January 7, 1891 Vol. IX, No. 1Whole No. 210

THE STANDARD

PUBLISHED EVERY WEDNESDAY, BY WM. T. CROASDALE, AT NO. 42 UNIVERSITY PLACE.

VOL. IX. | NEW YORK, WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 7, 1891. | No. 1.

[Library stamp over the right of the masthead, not part of the printed page: “THE NEW YORK PUBLIC LIBRARY 43346 ASTOR, LENOX AND TILDEN FOUNDATIONS 1903”; it partly covers “PLACE.”]

p. 1, col. 1

A Single Tax Message.

A SINGLE TAX MESSAGE.—We print elsewhere the closing portion of the inaugural message of Hon. Joseph B. Sargent, the new mayor of New Haven. We could not obtain the full text intime^sic to make a summary of the whole paper for this issue of THE STANDARD, and the abstracts of it printed in the daily papers were so manifestly confused and inaccurate that they could not be depended on.

Most papers that have commented on the message have represented it as thoroughly socialistic in its recommendations, but a hasty glance leads us to believe that there is little, if any, warrant for such a declaration. Few editorial writers on the daily press recognize any difference between the resumption by government of public duties, too long delegated to private persons or corporations, and the assumption by government of private business functions, which properly belong to individuals. Mayor Sargent does see this difference, however, and he clearly draws the line between functions properly public and functions properly private in the following paragraph:

I believe that all works of a public nature carried on mainly within the bounds of a municipality and for the purpose of supplying the inhabitants with certain daily requirements of civilized life, and requiring special rights of eminent domain to distribute their products, should be owned and operated by the peopie^sic, and in the sole interest of the people.

This is sound doctrine. It is not socialism, but the recognition of a truth, the obscuring of which has made the growth of socialistic ideas in this country possible. The confusion of that which of right belongs to all with that which of right belongs to the individual, has obliterated the line that divides public rights and duties from private rights and duties, and socialistic ideas are the natural result. Persons accustomed to seeing governmental powers used by private persons for their individual profit, not unnaturally look to paternalism—the usurpation of private rights and the performance of private duties by government—as the remedy for abuses arising from improperly delegating to a few powers belonging to all. Mr. Sargent appears to clearly see that both usurpations are wrong and that both should cease.

The latter part of his message demonstrates that he also clearly sees how the restoration of public rights and public property to the public is to be brought about almost without trenching on individual liberty or seizing individual property. He probably calls himself a single tax man, limited, but the limitation is somewhat hazy and the argument is a practical acceptance of the whole doctrine. The declaration that “the owner can annually recover from the user or renter the tax he has paid on land used or occupied” may, at first, strike some as an assertion that a tax on land values is transferable, but such is not the case. The land owner cannot add his increased tax to the rent, since he is now

p. 5, col. 2

obtaining all the rent that the demand for such land will warrant him in asking. Mr. Sargeant^sic knows what he is talking about, and he is as courageous in statement as he is clear in thought.

That he is a single tax man we have long known. He practically said so long ago in one of the New Haven papers. His utterances in Australia, and even in Japan, have been reported to us by enthusiastic single taxers who have met him while traveling, but we did not anticipate this open proclamation of his faith, and our readers will rejoice with us in so important an accession to our ever-widening ranks. Mr. Sargent is mayor of New Haven, but he is a great deal more. He is the largest manufacturer of hardware in America. He was once a protectionist and his study and business experience have made him an absolute free trader. He is a man of marked ability who has made valuable contribution to the discussion of the tariff question, and he is likely to do as much in the broader discussion that will follow the settlement of that question. His public declaration of the true economic faith is about the best New Year’s gift that our cause could have received.

Rapid Transit.

RAPID TRANSIT.—The daily papers are again filled with all sorts of proposals for rapid transit, under the assumption that a serious attempt to authorize a practical plan will be made at Albany this winter. There are numerous underground plans, and the construction of a tunnel beneath Broadway to be used for subways and fast trains, while the cable road on the surface will be used for short distance travel, has been vigorously urged. It can justly be said in favor of the numerous underground schemes that they will really afford rapid transit, and that experience in London has demonstrated their practicability, but nevertheless, New Yorker’s^sic would prefer to travel above ground if that be possible. In order to meet this desire, David H. King, Jr., proposes two great viaducts along the North and East rivers, and a depressed road through what is now private property in the centre of the city. Mr. King argues that the necessary capital can readily be raised, since it can be demonstrated that the roads would earn a fair interest on their cost. He suggests, however, that the viaduct road should be built by the city, which should condemn the land and give out the construction by sections to contractors able to do the work. When completed the road could be leased to the company willing to pay the most for the franchise for ten or twenty or fifty years. The roadway should contain conduits for pneumatic tubes, electrical conductors, gas, water and steam, which would always be accessible without interference with the streets.

