore must be that they do not work for the greatest good to the greatest number, and justice is not the foundation stone on which protection is built. I am candid in saying I could not easily have been persuaded to vote with the democratic party. Certain am I that I could not have been persuaded through any argument of tariff reform or free trade, for when a republican I believed that the many were benefited by protection. The rank and file of the republican party is largely made up of voters that believe that laws should be made for the greatest good to the greatest number, and they point with pride to a prosperous country under protection. But I fell an easy and willing convert to that school of political economy that gives to each laborer the benefit of his own labor, and takes for the use of the community that value which the community creates. Therefore, my advice to single tax men is, not to spend too much money and time in talking free trade, but to use single tax arguments, because they are stronger. The hearts of all true men will listen to an appeal for justice. Therefore show them the justice of taxing land to its full rental value, and when they understand the justice of so doing, then surely they will not sustain a law that takes from the many for the benefit of the few; then will they see the injustice of protection; then will they be free traders indeed, and to their life’s end. All the changes in politics that I know of were made through single tax arguments. Certain I am that the arguments are strengthening the democrats to a demand for freer trade than is given in Mills’s bill. I believe that Hill has alienated a large number of his former democrat supporters. I will not vote for him if he is renominated.”

Charles W. Deshon, Snug Harbor, Staten Island.—“My only vote was cast for Grant’s first term. I will vote on next election day for Cleveland and Thurman in view of the theory that their attitude will lead to the spread of single tax doctrine. I think about seven-eighths of the men who voted for George last year will vote for Cleveland this year. Free trade sentiment is gaining ground among the people. Electoral reform is getting to be regarded as a necessity. I certainly will not vote for Hill.”

AN OBJECT LESSON.

One of the enemy, the protectionist Iron Age, publishes two technical articles in a recent issue that are fully as interesting to free traders as to the makers of iron, for whose information they are specially designed. One is a statement of the cost of making what is called “the cheapest pig iron in the world,” as produced by the Ilsede works at Grossilsedl, in Germany. It is the old story of low wages, resulting in high labor cost; for although the rate of daily wages is so much less in Germany than in America, we find that at this point, where processes had been so improved that the total cost of production last year was only $5.56 per ton, $2.13 of this amount was paid for labor; whereas, according to Mr. James M. Swank, another eminent protectionist authority, the average cost of labor per ton in the United States is only $1.91. So that under absolute free trade, so far as wages are concerned, our furnace men would have an advantage of twenty cents a ton in competing with the cheapest iron in the world. But as a protective tariff of $6.72 a ton of pig iron enables them to sell their pig at a higher figure, they are forced to pay so much more for their raw materials, while the German furnace man, who has a protective shield of only $2.50 per ton, is able to buy his ore at a relatively low figure. The steady tendency of the power of monopoly in natural opportunities to absorb more and more of the production is shown even at these German works, where the ore in a ton of iron cost only $2.66 twenty years ago, while the labor employed in making it received $3.35. Now that improved processes have made the labor more effective the mine owner receives $5.85 and the laborer $2.13.

The other free trade weapon that is furnished by this protectionist organ is a very elaborate statement of what it costs to mine iron ore in the Lake Superior district of Michigan. At the Iron river mine only 84 3-10 cents per ton of ore is paid for labor, while 30 cents is levied on production under the name of royalty; that is, as toll for the privilege cf using the earth for the employment of labor. Of course the mining company gets this toll back from the consumers, and a good deal more too; for the original owners of the land have foregone a part of their taxing power for the sake of the permanent income without risk. The plunder is generally divided in this way, and mines operated on long leases under fixed royalties, just as owners of city real estate often farm out their taxing privileges in consideration of stated ground rents, instead of acting as landlords directly. At the Youngstown mine the figures are given as follows for each ton of ore:

Paid for labor……………………………… 91 Paid as royalty……………………………. 25 Wear and tear, etc…………………………. 24 Freight…………………………………$2 20 Selling expenses……………………………. 5 3-4

Total cost………………………………$3 65 3-4 Average price received…………………… 4 25

Profit per ton…………………………….. 59 1-4

or about forty-two per cent of the cost at the mine, which, considering that the market price of iron is nnusually^sic low, is a pretty good business.

E. J. SHRIVER.

Twenty-fifth Ward Brooklyn Men Organizing.

A meeting of the single tax men in the Twenty-fifth ward, Brooklyn, was held on Thursday evening, Aug. 16, at the residence of J. G. Utter, 108a Rockaway avenue, and the following temporary officers elected: A. L. Voorhees, president; P. J. Flanagan, recording secretary. The next meeting will be held at the residence of P. J. Flanagan, 2055 Fulton avenue, on Friday, Aug. 24, and all single tax men are invited to be present.

P. J. FLANAGAN, Recording Secretary. Business address, Concord Printing company, 104 Elm street, New York City.

[Advertisement] The Centre of the Central Sea

THE CENTRE OF THE CENTRAL SEA.

(Illustrated.)

Describing Malta and Sicily, with an ascent of Mount Etna by officers of a man-of war.

By J. N. EMRA, Late Lieutenant Royal Marines.

KEGAN PAUL & CO., LONDON.

Twenty-five Cents.

J. N. EMRA, Publisher, 53 Lafayette Place, New York.

[Advertisement] Headquarters for Political Net Banners

HEADQUARTERS FOR POLITICAL NET BANNERS, TRANSPARENCIES, AND CAMPAIGN EQUIPMENTS.

M. R. LEVY & CO., 27 WOOSTER STREET, NEW YORK.

[Advertisement] Holland’s

HOLLAND’S COFFEE AND DINING ROOMS, 12[3?] Fourth avenue, Bet. 13th and 14th sts.

