February 19, 1890 Vol. VII, No. 8Whole No. 164

THE STANDARD.

TABLE OF CONTENTS.

EDITORIAL. Propaganda by Induction—Mr Phillips on Landlordism—Lord Scully Once More—A Missouri Protest—A Chicago Judge on “Dogs in the Manger”—Work of the Enrolment Committee—George and Trades Unions—Tammany and Ballot Reform—Actors and the Single Tax—The Proposal for a Conference—An Outrageous Bill—A Tax Reform Paper—Chicago’s Economic Conferences—Blood Taxes—O’Brien vs. Davitt.

TAMMANY’S FOLLY. E. J. Shriver.

A CASE OF DECENT POVERTY. W. E. Hicks.

A NATIONAL CONFERENCE. David De Beck, M. D.

DEATH OF M. ALBERT TOUBEAU.

OUR WASHINGTON LETTER. Henry George, jr.

OUR ENGLISH LETTER. Rev. Harold Rylett.

NOTES AND QUERIES.

GEORGE IN CALIFORNIA. Farewell Poem by Mrs. Milne—Full Details of the Meetings in San Francisco and Oakland—Newspaper Comments—General Enthusiasm.

THE SOCIAL PROBLEM. General Walker on Nationalism—Land Tenure in England—Mr. Dodge’s Plan.

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR. Criticising Editorials in the Journal of the Knights of Labor—Poverty in the Coal Region—Complimenting a Future Statesman—A Customs Searcher in Hysterics—He Likes THE STANDARD.

THE FREE TRADE FIGHT. The Reform Club’s Work in the State—Everett P. Wheeler and Lindley Vinton Debate the Tariff Question with Mahlon Chance—A Disgusted Republican: John Gibb Weary of His Party’s Tariff Policy—Captain Codman on Free Ships—Good Things Out of Nazareth—Notes of Progress.

BALLOT REFORM. Mr. Cleveland Heard From—The Struggle in New York—The Petition—The Saxton Bill in the Senate—County Democrats in Line—Interest Displayed in Iowa, West Virginia, Virginia, and Delaware.

SOCIETY NOTES.

PERSONAL.

SINGLE TAX NEWS. Life in the Tenements—The Petition—Recent Sales and Assessments—W. E Gladstone’s^sic 11,000 Acres—The Other Sex Manifesting Interest in the Single Tax—A Tramp Signs the Petition—News From All Over the Union, Canada and Great Britain.

THEY FEEL THE PINCH.

p. 1, col. 2

EDITORIAL.

Induction is the name by which electricians describe the quality that enables a primary current in one coil of wire to induce a powerful current in another coil, not only not in contact with the first, but carefully insulated from it. There seems to be a similar power of induction in ideas, and this power has of late been potential in spreading our doctrines among people far removed from the direct influence of the single tax movement. An illustration of this tendency is found in an article by William A. Phillips, entitled “The New English Invasion,” in Belford’s Magazine for February. Mr. Phillips sees in the purchase of American business enterprises by English syndicates, and especially in the purchase of American land by English individuals and corporations, a danger more serious than that which menaced us when the British armies under Howe and Clinton invaded Massachusetts. He describes the new movement as “a fresh invasion of aliens who seek to derive revenues in the shape of rents from the United States.” In response to the argument that the introduction of foreign capital will hasten the development of American progress, and that its profits are the legitimate; fruits^sic of capital invested, Mr. Phillips says^sic:

Many nations have wisely forbidden aliens from owning and controlling a foot of their soil. The ownership of land is of two kinds: that of the man who owns and lives in his house or who holds and cultivates his fields, and that of the absentee or landlord owner. Land tenure indissolubly connected with its occupancy and use is one thing, and land tenure existing merely as a source of dignity and power in addition to the revenue, is quite another. Where the absentee landlord is permitted to buy land, as the transaction is called, he merely pays a certain sum of money for the privilege of exacting perpetual revenue from those who are to use it. He also acquires with it an interest in the growth, population and labor of the country, which constantly add, as they are developed, to the nominal price of what he calls his property, and to the annual revenues to be derived from it.

Mr. Phillips tells the familiar story of the wrongs inflicted on Ireland by alien landlordism, and he cites the case of “Lord” Scully, who derives $100,000 a year from his Illinois estates, and is beginning to draw a handsome revenue from the great tracts of land he has since acquired in Kansas; for the use of which tenant farmers are beginning to compete, now that emigrants can no longer obtain free land. Mr. Phillips dwells upon the fact that Mr. Scully lives in London, but he has evidently a dim consciousness that this is a matter of slight consequence to those who pay him for the privilege of working, for he himself remarks: “It may be said it is a matter of no moment whether the man who exacts the revenue or rent from the cultivator lives in New York or in London,” but, he continues, “as it is the purpose of this article to deal with alien landlords, it is not necessary to enter into the discussion of absentee landlordism among natives.”

Of course this is true, so far as the immediate purpose of Mr. Phillips’s article is concerned, but the remark just quoted shows that he vaguely sees that it will be necessary to go further when we come to consider the graver problem that lies beyond, and ask why it is that industrious farmers in Kansas must pay any man, either in London or New York, for the privilege of raising crops in that sparsely p. 1, col. 3 settled state. Mr. Phillips apparently considers the existing system of land tenure permanent, and he probably has no interest in or sympathy with the single tax movement. Nevertheless, he clearly sees the difference between landlordism and permanant^sic occupancy for actual use, and such phrases as “when the absentee landlord is permitted to buy land, as the transaction is called,” show that his doubts go to the very foundation of the existing system. He points out clearly the fundamental wrong of landlordism when he declares that the landlord as such—that is, the mere owner as distinguished from the user of land—“merely pays a certain sum of money for the privilege of exacting perpetual revenue from those who use it,” and “also acquires with it an interest in the growth, population and labor of the country, which constantly add, as they are developed, to the nominal price of what he thus calls his property, and to the annual revenues to be derived from it.” The italics are our own, but the phrase is suggestive, and if Mr. Phillips were engaged in the child’s game of “Hot Buttered Blue-beans,” we should say he was getting very “warm” indeed in his search for the cause of the evils he is attacking.

His description of “Lord” Scully’s operations in Kansas shows the very genesis of landlordism. Mr. Scully some time ago invested some of the profits from his Illinois estates in large tracts of land in Kansas, for which he paid three or four dollars an acre. “So long as immigrants could get public land as a homestead,” says Mr. Phillips, “they were not likely to accept Mr. Scully’s leases. Now, however, the case is different, and these lands are being occupied and cultivated by a tenant-farming community,” and are estimated to be worth from $15 to $50 an acre. All improvements, such as they are, are made at the expense of the tenant. In consideration of this the tenant pays the first year only the taxes on the land. Next year he pays usually two dollars an acre, and the rent increases annually until the end of the lease, when, without compensation to the tenants for improvements, the property is surrendered to the landlord. The leases run from five to seven years, and sometimes for a longer term, and during the last year of their continuance Mr. Scully usually receives a rent equal to the original purchase price. What service has he rendered to entitle him to this reward? He purchased the land and held it for a time when there was no demand for it. That, however, was necessary in order that the area of free land should be restricted and the tenant farmers be forced to hire his land. This certainly was not a public service. From that time on, the tenants did everything and Mr. Scully did nothing but rob them under the forms and with the sanction of law. It is robbery, as plain and undisguised as would be a demand on these farmers by a band of Apache Indians for an equal tribute under penalty of massacre, and the study of the subject naturally raises some strange doubts and questionings in the mind of a writer like Mr. Phillips.

From another western state, bordering on Kansas, comes a protest, warmed by righteous wrath and pointed with invective, which we reprint elsewhere. It is an editorial article from the St. Joseph p. 1, col. 4 Gazette, and it not only describes the tactics of the land grabber in that prosperous Missouri city, but it goes further and hints at the remedy, which is to be found in a radical revision of the existing taxing system, by which industry and thrift are fined, and operations like those of Mr. Scully are encouraged and promoted. The Gazette gives no evidence that it has ever considered or even heard of the single tax movement, but its description of the existing situation differs in no particular from that which might have been penned by the most enthusiastic of single taxers.

More notable still is the language of Judge Collins of Chicago, who last week overruled the objections of the multi-millionaire, Mrs. Hettie Green, and others to the sale of a tract of land in that city to the Grant locomotive works. “The judge,” says a newspaper dispatch, “characterized the objectors as dogs in the manger.” When the current phrases of the single tax men begin to drop from the lips of judges on the bench the progress of propaganda by induction is most gratifying.

Let us, however, in the pleasure with which we view the results obtained by this process, not forget that the maintenance of the primary current is essential to the continuance of the induced current. The direct effort in behalf of the single tax should be pressed forward with renewed vigor because of the many proofs we are constantly receiving of the rapid spread of our ideas in quarters where their presence was not looked for.

The work is going steadily on, but there ought to be a new impulse to carry it forward more rapidly. The opportunities offered by recent events ought not to be neglected.

One work of great importance deserves, and ought to receive, a more vigorous and liberal support than has been given it. That is the work of the single tax enrolment committee. No one not familiar with the facts can appreciate the full importance of this work. The committee was formed at a time when the organized single tax movement was languishing and apparently falling to pieces. The petition was devised, not so much with a view to its effect on congress, as because of the opportunity it would offer for finding our friends and bringing them together. In this it has had a wonderful success and the result has been that hundreds of single tax clubs have sprung into existence and thousands of tracts have been circulated. The growing body of “workers” now numbering over two thousand, is well worth all the effort the committee has put forth, and those who really use the petition have found its presentation a most effective introduction to successful propaganda work.

Nearly the whole expense of this essentially national work has been borne by a few people in and around New York city. This was felt not to be fair to our local workers here, and the committee made an appeal last year for contributions from the country at large. The response has fallen a thousand dollars short of the necessary expenses of continuing the work in hand through the present year. This ought not to be. The members of the committee have given both time and money to the work, and they are still willing to continue to do so until they shall be relieved by the formation of continued on p. 2 →

[continued on page 2]

THE FLOODGATES OF EXPENDITURE LIFTED—MR M’MILLIN’S^sic TERSE EXPLANATION OF THE NEW METHODS OF PASSING BILLS IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES—THE WAYS AND MEANS COMMITTEE AND THE TARIFF BILL—SIGNS OF THE RADICAL TENDENCY OF DEMOCRATS IN CONGRESS—“FREE TRADE” HEARD FREQUENTLY IN PRIVATE CONVERSATION—THE PASSAGE OF THE CENSUS BILL—THE DEMOCRATIC CLUBS AND CONGRESSIONAL ELECTIONS—GOVERNOR BLACK ON BALLOT REFORM AND A CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION IN PENNSYLVANIA.

