February 26, 1890 Vol. VII, No. 9Whole No. 165

THE STANDARD.

HENRY GEORGE, EDITOR AND PROPRIETOR.

Published Every Wednesday at

NO. 12 UNION SQUARE, NEW YORK CITY.

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

TABLE OF CONTENTS:

EDITORIAL. The Press’s Ideas on the Common Sense of Political Economy Duly Considered—The Evening Post’s Contempt for the People—Practical Work in Louisiana—Conference in Chicago—The Blunder in Rev. Harold Rylett’s Letter—The Unhappy Spectator—A Postal Telegraph Bill—The German Elections—Mill Cited in Vain—Trades Unionism—The World on Taxation—Garrison and the Abolition Movement.

WILLIAM LLOYD GARRISON. Sarah Mifflin Gay.

RUSKIN AND THE SINGLE TAX. A. S. H.

HOW TO MAKE CONVERTS. Morris Lynchenheim.

A DIALOGUE. W. H. Van Ornum.

OUR WASHINGTON LETTER. Henry George, jr.

OUR ENGLISH LETTER. Rev. Harold Rylett.

OUR PARIS LETTER. Chas. Marie Garnier.

NOTES AND QUERIES.

FEDERATION OF LABOR.

GEORGE AT SAN FRANCISCO.

THE SOCIAL PROBLEM. Criticism of the Single Tax—Davitt on the Labor Problem—Progessive^sic Taxation—Monarchy’s Vain Hope.

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR. The Molasses Fiend—A Disclaimer.

BALLOT REFORM. Progress in New York—A Tangle in West Virginia—Better Prospects in Maryland—Henry Richmond on Ballot Reform.

THE FREE TRADE FIGHT. Farmers are Learning—A Tax of 700 Per Cent—To Study the Tariff Question—Almost as Good as Victory—Small Chance of Reciprocity.

PERSONAL.

SINGLE TAX NEWS. The Petition—Brooklyn Assessments—Rev. W. S. Thackeray’s Address—A Japanese on the Single Tax—An Important Meeting at Flatbush—A State Organization in Massachusetts—Mr. Powderly Talks on the Single Tax—Converting Farmers—A Surprise in Quincy, Ill.—A New Idea from Louisiana—Making Too Much Flour—News from All Parts of the Union.

PRISONERS OF POVERTY.

PLAIN TALK TO FARMERS.

p. 1, col. 2

EDITORIAL.

For some time past the Press of this city has been printing in its “Talks on the Tariff” a series of articles embracing what it calls “The Common Sense of Political Economy.” The protectionists are so accustomed to getting up arguments, in which they themselves have no faith, for the purpose of deluding that object of their solicitude, “the workingman,” that they cannot expect their opponents to take them seriously. It seems, however, that this particular writer for the Press is really in earnest, and he now announces that as all the tariff reform and free trade papers have failed to take issue with him, he shall take it for granted that they accept his conclusion that “a thing costs the nation what the nation parts with to obtain it, and that as the nation parts with only the original raw material to obtain a home product, it gets home products at the least cost, or cheapest.”

We regret to impose on our amiable contemporary the work of beginning all over again, but we are compelled to admit that we regard its conclusion as simply silly. In the first place “the nation” has at present no lot or part in the matter. It is true that within the boundaries of this republic we have natural opportunities sufficient to support in comfort a thousand millions of industrious inhabitants. These inhabitants, however, neither as a people, nor as a nation, own these resources. They legally belong to a minority, and the best of them are owned by a very small minority, indeed. The result is that those who work to produce the aggregate wealth, which the Press thinks the nation owns, have to pay to the owners of these natural resources so large a share of the product of their labor that they have practically no more left than is necessary to enable them to continue to live and work. The individuals who do this work, and those who are paid for permitting them to work, between them, own the whole product, while “the nation” has no share in the product except that which it takes by taxation from individuals and places in the public treasury.

We, of course, use the word “nation” in its true sense, as that of a people in their political capacity, without wasting time on the argument as to whether or not the term “nation” is properly applicable to this union of states. We do not wish to juggle with definitions. It is probable that the Press uses the word in its colloquial sense, and means the people as a whole. But the people as a whole own nothing beyond a few public buildings, and that small portion of the public domain that their government has not yet given away. They do not work in common, they do not produce in common, and they do not in common own products, either to swap them for other products or to keep them for their own use. The socialists say that all this ought to be the case, but it certainly is not the case now, and the failure to understand this is the taproot of the protectionist delusion wherever it has honestly grown up. There might be within the limits of the United States twice the amount of wealth that exists within these limits to-day, with no other result than to make the rich actually richer and the poor relatively poorer than they now are. The most that can be claimed for protection, by its most p. 1, col. 3 ardent defenders, is that it causes the production of more wealth, for somebody, and any attempt to show that it promotes such a division of the products of labor as will assure more wealth to everybody will ignominiously fail. Therefore, talk about “national” wealth is misleading.

Of course we deny that protection increases the aggregate wealth, however distributed. It cannot have any such effect. Wealth usually consists of what are commonly called goods; and always of the products of the application of labor to natural resources. There is, and can be, no other wealth. The so-called ownership of land means nothing beyond the legal grant by society to some particular persons of the power to monopolizelize certain natural resources for their own use or to charge other people for using them. This privilege is valuable to its possessor and easily increases his share of wealth, by enabling him to obtain the products of other men’s labor, but it is not wealth and does not add one cent to the aggregate value of existing wealth. Other forms of monopoly are equally valuable to those holding them, but they add nothing to the aggregate wealth. They merely give some persons a larger portion than they would otherwise obtain of the things produced by other men’s labor. As to notes, bonds and other certificates of indebtedness, they are not wealth, and the country would be no poorer if every one of them were burned to-morrow, though numerous individuals would be impoverished. They are merely evidences that certain people are using wealth or exercising privileges that legally belong to the holders of these evidences of indebtedness.

We beg pardon of the Press for this primary lesson in the very A B C of political economy, but as our limited space forbids frequent attempts at the conversion of our contemporary to a sane view of things. thoroughness^sic is necessary when we do make the attempt. Including in the term “goods,” houses, ships, railways and all other products of labor it is safe to say that wealth is goods and that goods are wealth; that goods are the products of labor, and^sic that men expend labor because they want goods, and not because they like to labor. Let us emphasize this until the Press gets it clearly through its head. Men do not want work, they want goods. It is not plenty of work; but^sic plenty of goods that promises prosperity; and general comfort follows if the goods are anything like fairly divided.

Now, how can a tariff cause goods to be produced? It is confessedly a restriction on trade; but trade is essential to giving men the goods that they want. A shoemaker cannot eat his shoes nor clothe himself with them. The western farmer does burn corn for fuel, but even a protectionist will admit that it would be better for him to swap his corn for coal or wood. Trade is as essential to civilized society as any other one of the processes by which men obtain the goods that they work for. Free trade is merely the widening of the area for trading. Men do not trade at home for any other purpose than to obtain something they want in exchange for something else that they consent to part with. Americans will not trade with Englishmen unless that is the easiest way to obtain more of some kinds of goods than they can obtain by direct p. 1, col. 4 labor applied to the production of such goods for themselves. Any interference with this by the tariff lessens the amount of goods obtainable through a given amount of labor. and cannot increase the supply of goods.

Remembering this, what would remain of the absurd proposition of the Press if its socialistic assumption were true, and the American and British nations were producers and owners of wealth? Their wealth would consist of goods, and the value of goods would be the value of the raw material, plus the value of the labor necessary to put such raw material into condition for use. If under such circumstances America were to trade England a brick for a crock, the things swapped would be some clay wrought by American labor into one form and some clay wrought by English labor into another form. The clay without labor is almost valueless, and the value of the goods exchanged would be almost exclusively due to labor, and hardly at all to the raw material. If England wanted a brick and America wanted a crock, each would produce what it wanted for itself unless it discovered that it could obtain it more easily by swapping with the other. If that were found to be the easier way, it would obviously, therefore, be the better way. Suppose America found that its clay was adapted to the making of bricks better than to the making of crocks, and that a given amount of labor applied to its clay would produce a brick and a much larger amount would be required to produce a crock, whereas England found it easier to produce a crock than a brick. Is it not plain that America could obtain more crocks by applying its labor to brick making than it could by applying it to crock making? On the other hand, if such were not the case, would it not quickly discover the fact without outside help and make its own crocks, because in that way it would obtain more crocks as the product of a given amount of labor?

America is not engaged in any such business, but a great many Americans are thus engaged. The protectionists insist that they shall not decide for themselves as to the best means for obtaining the largest possible quantity of goods in return for a given amount of labor. They thereupon enact a law to compel us to make both the bricks and the crocks. They say this will make more work. That is true, but it will give us fewer crocks in return for that work, and it is more goods and not more work that men want. In the very nature of things such interference restricts production and inures chiefly to the benefit of the owner of the clay bed, who no longer has to compete with the owner of an English clay bed. Can the Press not see this? Can it not grasp for ten consecutive minutes the idea that what men want is goods—not work? What does the Press think the eight hour movement was instituted for? To give men more work, or less?

A workingman in this town was once denouncing a declaration that Henry George had made that what men want is not work for its own sake, but the products of work. The man insisted that he wanted work and wanted it badly. Joe Parker was listening to him, and he at once told the complainant that he had two tons of coal coming to his house that day, and asked him if he would be willing to put it in. “What are you willing continued on p. 2 →

[continued on page 2]

AND THE ABOLITION MOVEMENT.

(FIRST PAPER.)

In every progressive nation will be found a small number of persons whose clear moral vision and broad sympathetic minds give them a deeper insight into the social problems of the day than is possible to the mass of their countrymen. Banded together in reverence for human rights, they stand in the van of human progress and point the way to their laggard brothers. To these, the life of William Lloyd Garrison must ever be an inspiration. To these, struggling to stir the indifference of the great world, preaching that liberty is progress and justice is gain, the spectacle of a young man hardly more than a lad in years but old in wisdom and strong in truth, attacking, almost alone and single handed, the giant evil of his time, the fundamental injustice of his day and generation, is a challenge to be up and doing; and, as the scene changes and he is seen surrounded by a band of earnest soldiers who live to gather in the reward of their noble services and the compensation for many sacrifices in the triumph of their principles, it is an encouragement to believe that the hope of the present must be the certainty of the future.

Between the covers of this book(1)is told, in part, the story of the movement which overthrew chattel slavery in the United States. As the authors say in their preface, “for the period covered by these volumes Mr. Garrison was the incarnation of the cause which he founded. On this account it has been extremely difficult to keep within biographical limits.” In the field to which they invite the general reader they have had almost no predecessors. They say, “In the following pages we are brought face to face with a world which will appear wholly new and strange to the generation now upon the scene. The school histories of the United States, with hardly an exception, ignore it altogether; it barely comes within the horizon of the manuals of American history; it is invisible in the biographies of public men of the era before the rise of the republican party, or even down to the eve of the rebellion. Yet, the abolitionists, it is now confessed, were all the time occupied with the main question of American politics—with what had been the main question ever since the formation of the constitution.”

At no time was anti-slavery sentiment so feeble as during the years following the Missouri compromise in 1820. Previous to that year statesmen, including many of the revolutionary leaders, eminent divines and private citizens, had raised their voices from time to time, though more and more faintly, in condemnation of slavery; and it is open to doubt whether the northern delegates to the constitutional convention would have consented to the continuation of the slave trade, the three-fifths representation which gave to the south the governing power from 1800 till the election of Lincoln, and the rendition of fugitive slaves, hard pressed as they were by the threats of the southern delegates that they “would not confederate,” if they had not believed that “slavery in time will not be a speck in

[Footnote, at foot of column 1:]

(1)William Lloyd Garrison, 1805-1879. The story of his life told by his children. In four volumes. New York. The Century Company. 1885-1889.

p. 4, col. 2 our country.” It is hardly an exaggeration to say that during the decade subsequent to 1820 the spark of anti-slavery feeling was kept alive by the breath of a single man, Benjamin Lundy, who, however, had little influence outside his own religious body, the Society of Friends.

