February 12, 1890 Vol. VII, No. 7Whole No. 163

THE STANDARD.

TABLE OF CONTENTS:

EDITORIAL. Henry George at San Francisco—A Series of Ovations—The Work Will Go On—Good Work in Massachusetts—Surprising Progress in Chicago—An Alabama Legislator Almost Persuaded—The Good Work Done by Bolton Smith—Liberality of Mr. Burroughs—What Others Can Do—Something About THE STANDARD—Single Tax Buddhists—The Need of High Purpose—The Democratic Party and Ballot Reform—A Mormon Complaint — What Halstead Thinks of His Friends—The Brooklyn Row—Burying Electric Wires—Abolition Movement—The Dakota Lottery Scheme—Mr. White’s Reply to Mr. Post—Single vs. Double Tax—The Plight of the Farmers—An Irish Paper on the Labor Problem—The Weekly Payment Bill.

A REPLY TO MR. POST. Horace White.

ST. ANDREW’S COFFEE STANDS. Rev. John W. Kramer.

GOVERNMENTAL OPERATION OF RAILROADS. Edmund Yardley.

ANDREW CARNEGIE’S FIELDS OF PHILANTHROPY. Amelia W. Bate.

OUR WASHINGTON LETTER. Henry George, jr.

OUR ENGLISH LETTER. Rev. Harold Rylett.

NOTES AND QUERIES.

PERSONAL.

BALLOT REFORM. Work of the Ballot Reform League—Nearly 30,000 Signatures to the Petition—The League Wants Money, and Needs it “Right Off”—Better Outlook in Maryland—Constitutionality of the Law Sustained in Rhode Island.

HENRY GEORGE SAILS. Splendid Reception at San Francisco—Great Meetings—Welcomed by Press and People—Escorted to the Steamer—Effect of His Visit—Great Meetings and Banquet in Los Angeles.

SOCIETY NOTES.

INEFFICIENT MAIL SERVICE. An Interview with Hon. Leo Knott.

THE SOCIAL PROBLEM. A Field for the Single Tax—Cardinal Gibbon’s Book^sic—Land Nationalization—Now it is Education—Prescribing the True Remedy—A Confused Philosopher.

THE FREE TRADE FIGHT. The Reform Club Leads the Work—A Remarkable Campaign in the State of New York—The Club has Bought a $250,000 House—Mr. Mills and Mr. Blaine—Welsh Miners Going Home—Sturdy Beggars in Dakota and California.

SINGLE TAX NEWS. The Work of Two Marylanders—Again the Letters—“Some Awful Examples”—Recent Sales and Assessments in New York and Brooklyn—The New York Manhattan Club Raises Its Dues—Renewed Activity in Brooklyn—The Buffalo Men Aggressive—Questions that Lead to the Truth—Mr. Pendleton’s Diagram—Connecticut Awake—Moving on the New Jersey Bureau of Statistics—The Single Tax from an Ohio Congregational Pulpit—The Indianapolis Club in Its New Quarters—A Chicago Speculator Just Misses the Truth—A Rabbi Addresses the St. Louis League—The Henry George Assembly of Detroit Gathering in Single Tax Men—H. Martin Williams in Topeka, Kansas—The Leading German Paper of the South Indorses the Single Tax—A State Organization Formed in Colorado—News from New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, Maryland, Georgia and Iowa—The Cause in Canada, England and New Zealand.

p. 1, col. 2

EDITORIAL.

Henry George sailed from San Francisco for Australia on Saturday last (February 8). Judge Maguire’s dispatch shows that Mr. George’s return to his old home was an event that will long be remembered. It was in San Francisco that he practically began his life work. There he married and there all four of his children were born. It was there that his abilities as a writer first were manifested, causing his rapid promotion from the printer’s case to the editor’s chair. It was there that he began his wrestle with the social and economic problems that would give him no rest until he found their solution, and gave it to the world in “Progress and Poverty.” Yet when he left San Francisco for the east, though he left behind him a circle of sincere friends, some of whom were converts to his doctrines, the mass of people there knew little of him except that he had been an editor of one of their daily papers and had written a book of which many conservative people spoke disparagingly. As his ideas began to attract attention in the east and in Europe the San Francisco newspapers misrepresented them as readily as did any others, and in the famous mayoralty contest in this city in 1886, which challenged the attention of the whole country, and started anew the world wide discussion of Mr. George’s ideas, the San Francisco press was indifferent or hostile.

Less than four years have elapsed since that time, and Mr. George has just passed through California on his way to Australia. His journey has been little less than a triumphal march. He is banqueted by friends, vast audiences gather to hear him expound his doctrines, newspapers send reporters hundreds of miles to meet him and telegraph his utterances, and they vie with each other in printing careful summaries of his once derided doctrines. In their head lines they salute him as “The Famous Californian,” “The Social Reformer of San Francisco,” “California’s Political Economist,” and so on. Editorially they treat him with every honor and proudly claim him as a man whose life and work have honored their city. The title sneeringly given him by the duke of Argyll, “The Prophet of San Francisco,” is almost accepted, and the people have vied with each other in trying to show that a prophet is not always without honor in his own city.

These evidences that he has obtained a hearing, and that the work to which he has dedicated his life is making marvelous progress, must be inexpressibly grateful to Henry George. They are hardly less so to the increasing thousands throughout his native land who have, in his works, found the answer to the “riddle which the Sphynx^sic of Fate puts to our civilization, and which not to answer is to be destroyed.” We have long borne ridicule and abuse, and, worse than all, indifference, and we may well rejoice as accumulate proofs^sic now crowd upon us that, from the eastern portals of the continent to the Golden Gate of the west, there are everywhere found devoted workers for our cause and a rapidly increasing number of those who, though not yet committed to our doctrines, and probably not fully familiar with them, recognize that a cure for existing evils is at least offered by an able and clear p. 1, col. 3 thinker, backed up by sane and determined people who know exactly what they want and precisely how they expect to obtain it, and who are working to accomplish their ends by practical, common sense methods. For these new audiences^sic; for this new and more favorable hearing, we are indebted to the policy that linked our movement to the thought and political activity of our fellowmen. W[e?] need have no fear that the work th[us?] begun will ever cease to command popular interest or falter in the onward course on which it at last has entered. Henry George is now well on his way to the newest continent, but when he returns by way of older lands he will find evidence that his absence has not checked activity in the land of his birth, and New York will give him an even more notable welcome than that given him last week in San Francisco.

The demonstration of the rapid growth of our principles is not confined to the ovations that Mr. George has received on his journey westward. From all parts of the country come announcements of fresh conversions, or the awakening of interest among those hitherto hostile or indifferent. In Massachusetts, where at one time there seemed to be apathy, attended with some danger of an insane diversion of a part of our strength to a foolish and hopeless third party movement, all is now life and activity, and the fight that our friends, under the lead of William Lloyd Garrison, are making before the legislative committee cannot fail to have greater effect than was possible before the efforts of Mr. Lane and the “double tax” men had aroused in Boston a keen and growing interest in the subject of local taxation. What the free trade fight has done for the country at large these local agitations are likely to do for special localities.

In the last issue of THE STANDARD we printed a report of the speech made by Judge Driggs at the annual banquet of the real estate board in Chicago. It was not, as our readers will remember, an espousal of the single tax doctrine, but it was a very fair discussion of our ideas by an evidently unprejudiced man. The incident was all the more significant because this banquet is by far the most pretentious trade or professional dinner that takes place annually in Chicago, and is attended by the most prominent and influential citizens. Judge Driggs himself was formerly the local solicitor of the Pennsylvania company, and was but recently elected to the bench. He is a prominent republican and a member of the Union league club. There is reason to believe that the men who invited him to speak to that toast were astonished beyond measure at the response it called forth. On the same evening that this speech was made Mr. Edward Osgood Brown, one of the leading lawyers of the city, was addressing an audience at the rooms of the single tax club on the legal aspects in the single tax^sic, and was listened to by quite a number of members of his own profession. All reports from Chicago indicate a remarkable change of opinion among a large class of influential people, who at one time were strongly prejudiced against the single tax doctrine. The persistent personal work of the friends of the cause is beginning to tell, and several judges of the bench and a number of prominent lawyers, bankers p. 1, col. 4 and business men are beginning to give the subject a respectful hearing, and many of them display a positively friendly interest.

The Chicago Tribune continues in the stupid course adopted for a time by our eastern dailies. and boldly falsifies^sic the facts in order to justify unfair attacks. Its course, however, is beginning to call forth remonstrances from its own readers. Since the Tribune has ceased to be identified with any good cause, its perverse hostility is the greatest service it could render to the cause of the single tax.

One of the most significant evidences of the growing interest in the subject was given by the speech of Mr. Robt. Lindblom, a highly successful operator on the Chicago board of trade, delivered at one of the economic conferences held in the Auditorium building. Mr. Lindblom’s topic was the “Influence of speculation on prices,” and though he is somewhat mixed in his political economy, he made a strong defense of the right of men to sell goods for what they can get, and defended speculation as a useful factor in the regulation of prices. But while Mr. Lindblom was ready to defend speculation in commodities, he severely denounced speculation in land. His remarks on the subject are printed elsewhere, and they show a clear appreciation of the greatest evil of the day, though Mr. Lindblom seems to look for relief to some sort of prohibitory legislation, instead of to the simpler and more efficient single tax remedy. Meantime, however, he proposes that a plan be devised for the promotion of speculation in land, and insists that if the legislature will legalize a plan for selling real estate “short,” with land graded and classified as grain and provisions now are, the bears would soon make land so plentiful that monopoly would cease, and every land owner become his own landlord. However fanciful his proposed remedy, no one who reads his speech can question Mr. Lindblom’s clearness of apprehension of the evil itself. Our friends in Chicago feel, and have a right to feel, jubilant over the many evidences of the steady growth of interest in our doctrines.

Something more than a year ago Mr. Bolton Smith of Memphis subscribed for a large number of copies of THE STANDARD, to be sent to members of the legislature of Mississippi, Arkansas and Alabama. Some time ago he wrote asking them what they thought of the paper. In a few cases replies denouncing THE STANDARD and its doctrines were received, but in many cases the replies indicated that the perusal of the paper had wrought a great change in the opinions of many. Mr. Smith forwards us the following, which he says is a sample of many letters he is now receiving from those to whom he sent THE STANDAR[D.?]

> DRY CONE^sic, Ala., January 20, 189[0.?] > > Mr. Bolton Smith—Dear Sir: Your inqu[iry?] is at hand. I have received THE STANDA[RD?] regularly each week for eight or nine mont[hs?] and have read it carefully if not critical[ly.?] From the receipt of THE STANDARD dates [my?] first knowledge of the single tax moveme[nt.?] At first I could not understand why t[he?] single tax would tend to destroy the [mo?]nopoly of natural resources. Now I see; a[nd?] if the unearned increment of the commun[ity?] would be sufficient, if taken as a tax, to d[e?]fray the expenses of government, there [is?] nothing better than the single tax. I a[m?] convinced that, so far as cities and tow[ns?] are concerned, the single tax is the panac[ea?] for the ills of existing taxation. Furthe[r?]more, when landlordism has obtained in t[he?] continued on p. 2 →

[Text breaks off mid-sentence at the foot of page 1; no continuation line is printed. The right-hand ends of the last fourteen lines of column 4, from “THE STANDAR[D.?]” down, did not print (ink failure at the right margin); bracketed letters are conjectural completions.]

THE NEW HOUSE RULES—MR. CARLISLE EXPLAINS HOW IMPROPER LEGISLATION IS POSSIBLE UNDER THEM—THE AMERICAN SHIPPING LEAGUE AND SUBSIDIES—THE PAN-AMERICAN CONFERENCE—MR. BRECKINRIDGE’S STORY—THE STORY OF A PHILADELPHIA CHAIRMAN—SENATOR BLAIR’S EXTRAORDINARY ARGUMENT.

WASHINGTON, D. C., February 10.—A review of the week’s work in the house of representatives shows by the exceedingly meager fruit what obstructive power lies with the minority, and why Speaker Reed has been forced to bring in rules. It explains the statement of Mr. Springer of Illinois, when he said, “One fifth of the members present have the power to demand the yeas and nays on any motion before the house. With this the minority can stop legislation short whenever they please. The majority might grind a measure through, say in a mouth^sic—a national election law for instance—but the grass will be knee high in the parks before they do it.” With rules adopted, however, there is likely to be little filibustering on the part of the democrats who, after they have presented every argument they can against improper legislation, will then allow responsibility to fall where it should. As to the posibilities^sic of bad legislation under Speaker Reed’s rules, Mr. Carlisle says:

“Under the proposed rules there will be no way to prevent the majority of the house from taking up for consideration any measure they choose, at any time they choose, no matter how objectionable the matter may be. Bills appropriating money out of the

p. 5, col. 3 public treasury will come before the committee of the whole on the state of the Union. And it will be in order every day for the committee which reported any of these bills to move to take it up for consideration by going into a committee of the whole; and a majority vote will be sufficient to do this. Bills will not come up as heretofore in their regular order on the calendar. In past congresses many objectionable bills appropriating money for improper purposes were reported and went on the calendar, but as they could be taken up only in their regular order, or by unanimous consent, they were never reached and could not be acted upon. Now it will be altogether different, and, as I have said, they can be taken up at any time.”

Among those interests looking for special legislation, of which Washington seems to be full at this time, is the American shipping league, which for the past few days has been holding a convention here in support of house bill No. [4,663?], otherwise known as the Farquhar subsidy bill, which proposes to give to American ships “engaged in the foreign trade, plying between the ports of the United States and foreign ports, or between foreign ports and other foreign ports, the sum of thirty cents per gross registered ton for each 1,000 miles sailed, outward or inward, and pro rata for any distance traveled less than 1,000, on any voyage or voyages,” such rate of payment to “continue for the term of ten years,” after which payment for a term of nine years shall be made at a reduction of “three cents per ton for each year for each one thousand miles traveled, and pro rata for any less distance.” Then, too, the league convention urged upon congress sea coast and seaport defense, the “rebuilding and equipment of a strong navy,” and “the improvement of harbors and rivers of the whole country.” All sorts of speeches have been delivered and letters of recommendation read till one might suppose the fate of the nation hung in the balance. One enthusias tic individual, writing from the seafaring state of Kansas, asseverates in a burst of fervency that when the aims of the league shall have been accomplished all should sing, “Praise God from whom all blessings flow.” Perhaps many of us might join in the old song if somehow we didn’t happen to see so many emissaries of the ship building concerns present in the convention hall, and have a sort of feeling that the “blessings” in question flowed from the United States treasury.

Secretary Blaine would doubtless be relieved of some embarassment^sic and anxiety of mind should the Farquhar bill, or some other bill like it, be carried into law, as it will be something to offer to the Pan-American congress, some of the delegates to which, I am informed, have come to Washington with the expectation of seeing “free trade in raw materials” established between all the states of the western hemisphere. Many lesser matters have been discussed, such as the unification of postage dues, and of weights and measures, the adoption of patent, copyright and extradition laws, and the acceptance of a common silver coin; and various committees are now beginning to bring in the reports, but the conference has been carefully diverted from the consideration of the dangerous subjects of “free trade” and of “raw materials.” From what I can gather from all sources it looks now as though the conference will, when its proceedings have come to a close, resemble the mountain which brought forth a mouse.

Apropos of Speaker Reed’s arbitrary rulings, C. R. Breckinridge, member of the house from Arkansas, tells an amusing story of one Colonel Cockerill, living in his town of Pine Bluff. It fell to the colonel’s lot one time to preside over a convention. Among other things, he was notified by the managers that a matter of considerable importance would come up, and that he must be sure to carry the motion through the convention. The colonel determined that come what would the motion should pass. In the course of time the motion made its appearance, and he called for “all those in favor of the motion to signify by saying ‘aye.’” There was a loud response, and without waiting to call for the “nays,” the colonel declared that the “ayes” had it, and that the motion was “carried.” For a moment friend and foe were lost in astonishment and sat spell-bound. But the opponents quickly rallied, and a lot of excited men jumped to their feet. “You have not called for the ‘nays,’” roured^sic one individual. “It is not necessary to call for the ‘nays,’” was the redoubtable colonel’s reply. “The chair has pronounced the motion carried.” “Then I call for a reconsideration,” was the indignant rejoinder. “The chair refuses to reconsider,” replied the colonel, rising to the situation. “The motion has been put, the vote

p. 5, col. 4 taken, the ‘ayes’ have it, and the matter is settled. What is once settled cannot be reconsidered.”

This story brings in its train another story told of a Philadelphian, now dead, who held a most distinguished place in the medical profession as well as in social life—a man who because of his general nobility of character was widely respected and esteemed. One time the doctor was asked to take the chair at a convention in a ward where there was a division in the party ranks. The weaker faction was anxious to have the doctor preside over the assemblage and the other faction, feeling safe in its majority, gave cordial consent. When the proper time came a member of the weaker faction was recognized by the chair and moved that a certain gentleman be made the nominee of the convention. A delegate on the other side amended by substituting the name of the gentleman selected by the stronger faction. It was then the chairman’s business to learn the choice of the convention, first taking the vote on the amendment. “All those approving the amendment will please signify by saying ‘aye’,” said the doctor. There was a tremendous shout of approval. “All those disapproving the amendment will signify by saying, ‘no.’” There was a very weak response to this, but before anybody had time to realize what was being done the chairman had delivered his decision: “The ‘noes’ have it, the amendment is lost, thank God; the original motion is carried and this convention stands adjourned!”