WASHINGTON, D. C., Feb. 17.—“The flood gates are lifted and you mark my prediction—the treasury will be gutted before the ides of November,” said Benton McMillin, member of the house of representatives from Tennessee, yesterday, in speaking to me of the methods of legislation under the new house rules. It will be remembered that Mr. Carlisle said, in his statement published in THE STANDARD last week, that under the proposed rules there would be no way to prevent the majority of the house from taking up for consideration any measure it chooses, at any time it chooses, without reference to the order on the calendar; that the majority could do this by simply having a committee which reported a bill move to have it taken up for consideration by going into a committee of the whole. Mr. McMillin now gives a further explanation of the great changes in the methods of procedure and points out their effects. Mr. McMillin says:

“The barriers which have been kept up by the congresses heretofore by wise rules to prevent hasty and inconsiderate legislation have been broken down. Excessive appropriations will inevitably follow. The changes which have brought about this result are briefly these: Heretofore bills had to be introduced into the open house, and any member might require their reading when introduced. The house itself had control of their reference, and could determine what committees they should go to. Now, under the new rules they simply have to be handed to the clerk, cannot be read, and no notice of their introduction is given to the country until the next day, when some antiquarian, with nothing to do and a vast amount of courage, may delve through the record and pick out the jobs. The speaker refers bills without consulting the house, and his reference can be changed only by unanimous consent. The house itself knows nothing of the bills, and has no power over them until they are reported back by the committees to which they had been referred. Then, even if a bill appropriates a hundred millions, being considered in the committee of the whole, it may be passed by fifty-one members—for a majority of a quorum is required, and a quorum now is only one hundred instead of one hundred and sixty-five, as formerly. Extraordinary powers are given these members by allowing them to limit debate without going back into the house. Then, when the bill comes to the house, it there is no quorum^sic voting on it, the speaker, by the presence of a few members and a vigorous use of pencil and paper, can count a quorum and announce the bill passed, for you know the new rules authorize the speaker to count a bill passed whether a ma jority voted for it or not. The effect of all this is not only to railroad a bill through, not only to let a minority of the house pass it, but to pass it with only one reading in the house of representatives. The wind has been sown: the whirlwind will be reaped. Ancient rules and rulings have amounted to nothing; the opinions of all statesmen who ever talked on the subject have amounted to nothing in this wild and reckless clamor for an increase of the power of the speaker, and for a decrease of the power of the individual member, when the ultimate object was to get into the treasury.”

It may be worth while in passing to observe one point raised in the conflict in the house, and about which there seems to be a great deal of misunderstanding; that is, what the minority has been trying to effect. This is brought out in Mr. McMillin’s speech toward the close of the debate on the rules. The passage reads as follows:

“Sir—This is not simply a question of rules, but an effort to sustain the constitution itself, that constitution from which we cannot depart without ruin. Gentlemen on the other p. 5, col. 4 side of this chamber have said this is an effort to enable the minority to rule and to prevent the majority from ruling. I deny it. It is an effort to prevent the majority from ruling with a mere minority. It is an effort to prevent the majority elected and sent here to do business from sending part of their numbers fishing, part hunting and part off to attend to their own affairs and then doing work with a minority. It is an effort to prevent the speaker, with the use of pen, a pencil and paper, from counting a quorum, which they have not in their seats to do business, and to prevent them from proceeding with a less number than the constitution requires. This is the effort that was made by the speaker last week without rules, and is attempted to be embodied in the rules now.”

The ways and means committee is hard at work on the new tariff bill. I am informed by one of the members that the democrats are interfering little with the plans of majority, preferring to reserve their fire until the bill is reported to the house. The majority has taken the senate bill of two years ago as the basis of its operations. Some few things will be marked quite low on the schedules, and to these reductions it is expected the republicans will point as an evidence of their good faith toward “tariff reform,” which Joseph Medill, speaking for the republicans of the northwest, asserted in an interview here this week to be one of the missions of that party. I am assured, however, that these reductions will be more than counterbalanced by increased duties on other things, so that, taken as a whole, the bill will embody a higher tariff than we now have. All sorts of rumors float from the committee room relative to the strife of greedy interests—making it impossible to say with anything like precision what the details of the bill will be, or when the bill will be ready for presentation.

When the bill does come into the house a spirited debate may be expected. It will call forth much more radical utterances in respect to the taxation question than when, two years ago, the democrats, with but a scant majority, were compelled to defend, in an apologetic way, the provisions of the Mills bill. Mr. Mills himself shows his freedom from restraint by recent utterances. Among other things he says: “Wealth, therefore, and wages are increased by the removal of all impediments between producers and consumers; and the converse of the proposition is equally true, that wealth and wages are decreased by every impediment interposed between the producer and the consumer.” Mr. Mills furthermore quotes a very strong passage from a decision of the supreme court of the United States, to the effect that “to lay with one hand the power of the government on the property of the citizen, and with the other to bestow it upon favored individuals to aid private enterprises and build up private fortunes, is none the less a robbery because it is done under the form of law and is called taxation.” Plainly the tariff discussion is broadening out to a consideration of the fundamental principles of taxation, and men who are free traders in heart—and I have met many of them at the capitol—are no longer afraid, in private conversation at least, to say so. “Tariff reform” is less and less heard, while “free trade in raw materials” is pressing to the front. And even this phrase is beginning to lose its restricted meaning with the tendency to concede that pretty much everything is a “raw material.” There are evidences that the activity of our single tax men all over the country is having its effect. “I do not know much about the single tax,” says a congressman from the northwest, “but certain it is that I am not disposed to fall out with those people who are working to rid the country of indirect taxation. I am a firm believer in the theory of free trade, and I recognize nothing valid in the arguments in opposition to it, except that duties on imports are so easily collected as to render tariff taxes desirable. I am unalterably opposed to a ‘protective’ system of tariff taxation.” The keynote was struck by another congressman, who said: “The democratic party must come to advocate free trade; not because it is expedient, but because it is right!”

Mr. Cleveland’s example of boldly speaking out has done much to give democrats in congress the courage of their convictions. Speaker Reed’s breaking away from precedent and seizing all-powerful means of effecting legislation has also made a deep impression. It has awakened some of these democratic congressmen, as nothing else could, to a keen sense of that “menace of plutocracy” which before had come to them only as vague and distant murmurings. It has drawn the lines sharper between the party of privilege and the party which, as Roger continued on p. 6 →

[article continues on a later page; no continuation line printed]

MR. O’BRIEN’S OPPOSITION TO THE ANTI LAND LORD MOVEMENT NOT IN ACCORD WITH MR. PARNELL—MICHAEL DAVITT’S CAMPAIGN—THE ULSTER FARMERS—THE LAND PURCHASE HUMBUG.

MANCHESTER, January 31.—As I anticipated would be the case, Mr. Davitt’s action in establishing the Irish democratic labor federation has subjected him to criticism of the usual sort from men whose incapacity to see that there is a social problem is almost proverbial. Mr. William O’Brien seized the first opportunity to denounce the new association. Proceeding the other day to a meet-ber, viz^sic.: that not to the parliamentary party, who always cursed such action, was the education of the English democracy due, but to Michael Davitt and his friends. Michael Davitt and Henry George, above all other men, revealed to the English masses the real character of the Irish struggle—for only they were listened to. No member of the Irish parliamentary party was listened to by an English audience until long after Henry George and Michael Davitt had traversed England, telling the tale of Irish woe and compelling at length English members of parliament to give heed to the growth of sympathy among English working men to ward the cruelly oppressed toilers of Ireland.

And this new move of Mr. Davitt’s is on right lines. He places the laborers of the country and the artisans of the towns of Ireland in line with the toilers of England against the common enemy of both, viz., landlordism, and for this Mr. O’Brien screams out about “weakening and dividing.” Why does he not give us instead some good reason for his pettish cry^sic. Is the land question of Ireland essentially different from the land question of England? Certainly not. Yet the liberal party of England has by formal resolution declared that no settlement of the land question can be satisfactory which does not provide for a just and equitable taxation of land values and ground rents. Mr. Davitt simply accepts this, and asks that the same principle should be made applicable to Ireland. Mr. O’Brien, who lives in an atmosphere of feverish excitement, knows absolutely nothing of economics, and accordingly cannot see how a union of forces in England and Ireland to overthrow landlordism can be other than weakening and dividing,

p. 6, col. 3 Happily Mr. Parnell does not share Mr. O’Brien’s view, or want of view. Last year, when I was in London with the nail and chainmakers, I had a long chat with Mr. Parnell in the smoke room of the house of commons, and I then told him that he must not suppose that because he did not hear much of me in connection with the Irish movement I was in any way less earnest and sympathetic. I told him that I had come to the conclusion that the Irish question would never be settled on its own merits, but only by the pressure of English social questions and that accordingly I was engaged in an endeavor to ripen English social questions, with a view to showing the workingmen in England how desirable it was that the Irish question should be settled and got out of the way in order that English questions might be dealt with. Mr. Parnell quite approved of the policy, and expressed his approval warmly. Indeed, he went so far as to say that, with regard to the chain and nail makers of the black country, he had heard they were in a most deplorable condition, and that he hoped I would not allow the Irish question to stand in the way of any effort on their behalf, and “moreover,” said Mr. Parnell, “you may confidently rely that we shall remember the help we got from the workingmen of England, and shall be ready to help them in every way we can in return.”

The unification of the labor movement, therefore, instead of being regarded as an embarrassment as it is by Mr. O’Brien, is regarded by Mr. Parnell with favor. The fact is that these fawning sycophants, who can never open their lips without indulging in extravagant laudation of Mr. Parnell, really know next to nothing of the Irish leader’s mind. They are quite unable to appreciate anything in the nature of a high policy, and accordingly Mr. Parnell proceeds upon his way without as a rule consulting them at all. And thus it is that as a matter of fact it is among these fawning sycophants that the speculations take place as to who is to succeed Mr. Parnell in view of his possible retirement.

An election is pending in the Partick division of Glasgow. The liberal candidate is Sir Charles Tennant. I do not know that that gentleman is in any way remarkable for his views on the land question, but his candidature has been acquiesced in by the labor party because the official liberals have agreed to support labor candidates for several Scottish constituencies at the general election provided that the constituencies themselves accept the candidates. It is quite certain that the labor candidates will be single tax men anyway.

We have had another letter from the duke of Argyll. The duke is a very interesting man. He is a man of some cleverness, but he is also a very little man with a very big opinion of himself, and feels himself at liberty to lecture everybody all round. This time he lectures the world at large and the London council in particular upon the principle of “betterment.” The council have in contemplation certain improvements in the great London artery—the Strand—and it is proposed that the cost of these improvements shall in part, at least, be borne by those whose property will be enhanced in value by them. This apparently simple and just proposal rouses the duke’s indignant ire, and forthwith he indites a letter to the Times. In the opinion of the duke the principle is bad in every way—bad in the abstract and bad in its applications. The principle asserts, says the duke, “that all enhancements of value which can be directly traced to the operations of society may be justly taken from the producer of commodities so affected, and may be appropriated by the community.” Now, his grace adds, “if this be the new ‘principle,’ it rests entirely on the fallacy which assumes that the value in exchange of any commodity ever is, or ever can be, caused by the producer of it. * * * It is always ‘the market’ which determines value; and ‘the market’ is society. If society has a right to take whatever is due to its own appreciation of commodities, it may quite as justly take the whole of that appreciation as any part of it.” Then the duke maintains that there is no distinction between land values and other values. “This law (that the market determines value) rules all values,” says his grace, and is most conspicuous in the changes of value affecting manual labor. “Wages rise and fall according to movements of society which the workman does nothing to cause and cannot even understand. The genius, the enter prise and the resources of other men—the wants, desires and aspirations of a world-wide market—these are the agencies that determine the value of labor just as they determine the value of all other things. The idea that communities may seize on all enhancements of values which are not the di-

p. 6, col. 4 rect result of individual merit is essentially chaotic. It would dissolve society. It would arrest all enterprise. It would at once deprive of all life and elasticity that most powerful of all the springs of industry—the speculative instinct.”

Is not that a fine phrase, “the speculative instinct;” and is it not nobly described as “the most powerful of all the springs of industry.”

Sir Thomas Farrer replies to the duke, beginning by giving his grace a savage dig by simply reminding him that the chairman of the London county council once spoke of him as “that portentous political pedagogue.” Sir Thomas does not waste time in discussing with the Duke his thories^sic of value, but comes promptly to the case before him:

It is not a case where one individual desires what another possesses, and is ready therefore to give him a high price for it. It is a case where society interferes to supply a common want or to make a general improvement, and where, in order to do so, it has to levy a compulsory tax. Upon whom ought such a tax to be levied? Surely upon those whom the improvement benefits; and, so far as our rough methods allow, it ought to be borne by them in proportion to the benefit they receive from the improvement. Is not this the essence of local as distinguished from imperial taxation? Is it not the leading feature of all drainage and sewerage schemes—in short, of all local improvement schemes? This is really the whole meaning of the principle of betterment.