But a change was imminent. Garrison, going further than his teacher, announced, for the first time loud enough to be heard by all, the doctrine of “immediate and unconditional emancipation” which rallied the oppressor and his friends to the defence of their “peculiar institution,” and gave force and cohesion to the enemies of slavery. A “cause” was born which, conducted with “millennial fervor” and growing with time, made possible the election of Lincoln, the civil war and the proclamation of emancipation.

Thus the brief sketch of Mr. Garrison’s career which follows is also an imperfect outline of the abolition movement. It is to be hoped that the readers of THE STANDARD will fill it in for themselves, for to no others will thus full, clear^sic, and most graphic biography prove of such absorbing interest. Standing to-day where stood the abolitionist of fifty years ago, the single tax man attacks the giant wrong of his time and points to its cure; he uses the same arguments, lays down the same principles, appeals to the same sympathies. In turning these pages he will find that the faith and hope of the abolitionist are his faith and hope; that his aims are the same, and even his methods are singularly like those of his predecessor. And naturally, since the causes are identical. For what is slavery? Is it not the denial of man’s right to himself—to his various and varying powers and the results of their exercise? The difference between the ownership of man and the ownership of that element on and from which he must live, if he is to live at all, is one of degree and not of kind. We have grown daintier in our modes of oppression, more subtle and complex, impersonal. If we borrow the eyes of the abolitionist and look at things as they are, we shall see that necessity is an effective whip-lash, poverty a heavy ball and chain, and want a bloodhound which no water can throw off the scent, unless indeed it closes above the head of the fugitive. It would shock our sensibilities now to decide in weighty assemblies that it is cheaper to use up a gang of workmen in seven years than to keep them alive by good food, shelter and clothing; but can we say that no one of our brothers is starved to death on business principles? The auction block is no longer the wedge which we use to part husband and wife, parents and children; but that they are separated is proved by the wide doors of penitentiary, reformatory, and asylum. Happily in this comparison there are contrasts as well as likenesses. The former were well summed up by Mr. Garrison in reply to a gentleman who seemed to “consider the evils which now oppress society” “almost as intolerable and iniquitous as were those which characterized the atrocious system of chattel slavery.” “What,” said Mr. Garrison, “have they [the toiling masses . . . the American people] to complain of in regard to constitution and laws for which they are not directly responsible? What outside power is subjecting them to wrongs and deprivations which call in thunder-tones for another emancipation crusade? What inside power is comparable to their own collective will and unquestionable strength? What new safeguards for their freedom, safety and happiness do they need, that they have not the means to establish? Is not the government of them, by them, and for them (ostracized womanhood excepted) to be molded as they shall judge best? Or, if in any case it is not for them, upon whom rests the responsibility but themselves?” Here we have the difference between the negro chattel slaves and the industrial slaves of America to-day; and a tremendous difference it is. When Mr. Garrison visited the south in 1865, he addressed twelve hundred “contrabands” just brought from the interior by his son’s company. “They presented a

p. 4, col. 3 picture of the misery and degradation of slavery and slave life such as Mr. Garrison had never before witnessed and had scarcely conceived.” “‘Well, my friends,’ said he, ‘you are free at last—let us give three cheers for freedom!’ and leading off he gave the first cheer. To his amazement there was no response, the poor creatures looking at him in wonder, and he had to give the second and third cheer also without them. They did not know how to cheer.” To-day great masses of toilers are banded together in a society which has for its motto: Educate, Agitate, Organize. What a mighty contrast! Ignorance is the great tyrant; every despot, from the Czar of all the Russias, to the ward politician, rules by its permission.

To-day the duty of the reformer is clear, simple and easy; how easy every Nicodemus who reads these volumes will blush to recognize. He must educate, agitate and organize until ignorance yields to enlightenment and the average citizen is ready to drop his Australian ballot for free trade and the single tax.

And let him not forget that he owes to Mr. Garrison more than to any other man the fact that we are giving such answers to the social problems of our time. For it is an acknowledged certainty, that had chattel slavery continued we should eventually, if not now, be struggling not for a greater measure of freedom, but for the preservation of the little we already have.

William Lloyd Garrison was born December 10, 1805, in Newburyport, Massachusetts. We must pass over his struggling boyhood, his seven years apprenticeship in a printing office, his anonymous contributions to the press, his editorial ventures, his youthful political ardor and interest in reform; nor may we stop to consider the early exhibition of those rare qualities of head and heart which were destined to make him the leader in a moral movement, the like of which for vigor, rapidity and tremendous achievement the world has never seen.

We find Mr. Garrison in Baltimore at the age of twenty-four years, associated with Benjamin Lundy in editing and printing the Genius of Universal Emancipation, at that time the only anti-slavery paper in the United States. Here occurred an incident which made Mr. Garrison widely known as the friend of the slave. To show the southern people that in opposing slavery he “disregarded all sectional feeling” he published with appropriate comments the statement that a vessel, hailing from Newburyport, Massachusetts, and belonging to his fellow-townsman Francis Todd, had lately transported seventy-five slaves to the southern market. This resulted in a suit for libel, which, in spite of the law and the facts, went against Mr. Garrison, and he was fined fifty dollars and costs. In default of payment he was shut up in Baltimore jail, where he lay seven weeks, until the payment of his fine by a stranger, Arthur Tappan of New York, released him. Expressions of sympathy had poured in on the prisoner, and he had made good use of his time; besides a sketch of the trial, “caustic cards” to his principal opponents, several sonnets—of which one, The Freedom of the Mind, is quite famous—and communications to the press, he wrote three lectures on slavery and colonization, which he subsequently delivered. This good beginning was made permanent by the establishment of the Liberator, the most important paper of the cause, as well as the mouthpiece of its editor till the abolition of slavery. On January 1, 1831, Mr. Garrison and his partner, Isaac Knapp, like himself a practical printer, issued the first number. It had been printed at night on the press of a daily paper by the permission of the foreman, a friend, with type lent by another friend “in return for their services by day as journeymen at the case.” Soon, however, with a hand press bought on credit and a “lot of well-worn second-hand type,” they established themselves in a dingy attic room, which was workshop and home in one. “The partners lived chiefly on bread and milk, a few cakes and a little fruit,” and performed “every

p. 4, col. 4 day but the Sabbath, fourteen hours of manual labor on [their] paper, independent of mental toil.” That the labor and toil were effective was quickly proved. The editor’s promise, “I will be as harsh as truth and as uncompromising as justice,” was kept, and his prophecy, “I will be heard,” was soon fulfilled. Immediately the mails brought to the office threatening and abusive letters, which, after the slave insurrection in Virginia, grew more frequent and violent. Editors began to invoke mob action, a North Carolina paper suggested “barbecuing”—i. e., roasting alive—for the “secret agents” who, it said, were circulating the “incendiary paper.” The governor of South Carolina sent a special messenger to the legislature of Massachusetts demanding the suppression of the “incendiary documents” with “suitable punishment” for their authors; and the legislature of Georgia offered a reward of $5,000 for the arrest, trial and conviction of the editors of the Liberator. Mr. Garrison was accused of inciting to rebellion Nat Turner and his fellow slaves who had, in August, murdered some fifty families in the neighborhood of Southampton, though without plunder or outrage. “The deluded ‘prophet,’ more fortunate than some of his followers, was hung; their flesh was burnt with red-hot irons^sic, their faces mutilated, their jaws broken asunder and then set up as a mark to shoot at, their hamstrings cut, their bodies stuck like pigs, their heads spiked to the whipping post.”

Mr. Garrison replied that he had not a single subscriber in the south, and pointed the moral of the insurrection in the words “immediate emancipation.”

To the influence of the Liberator and Mr. Garrison’s lectures was due the formation, in January, 1832, of the New England anti-slavery society, the first of all the societies based on the principle of “immediate emancipation.” It prepared an address to which seventy-two names were appended. “Such was the body pitted against the Colonization society, against (as events proved) the American church, against the American union.” It prepared at once to “begin the work of popular agitation.” At this time appeared Mr. Garrison’s “Thoughts on Colonization,” a complete exposure of the society’s “fraudulent pretences” and its unavowed “purpose to strengthen slavery by expelling the free people of color whom the slave holders [many of whom were members of the society] instinctively deemed a constant source of danger.”

This “tremendous pamphlet” caused great excitement in England, whither Mr. Garrison followed it the next year to expose the misrepresentations of the society’s agent then collecting funds among the friends of the slave. Here he witnessed the passage of the bill emancipating 800,000 slaves in the British West Indies, and “even more precious privilege” attended the funeral of Wilberforce in Westminster abbey. In the unexampled train of mourners . . . walked,” Mr. Garrison^sic, “the least observed and least known of the funeral procession, yet the one upon whom, if upon any one, Wilberforce’s mantle had fallen, and whose prominence in this historic scene must grow with the shifting perspective of time.”

The persecution of Miss Prudence Crandall by her neighbors of Canterbury, Conn., for having opened a school for colored “young ladies and misses”—a persecution so inhuman in its details as to be now, sixty years later, almost beyond belief—had been indignantly noticed in the Liberator. In revenge for this, certain citizens of that town, among them members of the Colonization society, had tried to procure the arrest of the editor just before he sailed for England, “with the sole intention to convey me south and deliver me up to the authorities of Georgia,” wrote Mr. Garrison. So, on his return, did he find popular feeling inflamed against him. As agent of the New England anti-slavery society, he had, in an eloquent speech at Exeter hall, held his country responsible for the sin of slavery, and called her “a guilty nation.” continued on p. 5 →

A NEWSPAPER INVESTIGATION INTO TAXATION METHODS IN WASHINGTON SMALL^sic REAL ESTATE OWNERS TAXED FOUR TIMES AS MUCH AS LARGE ONES—SOME INTERESTING FACTS AND FIGURES—ACTION OF THE KNIGHTS OF LABOR—A BIG LAND SPECULATION—THE AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF MINING ENGINEERS AND ALUMINUM.

WASHINGTON, D. C., Feb. 24 The^sic Washington Critic has within a fortnight come under new management. Its editor, an energetic young journalist, determined to make the Critic a radical and fearless journal, has been making an investigation of the methods of taxing real estate in the District of Columbia, and saying in pretty plain language what he thinks about them. He starts off with this declaration:

The assessed value of taxable real estate in the District of Columbia on June 30, 1889, was $137,626,419. Upon the basis of an estimate by a late assessor of the District, this sum is just $137,626,419 less than it should be. In other words, the District treasury has been cheated out of a revenue equal to the assessment upon $137,626,419, which it should have had and did not get, because the assessment was made upon just one-half the real value of the property instead of upon the “true, cash value,” as the law directs.