Numerous other schemes will doubtless be proposed, but unfortunately there is little or no sign that a hearing could be had for the true solution of the problem. Mr. King, for instance, remarks that the success of his proposed plan would bring the whole upper end of the island into the market and promote prompt improvement. No doubt he is right, but the profits thus obtai[n?]ed would goexclusively^sic to the owners of the land, the value of which was thus enhanced. Why should the city bear the cost of such an improvement and give to private parties nearly or quite the whole profit?

Such a plan as Mr. King suggests would enormously increase land values, not only in the northern part of the city but everywhere within our limits, and the money requisite for carrying it out should be raised by a tax on land values. Such a tax could be levied and collected in one year without adding a cent to the rents now paid by the great mass of our people. If this be too drastic a proposition, let the city be authorized to divide the necessary tax into ten installments, sufficient continued on p. 6 →

[text breaks off here at the foot of the page, mid-sentence; no continuation line is printed]

PROFESSOR SELIGMAN ONCE MORE.

PROFESSOR SELIGMAN ONCE MORE.—In an editorial article in THE STANDARD of December 3 Professor Seligman, of Columbia College, was taken to task for some assertions in his paper read before the American Social Science Association, at Saratoga, during the single tax discussion. Special exception was taken (1), to his attempt to show that the selling value of land is a capitalization of its past rather than of its future productiveness, (2) to his notion that the single tax woald^sic cause a double loss to land owners, and (3) to his statement that a serious attempt was made by the Margrave Charles Frederick, of Baden, to naturalize the single tax in his small dominion. Professor Seligman makes the following reply:

> To the Editor of THE STANDARD—SIR: The editorial in your issue of December 3, entitled “A Professor or Two,” has just come to my notice. I have, of course, no desire to enter into any controversy with you, and certainly not to indulge in any personalities. But I find among the complimentary allusions in the article three points which seem to call for an answer. Let us consider these three “reckless statements and illogical deductions,” as you term them. > > You maintain that I argue that “the selling value of land is a capitalization of its past productiveness.” And you go on to argue at some length that past payments are considered, but only as an indication of future pay-ments. But what are my words? Simply these: “If you will say that future productiveness depends on an estimate based upon a comparison of past and present productiveness, then I can have no quarrel with the assertion” (p. 90). Do we not really agree on this point? And do you not completely misunderstand the tenor of my argument? > > Secondly, you take exception to my proof that the single tax would cause a double loss to existing land owners. You speak of “the confusion worse confounded” in the argument. Permit me to set you straight. What I maintained was, that if an exclusive tax, say of ten per cent, were imposed on the dividends of a class of corporations which before the tax were paying five per cent. on stock quoted at par, this would leave the stockholders only four and a half per cent., which would reduce the price of the stock to ninety. The facts you accept: the conclusion you deny. But your denial is founded on a complete misconception. You say that “when the periodical loss is capitalized into a gross sum, that sum is the total loss.” But right here you make your mistake. If I had an income of $5,000 a year, and now because of the tax get only $4,500 a year, I lose $500 a year. If at the end of the year or term of years I sell the stock, I get only $90,000 instead of $100,000, and therefore lose $10,000. That is, I have lost not only $500 interest every year, but also $10,000 capital, when I finally sell. The new purchaser of course loses nothing, because $4,500 on $90,000 is five per cent. on the investment, just as $5,000 is five per cent. of $100,000. I apply my argument on page 37 specifically only to the original holder, not the new purchaser. Four and and a half^sic is indeed, as you say, to ninety what five is to one hundred. But the trouble is that the original owner paid one hundred, not ninety, for his stock^sic. While he owns the stock he gets four and a half, not five, as long as he owns it, losing interest every year, and when he sells he loses the capitalized value of this decrease of interest. But in the meantime he has lost the interest also. Kindly note the distinction between the original holder and the new purchaser. > > Let me say furthermore that this doctrine of mine is by no means a new one. What I complained of in my address was the ignorance of your single tax men on the science of finance. The doctrine presented above is known as the capitalization theory of incidence, or as applied to land is sometimes called the rent-charge theory. If you desire to study it a little more in detail, permit me to refer you to a few works on the science of finance such as Schaffle, “Grundsätze der Stenerpolitik^sic,” pp. 176–190; or Rau, “Finanzwissenschaft,” vol. II., 22–27, or Pantaleoni, “Traslazione dei Tributi,” pp. 168–183. Here, as well as in countless other works, you will find the theory plainly set forth. But pray do not accuse me of “confusion of thought,” when you yourself have evidently never heard of such a theory before. Mr. George, in fact, at Saratoga seemed not to know what the science of finance really is. Let me say that there are dozens of books on just this science. > > Finally, as to the experiment of Charles Frederick, any of your readers who care to investigate this topic will find it fully explained in an article of sixty-three pages entitled “Carl Frederick von Baden’s^sic physio-kratische Verbindungen. Bestrebungen and Versuche^sic,” by Professor A. Emminghaus in the Jahrbücher fur^sic Nationalökonomie und Statistik, vol. XIX., p. 1, to be found in both the Astor and Columbia libraries. Charles Frederick was a follower of Quesnay and Mirabeau, and assessed the single tax in exact accordance with the physiocratic doctrine, viz., on the produit net. Of course, the experiment was a crude one. But its result can be seen in a contemporary official report which states that after some years “the land owners are the most heated opponents of the system, and the