The answer is short, sharp, and to the point, and happily another writer in the Times, in a special article dealing historically with the mode of compensation of owners, etc., comes to the conclusion that “no one can doubt that the time has come for a change.”

The Ulster farmers are crying out for a compulsory scheme of land purchase—that is, that the landlords should be compelled to sell—and that the state should aid in such a way as to enable the farmers to get the land by annual payments less than the present rents extending over a number of years. It is rather a cool demand, and the editor of the Manchester Guardian seems half disposed to think so. Commenting upon the demand, he says: “We do not say that the scheme is free from objection. In particular we see no reason why, if the state is to find the money or a great part of it for buying out the landlords, it should not retain at least a portion of their rights. All mineral rights in particular should undoubtedly belong to it, and we see no reason why it should not retain in perpetuity a charge which would virtually be a land tax amounting to say one-fourth of the present rents. If the tenants became owners subject to such a rent as that they would do very well, and the Irish state would be provided with three or four millions of much-needed rèvenue.” It is not a long step the editor of the Manchester Guardian is called upon to take to make him an advocate of the retention by the state of all the landlord’s rights. That it is necessary to watch this business of land purchase very closely may be gathered from what has already taken place under the Ashbourne act. Among those who have benefited most ing to^sic which he had not been invited, he first loaded Mr. Parnell with fulsome adulation, and then the honorable member went on to affirm that Mr. Parnell and his party were quite as anxious as anybody else that every man who labored in the land should get the fullest day’s wages that he could obtain for a fair day’s work, thus insinuating that there was “somebody else and his party” who took a different view. And the insinuation takes complete shape later on, when, after referring to the land, he declared that he “would earnestly impress upon his fellow countrymen that what they had got to do first of all was to win the battle of home rule against coercion. (Cheers.) It would take all the undivided strength and energies and patriotism of the people of Ireland to do that. They were winning, but it was not by folding their arms and talking of programmes for the future.”

We are to hold our opinions, but at the same time we are to hold our tongues. I wonder whether when the land league was started Mr. O’Brien held the same course and warned the land leaguers to do nothing that could possibly have the effect of weakening or dividing the forces that were then at work in the direction of home rule. It is quite certain that the honorable gentleman was not a member of the land league until long after its establishment. He joined it like some other of the parliamentary party, when it had made itself such a power that it was an open question as to whether or not the law of the league was the law of the land. Mr. O’Brien was a welcome addition to our ranks. I remember well when the message was continued on p. 7 →

[continued on page 7]

FAREWELL—FEB. 8, 1890.

Farewell! farewell! the good ship speeds Upon her shining, billowy way. Farewell! farewell! the land recedes, Where fond and loyal hearts must stay. Oh! richly freighted, forth she goes, With treasure from the golden shore! And every wind that o’er her blows, Like eager herald flies before.

Where Honolulu’s tropic isle Earth’s ghastliest anguish hides from view, That message—like an angel’s smile— Would whisper of God’s purpose true. And where the sister islands lift Volcanic summits to the sky, With tidings of the heavenly gift Still doth the tireless herald fly.

Then, onward—o’er the trackless foam Of ocean’s mightiest domain; Australia beckons ’till he come, Outstretching hands of welcome fain. Oh, herald wind! blow fresh and free, Round headland bold and peopled slope, And say: He sails the southern sea— Apostle of a world-wide hope!

Oh, herald wind! since shone the light On captive Judah’s hills of old, And strains celestial, thro’ the night, Earth’s coming joy and peace foretold; Thou hast not borne such message glad, As on this wondrous day is thine; Deliverance to the prisoner sad, And light to those who grope and pine!

Oh, purpose of the ages vast! That, blinded, we were slow to see. Oh, bitter thrall that ends at last! Oh, glorious era yet to be! Emerging from the shadow dim, Our dazzled eyes behold the ray; Our souls would own our debt to him— God’s prophet! who hath shown the way.

FRANCES M. MILNE.

San Luis Obispo.

SPLENDID MEETING IN SAN FRANCISCO AND OAKLAND—THE BANQUET—ADDRESSING THE MINISTERS—GREETINGS FROM OLD FRIENDS—SAILING AWAY UNDER THE AMERICAN FLAG FOLLOWED BY CHEERS.

In the last issue of THE STANDARD we printed a dispatch from Judge Maguire, giving a brief account of the ovation to Henry George in San Francisco. The San Francisco papers have since come to hand, and they are filled with accounts of his reception and the meetings he addressed. All of them devote much space to him, but the republican papers display an amusing petty malevolence. The Evening Bulletin, for instance, in a sketch of his life, simply remarks of the momentus^sic campaign of 1886, that Mr. George “was an unsuccessful candidate for the mayoralty of New York.” The story of Mr. George’s progress, as told by the California papers, is as follows:

At several stations along the line between Los Angeles and San Francisco there were gatherings of enthusiastic single tax men who received Mr. George with cheers, and pressed forward to shake hands with him. At Martinez the San Francisco single tax delegation, consisting of Judge Maguire, Joseph Leggett, W. P. Plunkett, Charles C. Terrill, Walter Gallagher, Dr. E. R. Taylor and James H. Barry, met the incoming train and pressed forward to shake hands with Mr. and Mrs. George. Several newspaper reporters accompanied the delegation, and they were eager to interview the author of “Progress and Poverty.” The correspondent of the Examiner said: “A gentleman fifty years of age and no taller than the first Napoleon, looked out of the window of the west bound Pullman yesterday afternoon at Lathrop. * * * It was Henry George, California’s political economist, who has caught the world’s ear and interested its intellect.” The correspondent rode with Mr. George from Lathrop to Martinez. In the course of the ride, Mr. George, looking out the window, said:

This is God’s country sure enough. And yet California is foolish enough to shout for a protective tariff. Why, all her interests are with free trade. The tariff puts the republics to the south of you further away commercially than they are from England. You ought to have an immense commerce with Mexico, Central and South America and Australasia, but you choose to warn their goods away from you with a shotgun. California should be a great manufacturing state, but you think it good for you to pay a duty of seventy-five cents a ton on the coal you get from British Columbia. You are dis-

p. 8, col. 2 > tinguished victims of the superstition that it is well to make dear the things you need most.

Mr. George arrived in San Francisco on Tuesday, February 4, and drove straight to the Lick House, where he and Mrs. George were greeted by many old friends and new admirers. On that evening Mr. George addressed a meeting at Metropolitan hall. The Morning Call, a hostile paper, says, in its report of the meeting, “Henry George, the single tax advocate, has good reason to be proud of his reception in this city on the occasion of his first address on the principles that he advocates. Metropolitan hall did not have sufficient chairs to accomodate all who wanted to hear the orator. Long before 8 o’clock people were turned away.” Shortly before 8 o’clock, Mr. George accompanied by his former partner, William H. Hinton, and Hon. James G. Maguire, Joseph Leggett and Walter Gallagher, came upon the platform. The appearance of the party was greeted by storms of applause. Before the lecture, James H. Barry gave an admirable recitation of an original poem of welcome, written for the occasion by Mrs. Frances Milne, who had come up from San Luis Obispo, a distance of 150 miles, accompanied by her mother, a woman over eighty years of age, who is equally an enthusiast in behalf of the new movement. The poem, which is printed in the San Francisco Star, was as follows:

OWN HIM THINE.

She waits beside the Golden Gate, Her Prophet’s coming from afar: Why hast thou welcome, loth and late, Who watched the rising of his star? Thine eyes were held: ’twas not for thee, Dazzled by fevered dreams of gold; But—passed that wild delirium—see The heavenly vision yet unfold!

Oh, beautiful upon thy hills, Their feet who publish tidings glad! Methinks, from slope to slope there thrills The primal joy that Eden had. And once again earth hears tne^sic word Our heritage and charge proclaim; To dress and keep thy garden, Lord, In conscious manhood, free from shame.

O sapphire skies, whose boundless arch Bids still aspire the spirit’s view! Beneath thy splendor yet shall march The ransomed people seers knew. O vine-clad hill and rushing stream! O valley laughing to the sun! Thou wilt fulfill the poet’s dream, In that new era—just begun.

No more shall Greed’s despoiling hand The luster of thy beauty mar; No more a sordid tyrant stand, Earth’s bounty from her sons to bar; But generous Nature wealth bestow, And toil in interchange be blest; For peace shall like a river flow, When Man hath brotherhood confessed.

A welcome! For our Prophet comes! Denied, rejected by us long; Let voices from ten thousand homes Uplift the glad thanksgiving song! He comes! to bid new manhood speak; To helpless childhood, joy restore; To dry the tear on woman’s cheek, And tell the hopeless—hope once more.

Oh, city by the Golden Gate! The time appointed comes to thee; And unborn ages on thee wait, To join the march of destiny. Wilt thou not hear—on this, thy day— The herald of a truth divine? Oh, haste! repent thee of delay! Thy Prophet cometh—own him thine!

Judge Maguire next called the meeting to order, telling how he became converted to the doctrine of the single tax, saying that after this he saw things in a new light. Hope came from the suggestion, and he became a soldier in the ranks of the single tax movement. He said: “These same thoughts have now girdled the world, and Henry George wields an influence greater than any man of his age. It is not necessary to introduce him to a San Francisco audience; he is the first economist of the Nineteenth century.” The report of the Examiner says: “For fully five minutes after stepping to the front of the stage Mr. George looked upon a scene of wild applause.”

[The San Francisco Star prints Mr. George’s speech in full, and we shall reprint it in THE STANDARD next week.—ED.]

Mr. George was constantly interrupted by applause. As the first lecture was a paid one, and many persons who had tried to obtain twenty-five-cent seats in the galleries had been turned away because of overcrowding, Mr. George announced that he would deliver a free lecture in the same place on the following Friday evening. After the lecture was over Mr. C. A. Wetmore

p. 8, col. 3 gave a supper to Mr. George and a number his old friends^sic.

On Wednesday evening, February 5, a banquet under the auspices of the single tax society, was given to Mr. George at the Delmonico. One hundred and fifteen guests sat down at the table and Judge Maguire presided. The speeches were witty and clever, that of ex Judge Robt. Farrell being notably so. His reminiscences of old times with Mr. George in San Francisco were received with shouts of laughter by everybody, including the guest of the evening.

When Mr. George was finally introduced he was received with the wildest cheering and applause, and the papers say he was visibly affected by the heartiness of the greeting from old friends.

On Thursday afternoon Mr. George was given a reception at the Lyceum hall of the Y. M. C. A. There were present a large number of clergymen and others from San Frascisco^sic and Oakland.

Mr. George spoke for nearly two hours of the single tax^sic, and in the course of his speech said:

At the bottom of the subject of taxation lies a religious question and sentiment. If the universe be God’s work, its laws are His laws, and when we find the laws made by man working terrible hardships we know that we have gone astray, and we must get back to His will.

We all know that in our communities there is much undeserved poverty; hard, biting, degrading poverty. There is more than physical suffering. Look, too, at the great amount of vice and crime running through it, born of want and the fear of want.

We hold that the conditions of to-day are not the conditions God intends; that He is no niggard, and that there is enough for all—except the sluggard.

On Friday evening Metropolitan temple was crowded by a great audience. The Examiner, in its report of the meeting, said:

There was not a vacant seat in Metropolitan temple last night when Henry George appeared on the platform. Hundreds unable to find seats stood in the aisles and along the walls.

Woolen-shirted workingmen sat side by side with elegantly dressed women—the audience was thoroughly republican and cosmopolitan, and all the different elements that went to make up the crowd were equally enthusiastic, and the frequent applause shook the building.