The Critic goes on to explain “the most shameful feature of this fact,” namely, that “this money which the treasury was deprived of represents just that many dollars saved to the pockets of the wealthiest and most powerful property owners, and was not a saving to the people at large;” that while p. 5, col. 4 “the small land owners, the citizen of moderate means, the artisan, clerk, merchant or laborer, who owns his humble home, had it assessed at nearly its ‘true value,’ as the law directs,” the “great land owner, the speculator, the alien millionaire holding squares of real estate, the resident millionaire owning corner lots worth fabulous sums, did not pay within eighty per cent of the ‘true value’ of their property.” And then come cases in point: The vice president of the United States, Levi P. Morton, paid an assessment of $107,620 on real estate, “which would find a dozen buyers within an hour at $450,000.” Wormley’s hotel property, which was assessed last time at $79,230, “sold about thirty days ago for $140,000, and is now on the market, held at $200,000.” “On G street, between Fourteenth and Fifteenth, is a business building erected by C. C. Glover. It is a costly structure, with a white stone front. In December, 1888, Colonel Robert I. Fleming bought it for $70,000. The assessment made some months later was $20,615 for land and building.” “The property now occupied by the Central national bank is assessed upon a valuation of $[58,594?]. Two years ago it was bought for $120,000, and $25,000 worth of improvements put upon it.” “Eastward on K street, between Vermont and Fifteenth, is ex-Senator Palmer’s palace, assessed at $61,800. It is on the market for sale at $125,000.” And so the Critic goes on presenting a long list of cases in the city proper, after which it passes to suburban parts and shows that the “same line of demarkation in assessment is visible between the subdivisions controlled by the millionaire syndicates, who hold the land for speculation, and the smaller subdivisions of the middle class people who will erect their little homes.” Among many instances, it speaks of “one big tract of land which is in the hands of wealthy syndicates, on Rock creek and the Tennallytown road. It is assessed at from $80 to $[300?] per acre and is selling right along at from $1,000 to $[5,000?] per acre.” The Critic then leaves the district where “the property of millionaires is situated,” and considers the “zone of mediocrity encircling the heart of the city,” where the iron hand of assessment bears down upon the plain people with a weight which “seems tyrannous in comparison with the light burden laid upon their richer neighbors.” Here the assessor “sticks on the assessment” to within a small per cent “of the worth of the property, and in many cases beyond it,” so that at the last assessment “[2,134?] citizens claimed an over assessment,” and 1,081 succeeded in getting a reduction. The Critic sums up the situation in the words “of late a late assessor^sic of the District,” who said: “A property worth $5,000 is usually assessed at about $4,000, or within eighty per cent of its true value. A property worth $100,000 is usually assessed at $20,000, or twenty per cent of its true value.”

Single tax men in Washington have not been slow to seize the opportunity presented through this discussion. The first move toward practical action has been taken by Painters’ assembly, L. A. 66, of the Knights of Labor. Mr. E. J. Cunningham, ex-master workman, introduced resolutions requesting the house of representatives to “pass resolutions requiring the commissioners of the District to report at as early a date as practicable a schedule of all lands that have been sold or leased in the District since June 30, 1886, stating the date on which each deed was entered for record, the proper designation of each lot named in each deed, with the number of acres or square feet in each lot, the amount paid and the sums for which said lots, with any improvements thereon, now stand assessed for taxation.” Mr. T. F. Monahan, of Excelsior assembly, supported this action in a vigorous speech, and the resolution was adopted by a unanimous vote. The other assemblies in the district will immediately take similar action, and as these are said to have 10,000 members, the house of representatives cannot afford to slight their demand.

Only within a fortnight come the details of an operation by a syndicate of rich men, the chief of whom is Mr. F. G. Newlands, representing the Sharon estate of California. This syndicate has purchased a tract of 2,500 acres in that part of the suburbs which Connecticut avenue would run through if it were extended, and paid for it the sum of $2,000,000. It is the intention to have streets opened, a horse-car line established and some houses erected, to induce population. The syndicate will then sell out at an enormous advance.

A small body of between fifty and one hundred men have been holding meetings in a small hall in the Arlington hotel during the past week and deliberating over matters of most importance to civilization and the human race. They constituted the American institute of mining engineers. Among them continued on p. 6 →

[The article breaks off at the foot of the page in mid-sentence; no continuation line is printed. It presumably continues on a later page.]

SLOW WORK IN PARLIAMENT—YOUNG EMPEROR WILLIAM’S STATE SOCIALISM — DAVITT’S LABOR ORGANIZATION.

HYDE, MANCHESTER, England, February 8.—We have reached the period of the year when the parliamentary session should be fairly started, but this year the government for some reason best known to themselves have resolved to begin on February 11. The reason which is generally suspected is that they may have less time in which to do their work, and therefore more occasion for the use of the closure. In truth, we are approaching a most intensely interesting period in English history. The struggle between “the classes” and “the masses” is almost hourly assuming more definite shape. The pity of it is that “the masses” are yet in such a condition of ignorance that it is supremely difficult to get them to comprehend the direction in which their true interest lies. They do not see with anything like distinctness the relation between land and labor. Happily there are in the larger towns, and principally in London, large numbers of men who do see the relation between land and labor, and it is inspiring to observe with what diligence

p. 6, col. 2 and faithfulness they carry on the great propaganda. This year we shall have mors^sic favorable opportunities than ever before. The land purchase scheme of the government will be strongly and persistently opposed, and will necessarily bring the whole land question under searching discussion.

But in addition to this, the emperor of Germany has taken a step which cannot but result in promoting a still further discussion of the land question. The “Imperial Humbug,” as he is styled by one writer, invites the great commercial nations of Europe to endeavor to come to an understanding as to the possibility of complying with the wants and wishes of the laborers as manifested by them during the strikes of the last few years. It may be, and no doubt is, the case that this young emperor is really aiming at the destruction of the influence of the social democrats of Germany. It will be remembered that shortly after the present emperor came to the throne he received a deputation of miners on strike and told them that if they took up with the social democrats he might be forced to shoot them down. After that it became impossible for this insolent ruffian to appear in the public streets of any large English city. If he had ventured into London on the occasion of his visit to the queen he would have been hooted from one end of his journey to the other. Since then Bismarck has failed to carry his bill against the social democrats, and now when a new election is pending Kaiser William comes out with the pompous declaration that he will extend his hand to the workmen and take steps to improve their condition. The emperor’s proposals have been received with considerable suspicion.

In Germany the leading journals applaud the emperor, as a matter of course; but the Berlin correspondent of the London Times, writing on February 6, says:

The only journal which maintains complete silence is the Volksblatt, the organ of the social democrats. But this silence is more eloquent than words, Herr Liebknecht and his followers being evidently of opinion that the emperor’s words will deal a serious blow to their electoral agitations by convincing the German workman that the government is willing to make a serious attempt to better his condition.

The same writer, writing on the previous day, observes:

It would be invidious to impute any electioneering motives to the imperial author of these two decrees, but their publication shortly before the general election cannot, at least, but have the effect of oil on the troubled waters of social democratic agitation, with the result that the number of socialist votes will now, in all probability, not be anything like so large as it might otherwise have been.

The London Times, commenting upon the emperor’s proposals, makes the following significant observations:

If there is to be an international settlement of labor disputes on an equitable basis the primary condition is that no country should be unfairly handicapped, and this would involve the abolition of all protective duties and bounties. Are either the workmen or the employers of the continental states prepared to accept this condition? If they are, we are on the verge, which is scarcely conceivable, of a vast industrial revolution. If they are not, what can be the use of convening an international congress to debate issues which depend for their determination on matters absolutely excluded from the sphere of practical discussion?

The leading conservative organ in England, tke^sic Standard, makes a similar reference to the protectionist policy of Germany:

The German emperor’s proposal is, in truth, an absolute negation of protection. If he is in earnest there is one, and only one, way by which he can secure that equality of conditions for which he is asking. Let him propose to the nations of the world to adopt free trade. Then, indeed, he will have applied a remedy to the miseries of his people which would have some prospect of proving effectual. Meantime if he desires any proof of the failure of the system of restricted commercial intercourse under which Germany groans, let him consider the admissions implied by his present scheme. It is not many years since the empire inaugurated that complete and uncompromising tariff which was to make the Fatherland a paradise to the worker and to protect his interests from unfair competition. What has been the result? Instead of the promised protection, the laborer finds himself more crushed than ever by the weight of external rivalry, and so far from having become independent of his neighbors it is impossible to lessen the burden of his toil in the very slightest degree unless with the consent of the foreigner. Protection has, in fact, only ended in putting him at the mercy of his rivals.

Perhaps, however, the truer estimate of the emperor’s proposals is that of the editor of Reynolds’s, who says:

The social democrats in Germany are a great political force, and all their energies are directed to a reform on legislative lines of the condition of labor. If the emperor were sincere in his professions of solicitude for the workmen, he would not desire to crush the organization that has been the means, in a large degree, of bringing their grievances before the reichstag, and of inciting the men to strikes in imitation of their fellows in Eng-

p. 6, col. 3 > land. As it is, the object of this ruthless young autocrat is quite clear. He hopes, by pretences of sympathy, to withdraw from the social democrats the votes of the workmen who are not in the organization, so that when the reichstag meets he may command a majority that will do his and Prince Bismarck’s bidding, and carry the tyrannical measure which was rejected the other day. We have no faith in the schemes of industrial improvement of such men as the kaiser and Bismarck, any more than we have in those of the Dunravens and Churchills of the tory party in this country. These men, and the parties they are allied with, are the natural enemies of the workingmen, and must always be treated as such, however plausible their professions. The proposal, too, for an international conference is equally suspicious. It is not likely to be accepted by the governments named, and this the emperor well knows. But in the meantime he hopes to alienate the workmen from the social democrats, and when a subservient house is returned he will then be able to do exactly as he likes; and it may be taken for granted that that will be to crush the men whose power he fears is increasing to an extent that threatens the very existence of the empire and the double-faced young braggart who at present sits on the throne and fancies he governs by divine right.

The Leasehold enfranchisement association has been holding its annual meeting. The only good that this organization can effect is that it promotes discussion. Its object is to do for shopkeepers and others what the land purchase policy of the government is intended to do for Ireland, viz., to increase the number of landlords.

The last week has been a very pleasant one to me. Michael Davitt has been paying a flying visit to Lancashire, and he made my house his home. Davitt is looking very well, and I told him that his fears for his health must be more imaginary than real. He addressed meetings of cotton operatives in the Rossendale valley, Lord Hartington’s constituency, and at Hollinwood, a small township near Oldham. Davitt’s policy is to get at the actual workers by going to the places where they live. He delivered two very thorough-going speeches, and was intensely delighted with the way in which he was received and with the heartiness with which his advocacy of the single tax was accepted. During his visit a representative of a local liberal paper interviewed him, and I give you the interview, since it explains in brief form Mr. Davitt’s present aims and policy. “The Reporter” says:

“I am always glad,” he said, “to meet the factory operatives of Lancashire, because I consider myself, in a certain sense, one of them.” While visiting Lancashire he also embraced the opportunity of running over to Hyde for the purpose of conferring with his friend on the progress which the labor movement is making all over the country.

In answer to an inquiry as to the objects of the Irish democratic labor federation, with which both host and guest are associated, Mr. Davitt said the first was to consolidate^sic all the various labor organizations in Ireland, and in view of the probable land purchase policy of the government to make it known that all toilers and workers of every description were as deeply interested in the settlement of the land question as the farmers. “Another great object of the federation,” said Mr. Davitt, “is to promote solidarity and united action between the industrial masses of Great Britain and Ireland; and this because the common enemy of all, both Englishmen and Irishmen, is the same—landlordism.” “The industrial classes of England,” he observed, “may not see as clearly as the Irish masses do how real and terrible the burden of landlordism is, but if the Irish people see it more clearly and feel it more acutely than the English workers, one great reason is because there are not in Ireland large manufacturing industries as in England to serve as buffers to conceal the truth as it exists.”

“Are the prospects of the federation at all bright?” “Well,” he said, “I rejoice to think that the English working classes are at last rapidly becoming alive to the fact that landlordism is a terrible burden upon industry and commerce, and are observing clearly that it would be out of the hard earnings of the toiling millions that compensation to Irish landlords will have to be pald^sic.”