There is one section of Senator Blair’s long, prosy speech in behalf of his education bill which should not escape attention. It is where he addresses himself directly to protectionists and shows them why they should support his bill. His argument, in brief, is as follows:

Whereas, in the north the republican party and a large section of the democratic party have believed that it was an indispensable condition to the nation’s life, development and continued prosperity that there should be protection as against the competition of the cheap capital and cheap labor, and the cheap production which results from their combination, in foreign lands, a protective tariff has therefore been established for the defense of northern capital and northern industry, which are fixed and must remain there. But is it not known that the surplus capital of the north, of the world, in fact, is flowing into the south for investment—not in the cotton business, not in any one exclusive industry, but in all. We see at the south the erection of the factory, the forge and the shop. Why does capital go there? True, there are great natural resources there, but the chief attraction is the cheap labor, which costs not more than fifty per cent of what it costs in the north. The common citizen of the south is not accustomed to the expenditures in the maintenance of himself and his family, which are found to be indispensable in the north. His dwellings cost him ten per cent—twenty per cent possibly—of the average dwellings at the north, and food and clothing are vastly less expensive. Yet are his muscles as vigorous and his capacity to perform labor in all the various forms of production as great, or certainly will be as great with a brief period of training, as are the citizens in corresponding circumstances at the north? “So we are confronted with this great fact that the capital of the north and of the world, and the skilled labor which goes to the south are rapidly building up there a form of competition with the industries and capital invested at the north far more dangerous than would arise if we cut down the protective tariff and allowed ourselves to be inundated by the surplus productions of Europe to-day.” The speaker declares himself for “free trade with the whole world if there be no way to protect us against the consequences of the inevitable and the overwhelming competition of the rising industries of the south.” “What object is it to New England or the north anywhere that we maintain a protective tariff simply that we may be ruined by the increasing production of the south rather than by the cheap production of foreign climes? We may as well buy our commodities abroad if we are to be met by an equally ruinous competition right here within our own country.” . . . “The protective tariff . . . should be maintained against cheap labor and production wherever they are found.”

Therefore, the thing to do is to educate the masses of the common people of the south so that “they will get the same wages that the common people receive at the north.” . . . “They will come, then, with the increase of intelligence and capacity, to acquire knowledge, to read newspapers, to read books, and all the ways that increasing intelligence adds to the importance of the ordinary in- continued on p. 6 →

[continued on page 6]

DAVITT HEADS A WORKINGMEN’S MOVEMENT IN IRELAND THAT DECLARES FOR THE SINGLE TAX—LAND IN LONDON—SAMPLE “SOCIETY NOTES.”

HYDE NEAR MANCHESTER, Jan. 25.—The most notable event of the past week is the definite institution of an organized labor movement in Ireland by Michael Davitt. A conference of labor delegates was held in the council room of the municipal buildings, Cork, on Tuesday, the 21st inst., which Mr. Davitt attended. A series of resolutions was carried unanimously, embodying the constitution and aims of the new organization. The first resolution was to the effect that the laborers of Ireland, skilled and unskilled, should form themselves, through their various local and special organizations, into one federated body, to be called the Irish democratic labor federation. All local matters are left to the special trades organizations, but general policy is to be directed by annual congresses. The federation is to have a general council of thirty-two members, to be elected at an annual congress, and five of these are to be selected to form an executive. Each organized body is to contribute funds, but the council may also make a general levy. A convention as fully representative of Irish trade and labor organizations as possible is to be called within the next six months for the purpose of definite organization to carry out the objects of the federation. Pending this convention the objects of the federation are to aid the home rule cause with a view to the better development of the trade and industries of the country; to defend the rights of the working classes of Ireland and make manual labor respected; to improve the social condition of the workers of the country by endeavoring to procure healthy dwellings for the laboring classes in country and town, and otherwise to advocate and promote such legislation as will lighten the burdens upon the wage earning classes and increase their opportunities for general improvement, and by demanding that the agricultural laborers’ act be amended and made compulsory in its application, to advocate the reduction of the laboring hours of the working classes to a reasonable limit; to obtain free education for the children of the poor; to advocate such a settlement of the land question as will secure to the nation its supreme right to the soil, to be best calculated to benefit directly the entire community.

The means by which it is proposed to secure these objects are: “To influence the legislature by organization and the channels of public opinion; to grant the reforms advocated; to promote the election of workingmen for all positions of public trust; to cordially co-operate with the working classes of England, Scotland and Wales in defending and advancing the rights of laborers in these countries, and in promoting the general social welfare of their respective wage earning classes by means of a federated labor union; by demanding universal adult suffrage, and the abolition of all vexatious difficulties in the the way^sic of the registration of voters; by demanding the abolition of all property qualification in municipal and poor law elections.”

It will be seen that this programme is sufficiently drastic, but the important points are that the principle of the single tax is adopted, and that it is proposed to invite the labor organizations of Great Britain to unite with the Irish in the formation of a federated labor union.

A public meeting was held in the assembly room in the evening, when Mr. Davitt delivered an address on labor questions to a large, thoroughly representative and enthusiastically unanimous audience. In this address, which was one of the most closely reasoned and eloquent which I have known Mr. Davitt to deliver, the speaker treated the social problem from the single tax point of view and denounced with incisive logic the attempt to establish peasant proprietary in Ireland. Mr. Davitt showed that the

p. 6, col. 2 agricultural laborers had been shabbily treated.

“Their demands,” said the speaker, “have been so far few and modest, the concessions made to them scanty and of little value. They have been told to solicit the farmer for a quarter acre of land, to buy a decent cottage from boards of guardians. . . . The results of this programme are known to the country. The farmers, except in a few instances, want all the land for themselves; the guardians, being in many instances farmers, refuse to burden the estates by erecting laborers’ dwellings. . . . If this state of things is to be changed for the better the change must be worked by the laborers themselves and in the same manner in which they helped the land tenants to right their trouble—by organization. They must demand such a change in the land laws as will secure to every laborer in Ireland, as freely as to every tenant, free access to the cultivation of such portions of the land of their country as they have means and opportunity to work for their own benefit. If justice is ever to be done by the agricultural laborers of Ireland, it must be through the ownership of the land by the nation and not by either landlord or tenant. In fact, labor, whether in field or in workshop, can never obtain that full economic liberty and justice for which the labor cause is striving, until class ownership of land is completely abolished and national or state proprietary substituted in its place. The land of any country cannot be owned by any class of the community, great or small, without a violation of the natural and inherent right in the soil by every inhabitant. The extension of class ownership of land by means of the Ashbourne act is condemnable on two grounds—as being a palpable effort on the part of the landlords to buttress up a rotten or tottering land system by a multiplication of small proprietors, and secondly because any such scheme of occupying ownership means a further and wider trespass upon the nation’s indisputable right to the supreme ownership of the soil. While ready and willing to aid the tenant farmers of the country in the future as in the past to win every protection to which their occupancy of the soil under fair terms entitles them, the laborers of Ireland, in country and in town must, if true to their own best interests and to those of the nation, resist all attempts to create a tenant landlordism as an anti-climax to the nation’s fight for the abolition of the entire landlord system.”

Following up this declaration Mr. Davitt went on to show how the levying of all taxation from land values would relieve all industry—agricultural and manufacturing alike. He shows that the only class that would suffer would be the landlord class, and he did not see that the industrious classes need be concerned on that head.

Altogether the meeting was an immense success, and is not unlikely to have a great influence not only in Ireland but in Great Britain. The same gospel was proclaimed in Derry last night, and will be further advocated by Mr. Davitt in a series of meetings in England next week and the week after.

The first meeting is being arranged by Mr. Wm. Saunders, under the auspices of the the English^sic land restoration league, and will be held in London. Mr. Davitt and Mr. John Burns are to be the principal speakers. The circular convening the meeting quotes the resolution of the National liberal federation, to which I have already referred.

I clip the following from Reynolds:

The amount of real estate auctioned in the London mart last year realized the enormous sum of £4,500,000. The average price which land fetched was £50 an acre, but of course it was incalculably dearer in the central parts of London. The fact that one auction mart should transact such an amount of busi ness in a single year gives a slight idea of the fabulous value of the freehold and leasehold properties in London, and of the extent to which the community is being robbed of its right to a share in the value of the land. The annual value of the land in the metropolis is £17,000,000. not a penny^sic of which contributes to the cost of the public improvements which make the land valuable. Everybody, except the landlords, would benefit by a tax on land values, and not the least the poor, as it would lead to the construction of better houses. How is it that the tory members of London are all dumb on this subject? Because they are the friends of the landlords, and not of the householders, although so many of these latter were geese enough to vote for them at the last general election.

There is no part of THE STANDARD more interesting to me than the column headed “Society Notes.” What is to be said of the two following items of inteligence^sic which I also clip from the same paper:

To illustrate the general wretchedness of the people of London, Mr. Coroner Baxter, whose district embraces the Tower, St. George’s-in-the-East, Whitechapel, Mile End, Bromley, Shadwell, Poplar, and Stepney, says that if a circle was drawn round these distticts^sic, and no outsiders allowed to be introduced, so poor are the specimens of humanity there

p. 6, col. 3 > that in three generations they would have all perished, not having enough vitality to reproduce themselves. . . . Mr. Baxter says that the mortality among children in the east end is frightful, because the poverty of the people is so great that they are unable to call in medical aid, and they refuse to go to the workhouse. So overcrowded, too, are the houses, that it is common thing for families to be living for days together in one room with a corpse. . . .

But it is not alone in London that we hear this bitter cry from the poor. In the royal dockyard towns there is great distress among the laborers, owing to the niggardliness of the government, who yet can contrive to waste millions of money upon war vessels which turn out useless, and guns which burst when they are fired. Just think of what happened at the Medway board of guardians the other day. It is almost incredible. A dockyard laborer, receiving 16s. 8d. a week, upon which he had to support himself, four children and sick wife, actually came and applied for out-door relief in aid of the wages which the government were paying him. The board, at the expense of the rate payers, granted the man a piece of meat. A few days afterward the same government employe returned. This time he wanted a coffin for his wife, who had died, the wages paid him by the government not permitting him to buy a coffin.

Instances of this are shockingly common in England, but still we go placidly to church. It is the greatest farce in the world to call us a Christian people.

As I close this letter a report reaches me to the effect that the report of the Parnell commission will be in the nature of a fiasco. The judges are said to have glossed over the Piggott^sic letters, and treated them as of no importance, and accordingly the Times escapes a whipping. The land league is to be found guilty of everything, but the parliamentary party is to be acquitted of any complicity or direct implication in crime. This is what I have expected all along.

HAROLD RYLETT.

THE ESSENTIAL FEATURES OF BALLOT REFORM.

First—All ballots shall be official and shall be printed and distributed at public expense.

Second—The names of all candidates for the same office shall be printed on the same ballot.

Third—All ballots shall be delivered to the voter within the polling place on election day by sworn public officials.

Fourth—Only official ballots so delivered shall be voted. The voter shall be guaranteed absolute privacy in preparing his ballot, and the secrecy of the ballot made compulsory.

Fifth—Voters shall have the right to nominate candidates by properly certified petitions.

HOW THE WORK OF OBTAINING SIGNATURES TO THE BALLOT REFORM PETITION IS PROGRESSING.

The New York ballot reform league has, since the great meeting at Cooper union, devoted its energies to procuring signatures to a great petition to be forwarded to Albany. It required some weeks to put the machinery in motion, but it is now actively at work, and is producing remarkable results. The number of petitioners up to yesterday was 28,145. The method first adopted was to send out blanks to designated workers in the various districts, who were expected to canvass their own election districts, and obtain the names of signers. It was soon discovered, however, that this was a slow process, owing to the fact that the canvasser might call a half dozen times at one house and not find at home the man he was seeking. Furthermore, there is a disposition among canvassers having a petition of this kind in hand to hold it back until it is filled. Many are thus held back at present, and if those having them in hand would return them at once to headquarters, the number of signers reported^sic would be largely increased. These difficulties led to the adoption of a separate petition for each signature modeled on the single tax petitions so familiar to the readers of THE STANDARD. As names of signers come in ten of these blank petitions are sent out to each one. The result has been an immediate and rapid increase in the number of signers through the discovery of those who are really willing to work for the cause. It has had the effect of relieving the committee from the results of the mistake of depending on men who manifested no zeal or industry in behalf of the work.

All this, however, has necessitated much expenditure beyond the original estimate, and the committee has been seriously embarrassed at times for lack of funds. Though the committee has done most of the work, there has been no general appeal for funds, and at its last meeting, on Friday, February 7, the work would have been suspended had not the members themselves, in addition to all the work they had done, pledged themselves to raise or contribute $1,000 to meet expenses already incurred. The finance committee was thereupon instructed to send out an appeal for contributions to members of the various organizations reported in the league, and also to make through the press the following public appeal:

The Ballot reform league is engaged in preparing a petition to the legislature, in favor of that cause, which, at present, is of first importance to the American people.

To collect signatures in sufficient numbers, in the short time remaining, to make that petition as impressive as it should be to produce the desired effect upon the legislature and the executive, large expenses are inevitable for printing, postage and clerical help.

The Ballot reform league, therefore, appeals to all patriotic citizens for such contributions as they may see fit to give.

Contributions should be sent to Lawrence Dunham, secretary, No. 58 William street.

If this work is to go on for the two or three weeks remaining before the presentation of the petition to the assembly, funds must be contributed and contributed at once, and those who have failed to give personal effort to the work should not be willing to allow the financial burden to fall on the men who are giving up their time to it.

Mr. Oliver Sumner Teall, chairman of the committee on enrolment, whose office is at 15 Courtlandt street, has practically given his whole time to tne^sic work of the petition, and has not only done this, but has provided office room for the corps of clerks engaged in sorting the petitions into assembly districts and streets. He expects to present to the legislature the largest petition ever offered to that body, and he deserves the encouragement of all friends of the reform. The right way to encourage him is to send a check to Lawrence Dunham, secretary of the league, at 58 William street.

A meeting of the general committee of the league is called for Friday evening, February p. 7, col. 4 14, at half past 8, at the Reform club, No. 12 East Thirty-third street.

The state meeting of the Knights of Labor at Troy adopted as its demand on the legislature, the formula of principles adopted by the league and published regularly at the head of the tariff reform columns of THE STANDARD. The local assemblies will take similar action, and from among these should come a considerable addition to the force of workers engaged in obtaining signatures for the petition in the brief time that will elapse before its presentation. Mr. James P. Archibald, master workman of the Paper hangers’ national assembly of the Knights of Labor, was at the last meeting elected member of the executive committee and of the sub-committee on enrolment, which has special charge of the petition.

Democrats and republicans of the Twenty-third assembly district joined on Saturday evening, at the mass meeting in the rooms of the Harlem democratic club, in favor of ballot reform. Simon Sterne presided and resolutions were adopted indorsing the principles formulated by the Ballot reform league. Ex-Secretary Fairchild, Percy D. Adams, president of the Harlem republican club, Charles W. Dayton; president of the Harlem democratic club; C. F. Doody and others made speeches. Mr. Doody declared that “of all the consummate tricksters ever planted on this earth, David B. Hill is the most consummate; he is likewise a demagogue of the worst type, and in that respect has but one equal in this city, and that is Charles A. Dana.”

At a conference of leading county democrats, held at the New Amsterdam club Saturday evening, the principles of the Ballot reform league were adopted for recommendation to the meeting for re-organization that will be held this week.

A PROPHET NOT WITHOUT HONOR IN HIS OWN COUNTRY.

MR. GEORGE HAS OVATION AFTER OVATION IN HIS OLD HOME—THE PRESS AND PEOPLE GREET HIM—SINGLE TAX THE ONE TOPIC OF DISCUSSION—A HUNDRED NEW MEMBERS OF THE SINGLE TAX SOCIETY—MR. AND MRS. GEORGE SAILED ON SATURDAY FOR AUSTRALIA.

SAN FRANCISCO, Feb. 13^sic.—Mr. George’s reception in California, and especially in San Francisco, was an astonishing and gratifying proof of the progress made by the single tax idea. A delegation of twenty San Franciscans met Mr. George at Martinez on the night of Monday, February 3, and came with him to San Francisco. He lectured in Metropolitan temple on Tuesday and Friday evenings to large audiences and was heard with much enthusiasm. On Wednesday 150 old friends and single tax men attended a banquet given in his honor. Mr. George lectured before the clergy of San Francisco on Thursday afternoon and before a crowded house in Hamilton hall, Oakland, on Thursday night. His reception at the lectures and banquet amounted in each case to an ovation. All the leading newspapers reported at length the meetings, and Mr. George’s name, fame and works have been the topic of favorable discussion here for the whole week. All the papers and well nigh all the people are still discussing the single tax. The Examiner yesterday published two pages of interviews with the leading labor and trades union men, all but two of whom declared unequivocally for the single tax. No social event within my memory has caused such a sensation as the visit and lectures of Mr. George. One hundred applications for membership were received by the single tax society last night.

Mr. and Mrs. George sailed for Australia by the steamer Mariposa at 4 p. m. on Saturday. About two hundred friends accompanied them to the harbor and cheered as the ship left her dock.

JAMES G. MAGUIRE.

TWO GREAT MEETINGS AND A BANQUET IN LOS ANGELES—ADDRESSING THE PRINTERS—NEWSPAPER COMMENTS.

THE STANDARD’s report of Mr. George’s western trip closed last week with a quotation from a brief note written by him on the train while passing through New Mexico, in which he said that he and Mrs. George were having a very good time. Mrs. George, writing from Los Angeles February 2, says that Mr. George has found it impossible to write for THE STANDARD. The constant travel and inconvenience, as well as the fatigue, make it impracticable to write on the train. When he stops there are so many old and new friends who must be seen that there is no time for anything else. She says: “Mr. George is off this afternoon, talking to the printers, and to-night he answers questions. This takes well here in the west. In Denver it made a great hit. Rev. Myron Read^sic said that those two evenings sent Denver ahead six years. Everywhere we stopped there were friends to meet us and say something kind, while on every train some one recognized Henry George, and entered into conversation with him. This is a perfect day and Los Angeles looks its best. The palms and cactuses are green as possible and everything bright and cheerful. The heat is almost tropical. I can see but little of the Spanish town of thirty years ago.”

The Los Angeles papers devote a great deal of space to Mr. George’s appearance in that city. He had expected to arrive on Friday, January 31, and speak on that and Saturday evenings, under the auspices of the Illinois association, leaving for San Francisco on Sunday, the 2nd. He arrived on Saturday morning, February 1, and went directly to the Hollenbeck hotel. He was immediately overwhelmed with calls, letters and telegrams. Many people came into the city on Friday, expecting to hear the lecture that night, and they remained over to hear him on Saturday and Sunday nights. He was welcomed also by a committee of the Illinois association. Among his callers was a reporter of the Evening Express, who was sent to interview Mr. George, but who frankly confesses that he ignominiously failed in his mission. He says that Mr. George recognized him as an old San Francisco newspaper man, invited him to lunch, and spent all the time there was to spare in interviewing him. The reporter also teils^sic of Mrs. George’s eagerness to see the Plaza and the old Mission church at Los Angeles, in order that she might in some way get her bearings to enable her to recognize in the present city the town in which she went to school thirty years ago.

p. 8, col. 2 In addition to announcements of Mr. George’s lectures most of the Los Angeles papers published abstracts of his doctrines. The single tax men of the city indicate their delight with the attention thus drawn to the single tax ideas by numerous communications, as well as by formal resolutions.