The Examiner of Sunday morning, February 9, printed a picture of Mr. George, and devoted fourteen columns to an interview with him, and to interviews with well-known workingmen on the subject of the single tax. Mr. George’s talk was largely devoted to criticising the stupid folly that makes California support the protective policy, but he also answered numerous questions put by the reporter concerning the single tax. The interviews with workers were curious.

Some of those interviewed declared that they had really never given any attention to the single tax doctrine until Mr. George’s arrival in San Francisco a few days before. A majority declared themselves believers in the single tax, and a very considerable number of others said that, while not entirely familiar with it, or convinced that it would accomplish all that Mr. George expects, they were favorably impressed with the idea. Two or three of the officers of the labor unions, while expressing approval of the single tax doctrine, declared that organized labor was disposed to hold itself aloof from Mr. George personally, because they did not regard him as in sympathy with their methods. W. A. Bushnell, president of the Council of federated trades, said he saw nothing to quarrel with in the single tax idea, and that he did not attach much importance to the statement that Mr. George had expressed himself in disapproval of trades unions. Mr. Bushnell said that he understood that Mr. George regarded the unions as kindergartens, and “the crudest form of protective organization.” He added: “Perhaps he isn’t far wrong in this, but dyed-in-the-wool trades union men like myself are very much inclined to the belief that it will be just such ‘primitive organizations’ as ours which may finally make his theory something more than a theory.”

The only men interviewed who declared themselves unequivocally against Mr. George were a blacksmith, who boasted that he had become an employer; a woodcarver, who makes his principal income by writing for the papers; and a cigarmaker, who, like the other two, was a violent protectionist. The blacksmith seemed disposed to boast that he had not read Mr. George’s works, though he unhesitatingly expressed his opposition to the principles advocated in them.

Editorially, the newspapers, as a rule, treated Mr. George with courtesy. The Chronicle, however, showed that it was absolutely unfamiliar with his ideas, and actu-

p. 8, col. 4 ally misrepresented them editorially in the same paper in which it printed a very fair report of his lecture.

The Evening Post published a fac simile of Mr. George’s autograph, and underneath it the legend, “Founder of the Evening Post, author of ‘Progress and Poverty’ and the noted political economist and reformer.” It says:

Henry George unquestionably stands at the head of all living political economists, and by his admirers is accounted the greatest thinker on economical problems since the day of Adam Smith.

The Examiner reported all of Mr. George’s addresses quite fully, and editorially spoke of him as follows:

San Francisco and Henry George meet again after a separation of ten years. Both have grown considerably more important in the interval. San Francisco has become a great city and Mr. George has become a great man. The fame of both is abroad in the world.

When Mr. George left us he was a prophet to a few, a crank to many, and simply a vivid, interesting writer to more. Since then he has developed into a skillful man of affairs, a practical politician in the best sense, a leader with a vast following of devoted disciples. He counts his adherents in every quarter of the globe. Michael Davitt in Ireland, Thomas G. Shearman in New York, T. V. Powderly in Pennsylvania, Sir George Grey in New Zealand, Sir Henry Parkes in New South Wales, all march with him or after him. He has a right to say, as he said at the farewell banquet in New York the other night, that he is a citizen of the world. One year he is helping the liberals in England, the next he is working with the ballot reformers in America, and the next he is campaigning with the free traders in Australia.

Mr. George is best known through his single tax theory, but he has shown the clear sanity that distinguishes the practical worker from the crank in the way in which he has identified himself with other reforms and so won the friendship and the cordial attention of men who would have been repelled by the single tax alone. Purely as a single taxer it is hardly likely that he could have secured the warm commendation of George William Curtis, President Low of Columbia college, the president of Brown university, and other eminent men who sent him their best wishes for a prosperous journey. But Mr. George has been the first, the most persistent and the most powerful advocate of the introduction of the Australian ballot into the United States, and in this fight he has had at his back the mugwump respectability that might have been horrified at his economic views.

Even those who differ from Mr. George can read his articles without losing their tempers, because he never loses his. He never dances a war dance on an opponent. And the tone of his arguments is so high that nobody feels degraded, as in the case of some popular agitators, by handling them.

Whatever else Mr. George may have been, he has always been honest, fearless and courteous. That is why such men as Bishop Huntington. Heber Newton^sic, Lyman Abbot^sic, Roger Q. Mills, J. G. Carlisle and the two Breckinridges joined in wishing him good luck. It is why San Francisco has always been glad to claim him as one of her sons. It is why Georgeism, born of the same conditions, has never degenerated into Kearneyism. Mr. George, in becoming an agitator, has never ceased to be a gentleman. San Franciscans recognize and appreciate that merit.

W. J. Sellers, writing from San Francisco under date of February 10, is jubilant over the success of Mr. George’s visit. He says that even the weather, which had previously been inclement, was enlisted in behalf of the single tax. The meetings at Metropolitan temple were enthusiastic and crowded, and the banquet, which was also attended by many of Mr. George’s old friends who were not single tax men, was a splendid success. The meeting on February 7 was very largely attended by workingmen, who cheered and applauded Mr George’s denunciation of the humbug of protection. The meeting at Oakland on Thursday evening, February 6, was a large one, but many of the audience in that protection city evidently were not in sympathy with the speaker at the start; they listened, however, with the closest attention, and frequently applauded with enthusiasm. The tract, “Only a Dream,” by Abner Thomas, was made the text of Mr. George’s opening remarks. Mr. Sellers says: “When Mr. George sailed for Australia on Saturday afternoon, the 8th inst., a large delegation of his friends went to the steamer to see him off, cheering him heartily as the vessel left the dock. By the way, Mr. George has the good fortune to cross the Pacific on that great rarity in these days, an American steamer.”

Mr. E. Hodkins of Oakland writes that the meeting in that city on Thursday evening, the 6th, completely filled Hamilton hall, one of the largest halls in the city. “The single tax club issued special invitations to the clergy to be present and many of them attended. There were also present many lawyers, business men and doctors who listened attentively. The Oakland and San Francisco papers printed full reports of the meeting.”

GENERAL WALKER ON NATIONALISM.

General Francis A. Walker, statistician, talks of “Mr. Bellamy and the new nationalist party,” in the February Atlantic Monthly, from the old time individualist’s point of view. General Walker ascribes the widespread interest in Mr. Bellamy’s book and the growth of Henry George’s ideas, to the optimism born of the world’s remarkable material progress. General Walker thinks that things had been going well with mankind when Mr. George had the audacity to propose a remedy for poverty and that sanguine human nature at once grasped at the hope held out. He thinks that like conditions made possible the welcome given to Mr. Bellamy’s dream.

In General Walker’s view the sanguine people who welcome nationalism had a right to complain that Mr. Bellamy was not born earlier—his remedy seems so simple. General Walker believes that the great majority of country people would come to live in town did they not know that they would starve, and he conjectures that nothing would keep them out of Mr. Bellamy’s delightful cities save the reduction of agricultural working hours to about one and a half per day. But the world is scarcely fed with the long agricultural working hours of the present time, and of course a reduction of hours would be fatal.

Mr. Bellamy’s apportionment of pay, not according to product, but according to exertion, the weak man making great exertion to produce what the strong man produces with slight effort, General Walker thinks, would tend to discourage individual energy.

According to General Walker’s notion, Mr. Bellamy’s 5,000,000 of unemployed voters having no occupation but politics, would become the most pestiferous of political intriguers. He suggests that a ruling class equally removed from popular clamor and prejudice might be found in the penitentiaries.

General Walker vigorously dissnets^sic from the idea that under nationalism greed and other forms of selfishness would disappear. “From the origin of mankind to the present time the main spur to exertion has been want.”

Mr. Bellamy’s bock^sic, like “Mr. George’s great work,” shows, in General Walker’s opinion, the perverting effect of a single false notion. In Mr. Bellamy’s case it is the love of militarism, but General Walker assures us that while men may surrender liberty to discipline in stress of war, they will not make this surrender in the midst of permanent peace. There have been races that lived without care, but they were not civilized. “Except for care and struggle and pains, men would never have risen above the intellectual and physical stature of Polynesian savages.” * * *

“But it was no Bellamy who said that in the sweat of their brows should men eat bread; that with agony should they be born into the world; and that in labor always, in disappointment and defeat often, with anxious thought, and with foreboding that ceases only at the grave, should they live their lives through, dying weary of the struggle, yet rejoicing in the hope of a better future and more generous terms for those who are to come after.”

General Walker insists that Mr. Bellamy’s plan involves the grossest violation of common honesty in the proposed distribution of products. The tribes among whom such a system exists are embruted savages, and they too, by the way, govern themselves through superannuated elders.

The nationalist party is not to be taken seriously, in General Walker’s opinion, because it represents only a few persons, and those not drawn from the masses. He finds its declaration of principles chiefly theoretic, and ridicules its utterance on the subject of trusts. He boldly takes issue with the adjective “brutal,” as applied to competition, and says that we are suffering not from too much but from too little of that healthful excitement. “When I sell my service or my product at the highest attainable price, what does this mean but that I have found the very person, of all the world, who has the greatest need of it, who can make the most out of it, to whom it will bring the largest satisfaction of wants and desires?”

CRITICISING EDITORIALS IN THE JOURNAL OF THE KNIGHTS OF LABOR.

To the Editor of The Standard—SIR: The last meeting of our club was devoted almost wholly to the discussion of some editorials which appeared in a recent issue of the Journal of the Knights of Labor, concerning the single tax, competition, etc. The articles in question were evidently from the pen of Mr. A. W. Wright, editor of the Journal; accordingly he was handled without gloves for his manifest antipathy to the single tax and the individualism involved in it, and his desire rather to teach state socialism, notwithstanding that the members of the Knights of Labor, and the public generally, had been led to believe that the order did adopt the single tax and all that it involves. In the opinion of the club the fourth section of the Knights of Labor declaration of principles, as last amended, is good enough single taxism for the present—a great advance on the order’s former land policy—and, if taught to the members of the organization, it would be productive of great good; but that it cannot be of very much value as a principle if the editor of the Journal repeatedly and systematically informs the uninitiated that it is not the single tax doctrine, and makes no attempt to explain what it is. Merely stating that it means “more than the single tax” is not a sufficient explanation to satisfy our club.

J. A. CRAIG.

Paterson, N. J.

TO HENRY GEORGE.

We welcome you to-night,
O prophet of the right,
With all our hearts;
For in your voice we hear,
The ringing note and clear
That truth imparts.

To you, who, bold and strong,
Smite hard the hoary wrong
Of wealth unearned,
As to no other man
In all the wide earth’s span,
Men’s hopes are turned.

J. D. DILLENBACK.

A DISGUSTED REPUBLICAN.

JOHN GIBB, AN OLD TIME REPUBLICAN, CANNOT STAND PROTECTIONISM.