A slight reference to the opening of parliament led Mr. Davitt to say: “I think the approaching session may possibly be stormy, and believe that the tories will undoubtedly make tremendous efforts to carry through their land purchase scheme, because the Irish landlords are at the last ditch.” “I hope, however,” he remarked, “that by strenuous exertion on the part of the English workingmen, this gigantic act of robbery—the buying out of Irish landlords at a big figure—may be frustrated.”

“Whatever was done in parliament,” he observed, “of course the ultimate appeal was to the next general election, and he earnestly hoped that then the workingmen, especially those of Lancashire and Cheshire, would awaken to a true comprehension of what this system of class legislation meant, and of the issue involved in the present struggle. If they did so they would return men, not only resolved to do justice to Ireland, but men who were thoroughly competent to legislate intelligently upon the condition of the English workingmen, for,” he added, “the cause of the workers of Ireland, Scotland, England and Wales is one; anything which affects one, affects the other.”

Upon questions calling for consideration, he classed those of the housing of the working classes, the mining royalties, taxation of land values and such like, all of which bore directly upon the condition of the toilers. His endeavor was to get men to study these questions, having confidence that if they did

p. 6, col. 4 > so the next election would give a majority favorable to the establishment in Ireland of a national assembly, empowered to deal exclusively with Irish affairs, and also the establishment in England of a parliament which would deal effectually, and not in any tory sham fashion, with the great social problems of tne^sic age, to secure for the worker a fairer share of the wealth he produces.

Mr. Davitt, in taking leave of our representative, said he must congratulate the neighborhood upon the circumstance that his old friend, Mr. Rylett, had settled here. “We have,” he said, “been intimately associated for ten years in the labor movement both in England and Ireland, and I am quite certain from my own experience that the working people of this district will find in Mr. Rylett a very warm friend indeed.”

It was ridiculous to be followed about in Manchester by a detective, as we were. The official traveled in the same carriage with us backward and forward, and followed the cab to my house. The theory of the government is that Mr. Davitt is reorganizing the Fenian movement.

HAROLD RYLETT.

M. ALBERT TOUBEAU’S DEATH—A DISTINGUISHED FRENCH ECONOMIST, WHO GLADLY WELCOMED THE SINGLE TAX.

PARIS, Feb. 7.—The house of M. Albert Toubeau, No. [83?] Rue de la Pompe, was draped in black yesterday. It made my eyes dim as I came up to it, and thought of the happy, hopeful meetings the little band of single taxités^sic used to hold there just after last June’s conference. I went softly and sadly up to the little drawing room where he had often met us all so heartily. It was little changed, save that the spirit had flown. His small black table where he used to write was just as he left it. Some STANDARDS were on it and a few single tax tracts.

Then I passed into the dining room where Henry George had met and talked with some of the hopeful souls of Paris, as they all enjoyed M. Toubeau’s hospitality. The room was very dark and solemn. There I found the broken hearted widow, and from her learned for the first time of the suddenness of the calling away. She had left M. Toubeau Monday evening, the 3d, to go out on a brief errand. When she returned and spoke to him he made no answer, though setting^sic lifelike in his chair. He had passed away, evidently without pain, the doctors said, from enlargement of the heart. Before him under his nerveless hand lay a copy of THE STANDARD he had been reading.

The funeral was yesterday. It was very simple, so much like the man’s life. Nearly all the Parisians who had met each other through the land conference gathered about the flower covered coffin. M. Eugene Simon, a life long friend, was quite overcome with grief. As I entered the great gate of the cemetery Pere La Chaise^sic, I remembered my last visit there in the summer with Mr. W. E. Hicks, another single tax friend. I little thought then that I would return so soon, and for such a purpose.

At the grave there was simply the oration of a friend, M. Vossion—a few words on the lovely life of the dead, and his great wisdom in not having mixed in the barren battles of politics, closing with the tear-laden assurance borne in upon the sorrowing hearts that the land ideas with which the sleeper had died would ere long bless the world. We then went, one by one, to the gaping tomb, and threw a red everlasting on the coffin.

M. Toubeau personally was one of the most entertaining of men. Fifty years of life, deep reading and sympathetic observation had given to his conversation a sincerity and warmth that touched all he met. His life had been a long search for the light. Let us believe he had found it as he thought he had a few days ago, when he said to me: “Ah! if I achieve no other good for humanity before my death, I can at least feel that I have found the light.”

Years ago when a student at Bruges, Belgium, he was told of the horrors of the existing pauperism and the happy state to which society could be led. “It could be a paradise here below!” he cried, stopping in the street. From that time he did not cease busying himself with the good of humanity. He first adopted the ideas of Collius^sic, the Belgian economist, and at once set about finding the best way of taxing nations. He devoted twenty years of his life to this problem. He soon drew away from Collins’s ideas on capital and the functions of government. He found at last an answer to his question and a remedy for the whole social ideas—the resumption of land by people living on it by means of a tax on land owners. He published his idea to the world in his book, “L’Impot Metrique” about the time “Progress and Poverty” was born in San Francisco.

He upheld his point by arguments quite different from those held now by single taxites. He left in the background entirely continued on p. 7 →

[the letter breaks off at the foot of the column; no continuation line is printed on this page]

THE BOSTON MEETING SLIMLY ATTENDED AND ITS TIME OCCUPIED WITH SYMPTOMS AND NOT CAUSES.

The American federation of labor has just issued a pamphlet containing a full report of the proceedings of its ninth convention, held at Boston from last December 10 to 14, inclusive.

The secretary reported seventy-four delegates present, representing 600,000 members in good standing—though on the most important vote of the session, only sixty votes were cast. Thirteen of the delegates were from New York city, eighteen from Massachusetts and eleven from Pennsylvania—a total of forty-two—leaving thirty-two, or eighteen according to the vote taken, to represent the remainder of this country. The first day was taken up in listening to addresses by Governor Ames, Mayor Hart, Chairman Gompers and others; appointing a committee on credentials, and taking a carriage ride at the expense of the city of Boston. One delegate, Mr. Lemon of New York, in view of the fact it was election day, and that the voting was being done under the Australian system for the first time in Massachusetts, and thinking perhaps that the delegates would gain knowledge concerning it that would be of use to them when they returned to their homes, moved that the convention adjourn to the polling places to witness the practical workings of the scheme. The invitation for the carriage ride having been already accepted, the motion was withdrawn. In the evening the delegates attended a banquet, also paid for by the city of Boston.

At the roll call next day twenty-five delegates were missing. President Gompers read his annual report, which was referred to a committee. After proclaiming the mission of the federation to be “to protect the innocent and young, to raise men and women from the sloughs of poverty and despair,” the report went on to speak of the differences between the federation and the K. of L. Regarding the eight-hour movement, the report said that it is progressing; that a large number of meetings in favor of it have been held; that “three of the ablest economic thinkers” had each written a pamphlet on the various phases of the question—George McNeill, George Gunton, the advocate of protection, who has spoken so often in this city during the last few years, and one Lemuel Danryid. Sixty thousand of these pamphlets had been circulated among the members of the federation—an average of one pamphlet for each ten members. The report recommended that one or two trades endeavor to secure the eight-hour work day on May 1, and that mass meetings be continued; that more labor legislation be asked for; that alien contract labor and Chinese be kept out of this country, etc., etc. The balance of the day was consumed in listening to addresses and reading resolutions. The roll call of the third day showed that seventeen of the absentees of the day before had returned to duty. The committee on president’s address reported [favoring?] all the recommendations, and Secretary Maguire’s^sic report was read, and after reference was approved.

The feature of the fourth day was the reading of the special report on the eight hour question, which recommended the adoption of the suggestions of the president. On the fifth day the salary of the president of the federation was increased from $1,200 to $1,500 a year, and the salary of the secretary was put at $1,200; then Samuel Gompers was re-elected president, P. J. McGuire was elected vice-president and Chris. Evans secretary. An “address to the working people of America” was adopted, the burden of which was that the Knights of Labor had encroached on the territory of the federation, and that if any trouble resulted, “the cause must be looked for in other directions than that of the federation.” The city of Boston got a vote of thanks for the carriage ride, banquet and the use of the council chamber. Detroit was selected as the next meeting place, and December 8, 1890, chosen as the time; a secret session was held on “labels and boycotts,” and then the convention adjourned sine die.

HIS SPEECH TO OLD FRIENDS AND NEIGHBORS—INTERESTING REMINISCENCES—A CLEAR EXPOSITION OF THE SINGLE TAX THEORY.

In the last issue of THE STANDARD we gave a full report of Mr. George’s reception at San Francisco, but could not make room for his speech. It was as follows:

Ladies and Gentlemen, Friends and Fellow Citizens: As I rise on this stage the past comes back to me. Thirteen years ago—it seems so far and yet so near—thirteen years ago, when I was halt of speech, when to face an audience, it seemed to me, required as much courage as it would to face a battery—I stood on this platform to speak my first word in the cause for which I stand now. I stood on this platform to see, instead of the audience that greets me to-night, a beggarly array of empty benches. It is a long time. Many times, in this country and in the dear old world, I have stood before far greater audiences than this; I have been greeted by thousands who never saw me before, as they would greet a friend long known and well loved; but I don’t think it ever gave me such pleasure to stand before an audience as it does here to-night. (Applause.) For years and years I have been promising myself to come back to San Francisco. I have crossed the Atlantic five times before I could fulfill that desire. I am here now to go in a few days to the antipodes; perhaps I may never return—who knows? If I live I shall try to. But San Francisco, though I never again can be a citizen of California—though my path in life seems away so far that California seems but a ridge on the horizon—my heart has always turned, and always will turn, to the home of my youth, to the city in which I grew up, to the city in which I have found so many warm friends—to the country in which I married, and in which my children were born. Always it will seem to me home; and it is sweet to the man long absent to be welcomed home. (Applause.) Aye, and you men, old friends tried and true—you men who rallied in the early times to our movement, when we could count each other almost upon one’s fingers—I come back to you to say that at last our triumph is but a matter of time. (Applause.) To say that never in the history of thought has a movement come forward so fast and so well.

Ten years ago when I left, I was anything but hopeful; ten years ago I would not have dared to say that in any time to which I might live, we should see the beginning of this great struggle. Nor have I cared. My part (and I think I can speak for every man who is enlisted in this movement)—my part has never been to predict results. Our feeling is the feeling of the great stoic emperor, “that is the business of Jupiter; not ours.” Ours to do the work as we may; ours to plant the seed which is to give the results. But now, so well forward is this cause, so many strong advocates has it in every land, so far has it won its way, that now it makes no difference who lives or who dies, who goes forward or who hangs back. Now the currents of the time are setting in our favor. At last—at last we can say with certainty that it will only be a little while before all over the English speaking world, and then, not long after, over the rest of the civilized world, the great truth will be acknowledged that no human child comes into this world without coming into his equal right to all.

I am talking to-night to my friends; I am talking to-night to those who are as earnest and well informed in this cause as I am; but I am also probably talking to many who have but vague ideas concerning it. Let me, since I am in San Francisco, speak of the genesis of my own thought. I came out here at an early age, and knew nothing whatever of political economy. I had never thought upon any social problem. The first time I ever recollect talking on such a subject was one day, when I was about eighteen, after I had first come to this country, sitting on the deck of a topsail schooner with a lot of miners on the way to the Frazer river; and we got talking about the Chinese, and I ventured to say—ventured to ask what harm the Chinese were doing here, if, as these miners said, they were only working the cheap diggings? And one old miner turned to me, and said, “No harm now; but it will not be always that wages are as high as they are to-day in California. As the country grows, as people come in, wages will go down, and some day or other white men will be glad to get these diggings that the Chinamen are now working.” And I will remember how it impressed me, the idea that as the country grew in all that we are hoping that it might grow, the condition of those who had to work for their living must grow, not better, but worse. And I remember, after having come down from the country, sitting one Christmas eve in the gallery of the old American theater—among the gods (laughter and applause), when a new drop curtain fell, and we all sprang to our feet, for on that curtain was painted what was then a dream of the far future, the overland train coming into San Francisco; and after we had shouted ourselves hoarse, I began to think what good is it going to be to men like me? those who have nothing but their labor? I saw that thought grow and grow; we were all—all of us, rich and poor—hoping for the development of California, proud of her future greatness, looking forward to the time when San Francisco was to

p. 8, col. 2 be one of the great capitals of the world; looking forward to the time when this great empire of the west was to count her population by millions, and underneath it all came to me that that miner told^sic. What about the masses of the people?