[Advertisement] Briggs’ Pianos (spans c1–c2)

[Illustration: display advertisement; engraving of an upright piano in a frame with foliage, beside a pointing banner reading “SEND FOR CATALOGUE”; ornamental lettering.]

BRIGGS’ PIANOS C. C. BRIGGS & CO. 5 APPLETON ST. BOSTON MASS. MANUFACTURERS OF GRAND · SQUARE · & · UPRIGHT PIANO FORTES GRACEFUL DESIGNS · · SOLID CONSTRUCTION MATCHLESS TONE · · BEAUTIFUL FINISH.

p. 7, col. 2

[Advertisement] Campaign Banner and Outfit Co. 

CAMPAIGN BANNER AND OUTFIT CO., 46 VESEY STREET, NEW YORK.

[Illustration: American flag on a pole with tasseled cords.]

OPEN WORK POLITICAL NET BANNERS,

With first-class Portraits of all Candidates.

Largest Manufacturers of Net Banners and Campaign Equipments in the United States.

[Advertisement] R. Crowe, Tailor

R. CROWE, TAILOR, 11 ANN STREET (Third Floor), New York. General Repairing, Altering, Cleaning and Scouring Done. Communication by Postal Card promptly attended to.

MISCELLANEOUS.

[Advertisement] The Keystone Watch Club Co.

[Illustration: ornamental bordered advertisement; at upper right an engraved watch case bearing a keystone emblem, lettered around it “PHILA. OFFICE 904 WALNUT STREET” and on the dial “THE KEYSTONE WATCH CLUB CO. NEW YORK PHILA.”; side ribbons with keystones naming branch offices — left: “PITTSBURGH,” “ST. PAUL,” “WASHINGTON D. C.,” “DETROIT”; right: “BROOKLYN,” “BOSTON,” “CHICAGO,” “BALTIMORE,” “ST. LOUIS” — each with a street address in tiny type, [illegible].]

THE BEST WAY To get a First-Class Watch is in our Co-Operativo^sic Clubs. Fine Watches at the Lowest Cash Prices, ONLY $1.00^sic A WEEK.

Thousands of the best $38.00 Gold Watch ever made are selling in our Co-Operative Clubs. This is the Best, Cheapest, Most Convenient, and only co-operative System of selling watches. The watches are American Lever Stem Winders, containing every essential to accuracy and durability, and have in addition, numerous other improvements found in no other watch. They are absolutely the only Dust and Damp-proof Movements made in the World, and are jeweled with genuine Rubies. The Patent Stem Wind and Set is the strongest and simplest made. They are fully equal for appearance, accuracy durability and service to any $75 Watch. Our co-operative Club System brings them within the reach of every one.

The Keystone Watch Club Co 904 Walnut St. PHILADELPHIA, PA.

$10 OUR 14-Karat Gold Filled CHAIN is guaranteed to wear 20 Years, and is 33⅓% 14-Karat Solid Gold Look for the stamps —K. W. C. Co. 14 K. FLD.— and buy the BEST.

AGENTS WANTED. We refer to any Commercial Agency.

For Sale by

[Advertisement] Canned Goods (C. M. M. P. A.)

[Illustration: round can-bottom stamp lettered “HAND MADE C.M.M.P.A.”]

Canned Goods WITH THIS STAMP [IN?] THE BOTTOM OF CANS ARE Free from Poison, AND ARE MADE BY ORGANIZED LABOR.

Trade-Mark.—Registered.

[Advertisement] The Great American Tea Co.

[Illustration: black T-shaped trademark block lettered “THE GREAT AMERICAN TEA COMPANY” (top line partly illegible).]

GOOD NEWS TO LADIES.

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

THE GREAT AMERICAN TEA CO., P. O. Box 289. 31 and 33 Vesey St., New York.

[Advertisement] Charles B. Schaidner, Photographer

CHARLES B. SCHAIDNER, PHOTOGRAPHER. [2286?] Third avenue, cor. 124th street, New York. Children’s Photographs by instantaneous process a specialty

[Advertisement] James Bogan

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

[Advertisement] Coogan Bros.

[Illustration: engraving of a five-story commercial building with horse-drawn wagons and pedestrians in front. Signs on the façade: “COOGAN BROTHERS”; “WHOLESALE & RETAIL FURNITURE & CARPETS”; “BEDDING WAREROOMS”; “MANUFACTURERS”; “125 COOGAN BRO’S 121”.]

COOGAN BROS., CARPET AND FURNITURE DEALERS, COR. BOWERY AND GRAND STS.

[Advertisement] A. J. Steers, General Broker

A. J. STEERS, GENERAL BROKER, [59?] NASSAU STREET, NEW YORK.

LOANS ARRANGED ON Real Estate. On Endowment, Tontine and Life Insurance Policies in Regular Companies; On Undivided Interests in Estates, and on Staple Lines of Merchandise on Storage.

PROMPT ATTENTION. LOWEST RATES.

[Advertisement] Pennsylvania Agricultural Works

[Illustration: engraving of a portable steam engine on wheels, belted to a saw mill.]

Pennsylvania Agricultural Works, York, Pa. Farquhar’s Standard Engines and Saw Mills. Send for Catalogue. Portable, Stationary, Traction and Automatic Engines a specialty. Warranted equal or superior to any made. Address A. B. FARQUHAR & SON, York, Pa.

[Advertisement] Mrs. Agatha Munier Atkins

MRS. AGATHA MUNIER ATKINS WILL continue to receive pupils in solo singing and vocal sight reading at her residence. 223 E. 32d street, New York.

[The Briggs’ Pianos advertisement at the foot of c1–c2 is transcribed at the end of c1.]

p. 7, col. 3

[Advertisement] HENRY GEORGE’S WORKS.