Until a day or so ago John Gibb, the eminent merchant, was a member of the legislative committee of the Kings county republican committee. Mr. Gibb is the head of the great wholesale dry goods house of Mills & Gibb in New York, and of the big retail house which goes by the name of “Frederick Loeser & Co.” in Brooklyn. He is one of the most active of the republican business men of Brooklyn, and is to be credited with a very large share in the recent reforms of Mayor Chapin’s administration. The Tribune is never tired of praising Mr. Gibb and his patriotic stand for reform and the republican party. Now Mr. Gibb has resigned from the committee, and the Brooklyn Citizen, interview ing him to find out what the matter is, discovers that it is the tariff. New York business men will remember Mr. Gibb’s enthusiasm for Harrison last year, and how his wholesale house was closed on the day of the republican parade in order that none of his employes need have any excuse for staying away. He is a typical, old-fashioned republican business man, and here he is retiring from work for his party on account of the tariff. “The republican party,” he says, “is wrong on the great question of the day—tariff reform. I agree with Grover Cleveland that we must have free raw materials. * * * It is a barbarous and iniquitous tariff and a blot on civilization. Just as the American people demanded of Lincoln the emancipation proclamation, they will shortly go to the polls and demand tariff reform. * * * An ad valorem tariff does not protect and a specific tariff discriminates against the masses. What is the use of charging 40 per cent ad valorem when you can only collect 30 per cent? What protec tion have honest merchants against those who evade the law? When an importer goes to Europe and buys goods, the foreign manufacturer asks him, ‘How shall I invoice this for the custom house?’ ‘At valuation,’ the honest merchant replies. Consternation and astonishment of the manufacturer! He is so used to undervaluation. As a matter of fact the sentiment of the whole of Europe is against our protective tariff, and foreign manufacturers willingly enter into collusion with our importers to evade the duty. * * *

“How does a specific tariff work? Mrs. Astor, who buys the very finst^sic qualities of pure silk, will pay less duty than the poor woman whose silk is mixed with chemicals. The finer grades of woolens weigh less than the coarser. The specific tariff per pound will discriminate against the servant girl. They talk of putting a specific tariff on gloves. Some gloves cost $4.50 a dozen, and some $24. Here we have another instance of discrimination against the masses. I am sorry that some people have gone in for free trade. We are not ripe for that yet. The free trade cry has retarded tariff reform. But there is an educational process going on which will give us the needed remedy in a few years.”

All which is pretty good for an old-line, stiff-neck, straight-backed republican like John Gibb, eh? Some of those sentences sound like bullets. Let’s keep some of them to use in the first volley in ’92. “The specific tariff per pound will discriminate against the servant girl.” “An ad valorem tariff does not protect, and a specific tariff discriminates against the masses.” “The protective tariff had been in force since 1790, and like other antiquated things, is sadly in need of revision.”

And now let me tell you a secret. I know where John Gibb got his idea about the gloves. It was from his kid glove manager, Larom, one of the shrewest^sic kid glove men in the country. Not long ago, in their pleasant tariff juggling, the republicans proposed to counterbalance some reduction or other with a rise in the kid glove duty; and promptly Larom, and Peyser of H. M. Peyser & Co., and Paul of the Foster hook gloves, and other well-known kid glove men, arose in arms, and warned the republicans to keep off. “Kid gloves are made but little in this country,” said Larom and his friends, in effect, in their letter on the subject. “You may build up an American industry; but it will be at the expense of the poor. At present kid gloves are so cheap that a poor girl can afford to wear very decent looking gloves for almost nothing. Our experience tells us that the factory girls of the cities and towns almost invariably wear kid gloves; it is one of the few pleasures which they extract from their hard life. If the price of gloves goes up, they will be the only sufferers, for the rich can easily afford what little difference it will make to them. This is not

p. 10, col. 2 protection to the poor; the American kid glove industry doesn’t need any protection, and we protest.”

The effect of this was to make congress go a little easy, but the kid gloves of the factory girls are not yet safe; for the republicans have got to make up in some quarter for whatever they cut down, and the factory girls have no “delegations” to send to congress to argue for their interests in committee rooms. But you can depend on it that if they do raise the duty on gloves, the entire kid glove trade, democrats and republicans alike, will stand shoulder to shoulder for resistance. Even the domestic manufacturers, who confine themselves mainly to buckskin gloves, etc., don’t want a tariff on on kid gloves.

All which teaches us that the wicked stand in slippery places; and that (with Emerson’s compliments to John Gibb) only fools and dead men never change their opinions.

CHARLES W. THOMPSON.

Brooklyn, Feb. 16.

PRESIDENT WHEELER AND LINDLEY VINTON OF THE REFORM CLUB DEBATE WITH MAHLON CHANCE.

The Reform club’s tariff reform campaign in Livingston county, New York, last week took the form of joint discussions. Everett P. Wheeler, president of the club, and Mahlon Chance, secretary of the American protective tariff league, took part in a discussion at Geneseo on the night of the 10th inst. Mr. Wheeler brought the question home to his hearers by declaring his belief that they would not submit to a county tax of forty-seven cents on the dollar, though they unconsciously submitted to just such a tariff tax on many necessary articles. A high tariff makes goods dear and wages low; free raw materials make goods cheap and wages high. Mr. Wheeler figured up the beneficial results that would accrue to Livingstone county^sic from the freeing of raw materials. Mr. Wheeler set forth briefly the economic heresy of protection, and assailed the historic accuracy of the common assertion that protection has furthered the prosperity of this country.

Mr. Chance replied with an assault upon free traders and a denunciation of the southern confederacy. The British manufacturer also came in for a share of Mr. Chance’s vituperations. Mr. Chance’s argument was of the sort familiar to those who have wrestled with the protectionists.

Mr. Wheeler’s moderation of tone carried the audience with him, and his spirited reply to Mr. Chance’s identification of free traders of to-day with the confederates of twenty-five years ago, brought from Mr. Chance an explanation that sounded much like an apology. Mr. Wheeler and Mr. Chance met again the next night at Dansville.

Lindley Vinton of the Reform club met Mr. Chance in debate at Mt. Morris and Avon on Wednesday and Thursday nights last. Mr. Chance repeated his speech of the other two nights. At Mt. Morris Mr. Vinton treated the iron question in admirable fashion. Mr. Vinton is a manufacturer him self, with a practical knowledge of the business extending from bench to counting house. He said among other things:

In 1750 we were exporting iron to England. As in 1750 America passed England because her fuel gave out and America had an abundance, so again from the same cause the scepter is again about to pass. In 1880 coke was $3.50 per ton in Durham; to-day it is $6. In the United States it is $1.75. England has so largely exhausted her coal fit for making furnace coke that it costs her $6 a ton to make coke, and it takes 1 1-6 tons of coke to make a ton of pig iron. England’s territory is small and no new coal can be discovered. Last year she imported 4,000,000 tons of iron ore. Our stores of iron and coal are inexhaustible. With free trade should England attempt to supply ten per cent of our demand it would raise the price of bar iron twenty per cent, far beyond our present prices. The prices to-day are:

	Pittsburg.	Birmingham.
Refined iron . . . .	$1 95	$1 95
Soft steel . . . . .	2 34	2 50
Tool steel . . . . .	6½	6¾
	New York.	Glasgow.
Best pig . . . . . .	20 00	21 00

The only use that can be made of the iron tariff will be to increase the prices and the profits of the protected manufacturer should there be a considerable increase in the demand.

An amusing incident of the Mount Morris meeting occurred when Mr. Chance asserted that protection had enabled coal miners to earn from $2 00 to $4.84 per day. The audience, which had heard the sad truth about coal miners’ wages from W. B. Estell, organizer of the Reform club canvass in several counties, rose en masse at Mr. Chance’s assertion and greeted him with groans and laughter. An appeal by Mr. Vinton for fair play to his opponent alone sufficed to silence the demonstration.

At Avon Mr. Vinton took up and answered seriatim the chief points in Mr. Chance’s address.

Mr. Chance in his opening made the following points:

First—That from 1816 to 1824, from 1832 to 1842, and from 1846 to 1861, we had free trade in the United States; that iron was the basis on which we established the prosperity of

p. 10, col. 3 > the country and that these periods of free trade had kept the manufacture of iron down so that in 1846 we only manufactured 700,000 tons. To-day we manufacture 7,000,000. > > To this Mr. Vinton replied that the lowest duty on iron up to 1848 was $10 a ton; that it had never since 1816 been lower at any period than to-day—$6 a ton; that on Mr. Chance’s statement the developement^sic of the iron industry had been the greatest on the lowest tariff he had ever known on iron. > > Second—Ireland was ruined by free trade. Reply: Ireland was ruined by England forbidding the export of Irish product, and, therefore, she was injured by protection. > > Third—The prosperity from 1846 to 1860 was admitted, but was accounted for on various grounds, partly by the thouand^sic millions of gold from California. Reply: The amount of gold and silver produced in the United States from 1870 to 1880, covering the panic period, was greater than from 1850 to 1860. > > Fourth—Times were so hard in 1858 under free trade that hundreds of people in New York sought the public soup houses. In reply: Times were so hard under protection from 1873 to 1879 that the soup houses of the city could not feed the starving, and for the first time in this country that tramps went > from farm house to farm house and millions of working men were in want. > > Fifth—The government was so impoverished in 1860 that 12 per cent was paid for money. Reply: The debt of the United States was only about one hundred million, but every one recognized that we were on the eve of a rebellion. The government debt to-day is one thousand millions, but we borrow money at 2½ per cent because every one believes in the stability of our government. > > Sixth—The balance of trade has been for years against England in free trade; that indicates that she has been growing poorer. Reply: When a country has a balance of trade againt^sic her under normal conditions, it indicates that she is importing more merchandise than she exports, and if this continues for any length of time it must be that she has foreign investments, or has shipping on the seas, and this balance of trade represents goods shipped to the country to pay interest on her foreign investments, or in return for her shipping. The countries which export more than they import, and have a permanent balance of trade in their favor are Turkey, Spain and Egypt; the countries which have a balance of trade against them are England, France and Germany. > > Seventh—The anthracite coal miners in Allegany districts are paid from $2 to $4 80 per day. Reply: This is simply an assertion, but if true, I reply anthracite coal is on the free list. The bituminous coal miners are not paid over $1 per day, and in the Braidwood district and the Brazil district in Indiana, we have seen for many months miners starving to death because they refused to accept a reduction in their wages which would not permit them to live. The mine owners say the men shall yield or starve. > > Eighth—Trusts are not an aid to protection and they are not helped by protection. Reply: The trusts listed on the stock exchange are the Standard oil trust, the Cotton seed oil trust, the sugar trust, the lead trust (including white lead), and the cattle feeders and distillers (or whisky) trust. The produce manufactured by every one of these trusts is protected by a heavy tariff duty. > > Ninth—The Reform club of New York, which sent the speaker here to defend free trade is made up of dudes and importers. Reply: Less than two per cent of the members of the Reform club are importers and there are more manufacturers than importers in the club. > > Tenth—Who demand free raw material? Reply: Mr. Ames, the republican governor of Massachusetts, a large manufacturer, states > that the manufacturers of Massachusetts are doomed unless they get free raw material; in this he is joined by hundreds of manufacturers of iron and woolens throughout the United States.

The campaign of the Reform club in this state is developing with great rapidity. It will soon be going on in half a dozen counties. The Cleveland democracy of Erie county, an organization of some years standing, has become interested, and on February 22 meetings to organize or reorganize branches of this society and place them in line with the tariff reform movement will be held in every village of the county.

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 ENROLMENT GOES ON—UNSUCCESSFUL EFFORTS OF THE DEMOCRATS TO AMEND THE SAXTON BILL.

The general committee of the New York ballot reform league met at the reform club on Friday night last and resolved to continue the work of enrolment until the Saxton bill has got well along in its progress through the house. This may give three weeks more for circulating the petition. Signatures are still rapidly coming in. On Tuesday morning the enrolment had reached 37,302, an increase of more than 10,000 in a week. This is 2,000 more than the number of signatures appended to the petition asking Mr. George to run for mayor, and that, up to this time, was the most numerously signed petition ever prepared in this city.

HE POINTS OUT THE VALUE OF THE OFFICAL^sic BALLOT, AND SAYS A WORD ABOUT THE TARIFF.