When, after growing up here, I went across the continent, before the continental railway was completed, and in the streets of New York for the first time realized the contrasts of wealth and want that are to be found in a great city; saw those sights that, to the man who comes from the west, affright and appall, the problem grew upon me. I said to myself there must be some reason for this; there must be some remedy for this, and I will not rest until I have found the one and discovered the other. (Applause.) At last it came clear as the stars of a bright midnight. I saw what was the cause; I saw what was the cure. I saw nothing that was new. Truth is never new.

When I lectured for the first time in Oxford, a professor of political economy in that great university met and opposed me, and he said, “I have read Mr. George’s book from one end to the other; what I have to say is this: there is nothing in it both new and true; what is true is not new, and what is new is not true.” I answered him, I accept your statement; it is a correct criticism; social truth never is, never can be new; and the truth for which we stand is an old truth; a truth seen by men everywhere, recognized by the first perceptions of all men; only overclouded, only obscured in our modern times by force and fraud. (Applause.) So it is. I notice that one of our papers gives to me the character of an apostle and speaks of my comrades as my disciples. (Laughter.) It is not so. I have done no more to any man than point out God’s stars. They were there for him to see. Millions and millions of years have seen them precisely as I saw them; every man may see them who will look.

When I first went to Ireland I got a note from the most venerable of the Irish bishops, Dr. Dougan, bishop of Waterford, asking me to come and have a private talk with him. I went, and the old man—white haired, ruddy cheeked, like Willegis, Wagner’s son—the man who under the mitre of the bishop still keeps the fresh true heart of the Irish peas- ant—commenced, with the privilege of age, catechizing me. He said: “What is this new doctrine that your name is associated with? You say that all men have equal rights to land; but all men can’t use land; how do you propose to divide up?” And then he went on from one question to another. bringing^sic all the staff arguments^sic, all the objections that spring up in the minds of men, just as they probably sprung up in the minds of many who are here—just as they spring up in the mind of any man—all the objections that are so current; and I answered them all. Finally rising, without saying anything, the old man stretched out his hand. “God bless you, my son (applause); I have asked you to come here and answer my questions, because I wanted to see if you could defend your faith. Go on Go on^sic. What you say to me is nothing new; it is the old truth that through persecution and against force, though trodden down, our people have always held What^sic you say is not new to me When^sic a little boy, sitting by the peat fire in the west of Ireland, I have heard the same truths from the lips of men who could not speak a word of English. Go on; the time has come; I, an old man, tell you that there is no earthly power that can stop this movement.” (Applause.) And the years have shown that the venerable bishop was right.

What is the cause of this dark shadow that seems to accompany modern civilization—of this existence of bitter want in the very centers of life—of the failure of all our modern advances—of all the wonderful discoveries and inventions that have made this wonderful nineteenth century, now drawing to a close, so prominent among all the centuries? What is the reason, that as we add to productive power—that is, invention after invention—multiplying by the hundred-fold and the thousand-fold the power of human hands to supply human wants? That all over the civilized world, and especially in this great country, that pauperism is increasing, and insanity is increasing, and criminality is increasing; that marriages are decreasing; that the struggle for existence seems not less, but more and more intense—what is the reason? There must be but one of two answers. Either it is in accordance with the will of God, either it is the result of natural law, or it is because of our ignorance and selfishness of our faith that we evade the natural law. We point to the one sufficient cause, wherever these phenomena are to be seen there, that the natural element on which and from which all men must live, if they are to live at all, is the property, not of the whole people, but of the few. We point to the adequate cure: the restoration to all men of their natural rights in the soil—the assurance to every child, as it comes into the world, of the enjoyment of its natural heritage—the right to live, the right to work, the right to enjoy the fruits of its work; rights necessarily conditioned upon the equal right to that element which is the basis of production; that element which is indispensable to human life; that element which is the standing place, the storehouse, the reservoir of men; that element from which all that is physical in man is drawn. For our bodies, themselves, they come from the land, and to the land

p. 8, col. 3 they return again; we, ourselves, are as much children of the soil as are the flowers or the trees. (Applause.)

We call ourselves to-day single tax men. It is only recently, within a few years, that we have adopted that title. It is not a new title; over a hundred years ago there arose in France a school of philosophers and patriots—Quesnay, Turgot, Condorcet, Dupont—the most illustrious men of their time, who advocated, as the cure for all social ills, the impot unique, the single tax.

We here, on this western continent, as the nineteenth century draws to a close, have revived the same name, and we find enormous advantages in it.

We used to be confronted constantly by the question: “Well, after you have divided the land up, how do you propose to keep it divided?” We don’t meet that question now. The single tax has, at least, this great merit: it suggests our method; it shows the way we would travel—the simple way of abolishing all taxes, save one tax upon land values. Now mark, one tax upon land values. We do not propose a tax upon land, as people who misapprehend us constantly say. We do not propose a tax upon land; we propose a tax upon land values, or what in the terminology of political economy is termed rent; that is to say, the value which attaches to land irrespective of any improvements in or on it; that value which attaches to land, not by reason of anything that the user or improver of land does—not by reason of any individual exertion of labor, but by reason of the growth and improvement of the community. A tax that will take up what John Stuart Mill called the unearned increment; that is to say, that increment of wealth which comes to the owner of land, not as a user; that comes whether he be a resident or an absentee; whether he be engaged in the active business of life; whether he be an idiot and whether he be a child; that growth of value that we have seen in our own times so astonishingly great in this city; that has made sand lots, lying in the same condition that they were thousands of years ago, worth enormous sums, without any one putting any exertion of labor or any expenditure of capital upon them. Now, the distinction between a tax on land and a tax on land values may at first seem an idle one, but it is a most important one. A tax on land—that is to say, a tax upon all land—would ultimately become a condition to the use of land; would therefore fall upon labor, would increase prices, and be borne by the general community. But a tax on land values cannot fall on all land, because all land is not of value; it can only fall on valuable land, and on valuable land in proportion to its value; therefore, it can no more become a tax on labor than can a tax upon income or a tax upon the value of special privileges of any kind. It can merely take from the individual, not the earnings of the individual, but that premium which, as society grows and improves, attaches to the use of land of superior quality.

Now see, take it in lts lowest aspect—take it as a mere fiscal change, and see how in accord with every dictate of expediency, with every principle of justice, is the single tax. We have invented and invented, improved and improved, yet the great fact is, that to-day we have not wealth enough. There are in the United States some few men richer than it is wholesome for men to be. (Applause). But the great masses of our people are not rich as civilized Americans at the close of the nineteenth century ought to be. (Applause). The great mass of our people only manage by hard work to live. The great mass of our people don’t get the comforts, the refinements, the luxuries that in the present age of the world every one ought to have. All over this country there is a fierce struggle for existence. Only as I came to the door of this building, a beggar struck me on the street—a young man; he said he could not find work. I don’t know, perhaps he lied. I do know that when a man once commences upon that course that there is rapid demoralization. I do know that indiscriminate charity is apt to injure far more than it can help; yet I gave him something (applause) for I did know that his story might^sic not be true.

This is the shore of the Pacific. This is the Golden Gate. The westward march of our race is terminated by the ocean, which has the ancient east on its further shore; no further can we go. And yet here, in this new country, in this golden state, there are men ready to work, anxious to work, and yet who, for longer or shorter periods, cannot get the opportunity to work. (Applause.) The further east you go, the worse it grows. To the man from San Francisco, who has never realized it before, there are sights in New York that are appalling. Cross the ocean to the greater city—the metropolis of the civilized world—and there poverty is deeper and darker yet. What is the reason? If there were more wealth wanted, why don’t they get more^sic. We cannot cure this evil of poverty by dividing up wealth, monstrous as are some of the fortunes that have arisen, and fortunes are concentrating in this country faster than ever before in the history of the world. But divide them and still there would not be enough. But if men want more wealth, why don’t they get more wealth? If we, as people, want more wealth (and certainly ninety-nine out of every hundred Americans do want more wealth), (applause) why are some

p. 8, col. 4 suffering for the opportunities of employment? Others are at work without making a living. But ninety-nine out of a hundred have some legitimate desire that they would like to gratify. Well, in the first place, if we want more wealth—if we call that country prosperous which is increasing in wealth—is it not a piece of stupidity that we should tax men for producing wealth. (Applause.)

Yet that is what we are doing to-day. Bring almost any article of wealth to this country from a foreign country, and your are confronted^sic at once with a tax. Is it not from a common sense standpoint a stupid thing, if we want more wealth—if the prosperous country is the country that increases in weath^sic, why in heaven’s name should we put up a barrier against the men who want to bring wealth into this country. (Applause.) We want more dry goods (if you don’t know, your wives surely will tell you). We want more clothing; more sugar; more of all sorts of the good things that are called “goods;” and yet by this system of taxation we virtually put up a high fence around the country to keep out these very things. We tax that covement^sic man who brings any goods into the country.

If wealth be a good thing; if the country be a prosperous country—that is, increasing in wealth—well surely, if we propose to restrict trade at all, the wise thing would be to put the taxes on the men who are taking goods out of the country, not upon those who are bringing goods into the country. We single tax men would sweep away all those barriers. (Applause.) We would try to keep out smallpox and cholera and vermin and plagues. But we would welcome all the goods that anybody wanted to send us, that anybody wanted to bring home. We say it is stupid, if we want more wealth, to prevent people from bringing wealth to the country. We say, also, that it is just as stupid to tax the men who produce wealth within the country. (Applause.)

Here we say we want more manufactures. The American people submit to enormous taxes for the purpose of building up factories; yet when a man builds a factory, what do we do? Why we come down and tax him for it. We certainly want more houses. There are a few people who have bigger houses than any one reasonable family can occupy; but the great mass of the American people are underhoused. There, in the city of New York, the plight to which all American cities are tending, you will find that sixty-five per cent of the population are living two families or more to the single floor. Yet let a man put up a house in any part of the United States, and down comes the tax gatherer to demand a fine for having put up a house.

We say that industry is a good thing, and that thrift is a good thing; and there are some people who say that if a man be industrious, and if a man be thrifty, he can easily accumulate wealth. Whether that be true or not, industry is certainly a good thing, and thrift is certainly a good thing. But what do we do if a man be industrious? If he produces wealth enough and by thrift accumulates wealth at all, down comes the tax gatherer to demand a part of it. (Applause.) We say that that is stupid; that we ought not by our taxes to repress the production of wealth; that when a farmer reclaims a strip of the desert and turns it into an orchard and a vineyard, or on the prairie produces crops and feeds fine cattle, that, so far from being taxed and fined for having done these things, that we ought to be glad that he has done it; that we ought to welcome all energy; that no man can produce wealth for himself without augmenting the general stock, without making the whole country richer.