NEW PUBLICATIONS.

[Advertisement] THE GOLDEN WEST.

[Advertisement] TARIFF TRACTS.

The following Tracts on the Tariff Question are published in the Land and Labor Library:

No. 57. “Protection as a Universal Need.” Henry George. 4 pages.

No. 60. “The Tariff Question.” Henry George. 4 pages.

No. 63^sic. “American Protection and British Free Trade.” Henry George. 4 pages.

No. 69^sic, “Protection and Wages.” Henry George. 8 pages.

No. 70. “The Common Sense of the Tariff Question.” Thomas^sic G. Shearman. 8 pages.

No. 72. “Protection the Friend of Labor?” Thomas G. Shearman. 8 pages.

No. 75. “A Short Tariff History.” Thomas G. Shearman. 2 pages.

No. 76. “Plain Talk to Protectionists.” Thomas G. Shearman. . 4 pages^sic.

No. 77. “An Address to Workingmen on the^sic Tariff Question.” Henry George. 4 pages.

A set of these Tracts will be sent to any address for ten cents.

Prices in quantities free by mail. Two-page tracts—50 copies, 10 cents; 100 copies, 15 cents; 1,000 copies, $1; 5,000 copies, $4.25. Four-page tracts—25 copies, 10 cents; 100 copies, 25 cents; 1,000 copies, $2; 5,000 copies, $8.50. Eight-page tracts—25 copies, 20 cents; 100 copies, 50 cents; 1,000 copies, $4; 5,000 copies, $17.

Address PUBLISHER STANDARD, 12 Union Square, New York.

[Advertisement] THE TARIFF QUESTION.

PROTECTION OR FREE TRADE? by Henry George; paper, 35 cents.

THE EXISTING TARIFF, fully indexed so that the rate on each article can readily be found, 25 cents.

LEADING SPEECHES ON THE MILLS BILL, containing the speeches of Mills of Texas, McMillan of Tennessee, Wilson of West Virginia, Scott of Pennsylvania, Cox of New York and Carlisle of Kentucky on the democratic side, and Reed of Maine, McKinley of Ohio, Burrows of Michigan, Butterworth of Ohio and Kelley of Pennsylvania on the republican side: 50 cents.

Sent, postage paid, on receipt of price, or THE THREE BOOKS FOR ONE DOLLAR. PUBLISHER STANDARD, 12 Union Square, New York.

[Advertisement] BOUND VOLUMES OF THE STANDARD.

A limited number of bound volumes of THE STANDARD, in heavy boards, are offered for sale at the following prices:

Volumes 1 and 2, bound in a single volume, $5.00. (Postage 75 cents extra.) Volume 3, bound separately, $3.50. (Postage 50 cents extra.)

Address THE STANDARD, 12 Union square, east, New York.

[Advertisement] The Single Tax (Union Printing Co.)

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

[Advertisement] American Swedenborg Printing and Publishing Society

HEAVEN AND ITS WONDERS, THE WORLD OF SPIRITS AND HELL, described from things heard and seen, by EMANUEL SWEDENBORG, “Servant of the Lord Jesus Christ.” Also THE LAST JUDGMENT, as witnessed by him in the spiritual world in 1757; The Doctrine of Life, The Sacred Scriptures, The New Jerusalem and its Heavenly Doctrine, in all, 750 octavo pages mailed prepaid for $1.00. Discount to the trade. Address, American Swedenborg Printing and Publishing Society, 20 Cooper Union, New York City.

[Advertisement] The Democrat

THE DEMOCRAT. A RADICAL REVIEW MONTHLY. The Democrat advocates Land Resumption and those reforms which are necessary to make the English people a free people. It asks “compensation” not for those who have benefited by unjust legislation, but for those who have suffered thereby. For one dollar the Democrat is supplied for 18 months to any address in the United States or Canada. Address 5 New Bridge street, London, E. C.

[Advertisement] THE PEOPLE’S REAL ESTATE TONTINE.

Chas. Fred. Adams, Secretary, Washington, D. C.,

Receives “Tontine” subscriptions from $1 up and groups them into “Year Funds,” according to the ages of the subscribers, so that the subscriptions of all born in the same year constitute the year fund of that year. The income of each year fund is annually divided on the 1st of May among the living subscribers to such fund, in proportion to amounts subscribed, so long as any of them live.

All the subscribers to each one year fund having been born in the same year, start with an equal “chance of life,” but as time passes their number, of course, grows smaller and smaller, as one after another of them dies, until finally all born in that year are dead. And since only the living subscribers share in the annual division of the income of the fund, as the number is gradually reduced each survivor’s share of the total income grows larger and larger, improving as he grows older.

After the death of the last surviving subscriber to any fund, the principal of such fund becomes a part of the “endowment” of the society, the income of which is every year divided equally among all living Tontine subscribers of whatever year.

Since the 1st of May the number of subscribers have increased

FIFTY-FIVE PER CENT.

Look into it.

See whether you can’t afford to invest at least $1 to secure an improving life income for your wife, child, or friend, if not yourself, which may amount to thousand^sic before death.

SINGLE TAX CLUB MEETINGS.

NEW PUBLICATIONS.

[Advertisement] BELFORD, CLARKE & CO.’S NEW PUBLICATIONS.

A Novel with a Plot:

NEW PUBLICATIONS.

