January 22, 1890 Vol. VII, No. 4Whole No. 160

THE STANDARD.

HENRY GEORGE, Editor and Proprietor.

Published weekly at 12 UNION SQUARE, NEW YORK CITY.

Entered at the post office, New York, as second class matter.

TERMS, POSTAGE FREE.

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

ADVERTISING rate thirty cents per agate line each insertion.

REMITTANCES should be made payable to THE PUBLISHER OF THE STANDARD.

RECEIPTS.—The correct filling of orders is evidence of receipt of remittance.

CHANGES OF ADDRESS.—When changing address send old as well as new address.

Sample copies sent free on application.

TABLE OF CONTENTS.

Editorial. Ballot Reform—Governor Campbell Strongly Favors It—Governor Abbett’s Able Message—The Governor of West Virginia on the Right Side—Chauncey F. Black’s Strong Letter—Hill Stands Alone—Secretary Fairchild’s Contribution to the Discussion—An Association of Single Tax Clergymen—A Brand New Tax System—The Fall of Foraker—Unequal Assessments—Evils of the Existing System Admitted.

Notes and Queries. The Rapid Transit Bill—English Money in Another Protected Industry—The Story of Johnstown—Labor Troubles—Questions Answered.

The Social Problem. A Lesson to Chautauquans—Things That Professor Huxley Does Not Understand.

Brotherhood of Religious Teachers.

Mme. Vallette’s Essay. W. E. Hicks.

Events in England. Rev. Harold Rylett.

Straws That Show the Wind.

Society Notes.

Personal.

Recent Sales and Assessments.

The George Dinner. The Great Banquet at the Metropolitan Hotel.

Single Tax News. The Petition—Single Tax Men Address the Brassworkers—Brooklyn Considers Something Better Than Nationalism—Oswego Knights of Labor Indorse the Single Tax—Johnstown, Pa., Displaying New Interest in the Cause—Ohio, Illinois, Tennessee, Missouri, Texas, California and Other States—Interest in Foreign Lands.

Ballot Reform. The Great Mass Meeting in Cooper Union—Wheeler H. Peckham Exposes a Contemptible Piece of Garbling by Governor Hill—The Press on the Meeting—Trades Unionists Indorse the Reform—A Good Suggestion from California.

An Actor on the Single Tax. Address by James A. Herne.

The Free Trade Fight. Iowa Democrats Not Afraid of Either Free Trade or Single Tax—Free Trade and Not Subsidies Needed.

EDITORIAL.

The New York Saturday Globe, which, though an exceedingly able and thoughtful paper, is intensely democratic, both in the general and in the partisan sense, and evidently aims at always keeping inside of and representing the regular organization, had in its issue of January 11 an article on the Australian ballot. In this, with refreshing coolness, it quietly ignores the fact that the republican state of Massachusetts was the first to adopt the Australian ballot, and that a similar bill has twice been passed in this state, the republicans in the legislature voting unanimously for it, and has twice been vetoed by a democratic governor. In spite of this and similar facts the Globe unblushingly assumes that the Australian ballot is a democratic measure, saying that “the sentiment of the masses of the voters has made it impossible for any leader, whatever may be his personal interests or ambition, to resist it successfully,” and that “those who want to oppose ballot reform must get outside the democratic party and find other associates.” It winds up by saying:

The democracy will contend for the Australian ballot until we have it in all its beneficent perfection, and every voter, rich or poor, white or black, in this blessed land shall be able to cast his ballot according to his own will, without fear of molestation or

p. 1, col. 2 > punishment from any quarter. When that good time comes the political vocation of the monopolist and the boodler will be at an end, and republican campaigns, if run at all under such discouraging circumstances, will not be run by the Quays, the Dudleys and the Platts.

This cool ignoring of all that republicans have done and are doing for the Australian ballot, this claiming of it as a democratic measure, has, however, its gratifying side. It does show how the more observant democratic leaders and organs are becoming conscious of the irresistible tide of public opinion that is forcing onward ballot reform. And since this article in the Globe was written its declaration that those who want to oppose ballot reform must go outside the democratic party has received notable indorsements from the messages of three newly inaugurated democratic governors—Campbell of Ohio, Abbett of New Jersey, and Wilson of West Virginia.

In the last issue of THE STANDARD a brief note stating that Governor Campbell had commended the Australian system, but had added that public sentiment was not educated up to such a law, did Governor Campbell great injustice. Its cause was the extremely bad condensation of the governor’s inaugural which appeared in the New York papers. After commending the Australian ballot system, Governor Campbell went on to speak of a class of electors who cannot be hired to vote against their party prejudices, but who will not vote for their party candidate unless paid to do so. The governor says these people resort to such subterfuges as demanding payment for a day’s work. He adds that it is difficult to see any remedy for this except in making voting compulsory, but that public opinion is not at present educated up to such a measure. This remark closed that part of the governor’s message referring to the ballot. Following the plan of condensing with a pair of shears, too common among the overworked American newspaper men, the editor of the dispatch to the New York papers clipped out all that intervened and made the governor’s final remark seem to apply to the Australian system. So far from any statement in his inaugural that the Australian system is not supported by public opinion, Governor Campbell makes a magnificent argument for its adoption.

The inaugural of the governor of New Jersey will be a most gratifying surprise to those friends of ballot reform who have feared that Governor Abbett belonged to the same school of democratic obstructors and intriguers as Hill of New York and Gorman of Maryland. Among single tax men it will be a vindication of the course of those of them, like J. T. Altemus and J. R. Abarbanell, who have all along had faith in Governor Abbett.

While the retiring governor, in his farewell message took occasion to unsay what he had previously said for ballot reform and virtually to join the little gang of democratic politicians of the baser sort, who regard Governor Hill as their leader, Mr. Abbett, in assuming for the second time the office of governor, appears to have decisively made his choice and taken his stand with the democracy of reform and of principle—that new democracy which is the old—that is destined in the next presidential election to sweep the country as Jeffersonian republicanism did in 1800.

Governor Abbett thus begins that part

p. 1, col. 3 of his message that relates to the ballot:

The best sentiment of the country in all the states demands ballot reform and honest elections.

The safeguards which the law has thrown around the ballot have been found insufficient to prevent fraud, the intimidation of the voter and the corrupt use of money in elections. The oaths of election officers have not always prevented them from tampering with the ballot box, and receiving and counting fraudulent votes. The great mass of election officers are honest and conscientious in the discharge of their duty, but there are a few who will violate their oaths of office and run the risk of punishment to change or attempt to change the result of elections. There are citizens entitled to the ballot who, notwithstanding the penalties of the law, deliberately sell their votes, or demand money for voting in accordance with their political convictions. Men of high standing contribute large sums of money which, in many instances, is used by disreputable party agents to bribe voters or election officers. The penalties of the law seem impotent to stop these practices. This condition of affairs is an evil that every honest citizen should use his best energies to stamp out by radical measures.

Governor Abbett then goes on to say that the law should embrace the following features:

First—Registration of every voter in the state, with a registry list subject to judicial revision.

Second—Absolute secrecy of the ballot.

To secure this there should be an inclosure within which the voter shall be free from all influence, supervision or control^sic. In that inclosure there should be a compartment which he must enter and where in secret he would have the opportunity to prepare his ballot. From this compartment he should proceed directly to the ballot box with a folded ballot. This he should offer to the election board, who should deposit it in the box in the same condition, subject only to rejection for legal reasons. If the ballot is rejected it should be returned to the voter without inspection.

Third—There should be an exclusively official ballot, printed and distributed by the state, so that one ballot cannot be distinguished from another when it is folded and ready for voting. The law should prohibit the use of any ballot except the official ballot.

Fourth—Provision for judicial action, by which an election in any precinct may be set aside and a new election ordered therein, whenever the judge or court shall be satisfied that there has been fraud, bribery or other illegal practices which would affect the result, or where, by reason of death or resignation of any candidate, the failure to supply voters with tickets, or for any other cause, the electors have been deprived of a fair opportunity to express their choice at the ballot box. All such proceedings should be summary. When a new election is ordered it should be called for the earliest possible day. The court or judge should be empowered to make a final certificate of election whenever such new election changes the result.

Fifth—The right of nomination by petition should be given when a certain percentage of the voters ask therefor.

Sixth—No ticket should be printed or distributed unless the parties nominated thereon have signified in writing their acceptance of such nomination.

Seventh—Provision that certain judicial officers shall provide for the printing and distribution of official ballots where there has been failure to act on the part of the proper officers.

Eighth—All forms of intimidation, bribery or illegal practices should be declared to be criminal. Every voter should have secured to him the opportunity to vote, and sufficient time should be allowed him therefor. It should be made a crime to infringe upon this right or to impose any penalty or disadvantage upon the voter exercising such right.

Ninth—There should be a limitation of the amount which may be legally spent in or for any election. An election should be declared void if such limit shall be knowingly exceeded by a candidate or by any persons acting for or in his behalf with his knowledge. An election in any precinct should also be declared void wherever any judicial officer shall ascertain that such limitation has been grossly exceeded in that precinct, even without the knowledge of the candidate, if the vote of such precinct might change the result of the election.

Tenth—The law should provide for publicity of election expenditures, and a candidate should be required to publish and file of record immediately after an election an

p. 1, col. 4 > itemized statement, under oath, of all the moneys expended at such election by him, or with his knowledge. The failure to file such a statement should vacate his office and render void his election. The court should be given the power to compel the appearance of any person before it to be examined under oath concerning political expenditures, and also to require, on such examinations, the production of the books and papers of corporations, associations or individuals.

Eleventh—It should compel everyone offering a bribe or receiving a bribe, either as a voter or as an election officer, to testify in regard thereto, with a provision that such testimony should not be used against such witness in any criminal or other proceeding whatever.

The act should provide, so far as the constitution will permit, for the disqualification thereafter of any voter, or other person, violating any provision of such statute.

These principles embrace all the essential features of the Australian system and all that the most ardent ballot reformers have ever asked for. But not stopping here, Governor Abbett goes on to take advanced ground. The admission by ballot reformers of a provision by which illiterate voters could have their ballots marked for them by an official, has been in reality but a concession to the clamor of the opponents of reform. Governor Abbett proposes to do away with this feature altogether, and to make no provision whatever for the illiterate voter. He very properly says that even where the voter may lack educational qualifications there is no difficulty in teaching him to mark an official ballot without the intervention of an election officer, either by the use of such symbols or devices as under the Indiana law are to designate the political parties or by the use of non-official fac simile tickets. He objects to the provision in some of the laws which have been passed requiring two election officers at each polling place, authorized to assist the voter in marking his ticket where he states his inability to do it himself, on the ground that it is needless, expensive and dangerous. He says:

The fact that these election officers were sworn officials would no more prevent them, if dishonest, from destroying the secrecy of the ballot, or practically intimidating a voter by their knowledge of his ballot, than would the official oath of a dishonest election officer prevent him from tampering with the ballot box or knowingly receiving fraudulent votes.

These election officers would become the political agents of the different parties, and every voter who accepted their intervention would feel that there was no secrecy as to his ballot, and that such election officers might expose to others how he had exercised the right of suffrage.

In districts where there were dishonest election officers, men might be bribed to vote a certain way and be instructed to ask the “assistance” of these officers. Such an official could inform the bribe-giver how the elector voted, and thus practically nullify the law.

It would be an aid to bribery and would destroy the secrecy of the ballot. It would be much safer to trust to the illiterate voter, or the voter physically disqualified, to ascertain some mode of expressing his choice, than to destroy the essential feature of such a system of reform, by making the secrecy of the ballot depend, not upon the law, but upon the conscience of the election officer. In some states these extra election officers mark the ballots. Any such marking by them is a destruction of secrecy. When a ticket is marked, the mode of marking it and the place where it is marked can be so controlled by dishonest election officers that the ballot can be traced, and the action of the voter ascertained. The voter may be practically intimidated by his fear of just such illegal action.

Governor Abbett’s reasoning on this point seems to be conclusive, and it is a matter of legitimate congratulation to the democracy, which has been charged with being the party of illiteracy, that the first of our governors to squarely propose that all attempts to make special continued on p. 2 →

[continued on page 2]

A Lesson to Chautauquans.

Mr. T. B. Preston followed his article, “What Shall the State Do for Me?” published in the November Chautauquan, with an article entitled “What Shall I Do for the State?” in the December issue of the same magazine. In this second article Mr. Preston discusses the incidence of taxation and naturally leads up to the necessity for the single tax. With the growth of society arise new relations and opportunities, and it is unjust that these should be seized by individuals. Hence the necessity of a state to see that opportunities arising from social growth are not used by the few as a means of extorting toll from the many. From the necessity for a state flows the necessity for public revenue, and hence the question of taxes.

Mr. Preston then presents the familiar arguments for and against indirect taxation, and afterward seeks to find the general principles that answer the question, “What Shall I Do for the State?” He notes the popular argument in favor of taxation in proportion to wealth, which finds its supposed justification in the theory that the state is a business partnership, toward the expense of which each should contribute in proportion to his share. He notes, also, the theory that each should pay taxes in proportion to the amount of property he possesses in need of police protection. He reviews the familiar arguments in favor of private ownership of land, and the assertion that none are involuntarily idle. Finally, he asserts that it is the duty of the state not only to protect the citizen in person and property, bat^sic also “to preserve for the individual his natural rights, while admitting him to the participation of the advantages that accrue from society, from social growth, from civilization.”