p. 6, col. 2 > landless desire its continuance” (p. 53). This conclusion is not very surprising. > > In conclusion, I would state that as a means of practical reform I am not at all averse to the introduction of a tax on land values or ground rents in our American cities. I think that it might be a good thing to abolish the tax on houses, because of its frequent shifting to the consumer or tenant. And I certainly think that the tax on personal property is a farce. But what I object to in your whole scheme, apart from the question of confiscation, is the single tax. I maintain that this is unjust because it will not reach the other forms of unearned increment, and because it will tend to the complete exemption of those who in our modern industrial society are best able to bear the burdens. In other words, a tax on land values, as J. S. Mill understood it, would be an admirable part of our system of taxation. A tax on land values as a single tax would be the height of injustice. > > Columbia College. > > EDWIN R. A. SELIGMAN.

On the first point we cannot reach an agreement with the professor so easily as he seems to expect. Past and present productiveness is frequently an element in any estimate of future productiveness, but it is not necessarily an element, since the past and present productiveness of agricultural land, about to be turned into factory sites or building lots, would be entirely disregarded by an intending purchaser. Whether the valuation be arrived at by comparison with the past, by calculation, or by sheer guess work, it is the real or supposed future productiveness of land, and that alone, which determines the price that any one desiring to appropriate its product, or the advantages it offers, is willing to pay for it. Outside of the exceptional cases where considerations of sentiment intervene, a man no more buys land on account of what it has done in the past than he buys a horse on account of his achievements twenty years before.

As to the second proposition considered in Professor Seligman’s reply, we take exception to his phraseology when he alludes to his former argument as “proof” that the single tax “would cause a double loss to existing land owners.” His new illustration, instead of proving anything, merely demonstrates his own utter confusion of thought. Take the case as stated. The imposition would unquestionably decrease the net income $500 a year. Five per cent. being the interest obtainable from other investments, the decrease in net income would of course cause the capitalized value to fall to $90,000. In that case, if the professor was honest with himself in his bookkeeping, he would instantly charge $10,000 to profit and loss and thus reduce the capital stock valuation on his books to $90,000. His loss would be instantaneous and he would not thereafter lose $500 a year, until he had nothing at all, but would be regularly drawing 5 per cent. on the full value of his capital.