[Advertisement] THE LAND AND LABOR LIBRARY.—

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

The following have already appeared:

No. 1. “First Principles.” By Henry George. [4?] pages. No. 2. “Land and Taxation.” A conversation between David Dudley Field and Henry George. 4 pages. No. 3. “The Right to the Use of the Earth.” By Herbert Spencer. 4 pages. No. 4. “A Christian Minister on the Remedy for Poverty.” A sermon by the Rev. Hugh O. Pentecost of Newark, N. J. 2 pages. No. 5. “A Sum in Proportion.” By T. L. McCready. [2?] pages. No. 6. “The Settler’s Nightmare.” By Louis F. Post. 4 pages. No. 7. “New York’s Docks: The True Mode of Raising Revenue.” By J. W. Sullivan. 4 pages. No. 8. “Unemployed Labor.” By Henry George. 4 pages. No. 9. “Voices for Reform.” 2 pages. No. 10. “A Mysterious Disappearance.” By Lewis Freeland. [6?] pages. No. 11. “How to Increase Profits.” By A. J. Steers. 2 pages. No. 12. “The American Farmer.” By Henry George. 4 pages. No. 13. “Sailors’ Snug Harbor and the Randall Farm.” By W. T. Croasdale. 12 pages. No. 14. “The Collegiate Church and the Shoemaker’s Field.” By W. T. Croasdale. 12 pages. No. 15. “Only a Dream.” By Abner C. Thomas. 4 pages. No. 16. “The Anti-Poverty Society.” Dr. McGlynn’s address at the first meeting. 8 pages. No. 17. “The Cross of the New Crusade.” A poem. By David Rorty. 2 pages. No. 18. “It is the Law of Christ.” By Rev. S. H. Spencer of Henry, Ill. 4 pages. No. 19. “My Landlord. By John Jones^sic. 4 pages. No. 20.”Thou Shalt Not Steal.” An address by Henry George before the Anti-Poverty Society. 8 pages. No. 21. “Christianity and Poverty.” An address by Father Huntington before the Anti-poverty society. 4 pages. No. 22. “Poverty and Christianity.” An address by Rev. Hugh O. Pentecost before the Anti-poverty society. 8 pages. No. 23. “The Single Tax.” By Thomas G. Shearman. 8 pages. No. 24. “Hymns of the New Crusade”—No. 1. 4 pages. No. 25. “Hymns of the New Crusade”—No. 2. 4 pages. No. 26. “Religion vs. Robbery.” Address by Rev. Dr McGlynn before the New York Anti-poverty society, June 12, 1887. 8 pages. No. 27. “Back to the Land.” Bishop Nulty’s letter to the clergy and laity of his diocese. 16 pages. Price, 5 ceuts^sic. No. 28. “Anti-Slavery and Anti-Poverty.” An address by the Rev. Hugh O. Pentecost before the New York Anti-Poverty Society, June 19. 8 pages. No. 29. “Tenement House Morality.” Rev. J. O. S. Huntington in the Forum. 4 pages. No. 30. “The Case Plainly Stated.” A speech by H. F. Ring before the Knights of Labor at Houston, Texas. 8 pages. No. 31. “Questions and Answers.” Questions by Rev. Howard Henderson of the Sixty-first street M. E. church of New York; with answers by Henry George. 2 pages. No. 32. “Objections to the Land Tax.” By Thomas G. Shearman. 4 pages. No. 33. “Socialism—Its Truth and Its Error.” Henry George. 4 pages. No. 34. “Horse Sense.” W. C. Woods. 2 pages. No. 35. The Syracuse Platform. 2 pages. No. 36. “Cityeus^sic and Rusticus.” Tudor S. Jenks. [4?] pages. No. 37. “Taxing Land Values.” Henry George. 8 pp. No. 38. “God Wills It.” Henry George. 4 pages. No. 39. “What We Want.” Everett Glackin, president Typographical Union No. 6. 2 pages. No. 40. “Protection or Free Trade.” Henry George. Price, 35 cents. No. 41. The Syracuse Platform. (German.) 2 pages. No. 42. “First Principles.” (German.) Henry George. 4 pages. No. 43. “Socialism—Its Truth and Its Error. (German^sic.) Henry George. 4 pages. No. 44.”How John’s Father Saw the Light.” W. C. Woods, M. D. 2 pages. 45. Platform^sic of the United Labor Party. 2 pages. No. 46. “Taxing Land Values.” (German.) Henry George. 8 pages. No. 47. “It is the Law of Christ.” (German.) Rev. S. H. Spencer. 4 pages. No. 48. “The Case Plainly Stated.” (German). H. F. Ring. 8 pages. No. 49. “The Distribution of Wealth.” Thomas G. Shearman. 16 pages. No. 50. “Progress and Poverty.” (German.) Henry George. No. 51. “Ten Thoughts for Christian Thinkers.” Rev. John W. Kramer. 4 pages. No. 52. “The Case Plainly Stated.” (Swedish). H. F. Ring. 8 pages. No. 53. “Sailors’ Snug Harbor.” (German.) Wm. T. Croasdale. 12 pages. No. 54. “What the United Labor Party Want.” Henry George. 2 pages. No. 55. “Stories for Farmers.” 4 pages. No. 56. “Electoral Reform.” A. T. Rice. 4 pages. No. 57. “Protection as a Universal Need.” Henry George. 4 pages. No. 58. “To a College Professor.” Bartholomew Appleby. 4 pages. No. 59. “Before a Royal Commission.” W. A. Douglass. 4 pages. No. 60. “The Tariff Question.” Henry George. 4 pages. No. 61^sic, “A Practical Illustration.” Hugh B. Brown. 2 pages. No. 62. “Progress and Poverty.” Henry George. Price, 35 cents. No. 63, “American Protection and British Free Trade.” Henry George. 4 pages. No. 64. “Hints as to What You Can Do.” Henry George. 4 pages. No. 65. “To a Bookkeeper.” Bartholomew Appleby. 2 pages. No. 66. “A Lawyer’s Reply to Criticisms.” Samuel B. Clarke. 16 pages. No. 67. “A Piece of Land” By^sic the late Francis G. Shaw. 2 pages. No. 68. “The Tax on Buildings.” William T. Croasdale. 8 pages. No. 69. “Protection and Wages.” Henry George. 8 pages. No. 70. “The Common Sense of the Tariff Question. Thomas G. Shearman. 8 pages. No. 71.”My Butcher Woman and My Grocery Man. William^sic McCabe. 4 pages. No. 72. “Protection the Friend of Labor?” Thomas G. Shearman. 8 pages. No. 73. “Property in Land.” Henry George. Price, 15 cents. No. 74. “Social Problems.” Henry George. Price, 35 cents. No. 75. “A Short Tariff History.” Thomas G. Shearman. 2 pages. No. 76. “Plain Talk to Protectionists.” Thomas G. Shearman. 4 pages. No. 77. An Address to Workingmen on the Tariff Question. Henry George. 4 pages. No. 78. “Election Reform.” Louis F. Post. 10 pages. No. 79. “A Republican’s Reasons for Supporting Cleveland.” Judge Frank T. Reid. 2 pages.