Good government, in Mr. Preston’s view, should be to the social world what air and sunshine are to the vegetable world—common benefit, freely given and freely participated in. He argues that a man’s right to enjoy good government cannot be based upon his contribution to its support. Mr. Preston is cheered by the prevalent disposition to refer all things to fundamental principles, and to ask, not “Is it in accordance with law?” but “Is it just?” By contemplating anew the argument that men should contribute to the state in proportion to the cost of affording them protection in person and property, Mr. Preston is led to ask, “Should the state receive compensation for what it does for me?” When the state arrests a burglar in the act of burglary not only is the citizen whose property is saved benefited, but the whole community. When the state carries a letter, however, the service is rendered to the writer and the recipient. In the latter case the individual should pay as nearly as possible the cost of the service, but in the former case the cost should fall upon the community. The post office acts upon this principle of affording facilities to the individual at cost, but those who administer kindred monopolies, as railways and telegraphs, charge a profit, pocket fortunes, and, exacting a tax from labor, interfere with individual liberty. When the state assumes these duties they will not be social services done to community without cost to the individual, but individual services to be charged for at cost of production. Otherwise the whole people will pay for benefits that do not accrue to all, or not to all in equal proportion.

Whence shall come the state’s revenue? To this Mr. Preston’s answer is the single tax. As population grows the demand for the use of natural opportunities increases, and those who enjoy those opportunities should pay the community for the privilege. Mr. Preston shows that this system would result in the taxation of all who participate in the benefits of government. No one could escape taxation unless he applied his labor to free natural opportunities, and such opportunities would be found where there was no community, and consequently no government to be supported.

What Prof. Huxley Does Not Know.

Professor Huxley writes in the January Nineteenth Century on the natural inequality of men, and evidently believes that he is answering the arguments of those who believe that the private ownership of land is unjust. Of course Professor Huxley has not answered such as take their stand upon the single tax, and it is a little surprising to find so distinguished a man so little acquainted with the attitude of those whom he assails. He regards Rousseau as the political father of those who now urge the injustice of private land ownership, and is surprised that they do not go Rousseau’s whole length and demand the abolition of private ownership in products of the soil. He has a strong conviction that the “revived Rousseauism” of the present day is doing much harm—this in part from his observation of the problem of individual land ownership, in connection with fisheries.

Coming down to the question of freedom and equality, Professor Huxley ridicules with much show of British humor the idea that all men were born “free and equal,” but utterly fails to make an effective argument against the theory that all men are born with the right to personal liberty and to equal access to natural opportunities. He is convinced that the witless man will serve his

p. 5, col. 4 brothers, proclaim human equality as loudly as you like. “Freedom used foolishly and equality asserted in words, but every moment denied by the facts of nature are things of which it seems to me we have rather too much already. If I mistake not, one thing we need to learn is the necessity of limiting individual freedom for the general good; and another, that, although decision by a majority of votes may be as good a rough-and-ready way as can be devised to get political questions settled, yet that, theoretically, the despotism of a majority is as little justifiable and as dangerous as that of one man; and yet another, that voting power, as a means of giving effect to opinion, is more likely to prove a curse than a blessing to the voters, unless that opinion is the result of a sound judgment operating upon sound knowledge. Some experience of sea life leads me to think that I should be very sorry to find myself on board a ship in which the voices of the cook and the lablolly^sic boys counted for as much as those of the officers, upon a question of steering, or reefing topsails; or where the great heart of the crew was called upon to settle the ship’s course.”

Professor Huxley concludes that the doctrine of freedom and equality is utterly baseless fiction, and he intimates that the idea that freedom and equality are desirable is no better. It is from this point on that the great physicist demonstrates his failure to understand the land doctrine. He insists that if the necessarily limited quantity of land is an argument against its appropriation by a few, that the products of land, which he regards also as necessarily limited, are equally unfit subjects of private ownership. This is an unfortunate juxtaposition of ideas for Professor Huxley’s argument; for while all single taxers will admit that the quantity of land can not be increased by man’s endeavor, they all know that the products of land can be so increased, and that this is the essential difference between land and its products—the one thing that make the latter a proper object of private ownership and the other not.

Professor Huxley assumes that those who deny the right of private ownership in land will find a difficulty in reconciling their belief with the possession of parts of the earth by single nations, and conjectures that Mr. Morley’s “hecklers” would be prompt to repel a foreign invasion of English soil. True enough, but they would not deny the right of the stranger who might settle in Great Britain to access to natural opportunities. He then wastes a good deal of force upon the history of land tenure by way of proving that force and fraud were not primarily responsible for private ownership. To this of course the single taxer’s reply is that whatever the historic truth about land tenures, no title deed, however ancient and free from taint of force or fraud, is good against the inalienable right of the child born yesterday. This seems to have occurred to the professor, and he conjures up by way of answer the harmless bugbear of Malthusianism. “In view of the ravages of the terrible monster of over-multiplication,” cries Professor Huxley, “all other riddles sink into insignificance!” Yet it would be hard for Professor Huxley to demonstrate that any considerable area of the earth is now or ever has been overpopulated.

Brotherhood of Religious Teachers.

There has just been formed in this city, a society called “The single tax brotherhood of religious teachers.” The membership is confined in general to ministers of recognized standing, in any religious denomination. Any minister of religion who is in favor of the adoption of the single tax on land values is eligible to membership. The principles of the brotherhood are as follows:

1. The ownership of the land is and must ever remain in the hands of the Creator alone.

2. The Creator gives to every generation in succession (during its lifetime only) the right of possession in order that it may enjoy the usufruct, i. e., the use and benefit of the land.

3 Every^sic individual of each generation has an equal right to share in the usufruct of the land.

4. The conditions on which the possession of land is permitted to individuals should be such as to insure impartially to all a share in the Creator’s bounty.

The constitution declares that these principles find their legal and economic expression in the single tax on land values and declares that it is the purpose of the organization to encourage ministers to present the religious aspects of the single tax movement to their congregations and to promote the furtherance of the movement by any other means in their power.

The brotherhood will extend its operation chiefly, but not exclusively, throughout the United States and Canada, and will have its headquarters in New York city.

The constitution in full will be published in the next issue of THE STANDARD.

More Truth Than Poetry in This Paragraph

Alpena, Mich. Journal.

> It is not very likely that the “land plank” in the Knights of Labor platform will be any more than a dead letter, until the knights become intelligent enough to know what they do want, and acquire enough moral backbone to dismiss the office seekers from their ranks and demand their rights in a manner that will carry conviction and assure success.

O’Shea’s Charges Against Parnell—Frederic Harrison’s Annual Address—A New Book on Socialism.

HYDE NEAR MANCHESTER, Jan. 4.—The event of the week is of course the O’Shea divorce case. In regard to the case itself, it is perhaps wise to say as little as possible. Of course, a man would not put his wife to open shame in this fashion unless he were either convinced of her guilt or had for some reason conceived an intense hatred toward her. The latter is quite conceivable in this case, and knowing as we all do what Mr. Parnell’s enemies, the Irish landlord or castle party, are capable of, and knowing to what desperate shifts they have been put in times past, to check the growth of sympathy on the part of England toward Ireland, we must be prepared for a good deal. We must remember the old saying, Whom the gods propose to destroy they first drive mad. Only a maddened and despairing faction could have ventured upon the calculated villainy of the forged letters.

The explanation of the letter question is very simple. The entire truth will be be told at no distant date. Meantime this much may be said. The castle party or the garrison have for many years been watching the development of events in England; they have not failed to observe that the tendency of the popular mind in England has been increasing in the direction of the discrediting of the Irish governing faction; and accordingly they have persistently sought to discredit the Irish movement in every possible way. They have incited the people to violence; they have manufactured outrages; they have villified^sic the people’s leaders; they have by themselves and their agents shrunk from nothing, however vile, to discredit the Irish popular movement, and it must never be forgotten that the Irish castle party includes among its members some of the most loathsome creatures wearing the semblance of manhood. The conspiracy of the letter was deliberately organized and subsidized for the purpose of crushing Mr. Parnell. There were men engaged in that conspiracy who would, I believe, rather die than have their connection with it known. And no one must imagine that we have heard the last of this business. I believe that before all is over there will be some startling revelations.

Now, it is quite on the cards that this O’Shea movement is part of the same game. It must be borne in mind that Mr. Parnell has been on the most intimate terms with the O’Sheas for many years. Indeed the Irish leader has practically had his home with them since 1880, and has frequently resided under Captain O’Shea’s roof when the “gallant” captain has been wandering about the world—for the captain is notoriously a man who is fond of “seeing life.” Mr. Parnell has suffered somewhat for his preference for the company of the O’Sheas before to-day. More than one member of the parliamentary party has been heard to complain that Parnell kept them at arm’s length, never dining with them, seldom acknowledging their existence, indeed, but always ready to recognize O’Shea, who after all was not “one of them.” These are the poor, small minded creatures who have never known the greatness of their leader. For Mr. Parnell it has been imperative that he should have a quiet resting place where he could ponder deeply the development of events and mature the masterly policy by which he had at length succeeded in making the Irish question the question of the hour for the British empire. Mr. Parnell found that quiet resting place under the roof of the O’Sheas, and up to the year 1886 not a syllable had Mr. O’Shea to breathe against the honor of his wife or of their mutual friend. But in that year Captain O’Shea and Mr. Parnell had a difference. Mr. Parnell at much cost to himself has insisted upon the captain having a seat in the house of commons, but when the moment came for putting every man to the test, O’Shea failed. He would not vote for the home rule bill. Since then the old friendship has been broken so far as Mr. Parnell and the captain have been concerned. Three years have passed, and not until the beginning of this year does Captain O’Shea complain that the relations of Mr. Parnell with Mrs. O’Shea have not been perfectly proper. Let it be

p. 6, col. 4 here carefully noted that the conspiracy of the letter has absolutely failed and worse than failed. It had positively issued in tremendous advantage to Mr. Parnell. The Irish leader was gradually becoming the most popular man in England, next to Gladstone. At the annual gathering of the liberal party at Manchester, early in December, remarkable evidence was afforded of the sentiments entertained toward Mr. Parnell. In fact the tendency of popular opinion was emphatically in the direction most dreaded by the castle party.

People who had previously been opposed to Mr. Parnell’s policy came round and declared that the forgery of these letters revealed a state of things they could not tolerate—showed in fact that so far from Mr. Parnell being unworthy of confidence, it was his enemies who were not to be trusted. Evidence was accumulating rapidly that Mr. Parnell was growing so popular in England that it would be his scheme of home rule that would ultimately be accepted. The Irish leader was welcomed at Nottingham with more than royal enthusiasm; he was the honored guest of Mr. Gladstone at Hawarden; he was accorded a splendid reception at Liverpool. His detractors were at their wit’s end what to do, and they “got at” Captain O’Shea. Although the “gallant” captain had been in the enemy’s camp for three years, and had moreover threatened more than once what he would do, he was unable to screw his courage to the sticking point until this movement. Why? Because, in all probability, he knew very well that he could not do anything. The chances are that a ground of difference between Mrs. O’Shea and her “gallant” husband, involving somebody’s guilt, but probably neither Mrs. O’Shea’s nor Mr. Parnell’s has been made the reason for striking this blow at the Irish leader. We shall see whether the case will ever come up before the court; or if it comes before the court, we shall see whether Captain O’Shea will enter the witness box. All this may happen^sic, for the conspiracy of the letters shows us what Mr. Parnell’s foes—Ireland’s foes—can do in the way of suborning perjurers and forgers, but still we all know how the principal witness in the letter conspiracy ended his career of infamy, and no one need be surprised if history should repeat itself. I, for one, believe that this O’Shea case is nothing more nor less than another conspiracy of the same kind and having the same origin and end as the Houston and Piggott^sic affair, and because I know something of the dismal depths of villainy to which the Irish landlord and castle faction can go, I shall require the deliberate confession of Mr. Parnell and Mrs. O’Shea before I shall be prepared to believe in their guilt. It has been my misfortune, perhaps, that I have not at all times been able to appreciate at their own estimate the services which the parliamentarians have rendered to the Irish cause, and I have not always agreed in every particular with some of the minor points of detail in Mr. Parnell’s policy; but in view of the tremendous issues involved, and especially in view of the attempts which the castle party have made to discredit the Irish movement through its recognized head, it appears to me that it is the plain duty of all who have had the honor of being associated, however humbly, with Mr. Parnell in that movement, to declare their determination to measure their confidence in him by the hatred meted out to him by the common enemy.

This is the view generally taken in Ireland. Among the leading men of the party at home the feeling is one of deep regret for the sake of the cause, while it is felt that if the charge should be substantantiated^sic it will mean an inglorious termination of what might have been a brilliant political career. It is also felt that for the first time Parnell is assailed on a matter in which his friends can render him no assistance. “As yet,” a private correspondent says, “the charge alone is made, and made by a contemptible hound who is a personal enemy of Parnell’s. Therefore the people of Ireland in the absence of proof, will hold him in the same trust and esteem in which he stood toward them before this charge was leveled against his character.” It is felt by those who are in the know that if Mr. Parnell goes down before this new attack the parliamentary party would elect Dillon, certain, though, as one correspondent says, “he would be the most incompetent leader Ireland ever had, though he would be one of the most honest.” I do not share this opinion continued on p. 7 →

[continued on page 7]

IMPROVED PROPERTY.

No. 368 West Twenty-third street, four story brick. Sold for $40,000; assessed at $17,000, or 42½ per cent of its value.

No. 336 West Thirty-fifth street, three story brick Sold for $12,500; assessed at $5,500, or [44?] per cent of its value.

No. [202?] [East?] Fiftieth street, three story brick. Sold for $8,500; assessed at $4,500, or 53 per cent of its value.

No. 209 West Sixty-second street, five story brick. Sold for $20,600; assessed at $10,000, or 50 per cent of its value.

No. 321 East Seventy-fourth street, five

p. 7, col. 4 story brick tenement. Sold for $15,250; assessed at $8,500, or 55¾ per cent of its value.

No. 513 East Eighth-fourth^sic street, three story stone front. Sold for $12,000; assessed at $6,000, or 50 per cent of its value.

No. 125 East 112th street, two story frame. Sold for $4,350; assessed at $3,500, or 80½ per cent of its value.

No. 314 East 115th street, four story brick tenement Sold for $11,500; assessed at $6,500, or 56½ per cent of its value.

No. 419 East 122d street, three story stone front. Sold for $9,500; assessed at $4,500, or 47¼ per cent of its value.

The average assessment on the above nine buildings is 53¼ per cent.