If this is not clear to him let us accept his own suggestion about sale to another. He admits that the pur-chaser at $90,000 would receive the full income on his investment. Then all the original seller need do, to save himself from a contimuous^sic loss of $500 a year, is to buy from some one else $90,000 worth of the same stock at the new market price and draw his dividends, less tax, on it, which would give him net interest of 5 per cent. “But the trouble is,” says the professor, “that the original owner paid one hundred, not ninety for his stock.” The real trouble is that the professor does not understand that the value he is discussing is merely the capitalization of the present or anticipated earning power of the stock. His notion that a man goes on forever losing the interest he might have drawn on the capital he has once lost is very common with the holders of the repudiated bonds and worthless stocks of railway companies, but it does not furnish a basis for any rational business transactions nor commend itself to any practical student of the question of values. Think of the hopeless ruin in which such a system of calculation would involve the future descendants of the present investors in Keely motor stock! Think of the indebtedness of mankind through the accumulated loss of interest on the capital wasted in misdirected investments, from the time of the South Sea Bubble down to the present continued on p. 7 →

[text breaks off mid-sentence at the foot of the page; no continuation line printed]

“REFORMS WHICH DO NOT REFORM.”

While advocates of the single tax should always assist in effecting partial reforms which either help to bring about the abolition of other taxes or which will alleviate the evils of the present system, they need to use great care to avoid apparent reforms which will really do neither of these things, but which will, in the contrary^sic, delay true progress. Thus, in Ireland, all land purchase schemes are positive obstructions to real reform, as all American land and tax reformers know. But there are other plausible schemes in America which are equally objectionable. Still others are, to say the least, not helpful, but rather the contrary.

The popular demand for the exclusion of aliens and corporations from the ownership of land is, from the single tax point of view, a mistake. If nine-tenths of all the land in this country were owned by corporations and non-resident aliens the single tax would be adopted within two years, because the vast majority of voters would have no real or imaginary interest in opposing it and could readily see that it would relieve them from continued on p. 8 →

[page ends mid-sentence; continuation not marked on this page, presumably page 8]

OUR ATTITUDE TOWARD THE DEMOCRACY.

It is a matter of congratulation that THE STANDARD is to continue its useful mission, even though its founder feels called to devote himself to other important departments of the great cause. For, wonderful as has been the progress of the single tax idea, and impossible as it is for the press generally to avoid its discussion, our representative organ is of immense importance. It not only keeps the widely-scattered members of the league in touch with one another, but, true to its name, holds aloft unflinchingly and uncompromisingly the principles of the reform.

This function cannot be left to party journals nor intrusted to politicians, even though the advocacy of justice happens to serve their purpose and ambition for the hour. They are ever ready to use a public sentiment created by reformers, but, in the nature of things, are themselves debarred from espousing unpopular, though righteous movements.

Nor can we, who are careless of party affiliations, yet alert to the use of parties as instruments to forward our work, be too careful to keep distinctions clear and to discriminate wisely. So, to conduct our cause as to appear merged in mere party strife, or committed to the advocacy of certain men to office, because nominated by the political organization most in sympathy with us, would ill comport with the dignity and position of our movement. It is for the needle to follow the magnet, not for the magnet to concern itself with the needle, which must, perforce, obey the natural law.

At present, thanks to the courage of Mr. Cleveland, the Democratic party has taken an important step in our direction and forced the Republican leaders to champion a wrong. Inevitably our sympathies are with the former in the present issue. It is well to remember, however, that many sympathizers with us still cling to the Republican party, in spite of its corrupt leaders, because of the injustice done to the colored voters of the South by Democrats. My urgent appeals to old friends to join us in striking off the shackles of trade, and in bringing about the single tax, are again and again met with the reply: “We should like to work with you in the just reforms mentioned, but while the South is made solid by force and fraud in behalf of the party you act with, we must decline association with it.”

Of course, they do not see the scope of the single tax for freedom or comprehend that the color line will be emphasized and perpetuated by such shifty political devices as the Federal Elections Bill, but they are sincere in their conviction that untrammelled suffrage is an issue paramount to ours, which they consider merely a question of economics. Moreover, they interpret our denunciation of the Force Bill as an approval of the existing southern injustice. I fear that the omission to couple a protest against intimidation and ballot-box stuffing, whenever the Lodge device has been arraigned,

p. 8, col. 2 has given color to the mistaken idea that we condone the wrong ostensibly aimed at. Nor should we wonder that the oft-expressed and unqualified admiration for Thomas Jefferson, because he believed that “the earth belongs in usufruct to the living,” and could pen the immortal sentiments of the Declaration, naturally jars on those who remember that he was a slaveholder and the reputed father of a slave daughter.