[Advertisement] The New Christianity

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

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

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

[Advertisement] Anti-Poverty Doctrines in a Nutshell

ANTI-POVERTY DOCTRINES IN A NUTSHELL.

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

PRINTING.

[Advertisement] Concord Co-operative Printing Company

CONCORD CO-OPERATIVE PRINTING COMPANY (Ld.) 104 Elm street, cor. Canal, N. Y. BOOK, JOB AND NEWSPAPER PRINTING.

CURRENT THOUGHT.

The latest publication of Mr. Protection Gradgrind is a little pamphlet bearing this pretentious title: “Protection .vs. Free Trade^sic. The Issue for 1888. The Trial of Both Doctrines in the United States from [1783?] to 1888. Historical Statement of the Results.” The pamphlet itself is quite amusing and altogether harmless. The author, D. S. Harriman “of the New York and Brooklyn bar,” modestly states in a note that he has neither exhausted the subject nor collated all the facts bearing upon it, a statement which—begging Mr. Harriman’s pardon—the pamphlet amply corroborates. Indeed, so far from exhausting the subject, he has not scratched the surface of it; and as to collating all the facts, he hasn’t collated at all.

Mr. Harriman’s recklessness in assertion appears in his first statement, when he says that “we have tried and thoroughly tested all the different phases of this economic question, from extreme free trade under the confederacy (1783 to 1789), to the high protective tariff under the rule of the republican party since 1861.” That we had free trade under the confederation no one ever before so much as dreamed; and yet Mr. Harriman asserts that during that period in our history we made “a full and fair trial of free trade.” Of course we did nothing of the kind. The confederation had no tariff protection, as a confederacy, but every state as an independent sovereignty had power to enforce, national protection of its own, and most of them did so not only against European states but also against American states. It re- quires a good deal of self restraint to admit the good faith of a writer who says that we had free trade during this period; and it is impossible to admit both good faith and intelligence, for it is one of the plainest facts of American history that the institution of the federal union established free trade throughout the vast territory of the federation, and that the only full and fair trial of free trade we have ever made is that which the constitution has enforced between the states.

But it would require too much space to expose the false statements of Mr. Harriman’s pamphlet, in which, like protection literature generally, it abounds. Let us take his alleged facts as he presents them and see what use he makes of them.

“To begin with we had (which we hadn’t) free trade under the confederation from [1783?] to 1789. During that period Great Britain sent goods to us demanding her own prices and we had to pay them, while she offered us her own prices for our goods and we had to take them.” It does not seem to occur to Mr. Harriman that if Great Britain compelled us to pay exorbitant prices for her goods she was giving us a first-class protective tariff—doing precisely what our present tariff is intended to do—by making us pay such high prices for foreign goods as to force us to manufacture for ourselves. But instead of profiting by this high protective tariff which British merchants kindly imposed upon us, and establishing domestic manufactures, our people sent all their gold to England, so Mr. Harriman says, and we “were left ‘poor indeed.’” But we could not have been so poor either, for Mr. Harriman immediately tells us that “foreign nations literally poured in upon us their products of every kind and description, in such quantities and at such prices that our people could not compete with them.” Poor people are not apt to complain of having goods “literally poured in upon” them. But if foreign nations poured in goods at such low prices that our manufacturers could not compete, how did it happen that British merchants “demanded their own prices for their imports and we had to pay them.” Didn’t this “literal pour” bring down prices? Mr. Harriman is a little mixed. If Great Britain charged us exorbitant prices, that should have “encouraged our home industry;” if she poured in goods upon us at such prices that we could not compete, she certainly did not demand exorbitant prices, for against exorbitant prices our people could have competed; and if it was other nations that poured the goods in at low prices, Great Britain could not have demanded her own price for the goods she sold us. What has been so often said as to have passed into a proverb is true—“Protectionist historians should have long memories.” But Mr. Harriman’s memory does not serve him for two successive paragraphs.

Intending to illustrate the awful results of this period of wealth freshets, Mr. Harriman digs out a statistic or two. “Our imports from Great Britain alone,” he says, “were $30,000,000 in 1784–85, while our exports were only $9,000,000—a frightful balance on the wrong side.” Observe that he selects but two years out of the six of his “free trade period,” and utterly ignoring our exports and imports generally, gives the figures of trade between us and England alone. It may be assumed, despite Mr. Harriman’s ignorance of the subject, that we traded with other countries than England, and that balances in our favor against other countries offset this balance against us in favor of England.