VACANT LAND.

South side of Fifty-sixth street, 175 feet east of Tenth avenue, 25x100. Sold for $9,000; assessed at $2,500, or 27¾ per cent of its value.

South side Fifty sixth street, 200 feet east of Tenth avenue, 25x100. Sold for $9,000; assessed at $2,500 or 27¾ per cent of its value.

North side Sixty-first street, 150 feet west of Eighth avenue, 25x100 5 Sold for $15,000; assessed at $7,000, or 46½ per cent^sic of its value.

North side of Sixty-seventh street, 350 feet east of Third avenue, 27.6x100.10 Sold for $11,000; assessed at $4,500, or 40¾ per cent of its value.

North side of Eighty-ninth street, 82.2 feet west of Park avenue, 100x100. Sold for $38,500; assessed at $22,000, or 57 per cent of its value.

South side of 104th street, 295 feet west of Ninth avenue, 80x100.11. Sold for $33,000; assessed at $12,200, or 36¾ per cent of its value.

South side of 104th street, 155 feet west of Fourth avenue, 25x100.11. Sold for $5,850; assessed at $2,200, or [37½?] per cent of its value.

North side 141st street, 250 feet east of Eighth avenue, 50x99.11. Sold for $9,100; assessed at $4,000, or 43¾ per cent of its value.

North side of 141st street, 200 feet east of Eighth avenue, 50x99.11. Sold for $9,100; assessed at $4,000, or 43¾ per cent of its value.

The average assessment on the above nine parcels of land is 40 per cent.

THE GREAT BANQUET AT THE METROPOLITAN HOTEL.

Speeches by Rev. Dr. Abbott, Wheeler A. Peckham^sic, John De Witt Warner, William Lloyd Garrison, James F. Mills, George Inness, Thomas G. Shearman, Peter Aitken, A. Augustus Healy, Daniel C. Beard and Henry George—Letters of Regret from Congressmen, College Professors, Clergymen, Authors, Lawyers and Business Men—Over Two Hundred Guests Applaud the Single Tax, Free Trade and the Guest of the Evening.

The farewell dinner given to Henry George by the Manhattan single tax club at the Metropolitan hotel, in this city, on Monday evening, January 20, was in every respect a notable success. Simply as a dinner, it was excellent. and it speaks^sic well for the resources of the hotel that, though owing to the failure of people to notify the committee of their intended presence, dinner was ordered for but one hundred and fifty, over two hundred were taken care of with apparent ease.

Louis F. Post, president of the Manhattan single tax club, occupied the chair, with Henry George, the guest of the evening, on his right, and Rev. Dr. Lyman Abbott, pastor of Plymouth church, on his left. At half-past 8 Chairman Post rapped for order, whereupon Mr. A. M. Molina, on behalf of the Flushing single tax club, presented Mr. George with a handsomely bound copy of Mark Twain’s latest book, “A Yankee at the Court of King Arthur,” which was illustrated by Mr. Daniel C. Beard, president of the Flushing club. Mr. Molina, who is one of the oldest and most ardent single tax men in the country, bade Mr. George godspeed on his journey, and promised that the single tax men of the United States would not during his absence abate their zeal, but would vigorously carry forward the propaganda, so that their number might be vastly enlarged before Mr. George again returned to his native land after making a circuit of the globe.

Mr. George, in a few brief words, accepted the gift, saying that he highly appreciated the work, and especially the illustrations, from almost everyone of which “the cat” peeped out. The incident was received with hearty applause from an enthusiastic audience, which during the remainder of the evening missed no chance to demonstrate its zeal in behalf of free trade and the single tax.

Letters of Regret.

The following letters addressed to Louis F. Post, president of the Manhattan single tax club, were read by Mr. A. J. Steers, secretary of the club: continued on p. 9 →

FROM THE BISHOP OF WESTERN NEW YORK.

SYRACUSE, Jan. 15, 1890.

My Dear Sir: Let me thank you for giving me so good an opportunity to wish our friend, a modern apostle of humanity, safe sailing, teachable audiences, and an early and happy return My imperative duties^sic this month forbid my taking the journey to New York or making any new engagement. Very sincerely yours,

F. D. HUNTINGTON.

FROM THE RECTOR OF ALL-SOULS CHURCH.

GARDEN CITY, Jan. 18. 1890^sic.

My Dear Mr. Post: I thank you very much for the invitation to be present at the dinner next Monday, to speed our parting friend on his round-the-world trip. I wish most heartily that it was in my power to accept. It would give me very great pleasure to be with you and to express in person my feelings toward Mr George^sic, personally, and toward the work with which he is identified.

All such pleasures are ruled out for me, at present, by my physical condition and my stress of work.

I cannot refrain, however, from taking advantage of this opportunity to express in a brief word what I should have expressed more fully and to much better point could I have been with you.

Mr. George may disclaim the title which the duke of Argyll fastened upon him, in reproach, but his friends are not so modest on his behalf. Like many another nick-name, from the time of the early church on, what has been thus meant for sarcasm is turning into seriousness, and ironical praise into a just eulogium. Whatever difficulties I have had, personally, concerning Mr. George’s method of reaching his point, I have never hesitated a moment in the recognition of the fact that he has been raised up by Providence to recall to the thought and conscience of our generation a long forgotten truth, a truth which, being forgotten, has perplexed and bewildered us all, as we have been groping in the dark amid the intricacies of our social problem. It has been given him to see clearly and to say courageously a great truth which closely concerns human welfare; to preach a true evangel, good tidings of great joy, which have been received into many hungry

p. 8, col. 2 and weary hearts as a veritable message from on high, persuading them that what the dismal science has so long preached concerning the disorders of earth is not a gospel of science at all, no good spell, but a veritable bad spell, a lie from the evil one himself. Had Mr. George done nothing else he would have earned our lasting gratitude because of the renewed faith he has enkindled in men’s hearts that things need not be as they are; that things were not meant to be as they are. In so far as I can see, the worst doubt of our day is not an intellectual one, but a moral one. The doubts which have been raised in the minds of men in our generation by the flood of new knowledge which is poured so suddenly upon us seem to me trifling in comparison with those deeper doubts which have been stirred in the hearts of men by the appalling disorders of earth, by the sight of its suffering and misery and wretchedness and sin, and by the belief taught us in our childhood, as the very science of society, that all this was inevitable. I believe that “Progress and Poverty” has been one of the mightiest factors in renewing faith in our day. And for this I thank Mr. George with all my heart, as thousands are thanking him, on finding, as he found, the old faith returning at the close of an economic argument; as from the mount of vision sight has been caught of the New Jerusalem descending from God out of heaven upon earth, beautiful, blessed. My gratitude to Mr. George does not end here however. It is not simply that he has renewed men’s faith in the city of God, but that he has laid bare the foundations thereof. With him, I believe thoroughly that the principle enunciated in the Levitical legislation lies at the base of a true social order—“the land is Mine.” In the recognition of the truth that the bounties of nature are the provision of Providence for man’s welfare, and that all use thereof must be in accordance with the needs of the people at large, a solid foundation is laid for the social superstructure. The failure to recognize this, in the generations past, has left the foundations of the social structure shaky. Whatever may be the form in which this principle shall be recognized, I am sure that it is to be recognized and embodied in our laws. This being done, the way will be open for whatever other developments society shall stand in need of. With hosts of others, I thank Mr. George from my heart for the clear and powerful enunciation of this cardinal truth concerning land.

May his present trip greatly aid in enlightening men’s minds on this basic truth and in inspiring their wills to seek to fulfill all righteousness. Yours cordially,

R. HEBER NEWTON.

FROM THE PRESIDENT OF COLUMBIA COLLEGE^sic

BROOKLYN, January 15, 1890.

My Dear Mr. Post: Your letter inviting me to speak at the dinner to Mr Henry George^sic has just reached me, as I do not yet go to the college every day. It will be impossible for me to attend the dinner, my time being completely taken up day and night in my final preparations for removal to New York and the new duties which await me there. I feel that Mr. George has done the country a great service in the impulse he has given to ballot reform, and generally in his genuine American method of agitating his views. While, as you surmise, I am not able wholly to agree with him, I still value very highly the work he is doing in making men think about questions of such fundamental importance. The truth, wherever it may lie, will not suffer from free and open discussion. Asking you to present my best wishes to Mr. George for a pleasant trip and a safe return, I am, yours very truly,

SETH LOW.

FROM THE PRESIDENT OF BROWN UNIVERSITY.

BROWN UNIVERSITY, PROVIDENCE, R I, Jan. 13, 1890.

My Dear Sir: Your invitation to be present as the guest of the Manhattan single tax club at the farewell dinner to Henry George is received with thanks. I should be delighted to be present, and would be but for circumstances which render it virtually impossible. I have the utmost respect for Mr. George, which I lose no occasion to proclaim. Very respectfully yours,

E. BENJ. ANDREWS.

FROM A YALE PROFESSOR.

NEW HAVEN, Jan. 12, 1890.

Dear Sir: I am extremely sorry to say that I have another enagement^sic for the evening of the 20th, which I cannot possibly break. Let me thank you sincerely both for the invitation itself and for the manner in which it was given. Please assure the committee of my appreciation of their courtesy, and my regret at being unable to accept it. Very truly yours,

ARTHUR T. HADLEY.

FROM THE AUTHOR OF THE “MILLS BILL^sic”

WASHINGTON, D. C^sic., Jan. 15, 1890.

Dear Sir: I have yours of the 13th inst., inviting me to attend a farewell dinner to Mr. Henry George on the eve of his departure for Australia. I regret that public business here will prevent me from accepting your invitation, and bidding Mr. George a safe and pleasant journey to the distant land to which he goes. I do not think he is acting for the best for America in leaving it at this time. He is doing a great work here in organizing op-

p. 8, col. 3 position to commercial strangulation, falsely called protection. I do not agree with him in his single tax ideas, but I do thoroughly agree with him in his opposition to monopolies, trusts and combinations to plunder the people. I hope you may have a happy reunion, and he may have a safe return to his native land. Yours truly,

R. Q. MILLS.

FROM EX-SPEAKER CARLISLE.

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVFS^sic, U. S., WASHINGTON, D. C., Jan. 16, 1890.

Dear Sir: I regret that I shall be unable to attend the farewell dinner to be given Mr. George, but the nature of my duties here requires my constant attention^sic

I am thankful for the kind invitation, and join with Mr. George’s friends in wishing him a pleasant voyage and a safe return to this country. Very respectfully,

J. G. CARLISLE.

FROM THE GREAT FREE TRADE OARTOR^sic.

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, U. S., WASHINGTON, D C., Jan. [14?], 1890.

Dear Sir: Yours of the 13th just received, and I thank you for the invitation. I would not hesitate to accept it if it were not that, if I can be absent from Washington on that evening, I have an engagement to answer a toast at another banquet. I am never afraid of committing myself by my presence at such a supper as that given in honor of Henry George. Of course every one knows who has read what he has written and what I have printed, that there are subjects upon which we do not agree, and views which we do not entertain in common; but I am glad of an opportunity to express my sincere admiration for his talents, his attainments and his services to the general cause of the reformation of taxation, and to express my own obligations to him for both the pleasure and the profit I have derived from his publications. I do sincerely unite with those who desire to testify a personal regard for him and to wish for him a pleasant journey to Australia and a safe and happy return. I am, very truly yours,

WM. C. P. BRECKINRIDGE.

MR. BRECKINRIDGE OF ARKANSAS.

COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS, HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVKS^sic, WASHINGTON, Jan. 18, 1890.

Dear Sir: I greatly regret that it will not be possible for me to attend the banquet in honor of Mr. George. Recognizing his ability and patriotism, it would give me much pleasure to participate in any event in his honor. While I cannot subscribe to his more advanced views yet I fully subscribe to the doctrine that taxes on commerce are an evil, as all taxes are, and that to tax the trade of a country, as we now do, is a peculiar hardship upon the laboring people who work for a daily wage, and that it needs extensive reform. Sincerely yours,

C R. BRECKINRIDGE^sic.

FROM THE GRAND MASTER WORKMAN OF THE KNIGHTS OF LABOR.

SCRANTON, Pa., Jan. 15, 1890.

Dear Sir: I have been forced to cancel an engagement to speak on the evening of the 20th inst., at Cohoes, owing to throat trouble, resulting from a combined attack of quinsy and la grippe. I have canceled several engagements on the advice of my doctor, who strongly urges that I do no more speaking this winter. I will not be able to do any speaking and, as a consequence, could not respond to a toast at the farewell dinner to be given to Mr. George.

Convey my regrets to the guests and particularly to Mr. George, and in doing so express for me the sentiment that Mr. George may enjoy a pleasant journey to Australia, and that his stay there may be productive of the greatest good to the cause of land reform.

I hope to be able to welcome him on his return to America with the assurance that the converts to the true doctrine of land taxation have been doubled during his absence.

With sincerest regards, I remain, very truly yours,

T. V. POWDERLY^sic,

FROM THE EDITOR OF HARPER’S WEEKLY.

WEST NEW BRIGHTON, S. I., N. Y., January 17, 1890.

Dear Sir: I am sincerely obliged to you for your friendly invitation to the dinner which it is proposed to give to Mr. Henry George on the 20th of January as a testimony of personal admiration and regard, and I am very sorry that an unusual pressure of occupation and a specific engagement compel me to decline.

I am aware, as you say, that attendance at the dinner would not necessarily imply agreement with the views of Mr. George. But that apprehension would not alarm me. Whatever may be the degree of my agreement with those views, I am always glad to testify my sympathy with Mr. George’s aims and my high appreciation of the ability and temper with which he maintains his opinions. Indeed, an old Brook Farmer who has not renounced the humane hopes and ideals of his youth must always regard with the utmost interest those who are more impressed by the fact of human suffering than by the con- viction of its necessity, and whose lives are earnestly devoted to devising means for its permanent relief. Truly yours,

GEORGE WILLIAM CURTIS^sic.

p. 8, col. 4

LETTERS FROM LEADING LAWYERS.