All of the papers agree that Illinois hall, in which the lecture was delivered, was filled to its utmost capacity on Saturday evening. Mr. Ralph A. Hoyt, president of the Illinois club, in presenting Mr. George to the audience, said that the noblest hero of the age is not the man who leads armies and drenches the earth in blood, but the man who, with tongue and pen, fights the battles of the working people. Such a man the audience had with them, a master thinker and bold reformer. He did not expect that all would agree with the ideas about to be propounded, but he bespoke for them the careful attention of the audience. He then introduced the “Hon. Henry George.” Mr. George began by saying that his first essay in speaking was in southern California, and he was thereupon dubbed colonel, and when he objected was called professor, and now the chairman had introduced him as “honorable.” He thus continued: “I did run once for the legislature, and I suppose if I had been elected I might have been called honorable, but as I was defeated I think I have the right to the benefit of the defeat and to escape the title.” He then went on to speak of the delay on the railroad that had kept him from speaking the night before, and said the roads out there were all one-horse roads, simply because existing systems of taxation make rails artificially dear and prevent the roads from laying double tracks. He spoke at length on the single tax, and drew his illustrations for a time from the condition of affairs in the city of New York. “But,” he continued, “I need not talk of New York to people who have such object lessons about them. You are just recovering from a boom, in which you marked out this whole valley into town lots. It was a system of gambling worse than faro; the gambler merely wastes his time; but the speculator prevents the use of valuable land.”

Mr. George spoke for an hour and three quarters, the audience listening intently, and frequently interrupting him with enthusiastic applause.

At the close of his address, Mr. George was waited upon by a committee of the association, which escorted him to the Hollenbeck restaurant, where a sumptuous banquet had been prepared in his honor. It was presided over by Mr. A. J. Gray, and among the invited guests were Professor W. H. Henderson, Messrs. Sam Levi, C. A. Miller, S. B. Welcome, G. M. Craig, A. E. Hatheway, Colonel J. J. Ayers, R. W. Kersey, J. King, J. H. Crawford, Ellis Knight, S. K. Warfield, J. W. Long, R. W. Ready, J. W. Maxwell, W. A. Grosser, P. Ryan, H. Flatan, J. Baker and others. After the discussion of the tempting viands, toasts were made and responded to by the following gentlemen: A. J. Gray, W. H. Henderson, C. A. Miller, Sam Levi, S. Byron Welcome, R. W. Ready, Colonel J. J. Ayers and the guest of the evening, Henry George. The party broke up about midnight, when Mr. George was escorted to his rooms.

On Sunday afternoon Mr. George addressed the members of the typographical union, and on that evening made a brief address in Illinois hall, and devoted the remainder of the time to answering questions.

Mr. George’s friends, especially those in California, have speculated somewhat as to the reception likely to be accorded him by the California press. He is an old Californian, but at one time the newspapers of that state seemed disposed to rejoice that he was a Californian no longer, and those remembering such articles have been prone to speculate as to the probablity^sic of a change of sentiment. The comments of the Los Angeles papers indicate that the California press is pleased to claim Mr. George as a Californian. The Herald, after alluding to his last preceding visit to Los Angeles, editorially says:

It was well known to the friends of Mr. George at the time that he was engaged upon some important literary work; but no one dreamed that he was then quietly preparing that great book on political economy—“Progress and Poverty”—which has made him famous all over the world. Since he was last here Mr. George has ripened in the atmosphere of great men, and held his place with poise and persistency, and with a fertility of intellectual resource which could only come from one endowed with an abundant store of mental wealth. His rank is fixed among the greatest thinkers of the close of the nineteenth century, and his fame will go down the ages with that of such men as Adam Smith and John Stuart Mill. As the father of a school that may yet work into practice the striking theories he has so perspicuously laid down, Mr. George may even be known and venerated by the

p. 8, col. 3 > mass of mankind when the greatest of his contemporaries are only known to bookmen.

One of the other papers, unfortunately we cannot tell which, prints the following editorial comment:

The people of Los Angeles are to have the rare opportunity of listening to public addresses by Mr. Henry George. Mr. George appeals to our interest in the first place because he is in some sense a product of California. He first won fame in this state. His great work, “Progress and Poverty,” now translated into every leading language of Europe and known throughout the civilized world, was written and first printed in San Francisco. In the second place Mr. George is an American who has made his country better known abroad and brought it honor by his genius. Most of us do not agree with his leading doctrines, but we cannot but feel a pride in having for a countryman a man who has attracted the attention of the whole thinking world, who has drawn popular sympathy as no other man has to the great toiling masses, who has started a formidable movement among all English speaking peoples for land nationalization, who has been invited to explain his views before meetings of the most learned men in England, and who has not only drawn the criticisms of leading writers and thinkers, such as the duke of Argyll, but has generally worsted them in controversy. Mr. George will go into history as one of the brainiest men of the century. He is the master of a written eloquence that has seldom if ever been excelled. He is one of the most brilliant controversialists of his time. His learning, particularly on economic subjects, is extensive. A poor American boy, who had to get his education chiefly outside the schools, he is now an object of pride to English speaking peoples generally and something of a citizen of the world. As such an American all of us feel proud of him and will be glad to welcome him to Los Angeles.

AN INTERVIEW WITH HON. LEO KNOTT, LATE SECOND ASSISTANT POSTMASTER GENERAL.

A representative of THE STANDARD met last week in this city Hon. Leo Knott, second assistant postmaster general throughout Cleveland’s administration. In the course of a conversation mention was made of the fact that there has been for more than a year constant complaint of neglect and delay in the delivery of THE STANDARD. Mr. Knott was asked why the service had become so inefficient, and he answered as follows:

“I have no doubt that the present inefficiency of the mail service, of which you make complaint, is attributable mainly to the great and unprecedented changes which were made in the railway mail service within a few months after Mr. Wanamaker went into office. The calculation is that ninety-five per cent of all the mails transported in the United States pass through the railway mail car post offices. During Mr. Cleveland’s administration, Postmaster General Vilas retained Mr. John Jameson, the chief superintendent of the railway mail cars, in office for two years, and also the assistant superintendents located in Boston, New York, Cleveland, Cincinnati, St. Louis and Atlanta from one to three years. Superintendents White and Wheeler, in Chicago and San Francisco, were retained during the whole of the Cleveland administration. The subordinates of this service, who number over 4,000, were changed very slowly and gradually, so that at the end of Mr. Cleveland’s administration I think the changes only amounted to about 3,000.

“The first work to which the present administration of the post office devoted itself with unremitting vigor and ruthless energy, was the removal of all persons appointed in this service by Postmaster Generals Vilas and Dickinson. The president in the first place, at the solicitation of the spoilsmen, extended the time fixed by Mr. Cleveland for the application of civil service rules to this arm of the service from March to May, and during that time the machine was worked continuously night and day, until nearly every democratic member of this force was removed.

“That the service during the Cleveland administration was run in the interests of the public is shown by the fact that the old officials were kept in as long as they were, and especially the chief superintendent. This service is the most important in the whole post office department, for the reason I have stated above; the vast quantity of mail which at some stage or other is certain to pass through the hands of the members of the force; and unless the men are competent and faithful, the most serious inconvenience to the community and damage to the public service must necessarily ensue.”

A FIELD FOR THE SINGLE TAX.

“Landlordism in France” is the subject of an article by W. E. Hicks in the “Notes and Comments” department of the February North American Review. Mr. Hicks finds that the French land tax has fallen from 300,000,000 francs in 1790 to 120,000,000 francs now, which leaves it between two and three francs per hectare. There is a movement, headed by Leon Say, to remove even this tax. The reduction has been brought about by the dominance of great proprietors. The boast that France owes her prosperity to a multitude of small landed proprietors is unfounded, for seventy-five per cent of the landed proprietors own only ten per cent of the land, while thirteen per cent of the proprietors own twelve per cent of the area and twelve per cent of the proprietors own seventy-five per cent of the area. There are proprietors owning 100,000 hectares (about 250,000 acres) devoted to the chase, and Rothschild owns more than 200,000 hectares. French farmers are crushed by mortgages and subject to all sorts of direct taxes. The ground is poorly cultivated, and the cities are draining the rural districts of population. Millions of houses have no windows and millions have but one sash. Millions of families eat meat only twice or thrice a year.

CARDINAL GIBBONS’S BOOK.

Thomas B. Preston, in the February Arena, reviews Cardinal Gibbons’s recent book, “Our Christian Heritage,” from the point of view of the single taxer. The cardinal rejoices that “the aged poor are no longer at the mercy of heartless masters,” but are provided for in charitable institutions; to which Mr. Preston responds that were justice done such whole- sale almsgiving would be unnecessary. Mr. Preston also takes the cardinal to task for holding to the wage fund theory, and after quoting his eminence’s denunciations of communism and socialism, asks why he does not denounce also the “communism of combined capital,” and the system that permits a few to monopolize natural opportunities. The cardinal inveighs against the able bodied man that would beg rather than work, but Mr. Preston takes the liberty of believing that such men are rare and that most sturdy beggars are those whom the seizure of natural opportunities has deprived of the chance of working. Mr. Preston dissents from the cardinal’s opinion that unequal distribution of goods is the law of divine economy except where such unequal distribution arises from varying powers. Mr. Preston also regards as a monstrous misstatement the cardinal’s assertion that most great fortunes result from the exertions of their possessors, and gives the single taxer’s received explanation of the vast concentration of wealth in few hands. Says Mr. Preston:

The cardinal should have turned his attention to that problem. The church will have to face it sooner or later and the fewer things that churchmen say which may be interpreted as a defence of the so-called vested rights of monopolies, the more will the multitude hear the gospel gladly. It is sad to see such a luminous intellect as that of Cardinal Gibbons reach such a lame conclusion as this: “The most efficient way to relieve the wants of the poor, is through organizations like that of the Little Sisters, of which I have already spoken, and of the St. Vincent de Paul society.” Heroic examples of Christian charity he quotes, and all honor to them, but charity will never be able to atone for the denial of justice.

Mr. Preston declares that the cardinal denounces monopolies without showing how to abolish them, and inconsistently upholds protection while denouncing state socialism. On the whole, however, Mr. Preston regards the book as an outward evidence of an “inward leaven which is working in the minds of all deeply religious people and which promises the best results for the moral, social and political future of the United States and of the world at large.”

LAND NATIONALIZATION.

Richard Simon replies in the independent section of the Westminster Review for January to a recent article in favor of land nationalization by F. L. Soper. Mr. Simon notes that Mr. Soper seems to offer compensation to landlords, while Mr. George “more logically” desires to confiscate all rent by taxation. He conceives Mr. Soper’s “gross land rental” to mean rent for holdings, for improvements rather than for the land, and this Mr. Soper estimates at £84,000,000 per annum. Caird, however, gives rentals for land in 1878, “excluding all holdings under ten acres and mines” as £68,500,000. The income tax returns of 1884 show lands £65,412,000; houses, £127,050,000. From these figures Mr. Simon discovers a fall in land rentals of about £4,000,000 in seven years. In the case of lands Mr. Soper would take the gross rental for the state and compensate the landlords by annuities, while Mr.

p. 9, col. 2 George would take from the landlords only “the original or prairie value of land,” as Mr. Simon expresses it. Mr. Soper leaves them the land, which Mr. Simon thinks wise, but an abandonment of the main position of the attack. He conjectures that Mr. Soper would do this because of a sense of the injustice involved in taking improvements and paying for them in dwindling annuities. But, asks Mr. Simon, “why does he not make the same offer to owners of land in towns?” Here again Mr. Simon conjectures that if landlords were paid the annual value of their improvements they might get more than their present rentals, as rentals often do not pay interest on money invested in improvements. Land for agricultural purposes, in Mr. Simon’s view, is often as much a manufactured article as a pig of iron or a hank of wood. Hence he thinks the original prairie value of land “hardly worth stealing.”

As to town land, Mr. Soper would pay in dwindling annuities a reasonable percentage on the value of buildings, and confiscate the land rental. This Mr. Simon conceives would ruin at a blow the 852,438 owners of small town lots, including the “elite of the working classes who have purchased their houses through building associations.” He is persuaded that these workingmen would not be content to bear this single tax and escape the excise.

Mr. Simon believes that Mr. Soper’s annuities to landlords would give much trouble because the state must issue bonds to raise the money for this purpose, and what money lender would trust a government that had seized the property of its people?

Mr. Soper’s treatment of mortgages strikes Mr. Simon as crude. It seems to be Mr. Soper’s intention to appropriate land values when unencumbered, and pay for them when mortgaged. As Mr. Soper, according to Mr. Simon, would leave the net rental of landed estates with the landlords, the latter should pay off the mortgages.

Mr. Simon then argues that land nationalization would not grant relief from present taxation. In discussing this point, and the gain that Mr. Soper expects from the annual increment of land values, placed at £2,000,000 Mr. Simon insists that the increase in the rental of agricultural lands for sixty-five years was but £7 per acre, and that this has been more than lost since 1875. He admits the great growth of town rentals. Mr. Simon expects, too, that the agents of a government that had nationalized land would be more autocratic and irresponsible than the landlords. He fears, too, that brash young fellows, unskilled in farming, would dispossess old farmers by offering higher rents than either could afford to pay. Mr. Soper’s seven years’ tenure, too, Mr. Simon regards as a premium on recklessly wasteful cultivation. Mr. Soper’s idea that farmers would do well to remove to pastures new now and then is, to Mr. Simon’s way of thinking, evidence of a meddlesome instinct, inconsistent with the wisdom of letting men decide for themselves what is good for them.

Finally Mr. Simon sees in Mr. Soper’s great state organism only an aggregation of provincial land surveyors sure to be swayed by local influences. He thinks it unlikely that men would build up farms when their tenure was constantly endangered by periodical differences of opinion as to values, and appeals attended with delays equal to those of a law suit.

Mr. Simon began by admitting the growth in Great Britain of an opinion favorable to land nationalization, but he closes by declaring that no practical plan has been presented, while the general tendencies of legislation and thought are in the opposite direction, and make for private ownership, decentralization and freedom.

NOW IT IS EDUCATION.

“What is the remedy?” asks Ellen Battelle Dietrick, by way of title to an article on the social problem in the New Ideal for February. As nearly as may be gleaned from the article in question, the writer regards education in a broad sense the first essential to the solution of the social question, whatever other means may be necessary. She insists that the way to the union of labor and capital can not lie through hate. She believes the social physician but a quack if he knows only the remedy of Henry George “or any other agitator.” She thinks the case hopeless so long as a large class of men believes material, intellectual and spiritual poverty the necessary lot of some. Religion has always taught almsgiving. But the religion of to-day devotes itself to teaching the poor how they may improve their own condition. Self control is the one thing that raises men above their fellows. Pulling down the rich by force will bury the poor in ruins, lifting up the poor by education gives them a share in the lever that moves the world. “The only free born human creature that has

p. 9, col. 3 any right to blame another for the circumstances that surround it is the child not well born, who can justly reproach its parents if it is flung headlong into a life of deprivation and insufficient opportunity.”

The writer finds the law of wages in demand and supply, and apparently believes that the remedy is to educate the mass of men and women so that they may not be forced to crowd the ranks of unskilled labor. So long as this world is regarded as a wretched way station on the route to another world, it is not to be wondered at that men are reconciled to present miserable conditions. But if you give laboring men higher wages and more leisure will they use either wisely? Of two workmen with equal opportunities one remains poor, the other becomes prosperous. Education from the cradle up must precede all other solutions of the labor problem.

PRESCRIBING THE TRUE REMEDY.

The International typographical union has a committee on the labor problem, whose business it is to solicit suggestions as to a solution of the problem. Charles H. Kohlman of St. Paul, Minn., has addressed the committee, and his article appeared in the January issue of the Typographical Journal, published at Indianapolis. Mr. Kohlman’s remedy is the single tax, and his article sets forth with admirable clearness the land theory and its relation to the labor problem. Here are a few of his utterances:

Absolute freedom of trade and production is the only condition under which the laborers can prosper.

Capital is merely a tool which adds to the efficiency and productiveness of labor, and this tool is fashioned by labor out of the crude materials provided by nature.

A “protective” policy, in its last analysis, can only benefit the monopolizers of natural opportunities. Taxes can never benefit industry, but always retard it. When a municipality wishes to decrease the number of saloons, it taxes them heavily; it also pursues the same policy in reference to dogs. All taxes upon the products of labor increase their cost, and must eventually be paid by the consumers, together with profits and interest.

Under present industrial regulations the products of labor flow largely into the hands of persons who have no part in their production. For this reason, less hours would not detract from the wages of the workers. If they produced less in eight hours than in ten, the decrease would be in the share going to rent and monopoly. The workers would be as well off as at present, and the two hours of leisure would be a clear gain. So long as they are ground between the upper and nether millstones of private ownership of the soil and monopoly, their reward is not based upon their productive capacity. If labor secured the products of its toil it would, of course, be to its interest to work as many hours as possible. The more it produced the more it would enjoy.

In my opinion, all other measures in the way of legislation are of small moment compared to the abolition of private ownership of the soil. The root of poverty is the exaction of blackmail by one man from another for the privilege of applying labor to land.

It is more essential that men should think right than that they vote for a certain set of candidates.

Capital is not necessary to the employment of labor, but land is, and when labor has access to land it will create capital; the wages of labor are not paid by capital, but out of the products cf^sicsic labor; there never can be overpopulation, nor too many workers, but there are too many barnacles who consume without producing.

With partisan politics labor need have nothing to do. The fealty of the masses to party organization has always been the stock in trade of the demagogue and the jobber, and is responsible for most of the prevailing corruption. Parties are deserving of adherence only as they represent principles or policies to be applied to government. A man should change his party as readily as he leaves off a worn-out garment after it has served its purpose.

A CONFUSED PHILOSOPHER.