If we did not trade with other countries we were better “protected” than we are now; and if there was a general balance of trade continually against us, some of our foreign creditors must have fared badly. These considerations Mr. Harri- man ignores. Now, if we should say that Harriman the lawyer had bought of Smith the grocer $30 worth of groceries, while Smith the grocer had bought of Harriman the lawyer only $9 worth of law, it would not follow that for Harriman this was “a frightful balance on the wrong side.” Perhaps Jones, Brown and Robinson, of whom Harriman bought little or nothing, may have bought enough law of Harriman to make up the difference. At any rate, Harriman would think that man a great fool who should undertake to judge of Harriman’s law practice by the balance against him in his mutual dealings with the grocer alone; yet this is what Harriman himself does when he judges of our commerce by the balance against us in our mutual dealings with England alone. To take a further illustration: If the First national bank holds $30,000,000 in checks against the Second

p. 8, col. 2 national bank, while the latter holds but $9,000,000 against the former, we cannot say that the latter is in a bad way until we know the balances between it and all other banks, for then it may appear that it is a richer bank than tho one that holds^sic “a frightful balance” against it. We must know the aggregate balance for or against us in our dealings with the world before we can say that there is “a frightful balance against us;” and even then a balance against us, though large, may be anything but frightful. It may mean that our credit is good and that we are getting the present wealth of other people on our promise to pay them out of our future wealth; such a condition is consistent with a high degree of prosperity. Or it may mean that the wealth of foreign countries is shipped here for investment in real estate, or in manufacturing or other enterprises. Or it may mean that the contrary balances of previous years are being paid. Or it may mean in greater or less degree all of these things. Mr. Harriman will need to “collate” a great many more facts before he can help out his palsied theory by a comparison of our ex- ports and imports with England alone.

Summarizing the condition of affairs during the period of the confederation, the auther goes on as follows:

Free trade was the starting point. It was quickly followed by imports largely in excess of exports; then by a glut of foreign productions; then by suspension of our own manufactures of all kinds; then by a gradual but complete loss of all our specie; then by the necessary stoppage of most of our business; then by the enforced idleness of our laborers and artisans; then by universal debt; then by a crushing depreciation of real estate; then by a positive inability on the part of nearly everybody to pay their debts; then by general distress and financial ruin; and finally by insurrections and rebellions which threatened destruction to the life and liberties of the nation.

And all this time “foreign nations literally poured in upon us their products of every kind and description.” It could not have been worse if the skies had opened and deluged our poor ancestors with everything they wanted. This is indeed a unique period in history. The nearest approach to it was when the wandering Israelites had manna and quails miraculously poured down upon them; but no such evil results followed in that case.

However, a new era dawned upon the American people in 1789. Our forefathers had been educated in the doctrines of free trade (which they hadn’t)—“those false doctrines of political economy as taught in England” (which they were not); “and these doctrines had been so firmly established in their minds” (which they had not), that nothing less than “the bitter school of adversity” could correct them. So a demand for a national constitution was made. and in forming it “the leading question was (which it wasn’t), ‘How shall we secure protection to home industries?’” Accordingly in 1789 a duty was laid which, “with some slight modifications, continued in force till 1816, and during this period, through the protection afforded by the tariff. many important industries were established; business revived everywhere; the people again became contented and industrious; our commerce was multiplied,” etc., etc. Mr. Harriman very carelessly omits to mention two most important factors that must have contributed to these splendid results, namely, the embargo of 1809 and the war of 1812, to which, and not to the tariff, Mr. Greeley logically, from the stand point of protection, attributes the establishment of our furnaces and factories. There can be no doubt that if there is anything in the theory of protection, embargoes should demonstrate it, since embargoes are the perfection of protection; and yet they do say that embargo times were very hard times. On this point Mr. Harriman gives us no light; neither does he explain why the multiplication of commerce—he says “our commerce was multiplied”—was a good thing, when mere commerce, without multiplication, had produced such disastrous consequences only a few years before.

But the good times following the war of 1812 were not to last. Low duties were substituted for high duties in 1816, and “great depression in all branches of business at once followed; bankruptcies at once became general and financial ruin was everywhere present.” This is a very good description of affairs during the ’70s when we had a high tariff; but Mr. Harriman says it was the result of the low duties of 1816, and as we are dealing less with historical facts than with Mr. Harriman’s facts, let us pass on.

In 1824 higher duties were imposed, and times were better; in 1828 duties were raised, and business improved; in 1832 protection was abandoned and business grew worse, until it culminated in the financial crash of 1837. And all this misinformation without the slightest attempt to refer to authorities. Mr. Harriman’s history would have been just as valuable and his argument just as convincing if he had attributed the disappearance of the mound builders to free trade with Egypt.

After suffering from low taxation from 1832 to 1842, so he proceeds, a high protective tariff was passed, which was displaced by a tariff of low duties in 1846, and in 1857 the duties were made still lower. The flush times from 1842 to 1846 were followed by hard times from the latter year forward, and in 1857, when duties were put at the lowest, the country was overwhelmed with a panic, caused by the reduction of duties. The only truth in these “facts” is that the tariff of 1842 was high, that of 1846 was low, that of 1857 was lower, and that there was a panic in 1857. In fact, we never had better times than from 1846-7 to the war, the only depression in the whole period being the panic of 1857, which was due to speculation induced by the business activity that preceded.