NEW YORK, Jan. 17, 1890.

My Dear Sir: I regret that I am unable to attend the dinner to be given to Mr. Henry George on the occasion of his departure for New South Wales. It is a long journey that he is about to make, but he cannot travel far or fast enough to reach any country or station where his remarkable utterances shall not have run before him preparing an expectant audience.

Mr. Samuel B. Clarke has clearly proved that Mr. George is entitled to a hearing. But where does he fail to get a hearing whether he is entitled to it or not? Some question has been raised as to the originality of his theories, but though they were as old as Saint George of Cappadocia, it is solely by reason of his extraordinary clearness of statement that they have laid hold upon this generation as both novel and useful.

I do not pretend to accept all that Mr. George teaches, but I do admire and entertain his views on the following points: (1) The individual is to each individual of far more consequence than the government. (2) The government should interfere as little as possible with the individual. (3) The taxes necessary for the support of government economically administered, might well in a normal condition of affairs be levied upon lands exclusive of the value of the improvements thereon. (4) Neither the necessities of man nor his willingness to work or save should be made the basis or measure of taxation. This proposition challenges tariff and income taxes. (5) All franchises derived from the public should contribute to the public treasury a share of their earnings, without unduly increasing the cost of service to that portion of the public making use of the franchise. In the latter event the result is simply that a part instead of all of the public pay a tax in disguise.

Indirect or disguised taxation is always objectionable. One of the most prominent and enthusiastic of our high tariff manufacturers, who writes as well as he works, said to me a few weeks since: “Of course, theoretically the only correct tax is a direct tax, but I want to be practical.” A few years ago, sitting next to a genial and distinguished candidate for the republican nomination for the presidency, I said: “Not as a disputant but as a learner, I should like to hear from you a statement of the underlying principle of protection. Certainly no one can state it better than you.” He answered: “There isn’t any principle about it; protection is purely a matter of experience.” In the recent debate between Mr. Gladstone and Mr. Blaine, the champion of protection relied solely upon an array of facts which he chose to ascribe, as the case might be, to high tariff or low tariff legislation. In the case of each of these three high priests in the temple of protection it thus appears that practical experience of protection for more than a hundred years, under manifold and varying conditions and countries, is not yet old enough or broad enough to permit the induction of a general law.

As between such leaders groping in the dark, and Mr. George carrying a lamp, I should prefer to follow Mr. George, though I must confess that sometimes the lamp seems to me to smoke a little, somewhat obscuring rights of property, without which I doubt whether men would be as industrious as now; and if less industrious less useful and virtuous.

However, in his mission to New South Wales I wish Mr. George “Godspeed,” believing that he will successfully contest the sophisms of high protection. His contest fortunately is to be waged in a jurisdiction where the Australian ballot is in operation under the best possible conditions. I am, your obedient servant,

FRANCIS LYNDE STETSON.

NEW YORK, Jan. 8, 1890.

Dear Mr. Post: I am very much obliged to you for your invitation of this date, and should be very glad to be present at the dinner; but my engagements are such that week that this will be impracticable. I regret this the more because I feel very sensibly how much the cause of reform, both of taxation and of the tariff, owes to Mr. George. Yours faithfully,

E. P. WHEELER.

NO. 31 NASSAU STREET, NEW YORK, Jan. 15, 1890.

Dear Mr. Post: I am just about over an attack of the fashionable malady, and it hardly yet seems prudent for me to undertake the strain, delightful as it would be, of a public dinner. There is an obligation upon me, as upon every American who deems himself liberal, to express his gratitude to Henry George for the light and hope which he has spread through the masses of American men, and for the broader conceptions of social movements and problems to which he has introduced very many men, exceptionally equipped as they supposed themselves, and as they really were, to deal with such movements and problems. I say this the more because I am hostile to some, or at least one, of Mr. George’s propositions (the treatment of present land values), and because I see some of the political bearings of the questions and the practical duties of public men very differently from most of my single tax friends. Whether, however, I be right or wrong in my views, I am clear that there is far larger hope in public life, and that the world is saner, and that the masses of men are not continued on p. 9 →

[text breaks off mid-sentence at the foot of the page; no continuation line is printed, and the letter’s signature does not appear on this page]

A. [(Augustus)?] Healy, President Brooklyn Democratic Club.

I am a democrat, and as such I take profound satisfaction in joining in this tribute of respect to the guest of the evening. And I say this without declaring myself for the single tax. I read “Progress and Poverty,” as everybody does, because it has a power to charm; but I thought it advocated a dangerous and revolutionary measure; and I thought at that time, and I have thought since, in view of the proposition to limit the land tax to the economic requirements of government, that there were other measures of relief which would meet the evil portrayed by Mr. George, and I had in my mind, which was only incidental in his view, that great reform and emancipation which our leader, Grover Cleveland (applause), had in view. But whatever may be the views advocated by Mr. George, every person must admire the sincerity and honesty and noble impulse and warm regard that evidently animated him in his public work. I will also say that, however chimerical we regard the single tax idea, we must respect the profound thought as well as the orderly manner in which it has been agitated.

I can see one great positive benefit, moreover, which is likely to flow from this agitation, that is, the overhauling of the subject of taxation. (Applause.) Everybody knows that the present taxation is monstrously unjust, and that in respect to personal tax it becomes a farce, and if this movement will lead to the abolition of perjury and bribery the single tax movement will have fully justified itself. Mr. George, our guest here this evening, is not looked upon now by us democrats as the same enfant terrible that he was some years ago. (Laughter and applause.) When he brought to our standard a large number of trusted men all this was changed—in 1888, when he became an active ally of the democratic party; when he recognized the fact that tariff reform was the one issue in that campaign. (Applause.) That issue has come, indeed, and it will remain the one issue until it is settled forever, and when it is settled rightly. (Applause.) When Mr. Cleveland launched out upon congress that tariff reform message, from that moment there passed into the veins of the democratic party a righteous cause. It gathered enthusiasm and was strengthened by moral agitation, and like the anti-slavery agitation, so now the effort to bring about industrial freedom has filled the democratic party with a noble ardor and earnestness of purpose and conviction that will carry that banner to certain victory. In a conversation with the Rev. Henry Ward Beecher, one day, I urged that free trade was a greater cause than the abolition of slavery; he was hardly prepared to admit that, but he said: “They are certainly both branches of the same tree—the tree of liberty.” With all our boasted free institutions in America, we are far from enjoying liberty. The freedom that most concerns the millions of people and adds to the comforts of life and make burdens easier to bear is the freedom to exchange our labor and goods to the best advantage. Tariff legislation in congress is in the interests of the small classes to the prejudice of the great masses of the people. We have lately seen the representatives of these favorite classes trooping into the balls^sic of congress, each with his particular little ax to grind, and how very modest they are in their demand: 50 per cent, 100 per cent and 150 per cent tax on the people in their interest is considered as nothing by some of them. You remember the remark made by a tailor when he saw the great Niagara for the first time: “God, what a place to sponge your coat!” (Laughter.)

p. 11, col. 2 So looking at the enormous power of congress, at the enormous power wielded by that legislative body, they say: “God, what a place to sponge the people!” (Laughter.)

This whole horrid system, which deprives us of personal liberty, retards trade, discourages the farmer, reduces the purchasing power of wages and has swept our merchant marine from the high seas, which promotes duplicity and perjury and fraud, which preaches a gospel of selfishness and prevents a friendly feeling which would bring about a brotherhood of nations. The democratic party has declared war against this monstrous system of taxation (applause), and welcomes as allies all single tax men in this great battle for commercial and industrial freedom, and if it is on a similar mission of labor that Mr. George goes to Australia, with all heartiness and sincerity we bid him God-speed.

Daniel C. Beard.

Mr. Chairman and Gentlemen: When Mr. Post asked me to say a few words, I consented, not on account of the compliment nor my sympathy with Henry George’s brave fight. I knew no more how to refuse such an invitation than I do to respond to it now I am here.

My predicament reminds me of the Mississippi river and its steamboats on which the pilots are continually changing their watches or hours of duty. At^sic the same time the channel is changing and the pilots constantly exchange views on its depths. A man in the bow is kept busy throwing the lead. He calls to a sailor on the hurricane deck, the sailor in turn repeating to the pilot at the wheel. One day I was coming up this great river. It was raining and foggy. The man who threw the lead was ill, and the mate called to a son of Erin and asked him if he could do the work. “Indade I can!” he replied. The mate waited for the uusual^sic musical call of “mark twain; deep twelve; no bottom,” etc. Pat threw the lead and shouted “Chu-li-u-liili o-O!” “What,” cried the mate, “do you call that?” “Well, sir, I knew the chune, but clane forgot the words!” answered Pat. (Laughter.)

With Henry George at the wheel we all know we will learn the cry of “Mark twain,” or whatever it is, and progress with him to the mouth of the great Mississippi in advanced thought. (Applause.) . . .

Mr. Post, in a few eloquent words, paid a high tribute to Mr. George’s work, bade him good bye, with hearty wishes for his safe return, and proposed the closing toast:

Henry George.

It is too late for me to say much more than “Good bye.” A speech I will make you, God sparing me and keeping me, when I shall have come back. It has been some years now since our friends in the far south have been pressing me to go there. For a long while I resisted it. I thought, as Mr. Mills has done me the honor of saying, that there was work for me to do here; but at length I yielded to their requests and made them a definite promise. I have looked on it half regretfully until now it begins to seem very pleasant to me—very pleasant again to see the blue waters of the Pacific—very pleasant to see the constellation that I saw when a boy—very pleasant to go back to my old home. It is ten years now, almost, since I left California and came to New York^sic. I knew then almost nobody here. My old California friend, William McCabe, who is here to-night, I met in the street about where THE STANDARD office now stands, and as I have sat here and looked over this gathering and listened to your speeches, that time came back to me.

In those ten years how our cause has gone ahead! (Applause.) Has there been anything like it in the history of such movements before? And I feel now that we have reached a point in which our success, the success of our cause, is only a matter of a little time. It makes no difference now who lives or who dies; it makes no difference now who slinks back or who goes forward. Every wind that blows fills our sails, every current sets in our direction all over the English speaking world; and all over the civilized world our ideas are beginning to spread. Mr. Garrison, you know that meeting in the Rotunda at Liverpool and the friends we saw and the enthusiastic cheers that rose. And now, as I

p. 11, col. 3 leave New York, your greetings follow me. In San Francisco I will meet our friends, tried and true, but no longer the little handful Mr. Mills spoke of, but a strong and ardent band. In New Zealand, in New South Wales, in Victoria, in South Australia, there are those who hold these truths; and who feel that victory is almost within their grasp. The Australians that I met in England this summer told me that in Australia the single tax is going into operation first; our friends in England and Scotland believe that it is there. I don’t know. Wherever it comes first, it comes for us all, and the people who bring it first, to them be the honor and glory and leadership. But, as an American, I have never yet given up the hope that we here may lead. (Applause.) Perhaps—who knows?—it will be in this very state of New York

Mr. Healy, president of the Democratic Club of Brooklyn, representative here to-night of the coming democratic party, we reciprocate your compliments. The democratic party, under the leadership of Grover Cleveland, came rather timorously, but still well and nobly, to our aid, year before last. (Applause.) And again the democratic party, under the leadership of Grover Cleveland, is coming fast to our aid in this effort to purify our election system. (Applause.) For such democrats as the governor of New York state, there will soon be no place in the democratic party. (Applause) Tariff reform! It does well enough for a beginning, but there is no resting ground, no standing place, for tariff reform. Your tariff reformer, if he goes on, as our protectionist friends are going to take very good care that he shall go on, will become a free trader, and you free traders cannot go on without becoming single tax men. (Great applause and laughter.) For only in the single tax—only in the appropriation of that natural fund of which our friend Shearman has spoken; that fund that I think we can confidently say that God, the Creator, has intended for the needs of the community—only by taking that fund and applying it to its proper purpose, can we secure freedom, not merely of exchange, but of all production. The single tax is the ideal and perfect culmination of free trade. (Applause.)

I am going to the ends of the earth; I am going to the Antipodes, but I am going to a community that is really nearest to our American people; to a community that speaks our tongue; that holds our traditions; that on a new continent is building up a great nation. We ought to be close together; we are far apart. The thing that keeps us so far apart, the reason that we of the United States know so little of what is going on in Australia, feel so little of the brotherhood we ought to feel, is not the obstacle of thousands of miles of ocean so much as those artificial obstacles that have been raised by this accursed system that is miscalled “protection.” (Applause.)

I am a citizen of the world, as every man must be who really rises to an appreciation of that great truth of which our friend, Dr. Abbott, has so eloquently spoken, who really understands that the blackest atheism lies in the denial of the brotherhood of man (applause); who really appreciates that He who made the earth for man, and put man upon the earth, is no niggard, no blunderer, but has provided enough and to spare for all. And as such I hope that the future may see something grander than this union of states—a league of the nations of English speech that will be the prelude to the parliament of man, the federation of the world. (Great applause.) To make us one great people we want but perfect freedom of trade—the rest would follow.

I don’t care particularly whether the United States annexes Canada, or Canada annexes the United States (laughter); but I want to see those artificial barriers down, that one may cross the suspension bridge at Niagara Falls without passing a lot of custom house officers on this side, and then another lot of custom house officials on the other side. (Laughter and applause.) They are the real separators of peoples[!?] The movement that is beginning here, the movement against this vile protectionist superstition, against this legalized piracy and legitimatized thieving, is indeed a movement toward the federation of the world.

I hope to come back here next summer to find that more tariff reformers have become free traders, and more free traders single tax men (applause); to find that Mr. Powderly’s proposed plan has been carried out. If it prove that the democratic party in the state of Pennsylvania has sense enough to put at the head of its ticket that true Jeffersonian democrat whose letter has been read here to-night, Chauncey F Black^sic (applause), I hope to be back in time to do what I can in my native state to insure his triumphant election.