Our ranks are recruited from all political associations and include independent thinkers of diverse views on many matters of public interest, while united in their belief and advocacy of the single tax. Their individual judgments and convictions will dictate most efficiently the candidate for whom to vote. The best political wisdom is often folly. The defeat of Cleveland was a sore disappointment, but who believes that, with the best intentions, he could have served our cause as efficiently as have Harrison and McKinley?

Speaking for myself, I care little for the party successes, important as they are, compared with the propagation of principles and the change of minds through reason and the moral appeal to the higher sentiments of mankind. If the wind be made to blow from the right quarter the weathercocks will point truly. It is the ethical and religious glow of Progress and Poverty that stirs the enthusiasm of readers who would be unimpressed by the purely economic treatment of the great subject, and makes it a living evangel to the world^sic..

As a platform for free discussion, no reader of THE STANDARD need be reminded of its breadth and catholicity. It deserves the earnest support of all who adopt the motto of Selden, “Before all things, Liberty,” and who can say with Milton, “Let Truth and Falsehood grapple. Who ever knew Truth put to the worst in a free and open encounter?”

Boston, Mass. WM. LLOYD GARRISON.

JOHN GRIFFIN CARLISLE.

It has so often fallen to my lot to state in the press my knowledge of Senator Carlisle and my estimate of his character and abilities, that, in once more writing of him at the request of the editor of THE STANDARD, I can only repeat what I have said again and again.

Mr. Carlisle is not only easily the first Democrat of his time, he is the ablest and most accomplished legislator of the country. I doubt if there has been in the history of congress a member of it so thoroughly equipped as Mr. Carlisle on all the subjects that come before the legislative branch of the government. Whether the question is one of constitutional law, of the still deeper and more intricate and important traditions and principles of popular liberty and self-government, of parliamentary practice, of treasury management, of taxation, of foreign relations or domestic economy, Mr. Carlisle is prepared to discuss it, not only with a view to general principles but with a knowledge of special laws and precedent, and in a broad philosophic spirit, in which he is the superior of all his contemporaries.

From his first entrance into public life Mr. Carlisle’s great abilities have been dedicated to the cause of popular government. He is, and has been, a consistent champion of local self-government, always contending that the nearer the people are to the government the larger the part they play in its functions, the less friction will there be, the less galling the yoke, the more efficiently and honestly will the public business be conducted. Mr. Carlisle’s first notable speech in congress was made in 1879. It was in defence of the people against the interference of the federal government in their elections. It was in tone, in spirit, and in logic repeated by him at the recent public dinner of the Reform Club of New York on December 23d last. In the continued on p. 9 →

[continued on page 9]

THE RAILWAY PROBLEM.

The early grants to railway companies provided tha[t] the roads built pursuant to such grants should be publ[ic] highways over which any one might run trains by th[e] payment of a certain toll.

As improvements were made in the rolling stock o[f] railways, the company owning a roadbed could car[ry] more cheaply than other companies that had to pay to[lls?] thus enabling the company owning the road to secure [a] monopoly of the carrying trade.

In my opinion the simple and effective solution of o[ur] present railway problem is to be found in restoring t[he] railroad to its original condition as a public highwa[y,?] owned by the people, instead of by an individual or co[r]poration—a public highway, free to any one who m[ay] see fit to adjust his rolling stock to the tracks and e[n]gage in the carrying trade thereon. Tolls should n[ot] be collected any more than we collect tolls on our pub[lic] streets. Tolls necessarily require a horde of officials [to] collect them, beside increasing the necessary expense[s of?] common carriers, and thus tending to check free co[m]petition and encourage monopoly.

We now have free natural highways on ocean a[nd] lake, bay and river, free canals, free country roads a[nd] city streets. Place the railways upon the same footi[ng] with all other public highways; make them free like t[he] others for every one to use, subject to no tolls and [to?] the least possible restriction and regulation, and f[ree] competition will reduce the cost of transportation t[o a] minimum.

C. J. BUEL[L.]

Minneapolis, Minn.

AND THE SUN, TOO.

Mobile Register.

The best evidence that Mr. Cleveland made a good speech at [the] banquet of the Tariff Reform Club is the fact that pretty nealy^sic [all?] of the republican press is very much displeased with its tone [and?] matter.

Notes and Queries.