The Baltimore Sun publishes an interview with Mr. Cleveland, in the course of which he spoke strongly for ballot reform, tariff reform and civil service reform. He said among other things: “I have never debated in my mind whether the removal of trickery from the voter would injure or benefit the democratic party. Ballot reform is right, and that is why I think it should be adopted.” He said that Governor Abbett of New Jersey and Governor Campbell of Ohio were two of the most astute politicians in the country, and no one could be more pronounced in favor of the principle, than each of them. The new system was the cause of democratic defeat in Boston. As to the argument that the uneducated voter would be embarrassed, and in many instances deprived of his privilege, Mr. Cleveland could not see that there was anything in it. Nothing could be easier than the adoption of some sign or device, apparent to the most ignorant, indicating the political complexion of the candidates to be voted for. He thought the best plan would be to have lists of all candidates printed on one ticket, the signs to be adopted starting at the top of each list, and indicating to which party the candidates belonged. The voter could then by one mark indicate his intention to vote for all the candidates of his party.

The vital principle of ballot reform he regarded as lodged in the official ballot. To permit an unofficial ballot would leave the door as wide open as ever to bribery and corruption. An official ballot only would sweep away to a very great extent, if not entirely, all excuse for campaign funds, for if the state paid all the expenses of the elections there would be little plea to levy assessments upon candidates and contributions from interested outsiders.

On the subject of tariff reform Mr. Cleveland was as enthusiastic as in 1888. He would not discuss 1892, but he talked of the tariff and the farmers. He thought the best way to reach the farmers and convince them of their own true interests was the establishment of tariff reform clubs among them and to disseminate literature applicable to their circumstances. It had been too much the custom in the party to send into the rural districts tariff documents consisting of facts and arguments of interest only for city people. The proper way to have them understand and appreciate the question was to give them veritable object lessons, facts and figures which came home to them. This, he believed, was already being done.

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 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 government; the revenue being divided between local governments, state governments and the general government, as the revenue from direct taxes is now divided between tne^sic 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, not 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 in 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^sic 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 bid 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 machine, 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 community, 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. 12, col. 2

SOME FACTS AND FIGURES ABOUT RENT AND THE CONDITION OF THE EAST SIDE POOR.

In that dreary square mile of New York lying southeast of Fourteenth street and First avenue, where, it has been estimated, 260,000 people dwell, every great tenement house is an object lesson in the necessity for the single tax. Here are the homes of the decent poor of almost every degree. The district as a whole is not criminal or even notoriously vicious. Person and property are as safe in Avenue A as in Broadway, and virtuous women may walk the streets of the former thoroughfare after nightfall with a much greater certainty of escaping insult than in any fashionable street. The tenement house dwellers of the east side vary in condition all the way from absolute penury to comparative prosperity; but whether a family be living from hand to mouth upon chance earnings eked out with charity, or upon a steady moderate income that leaves some margin for saving, all the members feel the pinch of land monopoly. A young man interested in one of the many charitable schemes that vainly struggle to save these people from the worst results of poverty, missed a lad for some nights from the reading room where he and two score others were accustomed to gather, and inquired his whereabouts. No one answered, and the question “Where does he live?” was asked. The answer came from a friend of the missing lad, “I don’t know where he lives; but I know where he stands,” and then followed the explanation that the east side youth usually prefers the comparative comfort of a street corner to the stuffy horrors of his tenement house home. His friends do not know in which human pigeon-hole he lives; but they are pretty sure to know the corner where he stands.

This fact throws an instructive light upon life in the east side tenements. Scarce any thrift or ingenuity can make attractive these dwellings of the poor. If one or two families are cleanly and comparatively prosperous they may be divided only by a hall, a stairway or a thin partition from the filth and misery of the abjectly poor. A considerable per centage of the dwellers in this region live almost habitually in part upon charity. With thousands it is a matter of course that in sickness they send for a charity physician. With other thousands direct charity in the form of food or clothing is a matter of periodical necessity. Some are hereditary paupers, while others accept charity only when in desperate need. Sickness, death or loss of work speedily brings a family to want. Of course the poverty of many is intensified by drunkenness, improvidence and bad management of various sorts.

Here are a few facts about tenement house families of the poorer, but probably not of the poorest, and certainly not of the criminal class. They are merely sample cases, taken at random.

In Allen street, near one of the elevated railway stations, stands a row of tenement houses five stories high. The elevated railway runs within a few feet of the front windows. On the third floor of this tenement dwells a young man with his wife and two children. When he can he works as carver in a restaurant. For some cause, which the wife did not name, he has been six months idle. The wife, by working night and day at her little home, can earn about $5 per week making artificial flowers. She took up a red rose of cloth and said that she received forty cents for making 144 such flowers. The children were both sick with measles, and one of them had been an invalid most of its life. She was glad there were no more of them, though if food were forthcoming she would be well content to have a large family about her. In better days she had lived in Harlem. Afterward she had paid $11 a month for three comfortable rooms in a downtown tenement; but this was too much and the family had removed to Allen street. Some landlords were hard and some were easy. The hardest of all were the agents; they were pittiless^sic. Evictions were common. It was usual for evicted families to give the agent as much trouble as possible, and when the few days of legal delay had expired, sullenly to await the actual process of baing^sic set upon the sidewalk, because this cost the landlord $7. Once in her own experience when she was unable to pay the rent, the landlady came in person and offered to give her two weeks’ rent free if she would move without resistance at the end of that time. She gladly accepted the terms, but by good fortune was able to pay her rent when the time came round. For the two rooms then occupied by the family the rent was $8 a month. For each set of apartments above her the rent was a dollar less; for each below a dollar more. There were four families on a floor. The whole rent of the tenement

p. 12, col. 3 figured up thus: First floor, $40 per month; second, $36; third, $32; fourth, $28; fifth, $24; total, $160 per month or $1,920 per year. The larger room measured scarcely 12x12, and the smaller, which was dark, must have been three or four feet less each way. The building was erected with the utmost economy of space. The only conveniences were a stationary iron basin and water spigot in each hall, and common outbuildings in the small rear yard. The halls and stairways were narrow, dark and noisome. The mother was not unneat in dress and her face was honest and cheerful. She even smiled when she said that the day before she had been without a penny. The bare floor was clean and the walls were hung with cheap prints of the kind known as “process” pictures. The air was stiflingly hot because of the cooking stove.

A widow, with a family of four pretty children and her mother, lives on the third floor of a rear tenement, or “yard house,” as it is called by these people. She has three rooms, for which she pays $15 a month, the landlord having reduced it from $17 at the death of the husband. In the rear tenements the top floors often bring more than the lower ones. In this instance the rent of the fourth floor was the same as that of the third, while the second and first were each a little less. The whole house probably yields $120 a month. The whole appearance of the family was that of persons accustomed to reasonable comforts. The children were neatly dressed and soft spoken. The mother had the remnants of early beauty. The children were going to school. The eldest girl had recently been subject to sudden spells of dizziness. The doctor found the cause to be malaria. Many of these tenements are built over ground saturated by subterranean water courses, as are indeed hundreds of fashionable houses in this city. The mother explained that the little one cried at sight of the doctor because she had once undergone a surgical operation for relief of injuries received from a fall. That was in the days when the family employed a “pay doctor.”

In another “yard house” a young painter out of work and with a sick wife, dwelt on the top floor and paid $7 per month for two small bare rooms. Apparently there were but two families on a floor here. The only light came from the front of the house, which rose not more than twenty-five feet from the rear of the front tenement. The neighbors had been feeding the family for a week, although most of them were nearly as poor as the painter himself.

A cheerful consumptive on the top floor of a rear tenement occupied, in company with her sister and an idle husband, two rooms, one light and one dark, at a rental of $8 per month. The sister, a coarse, good natured looking young woman, was making cigars by hand. The room smelled strongly of the green tobacco. A sickly child of two years, the prophecy of its mother’s disease written in its weazened face, sat on a stool near the stove. A well-grown lad of ten came in with some meat done up in brown paper, and in his hand a piece of cake, which he gave to the child. The whole place was eloquent of poverty, and the women and children had the look of those to whom such conditions are a matter of course.

This story could be repeated with variations until every column of THE STANDARD was filled, and then would remain to be told the tale of that deeper, viler poverty which burrows amid unspeakable filth in unknown corners of the city, yet always must yield its tribute to the landlord. The poorest of the poor seem beyond the reach of every human being save the rent gatherer. The model tenements in various parts of the city have provided comparatively cheap sanitary quarters for some of the poor; but the neediest never find these havens. The model tenements are accupied^sic for the most part by prosperous mechanics. The thriftiest of the poor, those who work when they can, deny themselves most pleasures and avoid excess, may hope to lift themselves out of the worst state, but unless their thrift is mere greed of gain and has not for one object a more comfortable and human mode of life, they must pay toll to the landlord. When a poor family begins to get ahead in the world it seeks pleasanter lodgings than the ordinary east side tenement affords, and of course pleasanter lodgings mean higher rent. Such a family moves further up town to increase the pressure of population in districts a little less crowded and of course to help the upward tendency of rents in the new quarters. Meanwhile the deserted downtown apartment is promptly filled, and rent there goes on as before.

Probably not more than a fifth of the rent in the tenement-house district should be estimated on buildings. The ordinary tenement house is built in the cheapest fashion. It would not pay to build them better, because

p. 12, col. 4 the bare land yields so large a rent that the poor can afford to pay only for a standing place upon it, and the simplest sort of a roof over their heads. The single tax applied in its fullness would set free the vacant area of New York, cover them with dwellings and gradually relieve the pressure upon the tenement-house district. All other attempts at alleviation in the end merely enable the landholder to exact higher rents.

IMPROVED.

No. 104 West Seventy-sixth street, four story stone dwelling. Sold for $27,500; assessed at $16,000, or 58 per cent of its value.

No. 233 East Eighty-first street, four story stone front tenement. Sold for $19,000; assessed at $10,500, or 55¼ per cent of its value.

No. 80 West Ninetieth street, five story brick flat. Sold for $26,000; assessed at $12,000, or 46 per cent of its value.

No. 72 West 100th street, five story brick tenement. Sold for $22,000; assessed at $12,000, or 54½ per cent of its value.

No. 243 East 109th street, two story frame dwelling. Sold for $6,000; assessed at $2,800, or 46⅔ per cent of its value.

No. 118 East 121st street, three story brick dwelling. Sold for $8,750; assessed at $4,700, or 53 per cent of its value.

No. 350 West 123d street, three story frame dwelling. Sold for $15 500; assessed at $8 000, or 51½[?] per cent of its value.

No. 155 East 124th street, four story stone flat. Sold for $16,500; assessed at $7,500, or 45½[?] per cent of its value.

The average assessment on the above eight parcels of land is 51¼ per cent of value.

UNIMPROVED.

North side Ninetieth street, 300 feet east of Second avenue, 100x100 8. Sold for $24,000; assessed at $9,200, or 38^sic⅓[?] per cent of its value.

South side Ninety-ninth street, 100 feet east of Tenth avenue, 100x100 8. Sold for $45 000; assessed at $28,000, or 62¼ per cent of its value.

South side 104th street, 100 feet west of Avenue A, 100x100. Sold for $10,200; assessed at $4 000, or 38⅛[?] per cent of its value.

South side 105th street, 50 feet west of Manhattan avenue, 50x100 11. Sold for $20,000; assessed at $8,000, or 40 per cent of its value.

North side 124th street, 310 feet east of Sixth avenue, 25x100 11. Sold for $13,000; assessed at $5,000, or 38½ per cent of its value.

South side Fifty-seventh street, 550 feet west of Fifth avenue, 50x100.5. Sold for $100 000; assessed at $45,000, or 45 per cent of its value.

South side 128th street, 190 feet east of Fifth avenue, 20x99 11. Sold for $8,000; assessed at $3,500, or 43⅞[?] per cent of its value.

North side 133d street, 100 feet west of Tenth avenue, 125x99.11. Sold for $16,000; assessed at $7,500, or 46⅞ per cent of its value.

The average assessment on the above eight parcels of land is 41½[?] per cent of value.

NEW YORK CITY.

A QUIET WEEK—REV. S. W. THACKERAY WILL SPEAK TO-MORROW EVENING.