In the meantime I think I express the sentiment of all single tax men here, of all single tax men on the other side of the Atlantic, of all single tax men in Australia, when I say that we are grateful to the democratic party for the help it has already afforded us, and still more grateful in our expectations of what it will do in the future. And as a response to the speeches of some of our friends, it will not^sic be inappropriate that we now conclude by drinking the health of the democrat who is leading forward the democratic party in the direction of true democracy—Grover Cleveland. (Great applause.)

p. 11, col. 4

THE PETITION.

SINGLE TAX ENROLMENT COMMITTEE,
36 CLINTON PLACE,
NEW YORK, Jan. 21, 1890.

The single tax enrolment committee is circulating a petition asking the United States house of representatives to appoint a special committee to make inquiry into and report upon the expediency of raising all public revenues by a single tax upon the value of land, irrespective of improvements, to the exclusion of all other taxes, whether in the form of tariffs upon imports, taxes upon internal productions or otherwise. It will send blank petitions on application to any address, and single tax men are urged to obtain petitions and obtain signatures as a most convenient and effective way of starting the discussion of our principles.

Subscriptions toward the expenses of this committee’s work stand as reported last week, viz., $2,731.70.

Cash contributions for the week ending January 21 are as follows:

The enrolment now stands as follows:

WM. T. CROASDALE, Chairman.

NEW YORK CITY.

F. Scrimshaw on “Something Better Than Nationalism”—Rev. S. J. Laidler Addresses the Eastern Division Club.

Last Sunday evening F. Scrimshaw delivered an address before the Brooklyn single tax club on “Something better than nationalism.” The speaker showed how impossible it was to pin the nationalists down to any definite propositions. He showed that their disclaimer of the use of force in carrying out the ideal state pictured in “Looking Backward” was untenable. In the speaker’s opinion their proposition to compel all between the ages of twenty-one and forty-five to engage in some productive occupation was in direct contradiction to their oft repeated assertions that no force would be used. Noncompliance with this law would simply result in the individual being ostracised, the most terrible form of force. After demonstrating that nationalism was collectivism, the speaker went on to show how, under the single tax, the individual would have the fullest possible scope for the exercise of his powers, and that his reward would only be limited by his ability and application.

Hereafter discussions of the single tax and kindred subjects will be a more conspicuous feature of the regular Wednesday evening meetings. January 23 protection and free trade will be discussed. Many who have heretofore refrained from participating in the Wednesday evening meetings will no doubt be more frequent in attendance.

John Britton, Brooklyn, E. D.—The Eastern district single tax club of Brooklyn held its first meeting under the provisions of the new constitution and by-laws Wednesday evening, January 16^sic, at their new rooms, Prohibition hall, corner Bedford avenue and South Third street. The meeting was treated to a magnificent address on the subject, “The effects of free trade on a nation” by the Rev. S. J. Laidler of Brooklyn. As an argument for the total abolition of the whole protective robbery this address has never been excelled. If I may take the liberty I would suggest to single tax clubs in the vicinity that they now have a splendid opportunity of asking Mr. Laidler to repeat this lecture before them.

The Oswego Seamen and the Single Tax—Albany and the Electric Light Question.

Alexander Skillin, Oswego.—At the last meeting of the Oswego seamen’s benevolent assembly, Knights of Labor, the following resolutions were unanimously adopted:

Resolved, That we favor the abolition of taxes upon industry and the products of industry, and the taking by taxation upon land values, irrespective of improvements, of the annual rental value of all those various forms of natural opportunities embraced under the general term—land.

Resolved, That we hold that to tax labor or its product is to discourage industry.

Resolved, That we hold that to tax land values to their full amount will render it impossible for any man to exact from others a price for the privilege of using those bounties of nature which all living men have an equal right of use. That it will compel every individual controlling natural opportunities to either utilize them by the employment of labor, or abandon them to others; that it will thus provide opportunities of work for all men, and secure to each the full reward of his labor, and that as a result involuntary poverty will be abolished, and the greed, intemperance and vice that springs from poverty and the dread of poverty will be swept away.

Albany.—Our single tax club has taken hold of the electric light question in a vigorous manner. At the meeting of Sunday, January 12, delegates were present from about twelve of the local assemblies of the Knight of Labor^sic. The result of correspondence with the mayors of those cities which operated their own plants were read, and a committee appointed to draft a suitable petition to be circulated among the people of Albany.

News from Johnstown, Philadelphia, Pittsburg and Bradford.

Richard Eyre, Johnstown.—The lecture of Henry George on December 17 has done us

p. 12, col. 2 much good. There has been increased interest in the work of our club since that time, and there have been a number of new members admitted. Mr. Moxham delivered the first lecture of the new series on Monday evening, January 6, his subject being “Wages are paid out of the laborers’ earnings and not by capital.” The Monday following each lecture will be devoted to a debate on the subject previously lectured upon, one member taking the affirmative and one the negative side. Each person present will be asked to take sides, and interesting meetings should take place.

Partly through the single taxers a Jeffersonian democratic club will soon be formed here, and we think we may be able to do some good in the ranks of the Jeffersonians.

William J. Campbell, Philadelphia.—I feel that the great mass of people seem to desire some sort of freedom, and I can safely say they will ultimately drift toward the single tax. Such is the power of truth.

Edward Hill, Pittsburg.—We are getting many of the old-time protectionists into the doubtful column. One year ago it was hard work to get men to talk about tariff reform, but now we single tax men can talk free trade and single tax all we please and find listeners. We are moving along the line fast.

W. E. Proctor, Bradford.—Bradford is heavy on the single tax question.

Skilled Workmen Invited to Stay Away from Cleveland.

Cleveland.—At the last meeting of the Central labor union the reports of trades were: Bakers, dull; brewers, dull; Carpenters’ union No. 11, dull; Carpenters’ union No. 234, dull; Carpenters’ union No. 449, dull; cigarmakers, dull; Molders’ No. 27, dull; Molders’ No. 218, quiet; Molders’ No. 247, quiet; painters and decorators, dull; patternmakers, fair; printers (English), good; printers (German), dull; salesmen, good; tailors, dull. This is a notice to stay away.

Mapping Out a Plan of Campaign in Chicago—other News.

Chicago—The committee on local taxation of the single tax club held a meeting last week for the purpose of mapping out a line of campaign in the approaching election for city assessors. It is intended to make a vigorous fight for the nomination, by either one or the other of the two dominant parties, of candidates pledged to reform in the rating of vacant and improved lots. The single taxers, backed by a large contingent of business and professional men and nearly all the labor organizations, complain that improved property is discriminated against in the most outrageous manner. the vacant^sic lots, held purely for speculative purposes, escaping with light and inadequate taxation. It is held that the houses of laboring men, the business and professional men, the workers, are assessed unreasonably high, while the speculator, holding out of use land equally as valuable as that which is improved, escapes his just burden of the expense of government.

Edward Osgood Brown, who spoke recently before the economic conference at the Auditorium on the “Abolition of Privilege,” will deliver an address under the auspices of the single tax club at the Grand Pacific hotel on Thursday evening, January 30. His subject will be “The Legal Aspect of the Single Tax,” and a special invitation to attend the meeting will be given to the legal profession.

Father Hunington^sic will return to Chicago about February 12 to unite in marriage a well known single tax journalistic writer of Chicago to a single tax lady. Father Huntington^sic will be in the city about ten days, and will deliver several addresses.

Municipal ownership of gas and water works and means of transportation within thecity^sic, the subject discussed by two hundred members of the Sunset club at a dinner a short time since, brought out the fact that a majority of them were in favor of municipal ownership of all monopolistic franchises. The gathering was composed to representative citizens^sic.

Forging Ahead in Kansas City—Progress in St. Louis.

H. W. Allen, Kansas City.—Our club is in a most prosperous condition. We find our new club rooms just what were needed. They are open every evening, and any one is welcome to come in. A picture of Henry George rests in a nice frame on the wall and a STANDARD file is on the table. Our meetings are conducted according to strict parliamentary rules. All visitors are given perfect liberty to oppose our doctrines. At our last meeting Mr. Gilmer read a paper on “Nationalism.” Our club is full of nationalists, if you modify the term to mean those who believe that the state should own all monopolies. Indeed, the writer of this letter is secretary of the National club here, and he yields to none as a single taxer unlimited.

Percy Pepoon, St. Louis.—The St. Louis

p. 12, col. 3 single tax league, at its January business meeting, elected the following officers for the ensuing six months: Henry H. Hoffman, president; Percy Pepoon, vice-president; J. W. Steele, recording secretary; T. J. Donohue, financial secretary; L. F. Meyer, treasurer. A dozen new members were admitted, among the number being several quite prominent citizens. Arrangements are being made for a complimentary dinner to Mr. George on the 24th, if he can stop here on his way to the Pacific coast.

The Memphis Scheme Working Admirably—They Are Coming Our Way.

Memphis.—The last issue of the Weekly Appeal contains a column and a half of single tax matter edited by Boiton Smith^sic for the Memphis single tax association.

Malcolm H. McDowell, Memphis.—I never miss on opportunity^sic to talk for the cause, and it is encouraging to see how many are coming our way.

A Labor Paper Comes Over to the Single Tax.

James Fitzgerald, Dallas.—Hitherto I have not been as energetic as I might in obtaining signatures to the petition, but I have resolved with the new year to turn over a new leaf.

W. J. Morrison, San Antonio.—We are now in a position to do good propaganda work, having a good supply of literature on hand. The Texas Labor Journal used to be strong on the greenback question, but continued single tax talk and the position of Powderly on the land question has changed the paper into a first class single tax paper.

Waiting for George—Eyes Opened Amid the Orange Groves.

George M. Craig, Los Angeles.—The hard times and difficulty in raising money with which to pay taxes is opening the eyes of the people here, and they will talk and reason with us now. The best result of the present condition of affairs here is the effect it is having on the single tax men. They want to be at work doing something practical; so I have sent to the enrolment committee for petition blanks, which I will give to our friends, and they can then employ themselves in procuring signatures. Great interest is manifested in Mr. George’s contemplated visit and lecture here.

Massachusetts.

Willard W. Gray, Lynn.—At the last meeting of our club the following officers were elected for the ensuing year: C. H. Libby, president; S. C. Bryant, vice-president; John McCarty, secretary; James J. Gage, treasurer.

Rhode Island.

Edward Barker, Pawtucket.—Mr. Thomas G. Shearman, representing the single tax men of Rhode Island, had a hearing a few days ago before a joint special committee of the legislature, appointed to examine into state taxation. The hearing took place in the senate chamber and there were present many legislators, literary men, business men and lawyers. Mr. Shearman presented the single tax idea clearly and eloquently, and was heard with close attention.

Senator Garvin, a leader in the single tax movement, introduced Mr. Shearman and afterward spoke upon figures set forth by John McCaffrey of Pawtucket, These figures^sic show an astonishing undervaluation of land on the main street of this town. Mr. McCaffrey has shown that the land alone is worth at least $400,000 more than the assessed value of land and buildings. One legislator questioned the accuracy of Mr. McCaffrey’s estimates, but the latter gave convincing evidence of their trustworthiness by quotations from recent sales.

England.

The London Democrat, Jan. 1.—Many of the reforms for which the Democrat pleaded a few years ago, like the voice of one crying in the wilderness, have already been accepted by the liberal party in council assembled. But most important of all is the advance of that reform which is at once the basis and the safeguard of all other reforms, without which all other reforms are in the long run little worth. The year that witnessed the “Henry George campaign” of 1889 would in any case be a noteworthy epoch in the history of land reform. That campaign has brought forth fruit speedily and abundantly, and Christmas finds the liberal party in London and throughout England definitely pledged to the taxation and rating of ground rents and values; while largely owing to the action of the London county council in demanding that those who benefit by public improvements shall no longer escape paying their share of the cost, the same question looms larger than ever before in municipal

p. 12, col. 4 politics. It ought not to be necessary to remind readers of the Democrat how much of this progress is due to the untiring work of the English land restoration league and the “united committee,” or to bespeak for those societies the continued support which will enable them to enter upon the work of the new year with renewed energy and hope.

Denmark.

Fernando Linderberg of Frederiksberg is pushing the single tax propaganda vigorously in Demark^sic. He is not only editor of a little paper called Programmet, but has also published a small volume of 150 pages called “Henry George og hans Social Program.” In this book he sketches Mr. George’s life and work to the year 1879, states the leading principles of “Progress and Poverty,” and shows how the single tax idea may be brought into practical politics in Denmark. Mr. Linderberg intends to publish a second volume giving an account of single tax propaganda in various countries, and especially dealing with the land restoration movement in Great Britain.

Scotland.

Dundee.—In not a few of the counties of Scotland the gage of battle has been thrown, and the conflict between landlords and tenants—rent receivers and rent payers—will soon be raging with full force. The cause of war is the election of county councillors. Experience has given painful proof that owners [landlords] as a class are more prejudiced and self-interested in their deliberations and decisions than tenants; and it would be suicidal to place the lairds in a position enabling them to afford additional evidence of their extreme aptitude for taking care of themselves. The very fact that so many of them are already seeking seats at the county boards should warn the electors to be shy of accepting their services.

Australia.

New South Wales.—A correspondent of the Nonconformist, referring to the way in which the single tax is winning adherents among the English Congregationalists, says:

At one time George’s theories were supposed to be quite unworthy of serious consideration by English economists; now they seem in a fair way to be the ideas of land reformers everywhere. Certainly, in Australia Henry George is exercising great influence over reformers. The free trade conference had to accept as one of the possible articles of “liberalism” the doctrine of the single tax. Many kick lustily against it; others are afraid what may come out of such revolutionary doctrines; but the people here—and you may spell it with a big P—are becoming converts to the American’s view of things, and they are pressing for the application of the principle to land reform in this country. And the disciples of George, too, are active. They are making their voices heard everywhere—at election meetings, in debating societies, in political clubs, and even in the legislative assembly. In recent discussions in the assembly, one can easily trace the influence of this new teacher.

New Zealand.

Wellington.—A single tax society has been organized here, the members of which are devoting themselves to spreading the doctrine.