In response to a letter writen^sic by L. W. Hoch, of Adrian, Mich., the Detroit Free Press defends the income tax as a step toward compelling the very rich to bear their share of the burden of taxation, and in answer to a question concerning the single tax the paper says:

“As to what the effect would be of the operation of the ‘single tax’ it is pure speculation, and involves so many considerations that in the absence of any pressing question of its present adoption it can hardly be worth while for us to take the time and space necessary to discuss it. One thing, at least, can be said for it. It is the only method of taxation, probably, which would enable the government to collect the entire amount of the tax levy without any discrimination between those on whom the levy falls. We are inclined to think, moreover, that the imposition of the entire tax on land—not necessarily in the Henry George fashion—would eventually make the burden of taxation press more evenly all around than can be done in any other way. This is a hard doctrine fcr the farmer to accept with his present notion that the exemption of personal property from taxation would make him pay the tax of the merchant, who has only personal property. It is not improbable, however, that at a comparatively early day the farmer will be foremost among those asking for the single tax on land as the only method of compelling the dwellers in cities to bear their just share of the burden of taxation.”

* * * *

Governor-elect Russell, of Massachusetts, had to have his wife hastily transfer to him five thousand dollars worth of real estate before he could be inaugurated, owing to the unearthing of a fool clause in the Massachusetts constitututiou. If there had been no one ready to do this for him we presume that the brains, character and courage of the young governor would have counted for naught, and the voice of the people who elected him would have been defied. It is about time that some new blood was getting hold of Massachusetts politics and taking a grip on its constitution and laws.

* * * *

A Minnesota man has invented a spirit level which may not be quite so good for levelling as some others, but which can, however, be used for that purpose and for the sometimes unlevelling process of filling a man full of whiskey. The tube is extra large and contains several drinks. The inventor expects to sell it as an original package in prohibition states.

* * * *

The county democracy is reorganizing and selecting new district leaders. This is a step in the right direction, and if it can be followed up by obtaining new followers for the new leaders the county democracy may once more become a factor in politics. We doubt, however, if it is practicable to successfully resume business under the old name.

* * * *

There is an anti-republican majority in the South Dakota legislature composed of independents and democrats. The latter complain that the independents want all of the best offices and the chairmanship of all the best committees, and propose to demand also the United States senatorship. The democrats are kicking and say that the independents must support the democratic candidate, Trip^sic, for United States senator or they will not assist them in attaining their other ends. The unsophisticated farmer carries an indurated cheek into politics.

* * * *

Some of the mercenary democrats of Chicago are beginning to lament that General John M. Palmer is so poor that he can “do nothing,” even if he were so disposed, for the people who support him for the United States senate. These rascals are looking around for a competition by millionaires for the place. As the election of Palmer was the issue before the people in the late campaign in Illinois, such a proposition as that of these mercenaries is simply treason to the sovereign power. The democrats of Illinois could almost afford to lose a senator if they could thereby unmask these rascals and drive them out of their party. The democratic party has got to shed a good many such adherents before it can finally capture states until recently republican. In a time of political transition people are not inclined to swap rascals.

* * * *

The English upper ten are greatly excited over a race that is shortly to be driven by Henry Cecil, fifth Earl of Lonsdale, and Charles Henry John, twentieth Earl of Shrewsbury and Talbot. As the race is to be driven on the public roads common people will probably have a chance to watch it and regale their eyes by the sight of two earls in a single day. This may be the beginning of the solution of the problem what to do with the English aristocracy. Let them afford sport for the people on whose earnings they have hitherto lived.

* * * *

Worcester, Mass., architects are much interested in a new door recently patented by a citizen of that city, says the Lumber World. The door is an adaptation of the principle of the roller top desk and cover, and it is described as follows: The door consists of a series of slats, about one and a half inches wide and three-quarters of an [inch thick, joined?] together by wooden spindles, one revolving

[Note: the last line of column 1 is cut through by the bottom edge of the scan; only the upper halves of the letters survive, so it is read from those. The text continues at the top of column 2.]

p. 10, col. 2 within another. In the roller top desks the slats are joined by ribbons of steel or canvas. When the door is opened it is wound up on a spiral drum at top and bottom, and all is inclosed within the door casing. An ordinary three-foot door winds up in a roll seven inches in diameter. A wire, or cord, or steel ribbon, as the case may be, runs from the outer edge of the door at the top and bottom, and is wound upon a spiral drum in the casing opposite the side on which the door itself is wound up. A three-foot door occupies about fourteen square feet in swinging, when there is nothing in the way. And this rolling door enables the builder to economize all that space.