We impose some taxes for the purpose of getting rid of things, for the purpose of having fewer of the things that we tax. In most of our counties and states when dogs become too numerous, there is imposed a dog tax to get rid of dogs. Well, we impose a dog tax to get rid of dogs, and why should we impose a house tax unless we want to get rid of houses. (Applause.) Why should we impose a farm tax unless we want fewer farms? Why should we tax any man for having exerted industry or energy in the production of wealth? Tax houses and there will certainly be fewer houses.

If you go east to the city of Brooklyn, you may see that demonstrated to the eye. What first surprised me in the city of churches, was to see long rows of buildings of brown stone houses, two stories in front and three stories behind; or three stories in front and four stories behind; and I thought for a moment what foolish idea ever entered the brains of those men, to have left out half an upper story in that way? I found out by inquiring, that it was all on account of the tax. (Laughter and applause.) In the city of Brooklyn, the assessor is only supposed to look in front (laughter), and so by making the house in that way, you can get a three story building behind with only a two story front. So in England, in the old houses, there you may see the result of the window tax. The window tax is in force in France to-day, and in France there are two hundred thousand houses, according to the census, that have no window at all in order to escape the tax. (Laughter.)

So if you tax ships there will be fewer ships. What old San Franciscan cannot remember the day, when in this harbor might be seen continued on p. 9 →

[continued on page 9]

THE SOCIAL PROBLEM.

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR.

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.

THE ENROLMENT OF PETITIONERS LIKELY TO EXCEED 50,000 IN THIS CITY—WORKINGMEN AWAKE—THE SAXTON BILL PASSES THE SENATE.

At the regular meeting of the Ballot reform league, held on Friday evening of last week, it became evident that the number of signatures from this city would probably be more than fifty thousand by the end of the present week, and as the committee particularly desires to get the petition before the legislature in advance of action by the assembly, it was resolved to send it to Albany for presentation on Tuesday, March 4, which will probably be in time to anticipate action by the house. The enrolment up to Monday night was 44,102, a gain of nearly 7,000 in one week. The separate blanks, constituting the petition, will be pasted on sheets arranged by assembly districts and streets, and these sheets will be bound together in an enormous book, the pages of which will be nearly two by three feet in size, while the book, solidly bound, will be nearly four feet thick. All signatures to the petition of the New York ballot reform league to be enroled must be sent to headquarters, 15 Cortlandt street, not later than noon of Friday, February 28. The petition will be on exhibition in the window of No. 240 Fifth avenue, between Twenty-seventh and Twenty-eighth streets, from noon of Saturday, March 1, until noon of Monday, March 3, when it will be sent to Albany. The petition will doubtless be the largest ever presented to the legislature. Hon. Carl Schurz. Mr. Wheeler H. Peckham^sic and Mr. Louis F. Post were appointed a committee to draw up a memorial that will be presented to the full committee for action at a meeting to be held this Wednesday evening at the Reform club. As many members as possible will be urged to accompany the memorial and petition to Albany.

At a recent meeting of the Brooklyn ballot reform league the Rev. Dr. Charles H. Hall and ex-District Attorney John Winslow denounced Governor Hill as the real obstacle to ballot reform. The report of ex-Senator Griswold, chairman of the executive committee, showed that the league had sent out 113,000 blank petitions and 7,500 personal letters; that 13,861 signatures had been received, and that the membership of the league reaches 700 in Brooklyn.

The Saxton bill passed the senate last week, practically without amendment. Two democrats. Ahearn and Chase^sic, voted in the affirmative with the republicans; Mr. Linson, democrat, did not vote, and the vote stood 19 to 9, as follows:

Yeas—Messrs. Ahearn, Berkett. Chase^sic, Coggeshall, Deane, Donaldson, Emerson, Fassett, Hendricks, Hunter, Laughlin, O’Conner, Richardson, Robertson, Saxton, Sloan, Stewart, Van Gorder, Vedder—19.

Nays—Messrs. Brown, Cantor, Collins, Hawkins, Ives, Jacobs, McCarren, Roesch, Stadler—9.

The bill reached the house on the day after its passage by the senate. Mr. Acker proposed an amendment providing that the separate tickets on the ballot be printed in different colors.

The Saxton corrupt practices bill has passed the senate and gone to third reading in the assembly.

Various district assemblies of the Knights of Labor in this city are arranging for a meeting in favor of ballot reform. Mr. Powderly will be asked to speak. The Excelsior labor club, a local assembly of the Knights of Labor, at its last meeting attacked Senator Roesch for stating in the senate that organized labor had not asked or demanded the passage of the Saxton ballot reform bill. The club declared that the bill had been indorsed by forty-two district assemblies of the Knights of Labor at a state convention held in Troy, February 3, by the American federation of labor and by the state trades’ assembly.

The Fifth assembly district ballot reform league has adopted resolutions declaring for the Saxton bill, and advising all persons to vote for only such legislative candidates as are pledged to true ballot reform.

Lieutenant-Governor Jones professes anxiety for ballot reform, and has an amendment which he hopes will be accepted by Mr. Saxton. He believes that the amendment will make the bill satisfactory to Governor Hill. The lieutenant-governor wishes an unofficial ballot to be provided. Upon the out

p. 11, col. 2

side of the official ballot shall be stamped the arms of the state of New York, and the date of the election. The voter must pass by the official vote distributor and must receive a ballot from him, take the ballot into the private compartment with him, and if he does not desire to use that ballot, but prefers to vote an unofficial ballot which he has brought with him, he shall be at liberty to do so; but when he reaches the ballot box he must either vote the official ballot or deliver that (having voted the ballot of his choice) to an inspector, who will deposit it in a box provided therefor. In order to accomplish the result desired, which is that he shall have no evidence to show that he has voted the unofficial ballot, it shall be deemed a misdemeanor for any man to take from the election place an official ballot, and any one found with one in his possession shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor and subject to fine and imprisonment. The unofficial ballot should be printed by the state so as to avoid excuse for political assessments.

FARMERS ARE LEARNING.

HARD TIMES AND SOUND TEACHING SHAKE THEIR FAITH IN THE VIRTUES OF PROTECTION.

W. B. Estell, who has been engaged in the Reform club’s tariff reform work in central New York, reports the farmers of that region ripe for economic instruction. Mr. Estell made arrangement for the enrolment of the whole 22,000 voters in Steuben county, and spoke between times at various points in Lawrence county. The twelve meetings in the latter county reached probably 5,000 voters, chiefly of the farming class. Mr. Estell is now organizing the tariff reform campaign in Cataraugus^sic, Steuben and Allegany counties. He will arrange for about fifty meetings, to be held between now and the busy farming season.

In Livingston county deep interest in the tariff question has developed. Men drove for miles over bad roads and through hard storms to hear the speakers. Many hearers were republicans, and the striking characteristic of the campaign was its non-partisan character. The faith of many republican farmers has been shaken. In 1888 they voted for Harrison partly from habit and partly because republican speakers assured them that the success of the democrats meant low prices for farm products, especially potatoes, while republican success meant protection and 75 cents a bushel for potatoes. Soon after the election the price of potatoes fell below 15 cents a bushel, the amount of the protective duty, and now they bring only from 35 to 55 cents a bushel. Before the election of 1888 oats sold at 37 cents a bushel; now they bring 26 cents. In parts of Livingston county the best hay sells for $6 a ton, when there is little or no profit in raising it at $9. Barley brings but 42 cents a bushel, and buckwheat is low. Excellent butter sells at 12 cents a pound, and 14 cents is a high price. Many farms are deserted because it has not been profitable to work them.

J. S. Clark of Batavia, counsel for a railway company, reports that out of eighty farms whose titles he recently examined, seventy-two were mortgaged to more than half their value. In Steuben county many farmers are unable to pay taxes and interest on mortgages. A farm laborer in Hornellsville, now lumbering at fifty cents a day, told Mr. Estell that he had just received notice that thereafter his wages would be only twenty-five cents a day. When asked why he accepted such wages his response was that it was this or nothing, since tramps from the cities dropped off freight trains all through the country and were ready to work for almost nothing. Farm mortgages are a fruitful source of political corruption and ballot reform is an absolute essential. In the presence of all these facts farmers begin to think that protection is hardly the blessing it has been thought.

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 the local and state governments, or a direct assessment being made by the general government upon the states and paid by them from revenues collected in this manner.

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

It is a tax, not on land, bnt^sic on the value of land. Thus it would not fall on all land, but only on valuable land, and on that not in proportion to the use made of it, but in proportion to its value—the premium which the user of land must pay to the owner, either in purchase money or in rent, for permission to use valuable land. It would thus be a tax, 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 has little^sic or no value irrespective of improvements, and put it on towns and cities where bare land rises to a value of millions of dollars per acre.

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

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

4. Give us with all the world as perfect freedom of trade as now exists between the states of our Union, thus enabling our people to share through free exchanges in all the advantages which nature has given to other countries, or which the peculiar skill of other peoples has enabled them to attain. It would destroy the trusts, monopolies, and corruptions which are the outgrowtns^sic of the tariff. It would do away with the fines and penalties now levied on any one who improves a farm, erects a house, builds a 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

THE PETITION.

SINGLE TAX ENROLMENT COMMITTEE, 36 CLINTON PLACE, NEW YORK, Feb. 25, 1890.

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

Subscriptions toward the expenses of this committee’s work stand as reported last week, viz., $2,742.70.

The cash contributions have been increased by the sum of twenty-five cents received from J. Henry McIntyre, Philadelphia, Pa., which brings the amount up to $507.19.

The enrolment now stands as follows:

Reported last week . . . . . . . 75,125 Received during the week ending Feb. 25 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 473 Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75,598

G. ST. J. LEAVENS, Sec.

BROOKLYN ASSESSMENTS.

NEW YORK CITY.

BROOKLYN.

NEW YORK STATE.

S. T., Yonkers.—The weekly meeting of the Riverside association at Montgomery hall last Thursday evening was well attended. A. J. Steers of New York opened the proceedings by reading Professor Garland’s sketch, “Under the Lion’s Paw;” after which William McCabe delivered an address on “The taxation of land values.” After the speech questions were invited. They came so thick that the meeting held on till nearly midnight, when the visiting speakers had to leave in order to catch the last train to New York city. To-morrow evening (Thursday) other speakers will address the association.

MASSACHUSETTS.

NEW JERSEY.

PENNSYLVANIA.

INDIANA.

A SURPRISE IN QUINCY—AN IMPORTANT RESOLUTION UNEXPECTEDLY APPROVED.

C. F. Perry, Quincy.—On the 14th inst. Lyman McCarl addressed the club on the subject of tariff reform. Mr. McCarl is quite friendly to our principles.

Respecting our agitation here in favor of changing the method of levying our special taxes to that of taxing land values only, the following excerpt from the official report of last night’s city council proceedings will be of interest:

By Alderman Swimmer: Resolved, That the city attorney be and is hereby instructed to submit at the next regular meeting of the council, his opinion in writing, whether an ordinance drawn under article IX, properly drawn otherwise and embracing the following provisions would be legal:

1. Providing as one improvement for two hundred blocks of street paving.

2. That the special tax therefore be levied, assessed and collected upon and from the lots, parts of lots and parcels or tracts of lands, contiguous to and touching upon the line of any of the streets embraced within the said two hundred blocks, in the proportion of the total cost of the entire improvement to the value of the said lots, parts of lots and parcels or tracts of land, including the value of right of way, but excluding all buildings, other improvements and personal property in the valuation.

Alderman Swimmer moved to adopt. The ayes and nays were taken on the motion to adopt, and resulted: Ayes—Walker, Chumbley, Swimmer, Gillespie, Fitzgerald, Campbell, Freund—7. Noes—Hauworth, Heckenkamp, Fischer, Stork, Arnold—5. The motion was adopted.