South America.

Rio de Janeiro.—There ought to be a vigorous land restoration movement in Brazil, and probably soon will be as a result of the abolition of chattel slavery. Such a movement is wanted. To Dom Pedro is personally due the honor of slave emancipation. Where he did not go far enough was on the land question. It seems hardly credible, but the involved, irrational English law for the tenure of real property was imported into Brazil, when this century was young. A number of statutes have since been passed which favor the creation of great estates and prevent them being broken up. The duties on the transfer of land are so heavy as to prevent it being sought after as an investment by small agriculturists, who can only lease it. If things were suffered to go on for fifty years more as they have been doing, the whole territory of Brazil, vast though its area is, would be in the hands of fewer persons than the territory of Great Britain at the present hour. Comte d’Eu, the Jesuits and other religious orders were grand appropriators; gigantic tracts remained out of cultivation. Each great land holder waited to see what some other might do in the way of making a road. Railways latterly were developed to a length of 4,000 miles, and steam navigation woke up the lovely coast towns to activity. Emigrants poured in from Italy, Portugal, Germany and the Basque country, and found that the imperial government had no land to give or sell them. There was a greedy class of courtiers waiting for the “unearned increment” which the laborious strangers were going to create. Thousands stayed in coast towns because they did not want to work on plantations. Some of them went to the Argentine Republic, where there is absolute equality and the land tenure is better, to say nothing of the climate.

These Be Brave Words.

J. P. Weaver,

Every law which denies to man his natural God-given rights, is null and void, an insult to the race.

THE GREAT BALLOT REFORM MEETING.

The Press on the Great Meeting.

The Times: The ballot reform meeting at the Cooper Union was large and enthusiastic and gave evidence of a widespread interest in the cause among men of all parties. . . . It is not a party question in any proper sense, for Charles S. Fairchild and Wheeler H. Peckham are quite as likely to represent the actual democratic sentiment in this state as David B. Hill, and it is certain that if Hill succeeds again in postponing this reform—for he cannot defeat it—he can never more command the united support of his party in New York. It will be the death knell of his political hopes.

The Herald: You can’t raise chickens out of porcelain eggs; neither can you have any reform whatever if you have an unofficial ballot. . . . If Governor Hill insists upon an unofficial ballot we know why.

The World: The gathering of so great a crowd to hear speeches on a political subject when no political contest is in progress indicates the extent to which the people are interesting themselves in the purification of elections.

The Tribune: How deep and widespread is the interest in ballot reform is indicated by the fact that Senator Saxton has already received 300 applications for copies of his bill.

The Press: The ballot reform meeting at the Cooper union ought to satisfy any republican member of the legislature who had doubts on the subject, that the improved system of voting provided for in the Saxton bill has ample public sentiment behind it.

The Star: Ex-Secretary Fairchild’s address at the ballot reform meeting on Thursday night was pronouncedly democratic. . . . He declared that ballot reform is essentially a democratic measure, because the democratic party would necessarily profit most by the suppression of election corruptions.

The Mail and Express: The ballot reform meeting in Cooper union last Thursday night was a big success. There was a large and intelligent audience; the speeches were brilliant, well reasoned and unanswerable. The enthusiasm never flagged. . . . At any rate, the bill should be and will be passed, leaving Governor Hill, if he chooses to put in a third veto, to encounter the storm of disapproval that would follow from every right minded citizen of the Empire state.

The Morning Sun, the Evening Sun and the Evening News are silent. They are probably waiting for word from above—that is to say, Albany.

An Example Worth Imitating.

The New York Times and the Press have printed the blank of the New York ballot reform league in their columns for the convenience of their readers who may desire to sign it, with instructions to convey them to headquarters. This will be a valuable aid to the enrolment committee, and will largely increase the enrolment.

The Binghamton Trades Federation Favor the Official Ballot.

At the last meeting of the trades federation of Binghamton the principal subject of discussion was ballot reform, and a resolution was adopted favoring the adoption by the legislature of a bill containing the five points set forth elsewhere in this department.

Here is a Good Idea.

Alexander George, San Francisco.—Now that a new year has begun, and that the agitation in favor of the Australian ballot system is being renewed, it would be well that we should know exactly what has been accomplished in relation to this reform, and what remains to be done. As you are aware, it was stated last year that the Australian plan had been adopted in Tennessee, while it now turns out that the application of the law is limited to the three cities, Nashville, Memphis and Chattanooga, with the counties containing the first two of these. I would suggest, therefore, that our friends in the different states be invited to answer the following questions: Was an Australian ballot bill introduced at the last session of the legislature of your state! Did it pass! If so, what is the scope of its application? In regard to my own state, I may say that an Australian ballot bill was rejected at the last session of the legislature, being opposed by

p. 13, col. 4 a majority of both parties. Now, however, the leading democratic papers of this city advocate the Australian plan, while the leading republican paper opposes it.

Are These Hints From Hills?

New York Star.

Democrats should not omit to advert to the necesssity^sic of impartial annual general registration as part of any new election law. The republican game is to shirk the registration issue under the pretense that that subject could best be dealt with in a separate act. In fact, no plan for adapting the Australian method to our elections can be effective without it. The work of reformation must be done by “leveling up.” The registration all over the state must be made to conform to the standard of that which has proved so succesful^sic in the city New York^sic.

New York Fun.

The first step in the direction of real ballot reform in this state must be the adoption of a law by the republican legislature making registry uniform throughout the state, so that the republican farm hand or factory worker, equally with the democratic farmer or artisan, must, by personal attendance in advance of the election, have his name inscribed on the list of qualified voters.

The second step in the direction of real ballot reform must be the enumeration of all the voters of the states^sic as provided for by the constitution, to the end that there may be a new apportionment—deferred by the republicans since 1885—so that the legislature to be elected may be truly representative of the voters. To alter the form of ballot, without altering the injustice of non-representation, would be to aggravate, not to abate, grave existing evils.

Perceives the Signs of the Times.

Boston Globe.

Governor Hill has evidently perceived the signs of the times. While he concedes the value of the secret compartment, he is opposed to the uniform official ballot. But this would perpetuate one of the chief abuses of the old system, which is the assessment of candidates on pretext of expenses in printing the ballots. That makes it well nigh impossible for an honest poor man to run for office and is one of the chief things to be reformed.

Press Opinions.

“Voting cattle” would be a worthless commodity under such a law. Governor Hill does not wish their market destroyed.—[Chicago News.

The ward worker will have none of his honest dues abated if Governor Hill can prevent it.—[Memphis Avalanche.

Mr. Hill wants to reform the ballot without injecting the first principles of ballot reform. —[Minneapolis Journal.

Governor Hill rolls up his sleeves manfully to the task of showing that the Australian ballot system is not a success, and ought not to be adopted in New York. But he doesn’t succeed. It’s too late to stop the progress of ballot reform.—[Cambridge, Mass., Tribune.

The universal success of the Australian ballot system wherever it has been tried in America has made it clear even to the opponents of the law that it is the correct solution to our election troubles.—[Louisville Post.

Governor Hill comes slowly, mulishly and ungracefully over to the side of ballot reform. He has got both hands and one leg over on the right side of the fence, so that his sole remaining objection is the official ballot. There is nothing in his objections that cannot be smoothed away without giving up the official ballot.—[Philadelphia Record.

If Governor Hill and Tammany are among the obstructionists the people will send them back into private life with an explosion of universal indignation that will resemble the crack of doom. We want ballot reform, and we propose to have it. To those who oppose it we simply say, remember the story of Stephenson and the cow.—[New York Herald.

Hill’s Soliloquy.

What shall I do? The vulgar throng, To precedent submissive long Now clamor loudly ’gainst the wrong Of ballots bought and sold; Nor humbly do they take their stand, But loud and fierce is their demand That swept shall be from out the land The briber and his gold.

What shall I do? Insult the boys? Deprive them of election’s joys? Disturb the sacred equipoise Of heelers’ souls content? What would become of Tammany? And, oh! what would become of me? How it would please old Grover C. If I should but consent!

Yet if I thought this clam’rous crew, Who seek election systems new, Had strength enough to bear me to The chair of Harrison, Oh! quickly would I sign the law, Nor care if ev’ry heeler’s paw From labor new should blister raw, Before the set of sun.

But pshaw! The beggars only score One ballot each. I value four Good heelers worth, for voting, more Than fifty of their kind. So let them howl. I’ll do the same— A DEMOCRAT myself proclaim— Deception is the road to fame; The bill shall not be signed!

[MUGWUMP?].

James A. Herne’s Address Before the Brooklyn Single Tax Club.

In THE STANDARD of last week we printed a brief report of the reading and lecture given by James A. Herne in Avon hall under the auspices of the Brooklyn single tax club. Mr. Herne’s speech was an eloquent presentation of the single tax doctrine, and at the request of many who listened to it with delight we give it in full. It was as follows:

It is with extreme pleasure that I embrace the opportunity to meet you here this evening, to say what little I can say in aid of the stupendous task undertaken by Henry George and his followers; the task of abolishing involuntary poverty by that radical, just, positively effective, yet simple method of tax reform known as the single tax.

At a meeting in Chickering hall, Boston, a few weeks since, Professor Hamlin Garland delivered an address, in the course of which he gave the definition of poverty, which was new to me, and which I considered quite remarkable. I will quote it. Said he: “Poverty does not necessarily mean starvation, rags and a hovel; poverty is the inability of a man to gratify his reasonable wants by the fruits of his industry or skill.” Does not this seem to you just? Does it not seem right that a man should be able to gratify his reasonable wants by his industry or skill? Yet when you reflect it is not the case in general. How many hundreds of thousands of men, who toil ten to sixteen and eighteen hours a day, and are unable to obtain the bare necessities of life, to say nothing of their reasonable wants.

I am here to-night to lend my hand to the abolition of involuntary poverty. I consider this the greatest reform movement of the nineteenth century; I regard it as the corner stone of absolute liberty, perfect equality, and unshrinking fraternity. The religion of man and the gospel of Christ himself, he who taught that true Christianity, the brotherhood of man. True, he taught humility, but he did not teach injustice. He taught the humility of the soul, the humility of men before the Great Creator, not the humility of the worldly poor toward the worldly rich. He taught not the divinity of kings, but the divinity of men, and that that man was most Godlike who was most just to his fellowmen. No man has ever lived to more purpose than Jesus Christ. He came into the world, and dedicated himself to a mission; the mission of justice. He preached against tyranny and wrong; he lifted up the lowly, downtrodden and oppressed; he blest the little children; he honored the mothers; he restored the right; he healed the sick; he clothed the naked, and he fed the hungry. Was not this of a verity a divine mission; and if there be divinity of origin, had not he, above all men, the right to claim it? He died; he left many followers and disciples, but alas, while they have preached the divinity of Christ they utterly lost sight of the humanity of Christ; and this is one of the reasons why it is, that after eighteen hundred years of Christianity and civilization, with thousands of costly, architecturally grand churches, and tens of thousands of gorgeously surpliced and magnificently paid priests and ministers, with high salaried sopranos and altos and contraltos, with first and second tenors, with baritones and bassos, with madrigal boys, with organs and cornet soloists, with church dignitaries and pillars, with velvet shod ushers, with lights and glitter, with memorial windows, beautifully blending with the heavens’ sunlight, with gold and silver, with rituals and anthems, with baptism and sacraments, with iron-tongued, deep-throated bells, and carefully attuned chimes, and all the pomp and circumstance of glorious, modern religion, with charitable institutions, with reformatories, with jails and penitentiaries, with free schools and libraries, with science and invention taxed to the uttermost, to lighten the labor and add to the blessings of humanity, it comes to pass that after eighteen hundred years, we find oppression still oppressive; tyranny still tyrannous, and labor still laborious. Poverty no longer sulks in the shadow, but stalks boldly forth, as if to mock the sun; the nakedness of old has given place to the hideousness of rags and filth, and vice has walked hand in hand and kept perfect step with death.

Man has subjugated the very elements to his will, but he has not been able to banish hunger from a land that overflows with milk and honey. The world at large has found Christ, the man unprofitable, so it withholds justice, and bestows charity in the name of God the Father; grinds down the poor, robs them of their wages, and builds churches to the glory of God on high. Many of you here to-night will deny this; others will pause to ask this^sic, “Can this be true?” All will want to know whence comes this power of the rich, to so oppress the poor; of the few, to enslave the many. I will answer the question. It is through that legalized infamy, the right of inheritance in and individual ownership of land. Henry George denies the right of such inheritance, of such ownership, and asserts and maintains, with sublime justice, that the only property which can be honestly bequeathed or owned, is that which is the product of individual industry or skill, and which can be retained and increased in value, only through the industry and skill of the inheritor or p. 14, col. 2 owner. True, human statutes have legalized the individual ownership of land, and thus have greed and avarice thriven. By this acquired right have the privileged few been able to control the bounties of nature; and to turn these gifts into a lash with which to scourge the backs of the poor—an instrument to crush the creators of wealth. How few inventors and how few workers profit by their work. The rich grow richer and the poor poorer. Every improvement introduced into a village, town or city, means an increase of rent, an additional burden to the poor; light a town with electricity or gas, up goes the rents. Introduce water, build a sewer, improve the sanitary condition of a loathsome quarter, and np^sic go the rents, while all the time fewer and fewer become the opportunities for work. The struggle for work becomes fiercer, the employer takes advantage of the situation, and down go the wages.