“The Ethics of Property” is the title of an article by W. S. Lilly in the February issue of the Forum. Mr. Lilly believes in the right of private property, but also believes that it must be held subject to ethical laws. The moral law is supreme reason ruling over rational existence, and to obey it is the great good of nations as of men. Mr. Lilly traces the right cf property to man’s personality. Man has an indefensible^sic right to live his own life, and to all that is necessary to enable him to do so. It is in civilization that the idea of right unfolds itself, that the opposition of “I” and “thou” arises. The individual’s rights exist in subordination to that whole of which he is a part. In the last resort the whole, for its self-preservation, possesses a right to dispose of the parts. All this holds good of the right of private property. Mr. Lilly finally sums up by saying that the right to private property is a natural right, the expression and the guarantee of moral personality, and therefore inviolable.

Mr. Lilly speaks with indignant horror of the London poor; says that the poverty of the agricultural laborer is of the deepest and estimates that out of England’s total annual product of £1,250,000,000, landlords, capital-

p. 9, col. 4 ists and middlemen take £800,000,000. He quotes Mr. George’s passage upon the “gospel of selfishness soothing as soft flutes” to those who fare well themselves and think all should be content. Mr. Lilly revolts at the political economists who think that buying in the cheapest market and selling in the dearest is the whole of political economy, and insists that a man’s right to do as he will with his own is modified by the duty that always accompanies such right. He rejects the idea that present conditions, in which the producer gets so little of the product, are necessarily permanent, but rejects socialism as a remedy. Socialism, he insists, would abolish private property, and thus violate a great individual right. Community of goods marked an age prior to the development of human liberty. He denies that capital takes no part in production, and insists that socialism reduces all labor to unskilled labor. He finally exclaims with some truculence:

Socialism, indeed, if we weigh the matter well, is but one of the many expressions of the abounding materialism of the day. It is a chapter, and a very ignoble one, in what Mr. Carlyle was wont to call “pig philosophy.” It is devoid of any true notion of the organic, which is essentially rational and ethical. It would reduce the public order to a machine, and would bring in an era of universal slavery, with a modicum of “pigwash” for all. Shall we barter our birthright of liberty for a mess of pottage? And such a mess! No; the realization of the socialistic idea must at any cost be prevented, even if we have to seek in the gallows and the sword the ultimate answer to its votaries. The preservation of the fair frame of civilization is of infinitely more account than are the lives of a horde of fools and fanatics.

Having rejected socialism, Mr. Lilly looks elsewhere for his remedy. He distinctly states the proposition that the earth belongs to the living, but apparently does not regard this and its ordinarily accepted corollaries as sufficient to solve the problem of poverty. He inveighs against the idea that unrestricted competition is a necessary economic fact, insists that the employer is bound to pay a just price for labor, and demands the reoganization^sic of industry on an ethical basis. If the land belongs to all, so do products of land, so indeed do all things, save the individual’s self and energies, is Mr. Lilly’s idea. He believes that industry must be based no longer on competition but upon co-operation; that the state may properly check monopolies, curb competition, and restrict hours of labor. The manual toiler serves not only his employer but the country, and thus is entitled in old age to something better than the workhouse. After all this, however, Mr. Lilly repeats his protest against a socialism that would make the state at once father, master, guild and church.

FEATURES OF A GREAT WORK.

PART OF WHAT THE REFORM CLUB IS DOING—THE WORK IN THIS STATE—THE PRESS SUB-COMMITTEE—THE COMMITTEE ON DISTRIBUTION OF LITERATURE.

The Reform club of this city is rapidly becoming the recognized center of the free trade movement. It has just purchased for about $250,000, and will shortly occupy, the house at the northeast corner of Fifth avenue and Twenty-seventh street, together with a contiguous lot 25 by 100 feet, fronting on the latter throughfare^sic. On this lot will be erected a building which will afford a large audience hall. The club works through a large committee on tariff reform, of which John De Witt Warner is chairman. Mr. Warner’s immediate lieutenants are the chairman of his committee’s half dozen sub-committees. The headquarters for tariff reform work are the club’s down town office, at 52 William street, but an editor employed by the sub-committee on press has desk room at the club house, No. 12 East Thirty-third street.

No sub committee has done more laborious or important work than the sub committee on the state of New York. Jason Hinman is chairman of this committee and he has given to it much time, thought and labor. Some months ago Mr. Hinman undertook to obtain the names, residences, occupations and politics of the 750,000 voters in this state outside the large cities. He now has obtained the desired information as to 300,000 of these voters, the canvass having been completed in nineteen counties: Allegany, Albany, Cattaraugus, Chautauqua, Dutchess, Genessee^sic, Jefferson, Livingston, Orleans, Queens, Rockland, Rensellaer^sic, Suffolk, Schuyler, Seneca, Washington, Wyoming, Westchester and Yates. Work is now in progress in Cayuga, Columbia, Delaware, Erie, Franklin, Greene, Monroe, Montgomery, Niagara, Ontario, Orange, Putnam, Richmond, St. Lawrence, Steuben, Sullivan, Ulster, Warren and Wayne, leaving twenty counties in which the canvass has not yet been begun.

These lists will furnish the basis for future tariff reform work. Suitable literature will be sent out to these voters and probably some thousands of them will be personally elisted^sic in the work.

Another important part of this sub-committee’s work has been the institution of a speaking canvass in various parts of the state. This began before Christmas with an address by Thomas G. Shearman at Amsterdam, already referred to in THE STANDARD, is still in progress, and will be steadily continued for an indefinite time. E. Ellery Anderson also spoke at Amsterdam in January. Wm. F. Hull has organized a series of meetings in Westchester county. Gilbert D. Lamb addressed the first of these meetings.

It is the special object of this campaign to reach the purely agricultural class, and accordingly a series of twelve meetings was organized in the towns, villages and hamlets of Livingston county. John De Witt Warner spent the whole week from January 13 to January 18, speaking at these meetings, and Walter S. Logan spoke each night from January 20 to January 25. W. B. Estell, the Pennsylvania coal-miner, was the second speaker at all these meetings, and his addresses fully sustained the reputation that he made for himself in the campaign of 1888. The interest at all these meetings, especially in the smaller villages, was of the liveliest sort. Farmers drove miles to hear the speakers, and listened till midnight. The sub-committee was warmly seconded at all points by local tariff reformers. In no instance was the democratic machine appealed to, for at this time it is not in active operation; but the committee met no opposition from democratic leaders, and usually obtained from them material aid. At some points independents, greenbackers and even republicans cheerfully helped on the work.

The second meeting of the series was held at Lima. The town hall was crowded, and the audience listened eagerly for quite three hours and a half, insisted upon asking questions, keeping up a running debate until after midnight. Much the same interest was shown at every one of the meetings, although the bad winter weather and almost impassable winter roads made the audiences in some of the towns smaller.

The Danville Advertiser, a republican paper, devoted two editorial columns to replying to Mr. Warner’s argument. At Mount Morris the papers of both parties reported the meetings. Before many of the meetings had been held, an earnest discussion was going on throughout the county and finding its way through all the local papers. Many of the republican papers insisted that the campaign was purely a democratic scheme,

p. 10, col. 2 and intended merely to win votes for the democratic party. One of the papers, the Caledonia Advertiser, assures its readers in a half column editorial, “This duet which visited Caledonia is of course under pay, but the paymasters are 3,000 miles east of New York; their money comes in pounds and shillings.” The Nunda News, a republican paper, was inclined to disregard entirely the question as to the political complexion of the club, or the political affiliations of its speakers, and declares: “Enlightenment in regard to the tariff system is what people want. If the farmers can be satisfied that changes in the present tariff laws will benefit them and the agricultural community generally, then they want a change. . . . Therefore, and finally, as a means of information, we advise men of all parties, and farmers especially, to attend these meetings upon the tariff, and hear what is said.”

After the meeting in Nunda, the only answer the editor of the Nunda News—in his column and a half of his editorial comment of the meeting—could make was this: “Can we believe that congress is deliberately legislating against the interests of the farmers of this country? Who believes that Judge Sawyer of this district would vote for a protective tariff unless he honestly believed that it would benefit the great majority of his constituents, who are farmers?” But the editor advised the farmers to look the matter over carefully and think about it.

The meeting at Avon, the last of the series, was very fully reported in the Rochester Union of January 27, Mr. Logan’s speech being given verbatim.

The farmers of Livingston county are now for the first time intensely interested in the tariff question, and alert for any spark of light, any scrap of information, which will enable them to see in what direction their own interests lead them. The interest resulting from these meetings has gone far beyond anything the committee imagined possible. Four joint discussions on the 10th, 11th, 12th and 13th inst. in the four largest towns of the county were arranged for.

Mr. Estell, who is just about completing the canvass for the list of voters in Steuben county, will act as organizer of a similar speaking campaign in Steuben, Allegany and Cattaraugus counties. In this work he will have the advice and cooperation of all the leaders of tariff reform sentiment in those counties. Mr. Hamilton, who conducted the campaign in Livingston county, will organize a like campaign at once in Ontario aad Yates counties; and with the assistance of the gentleman who made the canvass of Washington, a like campaign in that county. The committee hopes within the next six weeks to have a similar campaign under way in Schuyler, Seneca and Tompkins counties. The committee is contemplating like campaigns in several other counties. The plan of campaign contemplates the employment of a local agent under the pay of the sub-committee, whose duty it shall be—after consultation with local leaders—to arrange the places and dates of the meetings and to attend to all the details connected with the advertisement and holding of the meetings.

All the local expenses of these meetings are borne by local clubs, committees or individuals; and the only expense which the sub-committee undertakes to bear is that of its organizer, and the expenses incurred by the speakers.

The sub-committee makes an appeal for funds in aid of the work.

Walter H. Page of the Forum is chairman of the sub-committee on press. The committee meets once or twice a week at the club house, and its editor, Mr. Dreher, is in daily communication with Mr. Page. The committee has made arrangements to circulate between 2,500 and 3,000 words of original tariff reform matter per week through the American press association of this city which has business relations with some thousands of newspapers, including many influential dailies. When the American press association en- deavored to circulate tariff reform matter in 1888 it found almost no takers. Now, however, many excellent newspapers are eager to buy this matter at just about the rate which the association charges for current news. The sub-committee also sends out to a list of small papers, aggregating about 15,000 circulation, 1,200 words per week. This department of the work will be greatly extended. A recent plan of the committee is to obtain signed articles from the best known tariff reformers in and out of congress, to be sold at a nominal rate to a few of the most influential papers in the country. The proceeds of such sale will go to paying the expenses of the work. The committee is also investigating several subjects with a view to the preparation of valuable original articles to be offered to influential daily pa-

p. 10, col. 3 pers. Several such articles have already gone forth.

Lawrence Dunham is chairman of the sub-committee on the distribution of literature. An outline of this committee’s projected work has already been published in THE STANDARD. Mr. Dunham receives from five to fifteen letters daily asking for tariff reform literature. Of six letters received in one day recently, four mentioned that the writers had heard of the committee’s work through THE STANDARD. There is a large demand for William Lloyd Garrison’s recent address on wool delivered before the Harvard free wool club at Cambridge, Mass., and for the “Tariff Dictionary.” Many inquiries still come from Missouri, the St. Louis Republican having given a full review of the “Tariff Dictionary.” Some letters ask for single copies, while others inclose from $2 to $5, with request for as many copies as the money will buy. Democratic county committees and tariff reform clubs in Michigan, Wisconsin, Indiana, Illinois, Maine and Massachusetts have asked for literature in large quantities, and proposed that the sub-committee here send such literature to addresses to be furnished by local organizations.

The other sub-committees of Mr. Warner’s committee are either actively at work or making ready for a future campaign. Tariff reform organizations all over the country are applying to the committee for advice.

SOME EXTRACTS FROM THE TEXAN’S ARTICLE ON THE GLADSTONE-BLAINE “DUEL.”

The Hon. Roger Q. Mills replies in the February North American Review to Mr. Blaine’s part of the Gladstone-Blaine “duel” in the January issue of the same publication. Mr. Mill’s article^sic is chiefly statistical, and largely devoted to a denial of Mr. Blaine’s manifestly untruthful propositions. Here are some extracts:

And it is no test of the wisdom of either to show that wealth and wages have increased under it. It must be shown that wealth and wages would increase faster under one system than under the other, and to do that we must see what it is that creates wealth and wages. All wealth is created by labor, and the greatest wealth is created when the greatest sum of products is produced in a given time; and that is done when the laborer works in harmony with the forces of nature and the auxiliaries which the inventive genius of man has supplied.

How, then, can import taxes increase wealth and wages? How can any law foster, encourage, or stimulate the production of wealth or wages, when it requires the laborer to work two days to procure that which he could without it obtain in one day? One day’s labor under such a law is lost, and that which it would have earned is lost.

Great Britain carries on her immense traffic with foreign countries because she thereby gives employment to her people, increases their wealth, and adds to their comfort and happiness. It is a source of great profit, and she is extracting every dollar from it she can. She is sending the products of her labor all over and around the world, and distributing them among all conditions of people, from the highest civilization in America to the darkest barbarism in the jungles of Africa; and by her enormous commerce she is filling the pockets of her people with wealth. Why should we not do it? Mr. Blaine favors subsidizing steamship lines to run between our home and foreign ports; but why should we hunt commerce with other people when we refuse to take it when we find it?

It will be seen that whenever our foreign trade increases our agricultural products increase in price; that distributes wealth through the great hive of agricultural labor; that again demands the products of manufacture, and that gives better employment and higher wages to labor, and that brings prosperity to the whole land. It was so under the falling tariff of 1833, and it was so under the low revenue tariffs from 1846 to 1860. Mr. Blaine charges that the depression and panic of 1837 were the product of the falling tariff of 1833. It is a strange argument that reducing taxation produces depression, distress and bankruptcy, and that imposing high taxes produces wealth and them with English products^sic. But upon what ground can American statesmen favor granting subsidies to steamships to hunt for commerce which our continental position forbids us to receive?

. . . Mr. Clay, who was the author of the compromise bill, said that “it was not correct that the compromise act had occasioned the embarrassments of the country,” and that “it was a great mistake to say that any portion of the embarrassments of the country had resulted from it.” This “great mistake” Mr. Blaine has made. Mr. Clay said it was speculation in lands and the expansion of the currency that produced that panic, and that the reduction of the tariff had nothing to do with it^sic

But it is constantly charged that, if we lower our taxes, we will let in foreign goods and ruin our manufacturers. If this is true, they would all have been ruined between 1846 and 1860, for our imports and exports were constantly increasing from year to year.

Mr. Blaine says that the periods of depression in our home manufactures were those in which England most prospered in her commercial relations with us. In this statement he is not accurate. When England is most prosperous, she has the most money to buy what we have to sell and what her wants re-

p. 10, col. 4 > quire her to buy, and these are mainly agricultural products. When she is most prosperous, she makes an active demand on our farmers for cotton, breadstuffs and provisions. This active demand always raises the prices of all farm products all over the country, and distributes wealth among the masses of the people.

There are but few things in either that we cannot produce cheaper than they can be produced elsewhere, and that articles whose cost of production is the lowest holds the market againt^sic all competitors.

No tariff levied upon agricultural products can help them. It can only hurt them, as it does by prohibiting the import of the things that would come to be exchanged for them.

But it is not in the home market that our agricultural interest is imperiled. It is in the foreign market, and the danger there does not come from rival products, for we can raise our products and pay the costs of transportation to market and then undersell with profit all rivals. The danger is in foreign and domestic tariffs that prohibit our entrance into the market.

Situated as we are to-day, we are shut out from the world’s markets because the cost of our production is greater than that of our rivals. We only export a trifle of the vast product we manufacture—about two per cent of the whole.

If congress would remove the duty from all materials that enter into manufacture, then we could buy them on equal terms with the foreigner, and, having advantage of him in the cheapness of our labor, we could soon start all our machinery and operate it in full time, and give full employment and better wages to our workmen.

Instead of claiming our marvelous growth as the logical result of commercial restriction because it has occurred subsequent to the adoption of that policy, it would be more satisfactory to show how wealth is made and trace it back to that source, if it be the rightful one. How is the dollar, the unit of the vast pile, made? The answer must be, by labor. That is the producing cause of all wealth. And the largest wealth will be made where labor produces the largest amount of products in a given time. These products will take their largest value where there is the largest demand for their consumption, and that is in the markets where the same articles cannot be produced, or cannot be produced as cheaply, or not in sufficient quantities to supply the demand. Hence the surplus must find its markets away from home, where it is wanted, and not at home, where it is not wanted.

When protection puts taxes upon the goods of the foreigner that prohibit them from coming here, he is rendered less able to take in exchange the surplus which we are ready and anxious to give. He takes less of our wheat, flour, cotton, and provisions; a larger surplus is left in the home market; the demand is decreased; the price fails, and the growth of wealth is retarded.

The woolen industry ever since 1824 has had a dead body bound on its shoulders in the tax on wool, and it will never show what it is capable of doing until wool and all other materials used in its manufacture are relieved from tariff taxation, and a revenue duty placed upon the finished product.

Mr. Blaine wants to know what the thousands of laborers employed in steel rail manufacture would do if the tariff were removed from steel rails? The answer is ready: they would make steel rails. He himself shows that we can, and, when we have to do so, do produce steel rails as cheaply as they are produced in England.

Mr. Blaine seems to be elated at the statement of Mr. Gladstone that we produce cloth and iron at high prices, instead of cereals and cotton at low prices, and he proceeds to thank him profusely in the name of all the friends of high taxes. But it seems to me that the farmer will not become hilarious at the proposition of Mr. Blaine to increase for him the cost of producing his cotton and his grains. The whole progress of our industrial system and its enormous growth have come through decreasing the cost of production by utilizing machinery and other agencies for increasing product. If the western farmer could lower the present cost of producing a bushel of wheat, there would be a greater margin of profit between cost of production and market prices.

SINGLE TAX PLATFORM.

The single tax contemplates the abolition of all taxes upon labor or the products of labor—that is to say, the abolition of all taxes save one tax levied on the value^sic of land, irrespective of improvements.

Since in all our states we now levy some tax on the value of land, the single tax can be instituted by the simple and easy way of abolishing, one after another, all other taxes now levied, and commensurately increasing the tax on land values, until we draw upon that one source for all expenses of goverument^sic; the revenue being divided between local goveruments^sic, state goveruments and the general government, as the revenue from direct taxes is now divided between the local and state governments, or a direct assessment being made by the general government upon the states and paid by them from revenues collected in this manner.