The surprising thing was the introduction of the resolution by Alderman Swimmer. Alderman Freund was to introduce it; and while a copy had been sent previously to each alderman, it was not even known that Alderman Swimmer would vote for it, yet he not only voluntarily introduced it, but when it seemed necessary, made a good argument in its favor. Alderman Freund also spoke in favor of the resolution and Alderman Charles H. Gillespie made a pointed, reasonable argument in its behalf. We shall await the report with much interest.

Boyd Cornick, Mascoutah.—Since his conversion to the single tax idea, J. W. Swaw has been indefatigable in his preaching of the single tax. He organized a single tax league at High Gate, and is now organizing another at Oak Hill, Crawford county.

Louis Lesaulnier, Red Bud.—The signatures which I nowadays send to the enrolment committee are from men who in the beginning opposed us. That is very satisfactory to me; for I know their change of heart has been the result of examination of our doctrine.

FATHER J. O. S. HUNTINGTON LECTURING IN EAST ST. LOUIS AND ST. LOUIS.

S. T., East St. Louis.—Father J. O. S. Huntington began a series of six lectures at Boughan’s hall on February 19, concluding on Monday evening, the 24^sic. He is to speak in Music hall, St. Louis, on Tuesday, the 25th, under the auspices of the St. Louis single tax league, and during the remainder of the week he will speak every evening at Trinity church, and will also conduct a business men’s noonday meeting every day at 209 North Fourth avenue.

Percy Pepoon, St. Louis.—Our last meeting was an experience meeting. Dr. W. B. Addington, well known here as a writer and thinker on social questions, announced that he would be found in the thick of the fight hereafter.

Colonel T. J. Portis, general attorney of the Missouri Pacific railway system, is on our programme for an address soon.

The mock congress has considered a free trade measure for the past three sessions. The next measure to be debated will probably be a single tax bill. H. Martin Williams has been elected speaker.

C. A. Potwin, late of Zanesville, Ohio, has located at Aurora, Mo., where he will develop some mines and also some single tax sentiment.

Mayor Noonan will preside at the great single tax meeting at Music hall, to be addressed by Father Huntington.

Several gentlemen will soon start a first-class economic weekly journal in St. Louis, which will advocate the single tax editorially.

The democrats and republicans of Pulaski and Jasper counties have arranged a great mass meeting on March 3, for a joint discussion

p. 13, col. 2 of the tariff question. The single tax league furnishes the principal free trade speaker of the occasion in the person of H. Martin Williams.

Secretary Walker of the Missouri democratic state central committee was an interested listener at the the last meeting^sic of the league.

A MEMBER OF A REPUBLICAN CLUB PUBLICLY ADVOCATES THE SINGLE TAX.

W. H. Leckie, Detroit.—The Michigan club is made up of men who are firm adherents of the theory that taxation brings prosperity. J. B. Howarth is one of the large manufacturing firm of Pingree & Howarth and a member of the club. On February 10 the club came together to listen to an address from the gentleman on “Municipal Taxation.” The conclusions of Mr. Howarth were entirely unexpected. He advocated the Henry George plan of a single tax on land values. Despite his radicalism he was attentively listened to.

Mr. Howarth’s address has caused a sensation. It was not expected that he, an old republican and an advocate in 1888 of the protective idea, should take a position so entirely opposite to the convictions of a lifetime. The Tribune is much exercised over this new departure.

HOW THE THIN EDGE OF THE WEDGE COULD BE INSERTED.

John S. Watters, New Orleans.—The article below, taken from the single tax column of the Sunday State, contains what I think is an eminently practical plan for the introduction of the single tax. Lands, now the property of the states, are very poor, perhaps; possibly are only poorly located. But with the appearance upon them of population, under the plan proposed, value will appear, as we know, unless the land is of such poor quality as to yield little or nothing to the plough.

There is still in many if not all the states, land which has not yet been taken up, and now is the property of the state. Let such land be carefully assessed, and rented to occupants, the rent of the bare unimproved land to constitute their taxes, and no taxes of any kind imposed upon their improvements. At the end of three years, or two, let the land be again carefully assessed, no improvements being included in the estimated rental. And at the expiration of every period of three years or two or one, as may be found expedient, let the rent be determined in the same way; whatever rent so obtained, after deducting a small per capita tax for the state, being used for the benefit of such tenants as avail themselves of the provisions of the law.

This plan might, without injuring any special interests (which are always stronger than the interests of the public), be introduced in the state of Louisiana at the next session of the legislature. The effect of it would be to place those who availed themselves of it, through their exemption from fines upon their industry, at a great advantage over others; and these others would soon be screaming for an equal chance. As it spread, wages and interest would be higher in the section to which it applied, and rent lower, than anywhere else in the world; labor and capital would be attracted; as population increased, contrary to the experience of men under the present conditions, wages and interest would go still higher, for the taxing away of rent would prevent land speculation, and the consequent throttling of progress which has been the history everywhere that land is private property. Soon the entire state would have the system; adjoinging^sic states would have to have it to prevent all their people leaving, to go into a healthier atmosphere; then other states: and so the circle would widen, until it included the United States; but ere then, such a tide of immigration would set toward our shores that all the standing armies of the world would be powerless to stem it—in fact, the armies would come, too; and soon, did they not institute the same system in other countries, there would be no one left in them but the owners of the land—the kings and dukes and counts and viscounts and no’counts who correspond to our untitled aristocracy of wealth—and what would they do without the poor people whom they so despise? They would have their land and their machinery; but the only source of their revenue, their fellow human beings, would have evaporated. So once started, it would inevitably spread all over the earth; and in a few years we might be living in a state of affairs where none were millionaires, and none were paupers; where all had enough, and to spare, of the necessities and comforts of a civilized existence, to say nothing of a fair share of the luxuries; where, in a word, each was wealthy in proportion to his worth. A picture worthy contemplation! All incentive to crime removed, there would be no criminals, for men would rather be honest than dishonest, and it would pay better then to be honest than to trick and cheat and steal. All incentive to drunkenness removed, there would be no drunkards; for men drink to drown thought, and because their hopes are blighted, and their higher instincts cramped and stunted in the present mad hurly-burly devil-catch-the hindmost scramble for pelf and place. There would be no bad women, because poverty and the dread of poverty make women bad to-day. There would be no unfaithful wives, for women would no longer marry for money; marriage would no longer be a bargain. There would be no paupers, rich or poor, for the taxing away of rent would prevent any one from becoming a rich pauper, and the opening up of natural opportunities and the consequent demand for labor would insure full wages to the worker, thus

p. 13, col. 3 rendering it impossible for any one to become a poor pauper. There would be no beggars, either of the protection, professional, or tramp variety.

This is no idle dream, no impossible plan of Utopia. It is all as plain and evident as A B C. If land were made common property, and a few individuals were by law given the ownership of the atmosphere which all must breathe in order to live, with the power to put delinquent debtors in a vacuum, those owners of the air would compose an air trust, the members of which would live in luxury upon the proceeds of others’ labor which they would be obliged to deliver up in order to live at all, and the same state of affairs that exists to-day would be inaugurated. All who did not “own” enough air to live in idleness and those who owned none would be fighting each other, scrambling, tricking, stealing and cheating just as they do now. The owners of the land constitute to-day a land trust; and the consequence is just what an outsider, an onlooker, would expect; those who do not own enough land to enable them to live in idleness at the expense of the public have to fight with each other, cheat, trick, combine and steal, all under the pleasant euphemism of “business.”

MORE FLOUR MADE THAN THE PEOPLE OF THE WORLD CAN EAT—THE MINNEAPOLIS CLUB.

J. F. Begirt, Minneapolis.—Our league is growing rapidly, thanks to our energetic president and the speakers he has been able to secure lately. I have sent petitions to the enrolment committee, and would have sent a contribution had I been able. But the fact is, I have been thrown out of employment because flour has been made faster than the people of the world can eat it, at least that is what I am told, and I will have to remain unemployed until the present supply has been eaten up, or down, somewhat.

A. M. Goodrich, Minneapolis.—C. J. Buell delivered an address on the single tax at 1809 East Lake street on Wednesday evening, February 12, and at the close the South Minneapolis single tax club was organized. A great deal of interest was manifested, and a number of prominent residents of that locality took part in the organization. The following officers were elected: President, A. M. Goodrich; vice-president, J. S. Benson; secretary, P. F. Hammersley; treasurer, P. W. [Leffler?]; executive committee, I. H. Swart, H. Shol and Wm. Warrington.

The recent speech of ex-Governor McGill in opposition to the taxation of mortgages has drawn attention to the whole subject, and single tax men are bobbing up in the most unexpected quarters. We will make Minneapolis the banner city in this movement soon.

W. E. BROKAW WANTS DAKOTANS TO HELP HIM CARRY ON THE WORK.

W. E. Brokaw, Bristol.—Last night (February 14) my brother read “Under the Lion’s Paw” in our Literary, and made a few remarks on the land question, expressing the idea that there is plenty of land, and wondering why men should fight over it.

I sorely need funds to push the single tax fight here. Ten-cent contributions from South Dakota friends would not be missed so much by them as they are by me. I wish to say, further, that all contributions go directly toward “spreading the light,” my time and labor being given free.

Please ask all readers of THE STANDARD in South Dakota to write me at once as to their opinions of best time and place for our next meeting, so as to secure the largest attendance, as we should then form a closer organization and elect officers, besides planning for the coming campaign.

DELIGHTED OVER THE RESULTS OF GEORGE’S VISIT—A GOOD IDEA FROM SAN DIAGO^sic.

S. T., San Francisco.—There has been great activity among our friends here since the advent of Mr. George, and the single tax club is feeling its good effects in a large accession to its membership. The Examiner was especially noticeable for its courteous greeting to Mr. George and kindly mention of the proceedings during his stay here, for which the club at its last meeting passed an especial vote of thanks.

Gee. B. Whaley, San Diego.—I have a “novel” way of sowing the seed, which might be worthy of imitation in other places. My business is buying, selling and exchanging old

p. 13, col. 4 paper novels. Every book that goes out of my place has inclosed within its innocent pages a single tax leaflet (containing the same matter as “The Cat” tract, No. 31, Single tax library). Nothing but “Progress and Poverty,” “Protection or Free Trade?” “Social Problems” and THE STANDARD are allowed a place in my window; and I shall shortly have a bulletin board on the sidewalk which will stand eight feet high, and upon which I intend to inscribe the contents of every week’s STANDARD, so that those who have eyes and will see not must shut them. Say: I’m getting interested.

SOME HARDSHIPS OF THE MEN WHO WORK IN THE LYON MOUNTAIN MINES OF THE CHATEAUGAY ORE AND IRON COMPANY.

A detective employed to work as a miner in the iron mines of the Chateaugay ore and iron company at Lyon mountain in the Adirondack region of this state tells his story in the World of last Sunday. He found that the workmen lived the life of slaves and were subjected to a dozen petty tyrannies at the hands of their employers. All the houses about the pits belong to the company; the only store in the place is a company store, and the postmaster, an employe of the company, maintains his office in the store. Married men rent wretched cabins of the company at from $1.50 to $2 per month, while single men board at the house of a widow who rents of the company. The rent of houses and the price of board are taken out of the wages by the company. If a man pays cash for board he runs the risk of having his wages docked all the same. All persons are forced, as far as possible, to buy of the company store, at rates from 50 to 150 per cent above ordinary retail prices. A few buy of peddlers, but workmen have at times been discharged and driven from the mountain for this offense. Two roads lead to one mine, and a toll gate closes each. Peddlers with wagons are sometimes required to pay $5 to get through the gate to the settlement, so that in effect a domestic tariff is imposed for the benefit of the company store. Letters coming to the post office are handled by employes of the company before reaching those to whom they are addressed, and the postmaster is studiously uncivil. Married men pay seventy-five cents and single men fifty cents a month to a doctor’s fund handled by the company, and the doctor employed is apparently very indifferent. Pay day comes once a month, anywhere between the 15th and 25th, of course, for the month ended two or^sic three weeks before. The men are often in debt to the company when pay day comes round, and the detective on leaving the works was debited with fifty-three cents, though he figured out a credit of $1.14. He went off without paying the alleged debt, though threatened with arrest. Here are specific facts and figures as to wages: $1.10 for ten hours’ work loading cars with iron ore, $1.48½ for eleven hours’ work at the separator, $1.40 for running a machine in the mines nine hours a day, and $1.22 for helping on the machine. The “wollopers” are the men who break up ore in the pits; they are paid by the ton, working for sub-contractors, and average about $2 a day, the best paying work at the mines, and the hardest.