Do you not see that unjust taxation and exorbitant rents are the fixers of wages; that the more tax you put on bread, the hungrier the workingman must go; the more exorbitant the rents, the more abject the hovel he must occupy, the more fiercely he must struggle to obtain even this, the more willing he must be to do any kind of work at any kind of wages, so that he may at least partially clothe and feed the bodies of his wife and children. You ask, how does all this misery and suffering profit the rich man? I answer, destroy the accursed privilege of land monopoly, give every man an equal chance at the opportunities of the earth, and you place it beyond the power of any one man, rich or poor, to oppress any other man. The abolition of slavery was a great thing; it meant emancipation of a portion of the human race lawfully held in bondage. The abolition of poverty is greater; it means the emancipation of the entire human race, now lawfully held in bondage. If it were wrong for one man to own another, merely because that other was born black, surely it is tenfold more wrong to-day for one man to own another merely because that other was born poor. Were there no special privileges, there would be no involuntary poverty; were there no special privileges, there could be no fixers of wages. What I mean by “fixer” is that no man could pay another fifty cents for doing a dollar’s worth of work, and coolly place the other fifty cents, which he did not earn, in his own pocket. Were there no special privileges, one class could not live in insolent luxury upon the sweat and blood of the other; could not purchase foreign titles for their silly daughters—daughters who are believed to be representative American ladies. I have read much of the insults of the American flag by anarchists and others, but I can conceive no greater insult to that beautiful emblem than that offered by these traffickers in titles. Born beneath the flag of Freedom, and bartering through ownership and wealth for the very titles which the designers of that flag sufficed^sic their lives to abolish. What an insult to the signers of the Declaration of Independence! The divinity of kings I deny, but I maintain the divine right of every child born into this world to start the race of life upon free and equal conditions with every other child born at the same moment. Nationality, creed or color should be no barrier to that perfect equality designed for all by the great Creator of the universe. The right of the child to exist is manifested by its birth, as is its right to a just share of this earth, land or sea, and to all of this world’s goods that it may through life acquire by honest industry, frugality and skill.

I believe in the right of the laborer to labor, of the merchant to trade, the painter to paint, the teacher to teach, the statesman to guide, the actor to act, and the poet to sing; and believe that whosoever abridges the opportunity of any one of these abridges the opportunities of all, and that whosoever demands tribute from any one of these forces tribute from all, and is therefore a robber and oppressor, whether his name be Nero or Carnegie, whether he dwell in ancient Rome, or live in modern free America. By the way, Mr. Carnegie has an article in the December North American Review^sic, entitled, “The Best Fields of Philanthropy,” in which he asserts that vast wealth must inevitably remain in the hands of the few exceptional managers of men, but says that this surplus wealth should be regarded as a sacred trust, to be administered during the lives of the owners for the benefit of the community in which and from which it has been acquired. For the benefit of the community in which and from which it has been acquired! There is the truth, and the only truth in that statement, and he insists that the benevolent millionaire shall not administer this trust so as to pauperize his beneficiaries; “for as I know them,” says Mr. Carnegie, “there are few millionaires, very few indeed, who are free from this sin of having made beggars.” “A Daniel come to judgment,” say I. Mr. Carnegie suggests as some of the best uses of this wealth as palliative for bodily ills the founding of schools of learning and free libraries, the opening of public parks, the erection of statues, the building of public halls, the opening of free swimming baths, the building of churches, etc. Do not you see that all these would bear the same^sic, and perpetuate the memory of the donors! Mr. Carnegie is not a philanthropist, nor are any of the p. 14, col. 3 millionaires philanthropists. By philanthropy they mean charity; a vastly different thing.

The single tax is philanthropic; it despises charity; it dispenses only broad, even handed justice. The great Norwegian philosopher, Ibsen, says there must be one aristocracy, and only one; not the aristocracy of wealth, not the aristocracy of birth, not even the aristocracy of intellect; but the aristocracy of individuality, the aristocracy of will, of mind, of character. The mind, to see the truth, the will to dare to speak it, a character for justice, and this aristocracy will come from the woman and the workingman. I know of no one to-day who comes nearer to fulfilling all the conditions of this aristocracy than Henry George. He has the mind to see the truth; he has a will to dare to speak it, and his character for justice is unimpeachable. He, too, like his master of eighteen hundred years ago, has a mission in this world; a mission of justice. He would lift the yoke of tyranny from the necks of the down trodden and oppressed; he would bless little children by vouchsafing them their birthright; he would honor the mother by placing the star of liberty above the cradle of her sleeping babe; he would heal the sick by making it possible for them to breathe the pure air of heaven instead of the death dealing atmosphere of the pest-ridden tenement house; he would feed the hungry, by giving them the opportunity to earn their daily bread; he would clothe the naked in habiliment of industry, frugality and honesty; all these would he accomplish by the simple method of tax reform. By tax reform, I do not mean tariff reform; for while tax is tariff and tariff is tax, a fact disputed and denied by many, still there is a distinction and a difference between tax reform and tariff reform. Tariff reform may mean much or little; there can be no doubt about the signification of tax reform; it means the abolition of all taxes on industry, and the levying of one single tax upon land values; not upon land, mark you, but upon the site values of the land; not upon anything which individual man has devised, invented, created or wrought, but upon that which the Creator has devised for the benefit of mankind at large; that which can derive value only from the community to whom it belongs, and for whose common benefit, a rental or single tax should be collected from the individual enjoying an exclusive privilege in its use. It means the absolute right of one man to freely trade the product of his labor for that of another. It means the abolition of custom houses throughout the land; it means that no man shall hold land out of use to the detriment of his fellow man; it means the destruction of all trusts and corners; it means to render it impossible for any man to grow rich through idleness, and possible for all men to thrive by honest industry; it means the destruction of land speculation, and through this, the death of all monopoly with its attendant train of ulcers that are festering and eating into the very heart of our civilization.

The single tax denies the charge of oversupply and limited demand; it asserts that there is demand enough, but that that demand has not the opportunity to earn the wherewithal to purchase the supply. It asserts that there are no more people than the earth can sustain; it denies that there is an oversupply of houses, of coal, of iron, of oil and gas, of woolens and cottons, of hides and tallow, of boots and shoes, of breadstuffs and salt. It asks you to walk with it any winter’s night, and it will take you through the public parks, and through the quarters of the city’s poor and show you the throngs of ragged, freezing, starving, shoeless, houseless men, women and little children, to be met with on every hand. It will then ask you if you are not convinced that there is demand enough; if that demand had but the power to satisfy its needs. It denies that these men, women and children freeze, starve, beg and steal from choice. It charges their condition to our unjust system; to unjust taxation. It points to the fact, as shown by Thomas G. Shearman, that 250,000 men own half the wealth of these United States; and that that wealth has been concentrated within thirty years through special privileges in land appropriation, and it asks you to ponder upon it. It asks, if these privileges continue unhindered for the next thirty years, if the same 250,000 men, or their inheritors, will own the other half of the country, and with it 70,000,000 or 80,000,000 of slaves. All the inequalities which I have here set forth can be equalized by tax reform, and without infringing one hair’s breadth upon the rights of any individual millionaire or pauper.

The single tax does not ask the equalization of wealth; it asks the equalization of opportunity. Then let the capacity assert itself. No, my friends, you who have come here to-night, who have not believed with us, who do not even now believe with us, we do not come to tear down the houses in which you live, but to build you other and better houses, and to ask you to occupy them, and when you have done so, you have enjoyed their improvements, their better sanitary condition, their improved heating and ventilating, the magnificent views from their windows and balconies; we will ask you to look back and tell us candidly, if you are not astonished, that you could have enjoyed the old house so long. And you, the women, here to-night, we call your attention to the fact that the single tax is fighting p. 14, col. 4 your cause equally with that of the men; fighting for those rights which have been so long and so unjustly denied you; the right of a voice in all the great, essential and political questions of the day; a right to a voice and representation in that government which has control over the destinies of the lives you bring into the world; the right above all things to demand for yourself and your daughters a man’s wages for doing a man’s work.

I have been asked by some of my brother actors how the labor struggle can possibly concern the actor in his art. I will not go into detail, as I expect to deliver an exhaustive address on this part of the whole question at an early day. I will merely say here that all art is dependent upon trade, trade upon labor, and so on to the end, and that labor must be aided by art in its unequal struggle against oppression, to the end that art herself may assert her prerogative and lighten the pathway of the thousands of humble toilers who are prevented from coming to her support only by the unjust restriction of labor. I assert that the depression in our art to-day is the direct result of the depression of labor. I say that the best patrons of dramatic art are to be found in the middle classes, among the workingmen and women, and will be found in a relative degree among the common laborers just as soon as the common laborers are given time to do anything but to toil and sleep. I say to the actors, better the condition of your workingman and your laborer and you will increase the number of patrons of the dramatic art. Increase the patrons of dramatic art, and you must increase the number of dramatic temples. Increase the number of dramatic temples, and you must increase the demand for actors. Increase the demand for actors, and you must increase the salaries of actors. Increase the salaries of actors, and you better the social condition of actors. That is exactly what labor has to do with art and art with labor. I confess that I have not always seen thus clearly. It is less than a year ago since I met a man named Hamlin Garland. He was attracted to me by my dramatic work and we met. He says he found me a thinker; I found him a scholar and a philosopher; a giant in intellect; a woman in pity. His great heart was surcharged with the wrongs of the workingmen and the oppression of the privileged class. We talked of men and things, and finally of Henry George. He fairly glowed as he uttered that name. He seemed inspired; he pictured to me the man who had dared, almost unaided and alone, to inaugurate a war against the combined wealth and monopoly of the world; a man who was conducting the campaign against poverty, wherever the English tongue has spoken^sic. Among other things he said: “Herne, in less than fifty years, there will be statues to Henry George in every capital city of the civilized world; in less than fifty years you will see a statue to Henry George on Boston common.” I have pondered much on his words; I believe they are true; the statue will be there, but alas, I fear I will not be there to see it. He placed in my hand a book called “Social Problems.” I read it. I purchased another, called “Progress and Poverty.” I read it, and the scales fell from my eyes and I saw clearly.

Therefore, since Hamlin Garland sowed the seed, it is but fair that he should reap a portion of the harvest; and thus it is that in loving tribute to him I have selected his sketch “Under the Lion’s Paw,” to read in my platform work for our cause. So if you will come with me, I will lead you to the vast prairies of the far west; that territory of free land, that paradise of free men. I will show you how unjust taxation and oppression exist there, just the same as here; that man is as surely crowded out there, where he has not a neighbor within five miles of him, as he is here in the city, with hundreds of thousands of inhabitants. Professor Garland has lived in the far west; he has felt the sting of the lash, the weight of the lion’s paw; he knows whereof he writes.

NOT AFRAID OF FREE TRADE.

Democrats in Iowa Unhesitatingly Sign the Single Tax Petition.

Robert Cumming, Du Quoin, Iowa^sic.—In seeking signatures for the single tax petition I have found many free traders. Protectionists are more wary than ever, and often refuse to sign on seeing the words “to the exclusion of all other taxes, whether in the form of tariffs upon imports, etc.” They seem to see the weakness of their cause and to be conscious of its fast approaching doom. Democrats, on the other hand, seem conscious of being right and confident that the future is theirs.

The wisdom of the policy of seeking to advance our principles along the line of least resistance by throwing ourselves into the free trade fight and aiding those who are doing our work and going our way, must be clear by this time to every unprejudiced single tax man. Here in the city of Du Quoin, I, an avowed absolute free trader, an out-and-out unlimited single tax man, am warmly welcomed by the leading democrats. They unhesitatingly sign the single tax petition. They introduce me to each other with the recommendation that what I want them to sign “is sound democratic doctern.”

On hearing read the arguments printed on the back of the petition that brought forth the general approval of those present, Mayor Solomon in the heartiest manner said, after signing: “If Cleveland is nominated in ’92, that will be the platform on which he’ll stand.” Of course free trade will not be the declaration of the platform, but that will be its meaning and that is what our mayor meant. And we have but to keep our eyes and ears open to be convinced of the rapidly growing popularity of the single tax and to know that free trade will mean free trade with the right source for public revenues to come from. Only a few weeks ago our postmaster confessed to me that, having studied political economy, he did not see how any one acquainted with that science could help being a free trader, but he thought it would not do for him to call himself a free trader. But now, not he alone, but nearly all democrats with whom I have been made acquainted speak of themselves freely as free traders, and it won’t be long until democrats everywhere will have the strength and courage to stand alone, and like true, independent American citizens, be ready to say, “I am a free trader.”

Another willing signer is the Hon. J. J. Higgins, ex-member of the state senate. Contrary to the advice of his friends in 1884, who cautioned him against such radical speeches as he had been making with Morrison (whose congressional district comprises part of this senatorial district), he gave the miners here credit for better sense than to be frightened by what he had to say. He was elected, though his predecessor received a republican majority. The strike in the northern part of this state, so long and bitter, resisting a reduction of wages which the men were finally, after horse flesh eating experiences among them, forced to accept, and that following the campaign cry that “protection fills the dinner pail,” has destroyed the faith of many of the miners in protection, who now swear that they will never again vote the republican ticket.

Free Trade and Not Subsidies.

John F. Hume talks of subsidies in the January issue of Belford’s Magazine. “The business which had begun with congress subsidizing Pacific Mail,” says Mr. Hume, “ended with Pacific Mail attempting to subsidize congress.” This, he believes, will be the history of future government subsidies. The first grant merely paves the way for later and larger grants. He shows that one reason why our trade with South America is small lies in the fact that both countries are mainly agricultural. In addition to this, we put up a tariff wall against many South American products, as wool, for example, and thus directly discourage trade. Finally, through our tariff on raw materials, we make it impossible for our manufacturers to compete in South American markets with European manufacturers.

Mr. Hume affirms that the farmers are the real sufferers by protection and subsidies. He notes, too, the inconsistency of those protectionists who after having preached the home market theory, now demand subsidies to build up a foreign market for their wares. “The intended subsidy would be another straw put upon the back of that ‘patient Issachar’ of American politics, the already overburdened husbandman.” Furthermore, there can be no trade without reciprocity. If we sell to South Americans we must buy of them. Why, then, not begin by tearing down the tariff wall raised to discourage trade. “What is wanted is facility, not subsidy.” Then, too, if ships are needed they must be cheap ships, not ships built of taxed raw materials. If we are to have trade with South America, instead of subsidizing dear ships we must make it possible to buy cheap ships, whether built at home or abroad.

Wants No “Protective” Duty.