The single tax is not a tax on land, and therefore would not fall on the use of land and become a tax on labor.

It is a tax, not on land, bnt^sic on the value of land. Thus it would not fall on all land, but only on valuable land, and on that not in proportion to the use made of it, but in proportion to its value—the premium which the user of land must pay to the owner, either in purchase money or in rent, for permission to use valuable land. It would thus be a tax, uot^sic on the use or improvement of land, but on the ownership of land, taking what would otherwise go to the owner as owner, and not as user.

In assessments under the single tax all values created by individual use or improvement would be excluded, and the only value taken into consideration would be the value attaching to the bare land by reason of neighborhood, etc. Thus the farmer would have no more taxes to pay than the speculator who held a similar piece of land idle, and the man who on a city lot erected a valuable building would be taxed no more than the man who held a similar lot vacant.

The single tax, in short, would call upon men to contribute to the public revenues not in proportion to what they produce or accumulate, but iu^sic proportion to the value of the natural opportunities they hold. It would compel them to pay just as much for holding land idle as for putting it to its fullest use.

The single tax, therefore, would—

1. Take the weight of taxation off of the agricultural districts when land has little or no value irrespective of improvements, and put it on towns and cities where bare land rises to a value of millions of dollars per acre.

2. Dispense with a multiplicity of taxes and a horde of taxgatherers, simplify government and greatly reduce its cost.

3. Do away with the fraud, corruption and gross inequality inseparable from our present methods of taxation, which allow the rich to escape while they grind the poor. Land cannot be hid or carried off, and its value can be ascertained with greater ease and certainty than any other.

4. Give us with all the world as perfect freedom of trade as now exists between the states of our Union, thus enabling our people to share through free exchanges in all the advantages which nature has given to other countries, or which the peculiar skill of other peoples has enabled them to attain. It would destroy the trusts, monopolies, and corruptions which are the outgrowtns^sic of the tariff. It would do away with the fines and penalties now levied on any one who improves a farm, erects a house, builds a machiue^sic, or in any way adds to the general stock of wealth. It would leave every one free to apply labor or expend capital in production or exchange without fine or restriction, and would leave to each the full product of his exertion.

5. It would, on the other hand, by taking for public uses that value which attaches to land by reason of the growth and improvement of the commuuity^sic, make the holding of land unprofitable to the mere owner and profitable only to the user. It would thus make it impossible for speculators and monopolists to hold natural opportunities unused or only half used, and would throw open to labor the illimitable field of employment which the earth offers to man. It would thus solve the labor problem, do away with involuntary poverty, raise wages in all occupations to the full earnings of labor, make overproduction impossible until all human wants are satisfied, render labor saving inventions a blessing to all, and cause such an enormous production and such an equitable distribution of wealth as would give to all comfort, leisure and participation in the advantages of an advancing civilization.

The ethical principles on which the single tax is based are:

1. Each man is entitled to all that his labor produces. Therefore no tax should be levied on the products of labor.

2. All men are equally entitled to what God has created and to what is gained by the general growth and improvement of the community of which they are a part. Therefore, no one should be permitted to hold natural opportunities without a fair return to all for any special privilege thus accorded to him, and that value which the growth and improvement of the community attaches to land should be taken for the use of the community.

p. 11, col. 2

EARNEST DESIRE AND EFFORT MAY PLACE BALTIMORE IN THE FRONT OF THE SINGLE TAX MOVEMENT.

BALTIMORE, Feb. 6.—The single tax men in Baltimore are few, which makes the amount of good work they have done in the past eight months seem all the more wonderful. Practically, Dr. Hill and Wm. J. Ogden are the leaders of the movement here, unless the Rev. R. Whittingham—an Episcopal minister who has lately joined the league, and who has preached a series of sermons with the climax in single tax—is to be included. And so the work of organizing, having lectures and planning politically, rests entirely in the hands of the two first mentioned gentlemen.

About the first practical move made by the Baltimore single tax men was to join the Crescent democratic club, where they entered actively into the Crescent club’s designs and fought the management of the democratic party, represented in the persons of Gorman and others, being put on all the committees of the club; and at the last conference of the contending factions Mr. Ogden was one of the committee appointed to represent the Crescent club there. It was through his and Dr. Hill’s efforts that the Business men’s democratic association adopted the resolution approving the Australian system of voting, and so pledged the party to that measure despite the assertion of Senator Gorman that it would injure the democratic party of Maryland. The participation of these two gentlemen in this matter was duly recognized by the Business men’s association, who invited them to go with the association to Annapolis to appear before the senate and delegates’ committee on elections last Tuesday, February 4.

In the campaign of last fall Dr. Hill and Mr. Ogden took the stump for the “regular” democratic party, on account of its attitude on the Australian ballot, and they regaled the democrats with speeches on true democracy, local self-government, free trade and the single tax. On one occasion Mr. Ogden had been assigned to follow Senator Gorman at a mass meeting at the Concordia, a large hall, and the result was an unexpected one to all present. The senator had explained in his speech that the democratic party was not a free trade party, but was for revenue and incidental protection; but when Mr. Ogden went to the front he proclaimed himself an absolute free trade democrat. He showed that the democratic doctrine of local self-government was impossible without absolute free trade, and that democratic principles were only possible of realization under a system of direct taxation. Then, referring to the remarks of Maryland’s senior senator, he said that if “protection was a robbery,” as the senator had stated, then “incidental protection” was only a little robbery; and then he asked the audience if they wanted to be robbed at all, “incidentally or otherwise.” The crowd shouted a thunderous “No!” much to the discomfiture of Senator Gorman, who at the conclusion of Mr. Ogden’s speech sat in his chair as still as a statue while all the other gentlemen on the platform gathered about Mr. Ogden and cordially complimented him on his effort.

Soon after joining the Crescent club, Mr. Ogden, on invitation, delivered an address before the Landlord’s protective association, which was printed in full in the American, and portions of it in the Sun and Herald. The Real Estate Record printed it in full, with favorable comments, in two editions, giving as a reason that the demand for it had been so great that on solicitation they had republished it. J. F. Morrison, president of the Crescent club, bought 5,000 copies of the paper and mailed them wherever he thought they would do good.

A short time ago Dr. Hill and Mr. Ogden presented a petition to the mayor requesting the appointment of a tax committee. The mayor consented so far as to appoint a commission on examination, empowered to make suggestions regarding a change in the tax system. The two gentlemen appeared before the commission and made a general statement as to the justice of levying all taxes on land values, for which they were duly thanked, and invited to prepare a more elaborate address and appear before the commission again. Mr. Morrison heard of what had been done, and wrote asking if he could be of any use in the preparation of the coming address. The two gentlemen answered that he could—that they wanted maps and drawings with which to illustrate the address. “How much will they cost?” asked Mr. Morrison. “About twenty-five hundred dollars,” was the answer. “Get them,” said Mr. Morrison. And they were got. The result of the second address was that the commission reported to the mayor favorably a number of the suggestions made by Dr. Hill and Mr. Ogden. This report has

p. 11, col. 3 occasioned more talk than anything that has happened in Baltimore for a long time, and to give an idea of how public opinion stands on the matter, it will be pertinent to narrate as follows:

Mr. Haines, editor-in-chief of the Sun, says “he believes Baltimore’s future system of taxation will be based on the suggestions of our friends to the tax commission.”

Mr. Frisk of the American believed the idea “to be right.”

Mr. Powell, editor-in-chief of the News, is considering how he can bring it out in his paper; that he “believes in it.”

Judge Fisher is of the opinion that “after the Australian ballot becomes law, then will come the land value tax.”

And yet all that Dr. Hill and Mr. Ogden recommended to the commissioh^sic on examination was the adoption of the single tax on land values!

The single tax league is weak numerically, but its work and the work of its two leaders, will shortly bear fruit; in fact, it is felt here that old Baltimore will perhaps “get there” as soon as any other city, if it does not “lead the procession.”

MARYLANDER.

HUXLEY, SPENCER, HERBERT, WILSON AND GREENWOOD DISCUSSING THE LAND QUESTION.

Half a dozen more letters on the land question, republished from the London Times, occupy fifteen pages of the Popular Science Monthly for February. Professor Huxley’s second letter, which opens this instalment of the series, returns to the attack on Mr. Spencer. Professor Huxley is not convinced that the social philosopher dissents from Mr. Laidler’s view of the land question. Any one who sets up the theory that land titles were originally acquired by force and fraud has a right to cite Mr. Spencer in support of his position. The absolute political ethics of to-day have got little further than Rousseauism. Professor Huxley refuses assent tc^sic the opinion that all land holders hold their land subject to the supreme ownership of the state. He insists, too, that state ownership is a very different thing from the communal land tenure of antiquity.

Mr. Auberon Herbert in a long letter re-attacks Mr. Greenwood for the heavy lesson which he administered to the philosophers in a former letter, and rejoices that Mr. Spencer has modified his views on the subject of land. Mr. Herbert then attacks land nationalization and the theory upon which it is based. If the land belongs to all mankind, then national occupation of a territory wrongs the rest of the world. If ancient force vitiates private land titles, ancient conquests have vitiated national land titles. If land is not a proper object of private ownership, neither are the products of the soil, for they take up in their growth the most valuable part of the soil. Mr. Herbert challenges Mr. George or Mr. Laidler to answer this argument. Land nationalization is inexpedient because it would make permanency of tenure impossibie^sic. A, who is thrifty, must give way to B, who is idle, but must have his chance at the land. Then came all the faults of official management, inspectorate, surveyors, clerks, and what not. Mr. Herbert’s remedy is easier land transfers and the abolition of all land taxes. This would make land a first rate investment for the poor man. Finally Mr. Herbert commends all to re-read Mr. Spencer and profit by his philosophy, as he alone has pointed a true way out of the wilderness.

Mr. Greenwood’s second letter is a complaint that Mr. Spencer has not effectually repudiated the opinion that it may be necessary to do a wrong to right another wrong.

Mr. Darcy Wilson then comes in with an attack on Mr. Laidler’s effort to show that Herbert Spencer has preached land nationalization. According to the argument in “Social Statics” land should belong, not to individuals or states, but to the human race, and it should revert to the latter upon compensation to private owners. The private land tenure of England is not based upon force and fraud, because William the Conqueror held it fee^sic and apportioned it among his subjects. Mr. Laidler’s scheme for seizure of the land by the state without compensation is robbery; the idea that it should revert to the state with compensation is folly, and Mr. Spencer’s idea of reversion to the human race with compensation is a philosophical dream.

Mr. Spencer returns to the controversy long enough to appease Mr. Greenwood by positively repudiating the opinion that a wrong may be done to right a wrong, and to give a vicious little slap at Professor Huxley.

Professor Huxley writes a third letter, saying that he has not expressed an opinion as to the desirability of state ownership of land

p. 11, col. 4 and that he is ready to accept it on sufficient proof. He then repeats much of Mr. Herbert’s argument against state ownership as opposed to ownership by the human race. He also assails the historical accuracy of the assertion that the first ownership of the soil resided in the state.

Mr. Greenwood closes the series with a protest against the tone of Mr. Herbert’s letter.

HOW THREE MASSACHUSETTS “FARMERS” GAVE AWAY THEIR CASES.

BOSTON, February 7.—The single tax in Massachusetts has almost reached the stage of practical politics, inasmuch as it has already drawn the fire of the opposition. For some months back reports have appeared of meetings of alleged “farmers” passing resolutions and appointing committees to oppose the single tax. As no names appeared in connection with the reports, we did not become thoroughly enlightened as to the interest and standing of our opponents until the second hearing upon the single tax petitions before the committee of the general court.

Farmer No. 1 said: “This matter should be entitled ‘a bill for the anarchists, socialists and communists to confiscate every farm in the commonwealth of Massachusetts.’ . . . I was brought up on a farm and worked as a farmer’s boy sixteen hours a day; but I got my eye-teeth cut and came to Boston forty years ago. I have practised as a physician, but I am now retired from business. I own farms in New Hampshire, some land in the west and some real estate in Boston. Yes, the single tax would ruin every farmer in the country.”

Question—Will you give a few particulars as to your investment in a certain parcel of salt marsh in Boston and the profits realized?

Answer—Oh, yes. When I bought that land of Nathan Matthews twenty years ago and gave him my check for the price ($5,000), he said, “I never did cheat a man before in a land trade, but I have got the best of you this time.” I have realized a quarter of a million dollars profit upon that investment up to the present time.

Q.—What effect, if any, do you believe the single tax would have upon the business of land speculation?

A.—It would kill the business.

Farmer No. 2—The farmers have the hardest work to make a living of any class in the commonwealth. I cannot get any more for my vegetables than twenty years ago; but my land in Marblehead, then valued at $50 to $100 per acre, is now assessed for $1,200 per acre; and it takes all the profits of farming to pay the taxes.

Q.—Will you sell your land, or any portion of it, at the assessed valuation?

A.—No.

Q.—What prices have you sold land for?

A.—Two thousand dollars per acre.

Farmer No. 3 owned land in Revere worth only $100 per acre when purchased; is now assessed at $1,750 per acre; did not desire to sell at that price; had refused $5,000 per acre for his orchard. He thought the assessments of farming lands should be reduced, as the profits of vegetable raising were so small.

The tender solicitude for the culture of cabbages, early peas and other useful vegetables, and the sympathy for the farmer manifested by these and other remonstrants concealed in every case the most ambitious schemes of speculation in town, suburban and seashore lots. The remonstrants to the single tax did even more than its friend^sic to show its point and application. They proved the evils of land speculation, and furnished in their own persons a most invincible row of “awful examples.”

EDWIN M. WHITE, Sec. S. T. L., Boston.

27 Pemberton square, Boston.

THE MANHATTAN SINGLE TAX CLUB RAISES ITS DUES—THE WEST SIDE CLUB DISSOLVES, AND SOME OF ITS MEMBERS JOIN THE MANHATTAN CLUB.

The rooms of the Manhattan single tax club were crowded with members last Thursday evening when Chairman Post called the second regular meeting to order. For the first time the managing board and its sub-committees reported in writing. Mr. Wolf, chairman of the board, read the reports. The house committee reported that the property of the club was valued at $950; the library

p. 12, col. 2 committee, that 500 volumes of all descriptions were on the shelves; the agitation committee, the arrangements made for future lectures and entertainments; the membership committee, the number of new members admitted, and the finance committee, the condition of the monetary affairs of the club.

The proposition to raise the dues was then taken up, and after a short debate was carried by a large majority, the vote standing 58 to 5. Under this new law there will be no initiation fee; city members will pay dues of one dollar a month, in advance, and nonresident members two dollars a year, payable semi-annually in advance. With the increased revenue the club will be able to enter in the future more largely into propaganda work without, as has been the practice in the past, calling on the active members to supply the workers and means. It is also intended to procure larger quarters at the expiration of the present lease.

One of the pleasant incidents of the meeting was the entrance into the club room of the members of the late West side single tax club, who informed the meeting that they had dissolved their organization and decided to join the Manhattan club. They were nominated by the club as members, and the managing board immediately went into extra session and elected them members, which action was approved amid cheers.

A resolution was adopted appointing a committee to divide the city into small neighborhood districts, and when they have reported the club will be divided into small committees, whose duty it will be to find the single tax men in their neighborhoods and invite them to join the club; and if they cannot see their way clear to do so, to take their names for future reference, when their assistance will be of value.

Dr. Walter Mendelson presented the club with a handsome engraving of Thomas Paine. The agitation committee stated their immediate programme as follows: To-morrow (Thursday) evening, commencing at half-past 8, progressive whist; a prize for the highest score and a booby prize for the lowest; open to all members of the club. Thursday, February 20, at 8 o’clock, a lecture by Rev. S. W. Thackeray, author of “The Land and the Community.” Saturday, February 22 (Washington’s birthday), an informal dinner; a charge of 35 cents. Thursday, February 27, a smokers’ talk, refreshments, etc., free.

The chairman said that Mr. Ogden, president of the single tax league of Baltimore, was present, and invited him to say a few words, which invitation he accepted, and delivered a most interesting short talk.

Mr. Steers brought up the matter of the ballot reform petition, and while he said it was generally admitted that the single tax men were doing the bulk of the work of gathering signatures, still he asked them to increase their energy in that direction.

Mr. Post in closing the meeting, asked the members to do their utmost to increase the influence and membership of the club.

J. E. Harden, Annexed District.—The single tax men up here have come together and organized the North New York single tax club. A meeting is called for Thursday evening, February 13, at 8 o’clock, at 2,840 Third avenue, and we invite all in the district to come and lend us a hand in the work of advancing the cause.

THE SUNDAY EVENING MEETING OF THE BROOKLYN CLUB—ACTIVE WORK BEGUN BY THE EIGHTEENTH WARD CLUB.

In the absence of a regular address Sunday evening the Brooklyn club discussed the letter of Hugh McCulloch which appeared in the New York Times, February 3. Peter Aitken read the more interesting passages, making such comment thereon as seemed to be desirable. He said it was impossible for men like Mr. McCulloch, trained in the old school of political economy, to grasp the real point at issue in a discussion of the relative merits of protection versus free trade. For the first time since the club has taken up its recent discussion of “Protection or Free Trade?” a thorough-going protectionist was found who had the courage to defend that system. His argument was a forcible presentation of the justice of protection. Said he: “The rights of the individual must always be subservient to the power of a high central authority.” Messrs. G. W. Thompson and W. E. Hicks also took part in the discussion. Mr. Hicks will be the speaker next Sunday evening.

Washington hall, at Park avenue and Broadway, was well filled February 6, when the newly organized Eighteenth ward club inaugurated active work by holding a public meeting. Mr. Pettenkoffer acted as chairman. The first speaker, Hon. George H. Yeamen^sic, ridiculed the whole protection theory, demonstrating that the effect of protection was to raise the cost, and thereby restrict the demand of every article upon which a tariff was levied.