To-morrow evening Rev. S. W. Thackeray will address the Manhattan single tax club continued on p. 13 →

[continued on page 13]

W. E. HICKS BEFORE THE BROOKLYN CLUB—AN OPPORTUNITY GIVEN FOR IMPARTING INFORMATION.

An opportunity is now presented to the club to do some very effective work. A bill has been introduced into the legislature to annex the town of Flatbush to the city of Brooklyn as the Twenty-seventh ward.

The eleventh section which the club will oppose provides for the taxation of land nominally used as farm land as farm land, no matter what its intrinsic value for building may be. As the club will thoroughly discuss the subject, and decide what action it will take in the matter at its next meeting, February 19, a large attendance is desired.

Mr. G. W. Thompson spoke before the Eastern district club Tuesday, February 18, on “Our Protective Tariff.”

W. E. Hicks, one of the American delegates to the Paris conference, was the speaker Sunday evening, taking as his theme, “How a single tax man lost his patriotism.” His address, which was devoted mainly to a recital of the many interesting events and scenes witnessed during his recent trip abroad, abounded with vivid illustration and keen analysis. His description of Hawarden castle, the residence of W. E. Gladstone, with its 11,000 acres of land, a large portion of which is to-day in the same uncultivated state as in the days of the Plantagenets, came as a revelation to most present. While thousands of his fellow men were compelled to work for a mere subsistence because they were shut out from access to the land, the Gladstone family were holding thousands of acres from use in a wild state, in order to afford a rearing ground for rabbits. Mr. Hicks declared that in the short ride from Liverpool to London, about 200 miles, he saw sufficient land held out of use by large landed proprietors to support the whole population of Ireland. He showed that the same conditions which exist in England were fast obtaining in this country, and that an aristocracy was growing up based upon the ownership of land.

The sad news of the death of M. Albert Toubeau, in Paris, was announced, and resolutions expressing the sorrow of the club were unanimously adopted, the secretary being instructed to forward a copy to the family of the deceased gentleman.

The entertainment committee have prepared a programme for the club for the evening of February 26.

John C. Fletcher, Brooklyn.—I find that soliciting signatures to the petition gives opportunities for imparting information as to the single tax possible in no other way. I rejoice that the ministry are taking hold of the work of spreading the light. In a letter I received from London, England, the writer, speaking in reference to the growth of the land question and the great impetus given to the movement by Henry George’s visit last year, says:

I fancy we are getting nicely in the wake of Henry George, for the taxing of ground rents and compensation for improvements is one of the main planks of the liberal platform, and I am of the opinion it will be a certain fact in the near future. It seems scarcely credible that America has hardly accepted the Prophet; but we have accepted him and his teachings, and mean to act up to them. One grand feature in connection with Mr. George is his moral worth—that none can say ought against his character as a man; but he stands to-day an exemplification of the words of our Leicester poet, when he sings, “Oh, my brothers; what a glory to the world is one good man.”

THE OTHER SEX MANIFESTING INTEREST IN THE SINGLE TAX.

H. D. Gawn, Rochester.—Our union could not find seating capacity for all who attended our meeting last Sunday evening, which was the most interesting held since its organization. If the interest keeps up as it has in

p. 13, col. 2 the past few weeks we will have to rent larger quarters. A delegation of ladies from the Women’s political club of this city, that numbers among its members some of the most influential women of this city, and presided over by Mrs. Colonel Greenleaf, was present. They stated that their club was about to take an interest in the single tax, and desired to gain all the information they could on the subject. Mr. William Manning of Boston in a very pleasing manner explained to them what is meant by the single tax. A. Adams read a paper on “Creeds and Their Effect on Society.” Mrs. Brettell read extracts from papers bearing on the labor question written by her twenty-five years ago. They were most interesting, as they apply to the questions of to-day as well as then. Professor Hamlin Garland and Mr. James A. Herne are expected to speak in this city under the auspices of our union some time within the next two weeks. Due notice will be given.

Wm. Young, Yonkers.—A good audience gathered in Temperance hall at our last meeting to hear Lindley Vinton lecture on the “Single tax method of raising the revenue.” The Rev. Dr. James T. Bixby presided, and in introducing the speaker, said he had come to receive information on the single tax question and to hear it discussed. Mr. Vinton, who had only about an hour at his disposal, requested the audience to rise and ask questions if his remarks were not clear to them. This turned the discourse into the free trade channel, and an interesting discussion ensued. After Mr. Vinton had taken his departnre^sic Mr. Woodruff, in a clear and simple way, explained the justice of the single tax, and the benefits that would be derived from its application. We have another meeting to morrow evening.

A LONELY SINGLE TAX MAN—A TRAMP SIGNS THE PETITION.

W. J. Webber, Sharon.—I am as yet, so far as I know, the only single tax man in this town. The inhabitants are filled with holy horror at the thought of a land tax, yet I think free trade principles are making some headway. The place is dead; it has not one prosperous industry. It is, however, in natural features the prettiest village out of Boston, and might become a residence town for city business men were it not for the policy, strictly adhered to by the town fathers, of taxing every new comer upon the highest valuation of his property, and $10 on a thousand at that.

J. N. Kyder, Wakefield.—I sent a petition signed by a tramp to the enrolment committee the other day. He was on his way from Lawrence, Mass., to Providence, R. I. He seemed to be willing to do any kind of work, but failed. I gave him an old pair of shoes and asked him to sign.

W. L. Crosman, Roxbury, Boston.—Our single tax club held a public meeting in Forester’s hall last Wednesday evening. John R. Roche and Rev. Samuel Brazier were the speakers. The meeting was announced by notices in four of the Boston dailies, by posters and by the distribution of 1,000 of the inclosed cards—a few by mail and others being left under doors of residences. By means of the cards we have perhaps given 5,000 people an inkling of the principles we advocate. The number of strange faces at our meetings constantly increase, thereby showing that the light is spreading.

A PROPOSITION TO BORROW MONEY FOR IMPROVEMENTS BRINGS OUT THE SINGLE TAX.

S. T., South Bethlehem.—Our borough has spent $100,000 in public improvements, borrowing the money; and now there is a proposition up to borrow $15,000 more, for further improvements. The $100,000 borough debt is a heavy burden to the property owners, who fear the effect of a further increase. The Rev. John F. Scott, pastor of the Presbyterian church here, evinces great interest in the matter. He has written a letter to the South Bethlehem Star, in which he asks the assessors why more money does not come into the borough treasury. He says the improvements are necessary, but that the money to pay for them should be assessed according to the actual value of the property. Mr. Scott tells the assessors that certain building lots, which at present are put to no use, are assessed at a nominal rate, while their owners hold them as high as fifty dollars a foot. A Mr. George Henry also has a letter in the Star, which goes more into details. He calls the attention of the assessors to certain lots, valued by their owners at forty and fifty dollars a foot, which are rated by the assessors at about one-twentieth of their value. If the assessments were fairly made, say these two gentlemen, money in abundance could easily be raised for all public improvements. The discussion of taxation has become very general here since the proposition to increase our debt by $15,000, and if I properly gauge public opinion, if the present assessors do not change their methods of assessment, new men will be chosen at the next election.

S. T., Pittsburg.—The Commoner and Glassworker prints in its last number a

p. 13, col. 3 letter on the labor problem issued by the Zanesville, Ohio, typographical union. It will be remembered that at the last session of the International typographical union in Denver a resolution was adopted that a committee be appointed to receive correspondence from members of the craft “as to the causes of labor’s degradation,” and the remedy therefor. The first response was from St. Paul, Minn., and it was printed in the Typographical Journal. The one from the Zanesville union is the second. The latter, while treating the subject differently, arrives at the same conclusion: “The single tax will do it.”

P. D. Taugney, Bradford.—Mr. George’s visit here has given the single tax a boom, and we will be heard from before long.

SEEKING THE LIGHT IN DARK PLACES—THE MOVEMENT IN EVANSVILLE.

G. N. Galloway, Monticello.—There are only a few of us single taxers here, and it is through them we learn of what is going on in the outside world. Our local paper is edited by our county superintendent of schools, yet it is twenty years behind the times. However, there are a few of the teachers under him who are up to the times, or our educational system would be indeed in a bad way. They are beginning to instruct their pupils in regard to production and distribution of wealth, so that the children may one of these days be able to teach political economy, notwithstanding the opposition of the superintendent.

S. T., Evansville.—The single tax club of this city is rapidly increasing in numbers and is composed of the best business and professional men in town. As an example twelve of the leading physicians of the city are members.

A FACT THAT SET MINERS TO THINKING—A CLERGYMAN INTERESTED—NEWS FROM CHICAGO.

William Coulson, Spring Valley.—The fact that one man had it in his power to prevent us from working for thirty weeks last year, and that that same power enabled him to compel us to return to work at a reduction of ten per cent, has opened the minds of our people here. I have sent to the enrolment committee for petitions, and I am satisfied that nearly every miner here will sign them.

C. F. Perry, Quincy.—Rev. Robert V. Atkisson, pastor of the First Presbyterian church, addressed our meeting February 7, on “Christian socialism,” after which there was an informal discussion, involving the single tax, in which the reverend gentleman was much interested and asked several questions. Lyman McCarl will, at our next meeting, address us on “Ballot reform.”

Warren Worth Bailey, Chicago.—The report of our committee on local taxation was submitted last Friday night by Mr. J. T. Ripley, whose services in this matter have been characterized by intelligence and remarkable care. The facts brought out were sensational in character, illustrating in a most striking way the debauchery that prevails in our methods of taxation, and they are certain to arrest public notice and compel attention to our appeals for reform. We have decided to call a conference of the single tax men of Cook county to meet in this city, under the auspices of the Chicago single tax club, early in June. While it will be a county conference, the friends throughout the state will be welcomed, the design being to get together, for mutual encouragement, all who have “seen the cat.” Tom L. Johnson of Cleveland, Wm. Lloyd Garrison of Boston, H. Martin Williams of Missouri, Thomas L. Binnir of Iowa, Judge Perry of Quincy and other prominent gentlemen will be invited to be present, and we hope that a boom may be given to the good cause which is daily attracting fresh recruits and developing ardent advocates.

Robert Cumming, Du Qaoin.—The single tax was presented here yesterday for the first time at a meeting held under the auspices of the Knights of Labor. The subject, “God’s gifts to all His children and the law of man’s birthright,” brought four clergymen and many churchgoing people. I spoke for over an hour (my first attempt at making a regular address), and Revs. A J. Fishback, W. P. Throgmorton and Marion Teegue and Hon. John J. Higgans followed. S I. Davis, lecturer for the state grange, stoutly opposed the single tax, which he said was designed to rob the farmers. My reply seemed to have the desired effect, and I left the idea to take care of itself. The opposition that the single tax always meets with on its first presentation is manifest here.

A MINISTER TALKS SINGLE TAX—FARMERS LISTENING.

C. J. Buell, Minneapolis.—Our meeting of February 12 was a tremendous success. Rev. S. W. Sample, minister of All Souls’ Universalist church, addressed the league on “The moral aspects of the single tax movement,” and by the remarkable clearness of his ideas, the wonderful force and eloquence of his p. 13, col. 4 delivery, the sincerity, pathos and candor that marked every utterance, he placed himself among the very few ablest defenders of our principles.

Our next meeting will be opened with an address on “The high price of coal in the northwest,” by John Goodnow, president of the Minneapolis coal exchange.

W. A. Carpenter, Minneapolis.—Last December I visited Dakota county in this state and addressed two audiences on the single tax question. So much interest was shown at these meetings that last week I visited the same section again, being accompanied this time by President C. J. Buell of our single tax league.