Boston Post.

Mr. Macbeth, the glass manufacturer of Pittsburg, who surprised Mr. McKinley’s

p. 15, col. 2 committee by declaring that he wanted no “protective” duty on his wares, but only free materials, has continued his heretical talk since returning from Washington. “In private,” he says, “there are lots of men right here in Pittsburg who acknowledge the truth of my position, but they are afraid to do so in public.” The situation, indeed, appears to be much the same with the glass manufacturers of Pittsburg as with the manufacturers of iron and wool in Massachusetts. Until within a comparatively short time, the latter also have been dumb as to the needs of their own industries; but since one or two of the more courageous or independent dared to open their mouths the habit of speech has become general. It is possible that Mr. Macbeth’s example may have a similar effect in Pennsylvania. All the flint glass industries, he says, would be benefited by free raw material, and with that advantage could compete with the whole world without “protection.” Mr. Macbeth, who seems to be a shrewd sort of man, has taken the measure of the ways and means committee, and gives it as his opinion that “the majority of the committee are trying to collect enough evidence to form a basis for an excuse to increase the duty on everything.”

Election of Officers.

The faculty of the Order of the Triangle for New York, at their last meeting, elected the following officers, to serve until the meeting of the General Triangle, which meets next Fourth of July:

General officers—Principal, Charles O’Conor Hennessy; vice-principal, Magnus Gross, jr.; general secretary, M. Battle; assistant general secretary, Joseph J. Lovell^sic: general bursar, William T. Croasdale; general auditor, W. H. Faulhaber; general lecturer, Benjamin Doblin; general counselor, Louis F. Post; secretary of the tontine, W. C. Kip; secretary of the death benefit fund, George White; secretary of the sick benefit fund, James Ferrier, M.D.

The faculty—Professors J. McGuiness, John Briton, George L. Titus, C. Matelene, M. J. O’Neill, H. E. Juster, W. L. Ross, W. J. Horan, F. H. Marsh, E. Ferguson, M. Van Veen, E. M. Klein, F. Schneider, Nellie M. Houston, Elizabeth Burns Battle.

Catarrhal Deafness—Hay Fever—A New Home Treatment.

Sufferers are not generally aware that these diseases are contagious, or that they are due to the presence of living parasites in the lining membrane of the nose and eustachian tubes. Microscopic research, however, has proved this to be a fact, and the result of this discovery is that a simple remedy has been formulated whereby catarrh, catarrhal deafness and hay fever are permanently cured in from one to three simple applications made at home by the patient once in two weeks.

N. B.—This treatment is not a snuff or an ointment; both have been discarded by reputable physicians as injurious. A pamphlet explaining this new treatment is sent free on receipt of stamp to pay postage, by A. H. Dixon & Son, 337 and 339 West King street, Toronto, Canada.—[Christian Advocate.

Sufferers from Catarrhal troubles should carefully read the above.—[Adv.

NOW READY.

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

Separate volumes……………………………… $3.50 Volumes 3 and 4, bound together……………… 6.50 Volumes 2, 3 and 4………………………………… 9.00 Volumes 2, 3, 4 and 5…………………………… 12.00

(Expressage extra.)

Address THE STANDARD, 12 Union square, New York.

LOOKING BACKWARD.

By Edward Bellamy. A story which describes a possible golden age just before us. It has excited a wider and deeper interest than any book since “Uncle Tom’s Cabin.” $1.00 in cloth; 50 cents in paper.

UNCLE TOM’S CABIN.

By Mrs. Stowe. Popular edition, large type, bound in cloth, $1.00.

Mailed on receipt of price by

HOUGHTON, MIFFLIN & CO.,

Boston, Mass.

A DIVINE CREATURE.

In poetry and song we are never without enchanting descriptions of some divine creature who is the compeer of all in loveliness. But how impossible is it to imagine such a divinity without the requisite charm of

A LOVELY COMPLEXION.

And with what positive certainty a skin as fair as a

NEW-BLOWN ROSE

Is sure to follow the use of

GLENN’S SULPHUR SOAP.

This most wonderful of all purifiers removes every possible blemish from the face, and leaves the complexion as fair as a

HEAVEN-BORN LILY.

For sale by all druggists. Beware of Imitations.

Glenn’s Soap will be sent by mail for 30 cts. for one cake, or 75 cts for three cakes, by C. N. CRITTENTON, Sole Proprietor, 115 Fulton Street, New York City.

Hospital Remedies.

What are they? There is a new departure in the treatment of disease. It consists in the collection of the specifics used by noted specialists of Europe and America, and bringing them within the reach of all. For instance the treatment pursued by special physicians who treat indigestion, stomach and liver troubles only, was obtained and prepared. The treatment of other physicians, celebrated for curing catarrh was procured, and so on till these incomparable cures now include disease of the lungs, kidneys, female weakness, rheumatism and nervous debility.

This new method of “one remedy for one disease” must appeal to the common sense of all sufferers, many of whom have experienced the ill effects, and thoroughly realize the absurdity of the claims of Patent Medicines which are guaranteed to cure every ill out of a single bottle, and the use of which, as statistics prove, has ruined more stomachs than alcohol. A circular describing these new remedies is sent free on receipt of stamp to pay postage by Hospital Remedy Company, Toronto, Canada. sole proprietors^sic.—[Adv.

THE SINGLE TAX LIBRARY.

1. A Syllabus of Progress and Poverty. Louis F. Post [8?] pages.
2. Australian System. Louis F. Post. 4 pages.
3. First Principles. Henry George. 4 pages.
4. The Right to the Use of the Earth. Herbert Spencer. 4 pages.
5. Farmers and the Single Tax. Thomas G. Shearman. 8 pages.
6. The Canons of Taxation. Henry George. 4 pages.
7. A Lawyer’s Reply to Criticisms. Samuel B. Clark^sic . 16 pages.
8. Back to the Land. Bishop Nulty. 16 pages.
9. The Single Tax. Thos. G. Shearman. 8 pages.
10. The American Farmer. Henry George. 4 pages
11. Unemployed Labor Henry George^sic. 4 pages.
12. The Case Plainly Stated. H F. Ring^sic. 8 pages.
13. Social Problems. 342 pages. 12mo. Paper, 35c.
14. Objections to the Land Tax. Thos. G. Shearman. pages^sic.
15. Land Taxation. A Conversation Between David Dudley Field and Henry George. 4 pages.
16. How to Increase Profits. A. J Steers^sic. 2 pages.
17. The New Political Economy. E. O. Brown. 4 pages
18. Thy Kingdom Come. Henry George. 4 pages.
19. The Functions of Government. Henry George. pages^sic.
20. The Menace of Plutocracy. Thomas G. Shearman. 8 pages.
21. Tenement House Morality. J.O.S. Huntington. 4 pp. 22, 23, 24, out of print.
22. Taxing Land Values. Henry George 8 pages.
23. Henry George’s Mistakes. Thomas G. Shearman. 8 pages.
24. The Democratic Principle. Henry George. 8 pages
25. Progress and Poverty. Henry George. 5[1?]2 pages. 35 cents 29 The New Ballot System^sic. Louis F. Post. 4 pages
26. The Cat. 2 pages.
27. The Single Tax in a Nutshell. [2?] pages.

Prices of Single Tax Library: Two page tracts—1 copy, 1 cent; 40 copies, 10 cents; 100 copies, 20 cents; 1,000 copies, $1.50.

Four-page tracts—1 copy, 2 cents; 20 copies, 10 cents; 100 copies, 40 cents; 1,000 copies, $3.

Eight-page tracts—1 copy 3 cents; 10 copies, 10 cents^sic 100 copies, 80 cents; 1,000 copies, $6.

Sixteen-page tracts—1 copy, 4 cents, [5?] copies^sic, 10 cents; 100 copies, $1.60; 1,000 copies, $12.

No extra charge by mail.

The following numbers of the “Land and Labor Library” are still in stock:

6. Settler’s Nightmare. Louis F. Post. 4 pages.
7. Mysterious Disappearance. Lewis Freeland. [6?] pp.
8. Sailors’ Snug Harbor and the Randall Farm. W. T. Croasdale. 12 pages.
9. The Collegiate Church and Shoemaker’s Field. W. T. Croasdale. 12 pages.
10. It is the Law of Christ. Rev. S. H. Spencer^sic. 4 pp.
11. Christianity and Poverty. Father Huntington 4 pp^sic. [33?]. Socialism—Its Truth and Its Error. Henry George. 4 pages. [38?]. “God Wills It.” Henry George. 4 pages.
12. How John’s Father Saw the Light. W.C.Woods. 2 p.
13. Ten Thoughts for Christian Thinkers. Rev. John W. Kramer. 4 pages.
14. Hints as to What You Can Do. Henry George. 4 pp.
15. My Butcher Woman and My Grocery Man. William McCabe. 4 pages.
16. A Republican’s Reasons for Supporting Cleveland. Judge Frank T. Reid. 2 pages. [89?]. Jefferson and Hamilton. Chauncey F. Black. 8 pp.

GERMAN TRACTS.

42. First Principles. Henry George. 4 pages. [43?]. Socialism—Its Truth and Its Error. Henry George. 4 pages. [44?]. Taxing Land Values. Henry George. 8 pages.
43. It is the Law of Christ. Rev. S. H. Spencer. Henry, Ill. 4 pages. [5?]. Sailors’ Snug Harbor. Wm. T. Croasdale. 12 pages.

SWEDISH TRACTS.

52 The Case Plainly Stated^sic. H. F. Ring. 8 pages.

TARIFF TRACTS.

57. Protection as a Universal Need. Henry George. pages.
58. The Tariff Question. Henry George. 4 pages. [63?]. American Protection and British Free Trade. Henry George. 4 pages. [66?]. Protection and Wages. Henry George. 8 pages.
59. Protection the Friend of Labor? Thomas G. Shearman. 8 pages.
60. A Short Tariff History. Thomas G. Shearman. 2 pages.
61. Plain Talk to Protectionists. Thomas G. Shearman. 4 pages.
62. An Address to Workingmen on the Tariff Question Henry George^sic. 4 pages.

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

Address THE STANDARD, 12 Union square, New York City

PROGRESS AND POVERTY.

An inquiry into the cause of industrial depression and of increase of want with increase of wealth. The remedy.

By HENRY GEORGE.

512 pages. Cloth, $1.50. Paper covers, 35 cents. Half calf or half morocco, $3.00.

SOCIAL PROBLEMS.

By HENRY GEORGE.

342 pages. Cloth, $1.[00?] Paper covers, 35 cents. Half calf or half morocco, $2.50^sic.

PROTECTION OR FREE TRADE?

An examination of the tariff question with especial regard to the interests of labor.

By HENRY GEORGE.

Cloth, $1.50. Paper covers, 35 cents. Half calf or half morocco, $3.00.

THE LAND QUESTION.

What it involves and how alone it can be settled.

By HENRY GEORGE.

87 pages. Paper covers, 20 cents.

p. 16, col. 4

PROPERTY IN LAND.

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

77 pages. Paper covers, 15 cents.

FORTSCHRITT UND ARMUTH.

(Progress and Poverty in German).

Translation of C. D. F. Gutschow.

430 pages. Paper covers, 35 cents.

PROGRES ET PAUVRETE.

(Progress and Poverty in French).

Translation of P. L. LeMonnier.

542 pages. Paper covers, $2,75^sic.

PROTECTION OU LIBRE-ECHANGE?

(Protection or Free Trade? in French).

Translation of Louis Vossion.

436 pages. Paper covers, $2.75.

PROGRESSO E POVERTA.

(Progress and Poverty in Italian).

Translation of Ludovico Eusebio.

352 pages. Paper covers, $2 50.

[The rest of the Henry George & Co. advertisement runs across columns 3–4; its two-part book list is given left half first, then right half.]

SETS OF THREE.—PROGRESS AND POVERTY, SOCIAL PROBLEMS, PROTECTION OR FREE TRADE? BOUND ALIKE, IN HALF CALF OR HALF MOROCCO, $7.50.

ECONOMIC WORKS.

By way of answering inquiries constantly received, we append a list of some economic and social works of various kinds, with prices, at which they will be forwarded post paid. Any work not mentioned procurable in New York will be sent on receipt of publisher’s price.

WILLIAM LLOYD GARRISON.—THE story of his life. Told by his children. 4 vols, cloth, $12 00^sic.

ESSAYS ON POLITICAL ECONOMY—BY^sic FREDERICK BASTIAT. 12mo, cloth, $1.[25?].

SOPHISMS OF PROTECTION.—WITH preface by Horace White. By FREDERICK BASTIAT. 12mo, cloth, $1.00.

HISTORY OF POLITICAL ECONOMY IN EUROPE.—By JEROME ADOLPHE BLANQUI. 8vo, cloth, $3.00.

AN INQUIRY INTO THE NATURE AND CAUSES OF THE WEALTH OF NATIONS.—By ADAM SMITH. Edited by Theobold Rogers^sic. $1.00.

WORK AND WAGES.—BY THOS. BRASSEY. 16mo, cloth, $1.00.

THE AUSTRALIAN BALLOT SYSTEM as embodied in the legislation of various countries. By J. H WIGMORE Cloth^sic, $1.50.

FREE LAND AND FREE TRADE.—THE Lesson of the English Corn Laws Applied to the United States. By Hon. SAMUEL S. COX. 8vo, cloth, 75 cts.

THE HISTORY OF THE FREE TRADE MOVEMENT IN ENGLAND.—By AUGUSTUS MONGREDIEN. 16mo, cloth, 50 cts.

POSTULATES OF ENGLISH POLITICAL ECONOMY.—By WALTER BAGEHOT. Cloth, $1.00.

THE TARIFF HISTORY OF THE UNITED STATES.—Containing “Protection to Young Industries,” and “The History of the Present Tariff, 1860-1883.” By F. W. TAUSSIG. 8vo, cloth, $1.25.

Any of the above Books will be sent postpaid on receipt of price.

HENRY GEORGE & CO., 12 Union Square, New York City.