Lindley Vinton, the next speaker, was brim full of statistics, and must have excited the envy of those who attempt to defend protection on the ground that it is the chief cause of the country’s marvellous development. He showed that as regards iron, upon which protectionists base their princi

p. 12, col. 3 pal claim for a continuance of that policy, that instead of the reduction of the cost of that staple being brought about by protection, over $100 of the reduction from $168 a ton (the price in 1863 of steel rails) to the present price of about $30 a ton, actually occurred before we commenced to make steel rails in 1870, and was brought about by various inventions, as the Bessemer process, which enormously decreased the cost of production.

The Rev. S. W. Laidler then reviewed the effect that the restrictive policy had upon our shipping trade. In one item alone, namely, the profit of carrying the merchandise of the world, a large part of which was American, England realized more than $100,000,000, which was paid for in meat, wheat, corn, etc., and for which we got no return. Mr. Laidler then showed that what single tax men were striving for was true free trade—freedom not merely to exchange, but freedom of access to natural opportunities in order that they might have things to exchange.

Several gentlemen then proceeded to ask the usual questions, which have been successfully answered time and again. Not the least pleasing part of the evening’s exercise was a violin and piano duet by Miss Fannie and Master Joseph Weston.

THE BUFFALO MEN AGGRESSIVE—TEN QUESTIONS THAT LEAD TO THE TRUTH—THE LAW REGARDING PROPERTY ASSESSMENTS.

H. B. Buddenburg, Buffalo.—Our club will meet hereafter in Central labor union hall.

It would be difficult to estimate the extent of the good work being done by those of our members who have, through the Knights of Labor, secured seats as delegates to the Central labor union of this city. It was through them that the Central labor union was brought to see the truth of our ideas and publicly indorse them; but not yet satisfied, they succeeded in having appointed an entertainment committee of five—three of whom are single tax men and members of the club. That this committee has wasted little time will be shown in the public announcement of a series of lectures at Central labor hall, as follows: February 11, Henry A. Richmond, subject, “Ballot Reform;” February 18, Rev. George Whitman, subject, “Child Labor;” February 25, Henry A. Adams, D.D., subject, “The Poor You Have With You;” Marcn 4^sic, Colonel D. D. Alexander, United States district attorney, subject, “Alien Labor;” March 11, J. M. Heinzle, professor Canisius college.

The free trade trade and tariff reform fight^sic will soon begin in earnest in Erie county.

S. T., Buffalo.—The statistician of D. A. No. 46, K. of L., whose address is P. O. box No. 340, asks “those who may be interested” to send replies to these questions to him:

First—With the present modes of production, does our population of sixty-five millions press against the natural limits of subsistence in this country?

Second—What would be the effect on wages and the profits of real capital if a new, uninhabited country, rich enough in fertility and natural stores to supply a population as large as that of Europe, were discovered on our Atlantic sea coast?

Third—What would become of the eight hour question if such a country were discovered?

Fourth—If, by the imposition of heavier taxes on the unused valuable lands now held by speculators and foreign syndicates and the exemption of productive industry from all taxation, natural resources sufficient to supply a population as large as that of Europe were thrown open at our doors, would it not have as good an effect on wages and genuine capital as, if not better than, the discovery of this supposed country?

Fifth—What would be the logical effect on the speculative element in land values if the taxes on those values were materially increased?

Sixth—Would the destruction of the speculative element in land values retard or invite increased improvements?

Seventh—Would the exemption of improvements from taxation be a substantial encouragement to the further increase of improvements?

Eighth—If it is true, as the Central labor union claim to have demonstrated it to be, that Buffalo could exempt all its houses, stores and factories from taxation and still raise its present tax levy by tax rate of only $8.50^sic on every $1,000 of taxable land value, would Buffalo’s relative position as a residential, manufacturing or commercial city be lowered or raised by such an exemption?

Ninth—When public improvements are made in a certain locality, do they increase the value of land or houses in that locality?

Tenth—Is it true, as an abstract proposition, that taxation without benefit is robbery?

S. T., New Brighton, S. I.—There has been a considerable advance in thought and some very important conversions made by the work carried on here for some time past. A standing has been given to our organization by the converts we have made. When the weather opens we will start on our cart-tail campaign.

A number of citizens have issued a circular explaining what the law is in regard to property assessments and calling on the residents of the island to examine the rolls between now and August next, and to prosecute all under valuations without delay. If this programme is carried out there will be a flurry in these parts, for much of the vacant

p. 12, col. 4 land is assessed as low as from one-tenth to one-thirteenth of its selling price.

NEWS FROM BOSTON, LYNN, HYDE PARK AND ATTLEBORO—MR. PENDLETON’S DIAGRAM.

William Lloyd Garrison, Boston.—In our hearing before the legislative committee last Friday (January 31), a number of the men opposed to us conceded that in a city the single tax might be an advantage, and we had to spend our time and ammunition on the poor farmer.

S. C. Bryant, Lynn.—On last Thursday evening, February 6, James A. Herne and Professor Hamlin Garland spoke to 300 of our citizens, who were much pleased with the plainness with which the “cat” was shown. Since the fire land values have risen, and, to show the way in which our assessors estimate values, a piece of land, lately bought by the city, cost seven times the assessed valuation. At a recent meeting of the common council an order was passed authorizing the mayor to petition the legislature for the right to tax every mile of the horse railroad frahchise^sic.

John A. Rooney, Hyde Park.—Professor Hamlin Garland addressed the members of the Grattan literary institute of this town January 22, on the single tax. His talk has done good.

S. T., Attleboro.—William Lloyd Garrison addressed a large and earnest audience here on Tuesday, February 4.

S. T., Boston.—At a largely attended regular meeting of Boston typographical union, the following resolution, introduced by John Lavis, was adopted by a nearly unanimous vote:

Whereas, at a recent meeting of the Boston business men’s executive association, an able paper on taxation was presented by Jonathan A. Lane, chairman of a committee appointed for that purpose, the fundamental principle of which was to shift the burden of taxation from personal property to real estate; therefore

Resolved, That we, the Boston typographical union, recognizing the injustice of taxing personal property and thereby driving capital from investment in our city, heartily indorse the enactment of any such law.

John Lavis, Dorchester.—Our friend Pendleton prepared the following diagram and an interview with a friend, which seems to us to clearly set forth the injustice of our present system of taxation:

[Diagram: typeset plan of lots, a top row of six small lots, two more small lots at the left, beside a large tract; each small lot marked with two dollar figures (upper “$ 5”, lower a larger figure); the large tract marked “1,000” and “tax $50.”; caption below.]

Top row (each lot, upper / lower figure): $ 5 / $20 | $ 5 / $25 | $ 5 / $30 | $ 5 / $24 | $ 5 / $30 | $ 5 / $33 Left side, below: $ 5 / $30 ; $ 5 / $25 Large tract: 1,000 / tax $50. Prospective railroad.

“My friend, taxation is heavy.”

Friend—Yes, indeed it is.

“Now look at this plan, my dear sir. A few settlers buy their lots of an eastern syndicate for $1,000 apiece, and before improving are taxed $5. When they get their land improved they are taxed $20, $25, $30, etc., as the second figures in the diagram show. Now, you see as they put their labor on their place they are taxed heavily, while the syndicate that lives in some other state, and probably in a foreign country, which owns the best land, that nearest the prospective railroad, and who do not hire any labor to improve their holding, and who own more land than all the rest, are only taxed $50.”

Friend—Yes, I see; but how do you propose to remedy it?

“Take all taxes off of improvements, and put it on the rental value of land. It takes $267 taxes to run this small township. These small farmers have 100 acres apiece, and the syndicate holds 1,000 acres, all of equal value. Make the taxes $15 on each 100 acres, and then the eight farmers will pay altogether $120 on the value of their land, and the syndicate $150. In that way, my friend, the syndicate will hire labor to go to work on the land to make something out of it, and the poor farmers can improve all they want to and won’t be taxed any more.”

Friend—That’s fair and just.

“A political economist has showed us how this can be done.”

Friend—Who is he?

“Henry George.”

Friend—Henry George is right.

AN ORGANIZATION WANTED IN WATERBURY—W. J. GORSUCH IN MADISON.

G. W. McDonald, Waterbury.—In reading “the roll of states” for a considerable length of time, I find you print no report from this city. That is strange, when it is considered that we have between five and six hundred single tax men here somewhat “afraid of their horse,” it is true, but still single tax men. I think it is well, in view of the good news coming from all parts of the country, to wake up here in Waterbury. The question of organizing a single tax club has been discussed for some time, but no active steps have been taken. Who will start the ball?

In conversation with one of our largest manufacturers the other day (who had just paid an enormous price for a piece of swampy land for the purpose of extending his factory), he berated land owners in general, and used language not too complimentary to them. I thought it a good time to explain the single tax to him, and closed by continued on p. 13 →

[page ends mid-sentence; the Waterbury letter presumably continues on the following page, but no continuation line is printed]

MOVING ON THE BUREAU OF STATISTICS—THE LEGISLATIVE COMMITTEE ON BALLOT REFORM TO TAKE EVIDENCE.

J. A. Craig, Paterson.—Our club has passed resolutions congratulating Governor Abbett on that part of his resolution relating to ballot reform, excepting the section relating to the distribution of official ballots prior to the holding of an election. We do not think that Census Superintendent Porter will investigate the mortgaged indebtedness of the country, so we passed the following:

Resolved, That Mr. James Bishop, chief of the state bureau of statistics, be and is hereby requested to examine into and report upon the percentage of people in the state who occupy their own homes and farms, and what proportion are tenants; and of those who occupy their own homes and farms, what proportion have their property free from debt; and of the homes and farms which are under mortgage, what percentage of the value is so mortgaged; and

Resolved, That single tax clubs, farmers’ associations, local and district assemblies of the Knights of Labor, and all other associations of whatever kind throughout the state, be and are hereby requested to pass resolutions, urging the said Mr. James Bishop to make such investigation and report thereon in his next annual report.

The press committee are under instructions to ascertain and publish the assessed valuations along with the selling price of real estate sold each week.

S. T., Trenton.—The joint committee on ballot reform of the legislature issued a notice last week to all persons interested to appear before them on Tuesday, February 11.

A. W. Davis, Oxford.—I have sent twenty-three signatures to the committee, all either Knights of Labor or farmers. The light is breaking, and soon all good knights will fall into line.

SINGLE TAX FROM A CONGREGATIONAL PULPIT—ORGANIZED IN COLUMBUS.

E. P. F., Cincinnati.—At the Monday evening economic class of the Storrs Congregational church, of which Rev. E. P. Foster is pastor, the president of the City single tax club, James Semple, gave on February 3 a rousing address on the single tax. The church was well filled, and after the address was over discussion was opened and kept up enthusiastically until the janitor suddenly darkened good counsel by turning off the gas and thus turning out the oratorical lights.

H. Struby Swank, Columbus.—According to appointment a goodly number of single taxers met on last Monday night at the office of the Triumph artificial limb company, and organized a single tax club, which will meet hereafter at half-past 3 o’clock every Sunday. All single taxers in the vicinity should, by their presence at each meeting, aid us in spreading the doctrine.

C. A. Potwin, Zanesville.—The officers of our single tax club for the ensuing term are: President, W. H. Loughead; vice-president, E. C. Crumbaker; secretary, Wm. Quigley; treasurer, J. J. Roll.

A. R. Wynn, Toledo.—The enrolment committee is doing better than they know.

S. T., Sheffield.—The Unity club, attached to the Unitarian church, recently discussed the single tax in a very thorough manner, the pastor, Rev. Lewis J. Duncan, showing a more than passing interest in the discussion.

Wm. A. Cronenberger, Cleveland.—That petition is a great thing. I like to talk on the single tax, and asking a man to sign the petition gives me the opportunity I seek.

James R. Angier, Akron.—The progress of our principles is best seen in the increased respect for and willingness to investigate the claims of the single tax. Our club has p. 13, col. 2 emerged from the quiescent state into which it had fallen last summer, and is now doing excellent work, and holding public meetings twice a week. Rev. C. Elwood Nash, our Universalist minister, has done much to aid the single tax by the indorsement of it in his sermons.

S. T., Colman.—The St. Louis league some time ago sowed single tax seed here which is now showing results. A meeting will be shortly held, at which J. S. Berry will speak on the single tax.

THE INDIANAPOLIS CLUB MEET IN THEIR NEW ROOMS.

L. P. Custer, Indianapolis.—The first public meeting of our club in our new rooms took place Sunday evening, February 2. There was a large attendance. C. H. Krause gave a reading, and Thomas J. Hudson a talk on “trust principles;” then Judge Fellows spoke on the moral side of the single tax doctrine. The judge was followed by Wendel Vondersaar. The Rev. Daniels of the New church will address us at our next meeting. On Tuesday, February 4, the club conducted a mock trial of A. V. Hahn, on the charge of bribing a voter (Mr. Buell) at the recent election of the club (which was conducted under the new state law, the Australian plan). While it was the cause of great fun, it afforded considerable information as to the provisions of the new bribery act also passed by the legislature.

Mr. Shaekle^sic has presented the club with a bound volume of THE STANDARD, and a number of friends have sent in miscellaneous works and periodicals.

JAMES MALCOLM TALKS TO THE STENOGRAPHERS—A COUNTY CONFERENCE PROBABLE—A GRAIN SPECULATOR REACHES OUT FOR THE TRUTH, BUT MISSES IT—“THAT PETITION IS A GREAT THING.”

Warren Worth Bailey, Chicago.—James Malcolm, one of the brainiest men in our organization and one of the very cleverest with the pen that I know anywhere, had a paper at last night’s meeting which was addressed particularly to the stenographers, but which was broad enough in its scope to include and interest all classes. There was a fine audience present. Marshal Beck and Messrs. Van Ornum, Place, Devannon, Meadows and others participated in the discussion that followed.

On Thursday evening, February 27, Professer^sic C. F. Peterson, who has but recently joined the club, will speak on “The Single Tax in the Light of the New Church.” This will be a notable address, and I hope the friends throughout the city will help to make the occasion what it should be.

The collection of statistics relating to local assessments continues under the supervision of that indefatigable worker, Mr. J. T. Ripley. He is aided most efficiently by Mr. Malcolm, Mr. A. H. Adair and others, and a sensation is promised when the facts are ready for publication. One of the leading papers of Chicago has promised to give the results of the committee’s work all the space that it may deserve.

There is some talk of holding a county conference in June, and on Thursday evening next the matter will be thoroughly considered.

S. T., Chicago.—The Economic club, which meets in the recital hall, Auditorium building, on Sunday evenings, had as the lecturer last Sunday evenings, February 2^sic, Robert Lindblom, known for nearly twenty-five years as a successful operator on the Chicago board of trade. The subject selected for him, “The influence of speculation on prices,” was one about which he was supposed to know a great deal; and that he did transpired in the course of his lecture. Here are some of the things he said that will be of interest to our friends:

An article can have three values, to wit: A utilitarian value, a commercial value and a speculative value; and it can have each or all.

Everybody believes, or affects to believe, that values are governed by the supply and demand. If, then, to the utilitarian and commercial demand is added that other demand which does not really exist, but which so-called speculators create by anticipating a demand later on, the effect must be to increase the demand while the supply remains the same, and values must be enhanced for the time being at least.

Short selling is a new invention, and is the very reverse of speculation as generally understood.

A speculator always buys in hopes of an advance in prices, and only sells what he actually possesses or controls by virtue of contracts.

VERY FEW PEOPLE REALIZE THE FACT THAT THERE IS BUT ONE SOURCE FROM WHICH WEALTH CAN BE PRODUCED; ONLY ONE, AND THAT IS FROM LAND. Every business enterprise, every industry, every artisan, depends upon the products of the land for the production of wealth, either by directly extracting, exchanging, by refining or transporting the same. ALL WEALTH HAS TO COME FROM LAND, JUST AS SURE AS ALL LIFE OR LAND^sic DEPENDS ON AIR AND SUN.

I want to emphasize this proposition: That all wealth is produced by applying labor to land, or by refining or transporting the products which labor has extracted from land.

p. 13, col. 3 > I want you to bear with you from this hall this one idea, that THERE HAS NOT BEEN AND NEVER CAN BE ANY WEALTH IN THE WORLD THAT HAS NOT BEEN PRODUCED BY APPLYING MANUAL, PHYSICAL LABOR TO LAND. > > Get this one idea firmly established in your mind and heart and you will view the economic questions of the day from a very different platform than at present. You will then see how absurd it is to make land so dear that labor has no chance to apply itself to it and produce wealth. You will then understand how criminal it is to speculate in vacant lands; that it is a crime against humanity to permit anybody to fence in vacant land and prevent willing and needy labor to apply itself on that vacant land and produce wealth. You will understand that because “A” has bought a lot for $1,000 and sold it for $2,000 he has produced no wealth. He has simply kept vacant land, that he had no use for himself, out of use until somebody’s real or fancied necessities compelled them to pay him $2,000 for the privilege of using that land. Mind you, there is no scarcity of land all this time. More than one half of the city of Chicago is vacant land on which no wealth is produced; but if some laborer should undertake to apply his skill and energy on any of this vacant land in order to support his family the owner would have him arrested. Not because the owner wanted to use it himself, but because the owner had a paper deed to that land by which he was given the privilege to speculate upon the necessities of his fellow-men. Knowing thet^sic we cannot live except by applying labor to land, speculators take advantage of it by fencing in vacant land, by making land dear and by reaping the benefit of other men’s labor on other land, without working themselves in producing wealth. Land is as necessary to existence as air and water, and I ask you what more right has anybody to withhold from the public land that he does not want to use than he has to deprive you of air and water that he does not want to use. There is as much propriety in claiming ownership to land that we cannot or will not use, and if the lawmakers were better informed they would not rest content with preventing the forestalling of the markets for certain products of the soil, but would strike at the very root of the evil, and prevent speculation in vacant lands. Prohibit this gambling in the soil given to humanity in common and without which man cannot exist. Let all men have all the land they can use, but do not permit them to prevent others from using all they need so long as nobody’s equal rights are interfered with. > > Speculation in land, tending as it does, to make it dear, is a curse of the present. The greatness of America is not due to superiority over all other countries, but is due mainly to the fact that until recently vacant land has been practically free. There have been fences and paper deeds to a large portion, but there has been enough land outside these fences that people willing to work could apply their labor to and produce wealth. Speculators are, however, getting the land market cornered rapidly, and it will not be very long before in free America white slavery such as exists in Europe to-day will take the place of African slavery, and you will find that the land owner in America will be even worse than the land owner in Ireland. If it is a crime to forestall the market value of breadstuffs, is it not more criminal to manipulate the price of land on which all breadstuff is produced? > > In advancing the price of breadstuff some compensating benefit accrues to the farmer, but in advancing the value of vacant lands nobody is benefited, unless it be some speculator who has a certificate of ownership on something that he does not use, does not need, and which somebody else is ready to use for the purpose of creating wealth but for the fence around it. These are but pirates on the sea of commerce, but drones in a busy hive, producing nothing, and entitled to no consideration whatever in the economic regulations of the world. I hope the time will soon come when speculation in vacant land will be prohibited just as speculation in cards and dice is prohibited. > > With the present order of society speculation is a necessity perhaps, but when we become educated up to a realization of how useless and foolish it is to try to profit by the necessities of our fellowmen then speculation will be unknown, but that will be in the far future, and while we are waiting for it our next [best?] thing to do is to legalize a plan for selling real estate short. I wish it could be done now. With land graded and classified as grain and provisions are now, so that equally good land could be delivered on contract, the bears would soon make land so plenty that monoply^sic would cease and every wage worker would be his own landlord, because there is plenty of land for everybody if only the fences were torn down.