The audience that greeted us was composed largely of farmers, and listened with evident interest to the forcible address of Mr. Buell. The speaker’s earnestness, his logical analysis of the causes of present social disorders and his evident freedom from prejudice seemed to have great weight with his hearers. After the address an opportunity for the signing of the congressional petition was given and all the blanks we had with us were quickly used. After distributing a large quantity of single tax literature, we took our departure, feeling that much good had been accomplished.

The editor of the Dakota County Tribune, who, in an able editorial, had called the attention of the people to Mr. Buell’s address, said to me next day, “I tell you this single tax movement is in the air. One can hardly pick up a paper nowadays without seeing in it something relating to the single tax.” Later in the day I met a prominent citizen of Farmington who is a reader of THE STANDARD and, perhaps it is needless to add, is a single tax man. The interest which this gentleman and others of the well-to-do classes are taking in this movement is very encouraging.

THE FARMERS BECOMING INTERESTED—“THE EMPTY LARDER” MAKES MEN PONDER.

W. E. Brokaw, Bristol.—Wednesday, the 5th, I drove out to a farm about six miles east of Bristol, and in the evening went with the farmer and his wife to their schoolhouse to visit the literary society. I had been invited to go the previous week. The question discussed was,

Resolved, That the farmer is of more impertance than the mechanic.

After several had spoken the chairman called on me. I claimed that there was an industrial interdependence between the two, but that the question of relative importance must be determined from a political standpoint. I pointed out how the mechanic had compelled the recognition of his importance, and that whenever the farmer waked up to a realization of his power and set about the study of economics he could soon prove that he was more important than the mechanic—at the ballot box. On the 12th I took part in a discussion on the tariff.

A South Dakota editor has written me that he would hereafter give the single tax “a great big chance” in his paper, and “may join the ranks myself.” This week he published an explanation of the doctrine that I wrote for him. Another editor has written urging me to send him some free trade articles.

W. L. Johnson, Aberdeen.—I find that men are more willing to think now that their elbows are out and their larders empty. They are signing the petition willingly to-day where a year ago they would have laughed at the idea.

CANADA.

LOUIS F. POST SPEAKS AT TORONTO—AN OPEN LETTER TO THE PREMIER OF ONTARIO.

S. T., Toronto, Ont.—Thomas G. Shearman of New York was to have spoken here on the 14th, but owing to his illness Louis F. Post took his place. There was every assurance of a large meeting, until, simultaneously

p. 14, col. 2 with the opening of the doors, a fire broke out in the University buildings. In a few minutes the sky was reddened with the flames, and by the time the lecture was over the old University, with its invaluable library and costly scientific apparatus, was in ashes. Nothing remained but bare and blackened walls. Nevertheless, though all the city was out to watch the fire, and the theaters were almost empty, three hundred people attended the lecture.

Thanks to the push of Councilman A. E. McDonald, the legislative committee of the city council has recommended a petition to parliament for the exemption from taxation of houses used for homes to the extent of $600, and also of personal property. The single tax is a familiar subject in Toronto, and has many influential advocates. One of its active supporters is Captain Cartwright, ex-minister of finance for the Dominion.

J. L. Dawkins, Toronto, Ont.—Alderman Hallam has written an open letter in the Globe to the Hon. Oliver Mowatt^sic, premier of Ontario, on the assessment question, in which he publicly advocates the adoption of the single tax. The letter has created somewhat of a sensation, coming, as it does, from a man of great influence in this community. The alderman has been an interested listener to our speakers for a long time, though his conversion is but recent.

ENGLAND.

S. T., Sheffield.—At a meeting held here January 23, Earl Compton, M. P., advocated taxation of ground rents and values, and resolutions in favor of a direct assessment upon owners of ground rents and values were passed.

WALES.

London Democrat.—The land restoration movement is making rapid progress in South Wales, especially in Monmouthshire and Glamorganshire, where a vigorous agitation has been conducted during the past few months. Meetings have been held at all the more important centers in these two counties, and the testimony of the speakers is that while the so-called “better classes” are inclined to cold-shoulder the new gospel and its adherents, “the common people,” as of old, everywhere “hear them gladly.”

AN EDITOR RAILS AGAINST OUTRAGEOUS LAWS UNDER WHICH THE REAL ESTATE SHARK THRIVES.

The St. Joseph, Mo., Gazette makes no claim to being in favor of the single tax. Perhaps its editor, if questioned, would say that he differs with Mr. George on economic matters. But the following leading editorial article, from the Gazette of Sunday, February 6^sic, indicates that the editor is dissatisfied with conditions that enable speculators in land to receive immunity from the burdens of taxation, while those who improve and add to the value of a locality are compelled to pay more than their share.

The real estate shark is the most ravenous of human fish. His capacity of appetite has no limit. He can digest anything, from the tax title of a fractional lot to the output of a trust deed on an entire country^sic. He does not improve, he spends nothing that can benefit his community, he does not build; he only invests. He secures a foothold and keeps it until his more liberal neighbors have made it valuable by improving around him. Then he sells for an increased price and pockets the wages of a swine.

There is another kind, the sort that secures good corner lots, the choicest selections in the city, and covers them over with shanties in which a digger Indian would be ashamed to herd fleas, rat pits that can be leased for enough to keep up the taxes until his neighbors have made the property valuable. He is numerous in St. Joseph. In an early day he planted his foot on Edmond, Felix, Francis and other business thoroughfares, and where he stepped there sprang up slab huts, native lumber cabins, half-baked brick shanties, architectural abortions whose only merit was they were small and mean. All around them enterprising, public spirited men erected stores and dwellings befitting a modern and progressive city, high enough to shade his hovels in the summer and to keep the wind from blowing them away in the winter. They preserve the hang dog saloon from destruction, the Dago stand, with its four dollars’ worth of damaged fruit, and the musty crap shop to which he has rented his squalid structures. Finally the march of improvement has made his lots valuable. Other men have paid for the music and kept step with the procession; he has sneaked along in the rear, with the boys, the coon, the gamin of all degrees, sponged all the fun and pocketed the profits.

He does not always build even the one-story shanty. He prefers to lease the ground for enough to pay the taxes to another one-story builder, a good long lease, a lease that will continue until the four-story men have got in their work and given his lot a value to which he has not contributed anything but inertia.

He is an earnest advocate of the theory of taxation that oppresses the man who puts up a four-story block and all but neglects the lot shark who builds nothing, or if he does, builds a den instead of a house. He is at work on every principal street of St. Joseph. His laborers are gophering ditches for foundations wherever a respectable block casts a shadow. Ragpickers and skin game peddlers haunt his office for ground leases. The bill poster is his best friend When he^sic is not able

p. 14, col. 3 > to effect a lease nature comes to his aid and adorns his lots with “jimson” weed. He owns dog fennel pastures adjoining churches and burdock meadow between business houses. They grow night and day, and his profits keep pace with them, but without his help. > > The unjust system of taxation prevailing in both city and county aids the lot shark. There could be nothing more inequitable. Standing in the door of the Gazette office one can see twenty lots covered with shanties which are taxed less than the same number covered by brick blocks that cost thousands of dollars. A premium is paid for not improving and a penalty attached for building. The merchant, whose property is all in sight, whose invoices can be demanded, is called to make a spectacle of himself before the board of equalization. He is taxed on everything visible, notwithstanding the fact that he buys more or less of his goods on credit, and frequently does not own more than two-thirds of the stock for which he is assessed. The manufacturer is in the same category. Every dollar gained by these classes in one year’s trade is added to the assessment for the following year. The vacant lot, which the lot shark will not sell for a fair price and will not build upon, is assessed for the same to-day that it was years ago, while its value has doubled. > > The board of trade, which has recently manifested a disposition to aid in doing something for the city—although its first effort was not particularly successful—can find in this abuse of taxation a foe worty^sic of its steel. The system is vicious and inequitable. It oppresses the enterprising, useful citizen for the benefit of the unenterprising, unimproving, uncreating citizen. It is an incubus on legitimate business, an obstacle to the city’s growth.

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.

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., E. Hadkins.

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^sic, 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^sic, 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^sic.

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^sic, 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, [236?] 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 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^sic; 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. Meetings first Thursday of each month, class room, Y. M. C. A. building, 20 Pearl 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^sic open 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. 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. 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^sic; 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. R. 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.

North New York single tax club. Every Tuesday at 8 p. m., at 2840 3d ave. Pres., James R. Small; sec., Thomas F. Foy.

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 Brignton^sic. 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^sic—Single 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. 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., [2081?] 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^sic

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^sic.

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

ERIE.—Erie tax reform league. Pres., W G. McKean^sic; 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 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. Crofford; sec., M. H. McDowell care of^sic 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^sic; sec., Theo. Kunzmann, 11 Crockett st.

WEST VIRGINIA.

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

NEW PUBLICATIONS.

NOW READY,

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

Vol. I…………………………………$10 00

(January 8 to July 2, 1887.)

We had entirely run out of some of the issues of Vol. I, and with considerable difficulty have replaced them. We now have ready four volumes, for sale at the above price.

Vol. II…………………………………$5 00

(July 9 to December [30?], 1887.)

Vols. III and IV…………………………………$7 00

(January 7 to December 29, 1888. Bound together.)

Vol. V…………………………………$3 50

(January 5 to June 29, 1889.)

Vol. VI…………………………………$3 50

(July 6 to December 28 1889 now ready^sic.)

(Expressage extra.)

Address, THE STANDARD, 12 Union Square, New York.

Hospital Remedies.

What are they^sic! 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.—[Adv.

A DIVINE CREATURE.

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

A LOVELY COMPLEXION.

And with what positive certainty a skin as fair as a

NEW-BLOWN ROSE

Is sure to follow the use of

GLENN’S SULPHUR SOAP.

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

HEAVEN-BORN LILY.

For sale by all druggists. Beware of Imitations.

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

NEW PUBLICATIONS.

GERMAN TRACTS.

42. First Principles. Henry George. 4 pages. 43. Socialism—Its Truth and Its Error. Henry George. 4 pages. 46. Taxing Land Values. Henry George. 8 pages. 47. It is the Law of Christ. Rev. S H. Spencer, Henry, Ill. 4 pages. [53?]. Sailors’ Snug Harbor. Wm. T. Croasdale. 12 pages.

SWEDISH TRACTS.

52 The Case Plainly Stated. H. F. Ring. 8 pages,

TARIFF TRACTS.

57. Protection as a Universal Need. Henry George. pages. 60. The Tariff Question. Henry George. 4 pages. [6?]. American Protection and British Free Trade. Henry George. 4 pages. [6?]. Protection and Wages. Henry George. 8 pages. 72. Protection the Friend of Labor? Thomas G. Shearman. 8 pages. 75. A Short Tariff History. Thomas G. Shearman. 2 pages. 76. Plain Talk to Protectionists. Thomas G. Shearman. 4 pages. 77. 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^sic.

PROTECTION OR FREE TRADE?

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

By HENRY GEORGE.

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

THE LAND QUESTION.

What it involves and how alone it can be settled.

By HENRY GEORGE.

87 pages. Paper covers, 20 cents.

p. 16, col. 4

PROPERTY IN LAND.

A Passage-at-Arms Between the Duke of Argyll an Henry George^sic.

77 pages. Paper covers, 15 cents.

FORTSCHRITT UND ARMUTH.

(Progress and Poverty in German).

Translation of C. D. F. Gutschow.

430 pages. Paper covers, 35 cents.

PROGRES ET PAUVRETE.

(Progress and Poverty in French).

Translation of P. L. LeMonnier.

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

PROTECTION OU LIBRE-ECHANGE?

(Protection or Free Trade? in French).

Translation of Louis Vossion.

436 pages. Paper covers, $2.75.

PROGRESSO E POVERTA.

(Progress and Poverty in Italian).

Translation of Ludovico Eusebio.

352 pages. Paper covers, $2.50.

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