But now, having out of the depths of his imagination drawn the pigments with which to picture the country as prosperous in high tariff times and depressed in low tariff times, Mr. Harriman approaches the era of highest protection, beginning in 1861 and continuing until the present. Here was a chance for him to state facts and challenge dispute without referring to authorities, since the truth as to this period is matter of common knowledge and anyone could call him to account if he misrep-

p. 8, col. 3 resented. But Mr. Harriman is wise in his generation. This period, in which “we have experienced a degree of prosperity unparalleled in the history of any nation” is disposed of in nineten lines^sic. Not a word of the hard times in the ’70s, when the highways were crowded with tramps, when men were forced impoverished into idleness, when merchants and manufacturers and farmers were ruined. Not a word of the army of the unemployed that for fifteen years has offered a problem for society to solve. Not a word of the strike that fell but little short of civil war in 1877. Not a word of the strikes against reductions of wages that have run up into the thousands since 1873. Not a word of monopolies and trusts, nor of millions on the one hand with irregular employment and low wages and poverty on the other. All Mr. Harriman has to show for this period is that our population has increased sixty per cent and our capital 300 per cent, while the balance of trade in our favor since 1872 has averaged $154,000,000 a year. He ignores the fact that the increase of population has increased competition for opportunities to work and thereby pressed wages down. He ignores the fact that the increase of capital has been but an aggregate increase, proving nothing as to the prosperity of individuals. And as to the balance of trade, he does not show how much of it is made up of rents sent to alien owners of American land, of dividends to alien owners in American enterprises, of interest and principal on American bonds, or of remittances from foreign born inhabitants to their families at home, for none of which we receive anything in return. In short, Mr. Harriman shows nothing but a few unrelated facts from which, by the aid of other “facts” invented for the purpose, he draws illogical conclusions; and his pamphlet would not be worthy of notice were it not a fair sample of current protection literature.

In concluding a statistical appendix the author with the simplicity of an idiotic child makes this remark: “If anybody tries to make it appear that the protective tariff now in force makes manufactured products more costly than they were under the revenue tariff of 1860, he has a large task before him.” Indeed he has. But suppose he tries to make it appear that the tariff now in force makes manufactured products more costly than they otherwise would be? Does it or does it not? If it does the protective tariff is a tax. If it does not, what is the use of protection, even from the protectionist’s standpoint?

Florence Kelley Wischnewetzky has translated a paper on free trade by Carl Marx, which, with a preface by Frederick Engels, will be published in pamphlet form by Lee & Shepard of Boston.

WORK IN NEW FIELDS.

IMMIGRATION.

What Property Is Theft?

THE PATH THAT LEADS TO FREEDOM.

The Detroit News, commenting on William Lloyd Garrison’s Hyannis speech, says:

It will be recollected that notwithstanding the constant disavowal of abolitionism by the republican party up to the time of the emancipation proclamation, republicans ever since that day have claimed all the credit for their party of the extinguishment of slavery, and the many politicians and newspaper organs, who before the fact persistently denied any such intention, became afterward the most strenuous in maintaining that the whole end and object of the republican party’s organization was abolition.

The democratic party’s attitude toward the tariff is to-day precisely what the republican party’s attitude toward slavery was before the proclamation. The politicians’ and organs deny with actual ferocity of assertion that they have the remotest intention to abolish protection. They will keep on denying it until some fine day protection shall be abolished, and then and thereafter they will be the hottest of free traders. As Garrison says, “the path once entered on leads into liberty, and whether men mean it or not, one step necessitates another.” The democratic party, through its elected president and through its representatives in Congress, has entered on the path that leads to liberty, and every friend of commercial and industrial liberty in the country instinctively feels it, and falls into line to push them on. The friends of human slavery, whatever their previous party affiliations were, shunned republicanism, for they instinctively recognized the direction of the path on which the party entered in 1856, and the friends of freedom joined it by the thousands from the democratic party and gave it absolute mastery in all the northern states. In like manner the friends of a tariff desig- nated to hamper and embarrass commerce will shun the democratic party to-day, and it is agreed that they are already going over to the republicans in every state in the country. This exodus of monopolists and protected manufacturers will advertise to tens of thousands of liberty loving republicans like Garrison, that the time has at last come when they can vote directly for their long suppressed convictions.

As the monopolists and protectionists leave the democratic party, the convictions of the free trade majority in its ranks, aided by the free trade republicans who are coming, and will continue to come to it in increasing numbers, will find bolder and more radical expression, until some democratic Lincoln will give the finishing blow to that colossal system of pillage and robbery called “protection,” and amid the acclaims of the nation it shall be established once and for ever that taxes shall be levied upon the wealth and not upon the poverty of the nation. Then indeed we shall have a real republic.

A Great Manufacturer Investigates and Passes Judgment on “Protection.”

J. B. Sargent of New Haven, Conn., is said to be the largest manufacturer of locks, bolts, builders’ and furniture hardware and certain lines of carpenters’ tools in the world. He employs two thousand men in shops covering twelve acres of land. But he is not a protectionist. He has visited all the manufacturing countries on earth to investigate markets, prices and wages, and he has come to the conclusion that he could profitably compete with the world, but for the tariff on raw materials, without reducing wages one cent, and give employment to many more men by largely increasing his output. He found that leaving cost of raw materials out of the calculation, he could produce cheaper than any other country. While for heavy goods, easy of manufacture, there was no foreign demand, he found that we exported large quantities of goods of which labor was the important element. Among other things, he said:

In visiting hardware stores in New Zealand and Australia, I saw that the higher grade and best finished carpenters’ hand saws in stock were made by Disston & Sons of Philadelphia. Saws of that make are unquestionably taking the markets of those coun- tries from the British manufactures in high class goods^sic. This means that Disston & Sons can produce a highly finished first class saw, requiring a large amount of skilled labor, at less cost than the English manufacturer can do it, although Disston’s raw material costs more than the raw material of the English manufacturer costs him. In low grade goods, requiring less labor in finish, but a larger proportionate amount of raw material, the English manufacturers still maintain their position, and hold the markets of the world.