A RABBI ADDRESSES THE ST. LOUIS LEAGUE—FATHER HUNTINGTON’S COMING ADDRESS—NEWS FROM OTHER POINTS.

Percy Pepoon, St. Louis.—Rabbi Samuel Sale of Shaare Emeth synagogue addressed p. 13, col. 4 us at our last meeting, his subject being “Ethical socialism.” The address was an earnest and able one. At some future time he will address the league again, specially discussing “Progress and Poverty,” because, as he said, he needs enlightenment on a portion of it.

While the growth of our league is steady, it seems to partake of the nature of a boom. There were fifteen applications for membership at the last meeting.

Arrangements are progressing for Father Huntington’s address. Every clergyman that we have thus far communicated with has promised to announce this lecture at all services, and the Knights of Labor assemblies are going to turn out in a body.

B. A. Birmingham, Kansas City.—The single tax is booming in this part of the country, and we are all doing our part to keep it going.

R. H. Hasenritter, Hermann.—We are circulating single tax tracts and Henry George’s works. We are somewhat under a disadvantage, as the population here is principally German and republican. However, we are moving on. If any of our friends have tracts on free trade or the land question that they would like to have distributed we would be glad to have some of them here.

Gus. A. Menger, St. Louis.—Mr. George’s visit to this city has done the cause a deal of good. Having been elected vice-president of the trades and labor union, I have now an opportunity to preach our doctrines among the toilers, and I shall do all I can. Success to the single tax cause!

THE HENRY GEORGE ASSEMBLY OF THE K. OF L. HOLD A PUBLIC MEETING.

S. T., Detroit.—An open meeting of Henry George assembly of the K. of L., was held at their hall on Sunday, February 3. Jordan Grenell, M. W., announced that the purpose of the meeting was to gather together the scattered single tax elements of Detroit and enrolling them, and then he called upon Judge Henry A. Robinson, who presented briefly the single tax theory. The remarks of Mr. Bridge were also very instructive and were received by the audience with marked approval. Wm. E. Thornton, one of the leading members of the typographical union of this city, also made a most excellent speech. He had put on a “sub” in order to attend the meeting.

At the close of the addresses eighteen of the audience signed the roll.

Another meeting of the same kind will be held under the patronage of the famous Henry George assembly two weeks hence.

H. MARTIN WILLIAMS’S LECTURE AT TOPEKA—SOME KANSANS WHO WERE DISAPPOINTED.

S. T., Topeka.—H. Martin Williams of Missouri recently delivered, at Trades assembly hall, an address upon the reckless sales and gifts of public lands in this country. He figured up that since 1827 there have been granted to canals 4,405,986 acres; for education, 77,493,162 acres; to railroads, 191,903,957 acres; or in all, 273,803,105 acres, an area greater by 17,000 square miles than the combined area of the six New England states and New York, New Jersey, Delaware, Maryland, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Michigan, Wisconsin, Iowa and Missouri, or all the states east of the Mississippi and north of the Ohio rivers, including all the populous and wealthy states, now containing forty million people and not yet half settled. In addition to this, [12,963,593?] acres of public lands have been illegally inclosed by cattle and other syndicates, largely composed of foreign nobles.

Fifty-six foreign syndicates and noblemen own [26,213,354?] acres in various part of the country^sic, which is 860,630 acres more than the entire area of Indiana, or enough to give 140,615 American citizens a farm each of 160 acres. This enumeration is incomplete and it is believed that aliens own at least 40,000 square miles of United States territory.

Mr. Williams enumerated twenty-nine American citizens and corporations owning 14,036,000 acres, and this is only a very small part of the number of American land owners, who hold from 5,000 to 1,000,000 acres each.

Andrew Reddick, Abilene.—We thought Mr. George would pass through here on his continued on p. 14 →

THE LEADING GERMAN PAPER OF THE SOUTH INDORSES THE SINGLE TAX.

S. T., Memphis.—The Sudliches Post-Journal^sic, in an editorial on “Reforms” in its issue of the 1st inst., after speaking of the Australian system cf^sic voting, goes on to say:

A second reform, to which we desire to draw attention in this connection, is the single tax. It is simple, just and easy to assess It is^sic a powerful means to prevent land speculation, speculation in building lots, etc., and to encourage industry and thrift. As it is now, if a street is run through, the man who allows his lots to remain idle will become wealthy through the increase in land values, and that without effort on his part, while the man who invests his capital in houses is punished for his enterprise through higher taxes. Tax the building lots and leave free that which is built thereon and the poor will not want for houses nor the laborer for factories. The greedy land speculator will not be in a position to allow a building lot to remain vacant for years, because it will be devoured by taxes. He must sell or build, and if it be farm land or pasture land he must cultivate or sell. The single tax would transfer the ownership from the few to the many. These reforms are attainable and will be brought about if only such men are sent to the legislature as promise to support them.

This is one of the leading German papers in the south, and it is worthy of remark that so clear a statement of and indorsement of the single tax should be found in its columns.

Of course the single tax will not prevent the holding of pasture land and the use of such land as pasture, but this small error does not prevent the above from being an excellent statement of the doctrine.

A STATE ASSOCIATION FORMED—GAINING CONVERTS.

Henry C. Niles, Denver —We^sic have formed a state association of single tax societies. At our first meeting nine counties were represented, and we received letters from nearly every portion of the state. We adopted the following constitution:

Article 1. It shall be the object of this organization to secure the abolition of all taxes upon labor and the products of labor, and in lieu thereof to place all taxes, national, state and local, upon land values, irrespective of improvements. This organization shall use every opportunity to secure the adoption in the state of Colorado of a secret ballot law, which shall provide:

First—That all ballots shall be official and shall be printed and distributed at public expense.

Second—That the names of all candidates for the same office shall be printed on the same ballot.

Third—That all ballots shall be delivered to the voter within the polling place on election day by sworn public officials.

Fourth—That only official ballots so delivered shall be voted.

Fifth—That the voter shall be guaranteed absolute privacy in preparing his ballot and that the secrecy of the ballot be made compulsory.

Sixth—That voters shall have the right to nominate candidates by properly certified petitions.

Article 2. Name—The name of this organization shall be the Colorado state single tax association.

Article 3. Officers—The officers of this organization shall be a president, one vice-president from each county in the state, a secretary and a treasurer.

Article 4. Elections—The president, secretary and treasurer shall hold office for a period of two years, beginning with January 1, 1890, and shall be elected on the first day each biennial year^sic by the ballots of all qualified electors of this association.

Article 5. Vice-presidents—The president shall appoint one vice-president for each county, who shall be a resident of the county for which he is appointed, upon the recommendation, if any, of the single tax men of that county.

Article 6. Qualifications of Electors—No member shall be allowed to vote at the biennial election of officers who shall be in arrears for dues to this association. All other members shall send their ballots to the secretary on or before the first day of January in each election year. The secretary shall then count the ballots and notify the president and each vice-president of the result of the election.

Article 7. Meetings and Quorum—The regular meetings of this association shall be held in Denver, Col., upon the call of the executive committee, and five members shall constitute a quorum.

Article 8. Each member shall pay to the treasurer of this association the sum of $1 per year, and it shall be the duty of the treasurer to prepare a quarterly statement of receipts and disbursements, a copy of which shall be sent to each officer of the association.

Article 9. The officers of this association shall constitute an executive committee.

Article 10. Any person subscribing to the principles of this association may become a member.

Article 11. Constitution may be amended by majority of executive committee.

The election of officers followed, resulting in the selection of the following, all of whom are Denver men: President, Andrew W. Elder; secretary, H. C. Niles, [2,946?] Marion street; treasurer, George Champion, 1,516 [Wazee?] street.

p. 14, col. 2 In order that effective work may be done, the co-operation of all friends of our cause will be required, and it is hoped that they will forward their names to the secretary for enrolment, and in addition to the annual dues, notify the treasurer of the stated sum which they are willing to contribute each month for the work. The time is evidently ripe for a concerted effort, and the attitude of thoughtful men in every community toward us and our principles makes the present a peculiarly favorable time for propaganda work. The lectures here were a success in every way, and have aroused an immense amount of discussion and study.

W. H. Clayton, Alamosa.—I am quite certain of gaining a good many to our cause in this locality. They are more anxious to see the light than a year ago.

SPLENDID WORK IN TORONTO—“THE FIRST SINGLE TAX MAN WAS JOSEPH.”

J. L. Dawkins, Toronto, Ont.—The single tax idea is making steady progress here. Five or six of our city aldermen are in sympathy with the movement, and at a recent meeting of the council Alderman Hallam carried a motion that the Ontario legislature be petitioned to exempt all personal property and incomes from taxation, and also to abolish all exemptions on real estate.

Last Monday a deputation from this society waited upon the Hon. O. Mouat^sic, the premier of Ontario, and urged upon him the necessity of taking some decided step toward concentrating all taxes on land values.

Last Sunday the Rev. Mr. Burton, pastor of a congregational church in this city, started a class for the study of land tenure, and other social questions, from^sic a biblical point of view.

George G. Serviss, Cardinal,. Ont^sic.—The Rev. John Burton of Toronto delivered a lecture in this place last evening on the “Bible and the Land Question.” He quoted from Genesis to prove that the first single man was Joseph^sic. He put the single tax into practice after getting possession of the land, by appropriating one-fifth for Pharaoh or government. The audience was large and attentive.

We have sent our petition for exemption on dwellings to Mr. French, our local member, with ninety names of voters on it, who are mostly freeholders. This is about one-half of the voters of the place.

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.

ANNOUNCEMENTS.

Ministers of all denominations are earnestly and cordially invited to join the brotherhood.

The headquarters of the brotherhood are at 27 Clinton place, New York city.

All meetings and receptions of the brotherhood will be held (unless otherwise announced) at the headquarters.

The monthly business meetings will be held on the first Monday of each month at 2.30 p. m.

The publications of the brotherhood and “books recommended” can be obtained from the secretary. Specimen copies can be seen in the library of the brotherhood at headquarters.

Please address all communications (including those containing donations, subscriptions and dues) to the secretary, the

REV. DR. THACKERAY,

Newtown, L. I., N. Y.

THE CONSTITUTION.

BY-LAWS.

I. The regulation and management of the affairs of the brotherhood shall be in accordance with the constitution and by-laws which are now or may hereafter be enacted for that purpose.

2. The officers shall include an executive committee of not less than seven members, a secretary and treasurer. The secretary and treasurer shall be ex-officio members of the executive committee. The government of the brotherhood shall be in the hands of the executive committee, subject to the constitution and by-laws. A quorum of the committee shall consist of not less than three members, not counting members ex-officio^sic

3. The executive committee, the secretary, the treasurer and any other officers shall be elected by the brethren annually for each year. Their term of office shall expire on December 31 or as soon thereafter as their successors shall be elected.

4. Whenever any office of the brotherhood shall become vacant (otherwise than by expiration of term) notice of the vacancy shall be given at the ensuing monthly meeting and a member shall be elected by the brethren to fill the vacancy at the monthly meeting next after.

V. No alteration or addition shall be made to the constitution and by-laws except by a two-thirds vote of the brethren present at two consecutive monthly meetings.

ARKANSAS.

LITTLE ROCK.—Little Rock single tax club. Every alternate Thursday evening, 717 Main st. Pres^sic., Sol F. Clark; sec., O. D. Hemming, 1910 Main st.

CALIFORNIA.

SAN FRANCISCO.—California single tax society. Every Sunday evening, St. George’s hall, 909½ Market st. Library and reading room open from 9 a.m. to 10 p.m., 841 Market st. Pres., H. L. [Pleace?]; sec., G. A. Hubbell. Address of all officers, 841 Market st.

SACRAMENTO.—Single tax club of Sacramento. Every Friday evening, Dr. Reed’s office, 6th and K sts. Pres., Dr. Thos. B. Reed; sec., C. W. Farnsworth, 1406 4th st.

OAKLAND.—Single tax club No. 1 meets every Friday evening at St. Andrews hall, 1056½ Broadway. Pres., A. J. Gregg; sec., W. H. Messenger.

LOS ANGELES.—Los Angeles single tax club. Pres., A. J. Gray; sec., Clarence A. Gray, rooms 24-25 Bryson-Bonebrake block.

SAN DIEGO.—San Diego single tax county committee. Every Monday evening, 139 10th st. Chairman, Geo. B. Whaley, box 1088.

BLACK DIAMOND.—Contra Costa county single tax committee. Jeff. A. Bailey, sec.

COLORADO.

DENVER.—Denver single tax association. Every Thursday evening, 1448 Lawrence st. Pres,, G. H. Phelps; sec., F. H. Monroe, 2951 Marion st.

PUEBLO.—Commonwealth single tax club. First and Fourth Thursdays at office of D. B. V. Reeve, Union av. Pres., D. B. V. Reeve; sec., J. W. Brentlinger, Pueblo Smelting and Refining Co.

GRAND JUNCTION.—Mesa county single tax and ballot reform club. Pres., James W. Bucklin; sec., Geo. Smith.

CANYON CITY.—Single tax committee; sec., Dr. Frank P. Blake.

HAWKXHURST.—Plateau Valley single tax club. Pres., John W. Hawkxhurst; sec., E. H. Parkenson.

CONNECTICUT.

NEW HAVEN.—Tax reform club. Every Friday evening, room 11, 102 Orange st. Pres., Willard D. Warren; sec., Alfred Smith, 105 Day st.

MERIDEN.—Meriden single tax club. 3 p. m. every Sunday, Circle hall. Pres., Wm. Hawthorne; sec., Wm. Williss, P. O. box 1342.

DAKOTA.

STATE.—South Dakota single tax association. Pres., Judge Levi McGee of Rapid City; sec., W. E. Brokaw, box 146, Bristol.

RAPID CITY.—Black Hills single tax league. Last Saturday in each month, Library hall. Pres., Judge Levi McGee; sec., Francis H. Clark.

MADISON.—Lake county single tax club. Chairman, Prof. E. H. Evanson.

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.

WASHINGTON.—Washington single tax league; always open; regular meeting Friday evening, 609 F street, N. W. Pres., Paul T. Bowen; sec., Wm. Geddes, M. D., 1719 G st., N. W.

FLORIDA.

PENSACOLA.—Pensacola single tax club No. 1. Tuesday evenings, K. of L. hall, corner of Zaragosa and Palafox sts. Pres., J. Davis Wolfe; sec., James McHugh.

TAMPA.—Thomas G. Shearman single tax league. First Monday in each month, business meeting; Sundays, public speaking. Pres., C. E. Ainsworth; sec., John H. McCormick.

GEORGIA.

ATLANTA, Ga.—Atlanta single tax club No. 1. Pres., J. M. Beath; sec., J. Henley Smith, 67 Whitehall st.

AUGUSTA.—Augusta single tax club. Every Friday evening, Hussar hall. Pres., Ed. Flury; sec. George Haines, care of Loflin & Meyer.

ILLINOIS.

CHICAGO.—Single tax club No. 1. Every Thursday evening, club room 4, Grand Pacific hotel. Pres., Warren Worth Bailey; sec. T. W. Wittler, 426 Milwaukee ave.

SPRINGFIELD.—Sangamon single tax club. Pres., Joseph Farris; sec., James H. McCrea, 623 Black ave.

JACKSONVILLE.—Morgan county single tax club. Pres., Col. Wm. Camm of Murrayville; sec., Chas. W. Alexander of Jacksonville.

SPARTA.—Single tax committee. Sec., Wm R. Bailey.

QUINCY.—Gem City single tax club. Every Friday evening, Opera house building. Pres., C. F. Perry; cor. sec., Duke Schroer, 327 S. 3d.

INDIANA.

STATE.—Indiana single tax league. Pres., Henry Rawie, Anderson; vice-pres., L. P. Custer, Indianapolis; sec., Thos. J. Hudson, 155 Elm st., Indianapolis. State executive committee, Henry Rawie, Anderson; S. W. Williams, Vincennes; L. O. Bishop, Clinton; Dr. C. A. Kersey, Richmond; Chas. G. Bennett, Evansville; Wm. Henry, Connersville; W. E. McDermut, Ft. Wayne; T. J. Hudson, J. F. White, L. P. Custer, Indianapolis.

CLINTON.—Single tax club; Sunday afternoons, 3 o’clock, Argus office. Pres., W. V. Wells; sec., L. O. Bishop.

FORT WAYNE.—Single tax club. Pres., W. E. McDermutt; vice pres., J. M. Schwerzgen; sec., Henry Cohen.

INDIANAPOLIS.—Indianapolis single tax league. Every Tuesday evening, 8 p. m., Mansur hall, n. e. cor. Washington and Alabama sts. Pres., Dr. Brown; sec., L. P. Custer.

EVANSVILLE.—Single tax association. Pres., Edwin Walker; sec., Charles G. Bennett.

RICHMOND.—Single tax club. Pres., C. S. Schneider, 105 South Third st.; sec., M. Richie, 913 South A st.

IOWA.

BURLINGTON.—Burlington single tax club. First and third Wednesday of each month, 313 Jefferson st. Pres., Richard Spencer; sec., Wilbur Mosena, 920 Hedge ave.