Here are some prices at the company store: A spool of No. 36 thread, 8 cents; package of needles, 8 cents; jumpers, $1 (they cost [$3.50?] a dozen wholesale); butter, 30 cents a pound; leggings for men, $1.75; boots that can be bought elsewhere for $2 75^sic, cost here $4.50; tobacco, 20 cents a pound that can be bought anywhere else for 10 cents.

AN OREGON EDITOR DENOUNCES THE TARIFF, AND MAKES SIGNIFICANT ALLUSIONS TO THE LAND QUESTION.

Hon. John P. Wager, editor of the East Oregonian of Pendleton, who, while in the Oregon state senate, made a determined effort to secure the passage of the Australia ballot bill^sic, recently delivered an address before the Farmers’ institute at Pendleton. The speech was in many respects remarkable and its reception by farmers belonging to both political parties indicates that a great change is going on in the minds of the agricultural voters. Mr. Wager began by declaring that the farmers do not need any special legislation in their behalf, but a check upon the constant and persistent special legislation in behalf of others. The repeal of bad laws rather than the enactment of new ones, was the method he recommended, and he particularly urged the necessity of equal and uniform taxation; he said the chief aim of the national legislature, of late, has been to load taxes on part of the people in order to pay bounties to another part, and strange to say, the people thus unequally burdened, are the large majority and could remedy the injustice by their own votes. He advised the farmers to demand such changes in the assessment laws as would compel a full and fair assessment of all property, “even that of the rich.” He said:

To this end I would suggest:

1. Precinct assessors.

2. An annual meeting of county assessors, to agree on uniform bases of listing all classes of property.

3 Equalization among the various counties by a state board, composed of at least seven members, one from each judicial district.

4. All assessments to be made as of a certain day and a certain hour of that day.

5. The assessing of real property to the property itself, by prepared plats, instead of to individuals.

6. The assessing of unused and unoccupied lands held for speculative purposes equally high with improved and occupied lands of like quality and natural value.

7. A gradual, but not an immediate, elimination of the provisions of the law allowing deductions for indebtedness.

8. Severe penalties upon assessors for any violation of their duties.

If these suggestions were carefully carried out, as they were attempted to be last winter, I have no doubt our assessment would treble in amount within two years, and the ratio of taxation would decrease in like proportion.

He urged the adoption of the Australian system of voting, and criticised state legislation, but said that all of the evils flowing from it are “only as mills to dollars compared to the wrongs inflicted upon the workingmen and men of small means, especially farmers, by the national legislation of the last quarter of a century.” He said:

I can mention but two or three instances; very briefly. One is, the reckless squandering of the public domain. The heritage of the whole people and the especial capital of all men, either directly to railroad or wagon road corporations, or indirectly by allowing it to pass in immense tracts into the hands of foreign syndicates, the occupants, if any, to be only tenants, that is, virtually serfs.

Perhaps it was well to assist the first transcontinental railroads to a reasonable extent; but it was not well in addition to great gifts of land to guarantee millions of bonds, to be paid finally, principal and interest, out of the money of taxpayers; it was not well to require the settler to pay double price for land within twenty miles of a paper railroad, not built for fifteen or twenty years after the time specified in the contract, upon which the settler relied as of sure performance when he paid his double price; it was not well to require strict compliance with the law on the part of the poor home builder, and allow the contract with the corporation to be violated over and over again with impunity; it was not well to say that the settler must relinquish lands found more valuable for mineral than agricultural purposes, and that the corporation might retain them despite the law—as at least one federal judge decided; it was not well to follow the individual settler who only claimed 160 acres of land, and that for a home, with informers and spies, and deprive him of it if he had perpetrated some trivial fraud, and at the same time encourage wealthy land grabbers to fraudulently acquire possession of millions of acres contrary to law, as has been done in California and other states and territories. There is no even-handed justice in these things, and they are all facts. The evil is now mostly done and over, and perhaps there is no redress; but I believe the time must soon come when the amount of land to be owned by any one person or company shall be restricted in amount, and that only to actual occupants or users. The time is ripe for demanding that no man be permitted to hold vacant land, a natural gift and a natural right, the heritage of all the people and of all the ages, unoccupied and unused, for speculative purposes. That one man may sit down here in Pendleton and own thousands of acres of fertile but untilled land out here in the country, for it to be made more valuable year by year by the toil and tribulation of those who live around it and pay taxes on their improvements, when tens of thousands of men are becoming serfs or paupers or criminals because there is no place on the God-given footstool for the soles of their feet, is a monstrous wrong, and one which it is the duty of legislators to right. It won’t do to talk with owl-like wisdom about “vested rights.” Some of these sacred cloaks of “vested rights” deserve to be torn into tatters by an aroused and outraged people, in pursuit of long-established, usurping and “vested” wrongs; and one of these is the ownership of more land than one can reasonably use, and the possession of more wealth than is good

p. 14, col. 3 > for the community which he uses it to oppress.

After a careful and thorough exposure of the protective theory, the speaker devoted his especial attention to the influence of the tariff on the interests of farmers. He declared that “free trade is a policy of civilization, of peace, of enterprise, of honest independence and of justice,” while protection is a system of “reciprocal rapine by which farmers and the common laborers of the land are constantly plundered without receiving a single compensating favor of any sort from any source.”

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. Microscopio^sic 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.

CAKLAND^sic.—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, Novelette book stand, 439 Fifth st.

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

COLORADO.

STATE.—Colorado State single tax association, room 14, Byers block, 15th and Champa sts. Pres., A. W. Elder; sec., H. C. Niles; treas., Geo. Champion.

DENVER.—Denver single tax association. Every Thursday evening, room 14, Byers block, 15th and Champa sts. Free reading room open every dsy^sic, 9 a. m. to 9 p.m. Pres,, G. H. Phelps; sec., F. H. Monroe.2951^sic 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. Frauk^sic P. Blake.

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

CONNECTICUT.

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

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

DAKOTA.

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

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

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

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.

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

FLORIDA.

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

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

GEORGIA.

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

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

ILLINOIS.

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

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

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

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

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

INDIANA.

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

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

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

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

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

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

IOWA.

BURLINGTON.—Burlington single tax club. First and third Wednesday of each month, [818?] Jefferson st. Pres., Richard Spencer; sec., Wilbur Mosena, [900?] Hedge ave.

p. 15, col. 2

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?], 836 W. Broadway. [bottom half of this line not printed]

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. 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^sic—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, Druid hall, cor. Jay and Baltimore sts. Pres., Wm. J. Ogden; sec., J. W. Jones, 31 N. Caroline st.

Baltimore single tax society. Every Sunday evening, 8 p. m., at Industrial hall, 316 W. Lombard 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. Every Thursday evening at the West hotel. Pres., C. J. Buell, 402 W. Franklin av.; sec., J. A. Sawyer, 309 Lumber exchange.

South Minneapolis single tax club. Wednesday evenings, at 1809 E. Lake st. Pres. A. M. Goodrich; sec., P. F. Hammersley.

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 Eugeaia street^sic.

“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.

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

OAK HILL.—Single tax league. Pres., F. Debolt; sec., J. W. Miller.

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; sec., M. G. Gaffney 48 Warren place.

p. 15, col. 3

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

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

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

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

CAMDEN.—Camden single tax club. Pres., Louis M. Randall; sec., Wm. M. Callingham.

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., Aloxander^sic Gregory; cor. sec., James J. Mahoney, 2 Division st.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

Columbus single tax club. Meets Sunday at 3.30 p. m. Pres., H. S Swank, 51 Clinton building; sec., E. Hullinger.

TIFFIN^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; 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, 60 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.

p. 15, col. 4

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., [illegible] Frankford ave., Philadelphia. Pres., James Wright; sec., Jno. Moore, 2188 E. Huntingdon st.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

POTTSTOWN.—Single tax club. Meetings 1st and 3d Friday evenings each month in Weitzenkorn’s hall. Pres., D. L. Haws; sec., H H Johnson, 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 Townsend, Cowie & Co.

TEXAS.

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

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

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

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

WEST VIRGINIA.

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

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.

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 p[obscured]th, $1.50. Paper covers, 35 cents. Half calf o[obscured]occo, $3.00.

[A later owner’s or dealer’s label, printed diagonally (legible in part: “…C B Filleb[orn?]… 208 Devonshire st”), is stuck over the left edge of this column here and hides parts of the price lines of Progress and Poverty and Social Problems.]

SOCIAL PROBLEMS.

By HENRY GEORGE.

[obscured]ages. Cloth, $1.00. Paper covers, 35 cents. Half [obscured] or half morocco, $2.50.

PROTECTION OR FREE TRADE?

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

By HENRY GEORGE.

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

THE LAND QUESTION.

What it involves and how alone it can be settled.

By HENRY GEORGE.

87 pages. Paper covers, 20 cents.

p. 16, col. 4

PROPERTY IN LAND.

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

77 pages. Paper covers, 15 cents.

FORTSCHRITT UND ARMUTH.

(Progress and Poverty in German). Translation of C. D. F. Gutschow. 430 pages^sic. Paper covers, 35 cents.

PROGRES ET PAUVRETE.

(Progress and Poverty in French). Translation of P. L. LeMonnier. 542 pages. Paper covers, $2.75.

PROTECTION OU LIBRE-ECHANGE?

(Protection or Free Trade? in French). Translation of Louis Vossion. 436 pages. Paper covers, $2.75.

PROGRESSO E POVERTA.

(Progress and Poverty in Italian). Translation of Ludovico Eusebio. 352 pages. Paper covers, $2.50.

p. 16, col. 3

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

TARIFF TRACTS.

57. Protection as a Universal Need. Henry George. 0 pages.
58. The Tariff Question. Henry George. 4 pages.
59. American Protection and British Free Trade. Henry George. 4 pages.
60. Protection and Wages. Henry George. 8 pages.
61. The Common Sense of the Tariff Question. Thomas G. Shearman. 8 pages. 72 Protection the Friend of Labor? Thomas G. Shearman. 8 pages.
62. A Short Tariff History. Thomas G. Shearman. 2 pages.
63. Plain Talk to Protectionists. Thomas G. Shearman. 4 pages.
64. An address to Workingmen on the Tariff Question. Henry George. 4 pages. A set of Tariff Tracts will be sent to any address for ten cents.

p. 16, col. 3

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.

p. 16, col. 4 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.
58. The Tariff Question. Henry George. 4 pages.
59. American Protection and British Free Trade. Henry George. 4 pages.
60. Protection and Wages. Hanry George. 8 pages.
61. Protection the Friend of Labor? Thomas G. Shearman. 8 pages.
62. A Short Tariff History. Thomas G. Shearman. 2 pages.
63. Plain Talk to Protectionists. Thomas G. Shearman. 4 pages.
64. An Address to Workingmen on the Tariff Question. Henry George. 4 pages. A set of Tariff Tracts will be sent to any address for ten cents.

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

p. 16, col. 3