My observation has taught me that the greatest obstacle to American competition in foreign markets to nearly every class of goods is the high price of our raw materials. Take off the duty and we will send our goods everywhere. Wages would increase here under such a system rather than become lower. The cost of freight between England and this country would amply protect the American workingmen against European labor, even if there were anything to be feared on that score, which I do not believe. I feel sure that if we were put on an equality with England, or nearly on equality, in the matter of raw materials the business of American manufacture for foreign countries would largely increase without any reduction in the rate of wages in the United States. In fact, part of what we would save in the cost of raw material would be added to the present wages here.

It Can’t Be Helped.

New York Press, Aug. 20.

The World has been telling us that it is not free trade the democratic party wants, but merely a forty per cent “swindle and robbery” instead of forty-seven per cent “robbery and swindle.” Yet, in spite of this assurance, the World fills its editorial page with straight free trade argument.

Why Not Cheap Luxuries, Too?

Rockville, Ind., Tribune.

The people demand cheap necessities and taxed luxuries.

p. 8, col. 6

STRAWS WHICH SHOW THE WIND.

Any system which deprives a man of the full fruits of his labor is robbery.—[Dayton, O., Workman.

The principle of taxing for the sole purpose of taking from one citizen to give to another “is only robbery under the forms of law,” and has never been and never will be the policy of the intelligent American people.—[Chicago Globe.

The next subject for agitation in England is the taxation of land. It was not incorporated in the county local government bill because it was considered too large to be treated in any other way than in a bill by itself.—[Memphis Appeal.

An exchange refers to Henry George as “the great crank.” Yes, he is the great crank that turns out one of the best papers published anywhere in the universe. For typographical execution, editorial ability, fidelity to the cause of humanity, it is unsurpassed.—[San Antonio, Texas, Tribune.

A democrat prominent in the party in Vermont, holding an influential position in the organization, as one of the results of the recent discussion in Rutland, writes to Dr. Leverson: “I think you are right. We are called free traders anyhow, and in my judgment we would be better off to make a bold, manly fight.”

The citizens of Murphysboro, Ills., have asserted the common right of all men to all natural resources which happen to lie deep enough to necessitate boring or mining in order to get at them. On the 4th of this month, at a special city election, they voted a tax of $3,000 for boring for natural gas, oil or minerals. The vote was 3 to 1 in favor of the tax.

At a county convention recently held at Council Grove, Kansas, the union labor party resolved that all lands and lots held for speculative purposes should be assessed for taxation at the same rate as improved lands and lots of equal natural value and contiguous location, and that all coal and other mines in Kansas should be made to pay their just share of taxation.

The farmers of Kansas will find their state tax materially increased by the calling out of a regiment of militia to keep the peace between rival town lot speculators in Stevens county. The whole state is demoralized and heavily taxed by the unlawful acts of land value grabbers in the western counties. When will the people learn to keep values which belong to them for their own use?—Council Grove, Kan., Anti-Monopolist.

The Syracuse Standard is quoted as saying that not a single copy of Henry George’s paper is now sold in Syracuse. The Standard is wrong as usual. The first newsdealer questioned upon the subject yesterday stated that he was selling each week more than double the number of copies sold by him in the campaign of 1887. The same dealer reports that he is selling a large amount of tariff literature to workingmen. This demonstrates that the laboring men are making unusual efforts to become posted concerning the tariff question.—[Syracuse Courier.

A friend asks us what, in our opinion, is the great cause of ever increasing crime, as proven by court records. The reply is easy. The almost universal cause of crime, eclipsing every and all things else, is poverty. Behind such poverty we must arraign and condemn all causes of said poverty, prominent among which are the denial of nature’s opportunities to earn a living, the extortions of usury, the monopoly of land for speculative purposes and the grasping cupidity of rail- way managers, and as less important we may mention the whisky curse, the tobacco habit, etc.—[Hampton, Va., American Liberty.

It seems that the teachings of Henry George are slowly but surely taking root in different sections of the country, and that the Knights of Labor have been reading the theories of the most original reformer of his time. The annual meeting of the Michigan state assembly K. of L. was held at Jackson lately, when delegates to the next general assembly were elected. These delegates were instructed to urge upon that body the adoption as a part of the principles of the Knights of Labor the single tax system advocated by Henry George. Whether the George theories are fully correct remains to be demonstrated, but it is a fact that working people, the very class for whom he wrote, have as yet paid comparatively little attention to his views.—[Pittsburg Trades Journal (protectionist).

MASS MEETING

of advocates of

THE SINGLE TAX ON LAND VALUES,

at

COOPER UNION,

MONDAY EVENING, AUGUST 27, 1888,

to indorse the nomination of

CLEVELAND & THURMAN,

On the ground that any reduction of tariff duties is a step toward the abolition of all taxes on the products of industry and their consequent transfer to land values.

THE MEETING WILL BE ADDRESSED BY

WILLIAM LLOYD GARRISON

of Massachusetts,

and

HENRY GEORGE

of New York.

All who wish to hear a bold and thorough discussion of the great issue of this campaign are invited.

TO SINGLE TAX CLEVELAND VOTERS.

The conference of single tax men held at Cooper union, New York, on Monday, August 6, decided to make an enrollment of all single tax men who propose to support Cleveland and Thurman. All who desire to have their names added to this roll can do so by signing the blank given below and forwarding it to this office. One blank can be made to serve for a number of signatures by clipping it out and pasting it on a sheet of paper.

I authorize the enrollment of my name on the list of voters who propose to support Cleveland and Thurman in the coming election, on the ground that any step toward tariff reduction tends toward the abolition of all taxes on the products of labor, and the final transfer of such taxes to land values.

NAME,……………………………………….

ADDRESS,……………………………………….

Send this blank when signed to THE STANDARD office, 12 Union square, New York.