DES MOINES.—Single tax club. Pres., H B. Allison, box 4; sec., J. Ballangee.

COUNCIL BLUFFS.—Council Bluffs single tax club; second and fourth Sunday of each month, 2.30 p.m.; [724?] Sixth st. Pres., Chas. [Stevenson?]; sec., L. Kinnehan, [826?] W Broadway

p. 15, col. 2 ALLERTON.—Tax reform club. Every Thursday evening, Vest’s hall. Pres., A. J. Morgan; sec., D. D. Shirley.

MASON CITY.—Single tax committee; 1st and 3d evenings of each month at Dr. Osborne’s office. Pres., J. A. Scranton; sec., J. S. Mott.

KANSAS.

ABILENE.—Single tax club. Pres., C. W. Brooks; vice-pres., H. Charters; sec., A. L. Russel.

GROVE HILL.—Grove Hill single tax club. Thursday evenings, Grove Hill school house, Lincoln township, Dickman county^sic. Pres., E. Z. Butcher; sec., Andrew Reddick.

LOUISIANA.

NEW ORLEANS.—Louisiana single tax club. Second, third and fourth Thursdays of each month, at 205 Canal st. Pres., John S. Watters, Maritime association; sec., Geo. W. Roberts, 326 Thalia st.

MAINE.

AUBURN.—Auburn single tax club. Saturday evenings, room 3, Phœnix block, Main st.; reading room open every evening. Pres., Thos. Marsden; sec., W. E. Jackson, 122 7th st.

LEWISTON—Single^sic tax committee. Every Wednesday evening, 79 Summer st. Chairman, F. D. Lyford; sec., Joseph Walsh, 79 Summer st.

MARYLAND.

BALTIMORE.—Single tax league of Maryland. Every Thursday evening, 415 N. Eutaw st. Pres., Wm. J Ogden; sec., J. W. Jones, 31 N. Caroline st.

MASSACHUSETTS.

BOSTON.—Boston single tax league, Wells’s memorial hall. Pres., Hamlin Garland; sec., Edwin M. White, 27 Pemberton square.

Neponset single tax league. Every Thursday evening, 389½ Neponset ave., Boston. Sec., Q. A. Lothrop, 43 Walnut st.

Dorchester single tax club. Every other Wednesday evening, Field’s building, Field’s Corner. Pres., Ed Frost; sec., John Lavis, 13 Leonard st.

Roxbury single tax club. Pres., Frank W. Mendum; sec., Henry C. Romaine, 250 Ruggles st.

STONEHAM.—Stoneham single tax league. Pres., Dr. W. Symington-Brown, Stoneham.

LYNN.—Lynn single tax league. Pres., C. H. Libbey st., 331 Washington st^sic.; sec., John McCarthy, 140 Tunson st.

WORCESTER.—Tenth district single tax league of Worcester. Friday evenings, Swedish hall, 32 Front st. Pres., Thomas J. Hastings; sec., Edwin K. Page, Lake View, Worcester.

LAWRENCE.—Lawrence single tax club. Every Thursday evening, Col. J. P. Sweeney’s office. Pres., Col. John P. Sweeney; sec., John J. Donovan, city clerk’s office.

HYDE PARK.—Single tax club. Sec., F. S. Childs, 40 Charles st.

ORANGE.—Single tax league of Orange. First Wednesday of each month, pres. and secretary’s residence. Pres., H. W. Hammond; sec., Charles G. Kidder.

NEWBURYPORT.—Merrimac assembly. Saturday evenings, 48 State st. Pres., Dennis F. Murphy; sec., W. R Whitmore, 236 Merrimac st.

MALDEN.—Single tax club. Meetings fortnightly at Deliberative hall, Pleasant st. Pres., Geo. W. Cox, Glenwood st.; sec., Edwin T. Clark, 100 Tremont st.

MICHIGAN.

STURGIS.—Sturgis club of investigation. Every Tuesday evening, C. Jacob’s justice court room. Pres., Rufus Spalding; sec., Thomas Harding.

SAGINAW.—Single tax club, rooms 413 Genesee av., East Saginaw. Pres., Edward L. Weggener; sec., Jas. Duffy, 803 State st.

MINNESOTA.

MINNEAPOLIS.—Minneapolis single tax league, 502 First ave. s. Pres., C. J. Buell; sec., J. A. Sawyer.

ST. PAUL.—Pres., H. C. McCartey; sec., R. C. Morgan, Northern Pacific railroad office.

MISSOURI.

ST. LOUIS.—St. Louis single tax league. s. e. cor. 8th and Olive, meets every Tuesday evening Rooms open^sic every evening. Pres., H. H. Hoffman; sec., J. W. Steele, 2213 Eugenia street.

“Benton School of Social Science.” Saturday, 8 p. m., 6839 Waldemar ave., St. Louis. Pres., Dr. Henry S. Chase; sec., Wm. C. Little.

LA DUE.—The Reform club of La Due. Pres., W. Stephens; sec., Jas. Wilson.

KANSAS CITY.—Kansas City single tax club. Lectures Thursday evenings at 8 o’clock and Sunday afternoons at 3. Headquarters, cor. 15th st. and Grand av.; open every week day until 10 o’clock p. m.; the public cordially invited. Pres., H. S. Julian; sec., J. C. Williams, N. Y. Life building.

HERMANN.—Single tax committee. Pres., R. H. Hasenritter; sec., Dr. H. A. Hibbard.

GATE CITY.—Single tax league. Meetings on alternate Thursdays at the house of W. M. Kinhead^sic. Pres., Wm. Kinkead; sec., J. W. Swaw.

NEBRASKA.

OMAHA.—Omaha single tax club. Sunday afternoons, Gate City hall, cor. 13th and Douglas sts. Pres., Rufus S. Parker; sec., Cyrus F. Beckett, 411 N. 23d st.

WYMORE.—Henry George single tax club. Pres., H. C. Jaynes; sec., J. A. Hamm.

NEW JERSEY.

JERSEY CITY.—Standard single tax club. Public meeting every Sunday night at Humboldt hall, 186 Newark av.; business meetings every other Friday evening at the Avenue house, “Five Corners.” Pres., E. N. Jackson, 23 Magnolia av.; sec., Joseph Dana Miller, 267 Grove st.

NEWARK.—Newark single tax club. Pres., Herbert Boggs, 82 Broad st^sic ; sec., M. G. Gaffney 43 Warren place^sic.

PATERSON.—Passaic Co. single tax club. Pres., E. W. Nellis; sec., John A. Craig, 192 Hamburg ave. Meetings every Monday evening at 169 Market street.

S. ORANGE.—S. Orange single tax club. Pres., E. H. Wallace; sec., Henry Haase.

VINELAND.—Vineland single tax and ballot reform club. Pres., Rev. Adolph Roeder; sec., Wm. P. Nichols, box 924.

JANVIER.—Janvier single tax and ballot reform club. Alternate Thursday evenings, Janvier hall. Pres. W. J. Rice; sec., Sydney B. Walsh.

p. 15, col. 3 WASHINGTON.—Washington land and tax club. Pres., John Morrison; sec., W. H, Christine^sic.

BAYONNE.—Single tax committee. Chairman, Wm. B. DuBois.

PASSAIC.—Single tax committee of Passaic. Pres., Oscar D. Wood.

NEW YORK.

NEW YORK.—Manhattan single tax club. Business meeting, first Thursday of each month, at 8 p. m.; other Thursdays, social and propaganda. Club rooms, 36 Clinton pl.; open every day from 6 p. m. to 12 p. m. Pres., Louis F. Post; sec., A. J. Steers.

Harlem single tax club, room 3, 247 West 125th st. Business meeting every Tuesday, 8.30 p. m. Whist and social evening every Thursday. Pres., Eugene G. Muret; sec., Chas. H. Mitchell.

The West Side single tax club. Every Thursday evening, 490 Eighth ave. Pres., Dr. David Wark; sec., Daniel Cavanago, 387 8th ave.

BROOKLYN.—Brooklyn single tax club. Club house, 56 Livingston st. Open every evening. Discussions Wednesday evenings. Business meetings Friday evenings. Lectures Sunday evenings. Pres., Peter Aitken; cor. sec., Robert Baker, 884 Greene av.

The Eastern District single tax club. Wednesday evening, Oriental hall, 316 Bedford ave. Pres., John Britton; sec., Joseph McGuinness, 215 Ross st.

BUFFALO.—Tax reform club. Every Wednesday evening, Central labor union hall. Pres., S. C. Rogers; sec., H. B. Buddenburg, P. O. box 190.

ROCHESTER.—Rochester single tax union. Wednesday, 8 p. m.; Sunday, 3 p. m.; 80 Reynold’s Arcade. Pres., J. H. Bluntach; sec., J. M. Campbell, 30 Charlotte st.

ALBANY.—Single tax club. Tuesday evening, 8 p. m., 68 Washington ave. Rooms open every evening. Pres., Alexander Gregory; cor. sec., James J. Mahoney, 2 Division st.

SYRACUSE.—Syracuse Single tax club. 113 Walton street. Pres., F. A. Paul; sec., H. R. Perry, 149 South Clinton st.

POUGHKEEPSIE.—Single tax club. Every Thursday evening, 8 p. m., 226 Union st. Pres., W. C. Albro; sec., F. S. Arnold.

AUBURN.—Single tax club. Mondays, 7.30 p. m., College hall. Pres., Dan. Peacock; sec., H. W. Benedict, 6 Morris st.

ELLENVILLE.—Single tax club of Ellenville. First and third Monday of each month, Canal st., over E. Bevier’s drug store. Pres., Wm. Lambert; sec., Benj. Hull.

FLUSHING.—Single tax club. Pres., D. C. Beard; sec., Fred Sheffield.

NEW BRIGHTON, S. I.—Richmond county single tax club. Every Monday evening, Parabola hall, New Brighton. Pres., J. S. Cogan; sec., A. B. Stoddard, W. New Brighton.

NORTHPORT.—Single tax committee. Sec., J. K. Rudyard.

OWEGO.—Single tax committee. Sec., Perry Hyde.

TROY.—Single tax club. Meetings weekly at 576 River st. Pres., Henry Sterling; sec., B. B. Martis, 576 River st.

COHOES.—Single tax committee. Pres., P. C. Dandurant; sec., J. S. Crane 128 Ontario st^sic.

GLOVERSVILLE.—Single tax committee. Chairman, A. P. Slade; sec., Dr. Wm. C. Wood, 30 S. Main st.

SCHUYLERSVILLE.—Schuylersville single tax club. Every Friday evening, residence of J. H. Bullard. Pres., J. H. Bullard; sec., R. S. Wells.

JAMESTOWN.—Single tax club of Jamestown. Last Saturday evening of each month. Pres., Adam Stormer; sec., F. G. Anderson, 300 Barrett st.

YONKERS.—The Jefferson club, 85 Main st. Always open. Business meeting every Tuesday evening at 7.45.

OHIO.

STATE.—Ohio Single tax league. State executive board: Pres., W. F. Bien, 1638 Wilson av., Cleveland; vice-pres., J. G. Galloway, 263 Samuel st., Dayton; treas., Wm. Radcliffe, Youngstown; sec., Edw. L. Hyneman, room 3, 348½ S. High st., Columbus.

CLEVELAND.—Cleveland single tax club. Every Wednesday evening, 8 p. m., 144 Ontario st., room 16. Pres., Tom L. Johnson; sec., C. H. Nau, room 25, Standard block.

CINCINNATI.—Cincinnati single tax club. Every Sunday afternoon. Club room, Bradford’s block, n.w. cor. 6th and Vine sts. Pres., James Semple, 478 Central av.; sec., Alfred H. Henderson, 23 Clark st.

COLUMBUS.—Central single tax club. Sec., Edw. L. Hyneman, 348½ S. High st.

TIFEFN—Single^sic tax committee. Sec., Dr. H. F. Barnes.

HAMILTON.—Hamilton single tax club. Every Saturday evening at 314 High st. Pres., Howard Rich; sec., Ambrose Strang, 742 E. Dayton st.

GALION.—Galion single tax club. Every Monday evening, residence of P. J. Snay, 103 S. Union st. Pres., P. J. Snay; sec., Maud E. Snay.

DAYTON.—Free land club. Pres., John Birch; Sec., W. W. Kile; 108 E. 5th st^sic.

AKRON.—Akron single tax club. Pres, Jno. McBride^sic; sec., Sam Rodgers.

MIAMISBURG.—Land and labor association of Miamisburg. Pres., C. F. Beall; sec., J. F. Beals.

MANSFIELD.—Mansfield single tax club. Pres., Dr. T. J^sic. Bristor; sec., W. J. Huggins, 66 W. 1st st.

TOLEDO.—Single tax club No. 1 meets at 112 Summit st. every Sunday at 10 a. m. Pres., A. R. Wynn; sec., J. P. Travers.

YOUNGSTOWN.—Every Thursday evening, Ivorites hall. Pres., Billy Radcliffe; sec., A. C. Hughes, 6 S. Market st.

ZANESVILLE.—Central single tax club. Pres., W. H. Loughead; sec., Wm. Quigley.

OREGON.

PORTLAND.—Portland ballot reform and single tax club. 2d and 4th Thursdays of each month, Grand Army hall. Pres., R. H. Thompson; sec., S. B. Riggen, 48 Stark st.

PENNSYLVANIA.

PHILADELPHIA.—Henry George club. Every Thursday, 8 p.m., 904 Walnut st. Cor. sec., A. H. Stephenson, 214 Chestnut st.

Kensington single tax club. Every Tuesday evening, 8 p.m., [2001?] Frankford ave.,

p. 15, col. 4 Philadelphia. Pres., James Wright; sec., Jno. Moore, 2188 E. Huntingdon st.

PITTSBURG.—Pittsburg single tax club. 1st, 3d and 5th Sundays at 2:30 p.m., 102 Fourth av. Pres., Edmund Yardley; sec., Mark F. Roberts, 140 24th st., S. S.

BRADFORD.—Single tax club, St. James place. Open every evening. Meetings Wednesday evening and Sunday afternoon at 3 p. m. Pres., Phil. D. Tangney; sec., J. C. De Forist.

READING.—Reading single tax society. Monday evenings, 402½ Penn st. Pres., C. S. Prizer; cor. sec., Grant Nagle, 208 S. Third st.

ERIE.—Erie tax reform league. Pres., W. G. McKean; sec., J. L. Babcock.

EDWARDSVILLE.—Jefferson ballot reform and single tax club. First Friday of each month. Pres., J. J. Smythe, M. D.; sec., J. P. Hammond.

LEBANON.—Lebanon single tax and land club. Pres., Adam Behny; sec., J. G. Zimmerman, 111 N. Fourteenth st.

SCRANTON.—Henry George single tax club. 1st and 3d Friday evenings of each month, Noake’s hall, cor. Franklin ave. and Spruce st. Pres., Duncan Wright; sec., Arthur McGee, 914 Capouse ave.

SHENANDOAH.—Single tax club. Sundays, 3 p.m., 415 W. Coal st. Pres., Morris Marsh; sec., Thomas G. Potts.

UPPER LEHIGH.—Single tax committee. Pres., J. B. Carr; sec., George McGee.

JOHNSTOWN, Pa.—Henry George club. Meets every Monday evening for public discussion. Pres. A. J. Moxham^sic; sec., Richard Eyre.

POTTSTOWN.—Single tax club. Meetings 1st and 3d Friday evenings each month in Weitzenkorn’s hall. Pres., D. L. Haws; sec., H H Johnson^sic, 530 Walnut st.

RHODE ISLAND.

PROVIDENCE.—Single tax association of Rhode Island. Alternate Friday evenings, room 22, Slade building, cor. Washington and Eddy sts. Pres., Dr. Wm. Barker; sec., Geo. D. Liddell, 145 Transit st.

PAWTUCKET.—Single tax association. Ev’ry^sic Wednesday evening, Main st. Pres., Edward Barker; sec., Edgar Farnell, 220 Mineral Spring ave.

TENNESSEE.

MEMPHIS.—Memphis single tax association. Sundays, 4.30 p. m., Luehrman’s hotel. Pres. Dr. T. J. Cro[illegible]ord; sec., M. H. McDowell, care of Townsend, Cowie & Co.

TEXAS.

STATE.—Texas tax reform association. Pres., H. F. Ring, Houston; sec., J. B. Cochran.

EL PASO.—El Paso tariff reform club. 1st and 3d Saturdays of each month, county court room, court house. Pres., G. E. Hubbard; sec., A. W. Thomas.

HOUSTON.—Single tax committee. Pres., H. F. Ring; sec., E. W. Brown, care of Germania house.

SAN ANTONIO.—Single tax club. Meets first and third Thursday in each month. Pres., Geo. Marks; sec., Theo. Kunzmann, 11 Crockett st.

WEST VIRGINIA.

PARKERSBURGH^sic.—Single tax league. Every Saturday night, 500 Market st. Pres., W. H. Curry; sec., W. F Thayer^sic.

ASSORTMENTS OF TRACTS.

During the late campaign quantities of our best tracts were assorted for special work, and many of these not having been used, we now place them, with some of a more recent date, in convenient packages, at a low price.

Packages may be had at 50c. and $1.00.

Address, THE STANDARD, 12 Union Square, NEW YORK.

HANDY BINDERS FOR THE STANDARD.

A lot of Handy Binders, made especially for filing THE STANDARD, are now ready.

Price 75 cents to any address,

Address THE STANDARD, 12 Union Square, New York City

VOLUME FIVE OF THE STANDARD.

NOW READY.

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

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^sic.

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.

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.

NEW PUBLICATIONS.

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.
45. It is the Law of Christ. Rev. S [H.?] Spencer. Henry, Ill. 4 pages.
46. 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.
59. American Protection and British Free Trade. Henry George. 4 pages.
60. Protection and Wages. Henry George. 8 pages.
61. Protection the Friend of Labor? Thomas G. Shearman. 8 pages.
62. A Short Tariff History. Thomas G. Shearman. 2 pages.
63. Plain Talk to Protectionists. Thomas G. Shearman. 4 pages.
64. An Address to Workingmen on the Tariff Question, Henry George. 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.

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

[Henry George & Co. list, continued]

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.

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.

p. 16, col. 3

[Henry George & Co. list, concluded, spanning c3–c4:]

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