* * * *

The plan of Funk & Wagnall’s^sic new “Standard Dictionary of the English Language” seems to be a sensible one, despite the fact that a small number of newspapers in New York miss no occasion to sneer at the enterprise. The new dictionary will lack nothing demanded by the scholar, if the publishers carry out their intentions, but it will be far more convenient for consultation by the ordinary person than most of the existing dictionaries. The plan will be to first give the word, then the pronunciation, using for the latter purpose the scientific alphabet adopted by the American Philological Association, and next the present meaning of the word, bringing in the etymology later and following this by statements concerning former meaning, disputed pronunciation, and so on. This will prove of great convenience to most people, since the thing that a man ordinarily looks at the dictionary for is to find out the spelling and meaning of a word, and in probably nine cases out of ten he pays no attention to the etymology. Another unusual feature of the new dictionary will be the location of the quotations, commonly used in all dictionaries to illustrate the meaning of words. In most cases the name of the author of the sentence quoted is given, but no attempt has ever been made to show in what part of his works it can be found. The sample pages thus far issued give promise of a really valuable dictionary.

* * * *

Our treasury department has decided that “natural gas is a manufactured article.” On which the Chicago Herald wittily remarks: “It follows that McKinley protects the princely labor of America against the pauper labor of nature!” The Herald places this decision under the heading, “Beauties of McKinleyism.” Very appropriate.

* * * *

Speaking of natural gas reminds us that State Geologist Orton, of Ohio, has just submitted his annual report—which he devotes entirely to natural gas—in which he declares that it is a stored deposit, and certain of rapid exhaustion: and that when the supply of any territory is once used, it is gone forever. This will be bad news for the natural gas supply companies of Findlay, Toledo and Pittsburg, who have built large pipe lines for carrying it where it is to be used.

* * * *

Before an Australian ballot bill can pass the California legislature eight more votes are needed in the assembly and four in the senate. The democrats in both houses are pledged to it, while the republicans are split up. It is thought the farmers’ organizations of California, which are enthusiastic advocates of the reform, will have sufficient influence among the doubtful republican representatives to secure the votes necessary to pass the bill. That much done, Governor Markham will sign the bill, for he has repeatedly expressed himself in favor of such a law.

* * * *

It is given out as an item of news that the Mormons are going to Mexico. There is nothing new about it. As far back as 1874 they began preparations for such a move, and since then these people have established what may be called “food stations” at intervals clear into the new promised land. The Mormon children have, for sixteen years, been taught in the schools to speak Spanish and the Mexican dialect, so as to fit them for their new home. The Mexican government has been, and is still, anxious to add such an industrious and thrifty people to its population; and when the exodus does take place, the United States will be the loser, Colonel Shepherd^sic and other narrow religious fanatics to the contrary notwithstanding. The reclaiming of an alkali waste and turing^sic it into a garden full of happy homes will speak eloquently of the good work done by the Mormons long after their critics will have been forgotten.

* * * *

Indian Territory has a population of 315,000, or more than twice as many as the new states of Idaho and Wyoming combined. Probably, says the San Francisco Examiner, two-thirds of its inhabitants are white, or nearly so, and the Indians are mostly civilized, and have had such long experience of self-government as would fully fit them for statehood if they desired to try that experiment. A state formed out of the Indian Territory would be the most interesting political curiosity in America, if not in the world. The separate government of each tribe, of course, would be preserved as far as possible. Instead of having counties, the state would probably be divided into nations, each with its independent control over its own affairs[,?] One might develop into a socialistic continued on p. 11 →

[line obscured — the scan ends here; the foot of the page below this line is blank/missing, and the remainder of this paragraph (and anything else at the foot of column 2) is lost. Faint tops of letters of one further line are visible but illegible.]

The Fight for Free Trade.

The Baltimore Sun predicts that the next political contest in this country will be “a conflict of ideas and principles, of policies and measures, rather than of mere parties and men.” Amen.

* * * *

The Cincinnati Commercial Gazette (strong protectionist), is trimming its high tariff sails on binding twine. It demands that the duty be reduced.

* * * *

The great dry goods firm of Marshall, Field & Co., of Chicago, intend to test the constitutionality of the McKinley tariff bill. They have begun suit for the recovery of certain duties paid by them, such duties having been paid under protest in the first instance. The firm’s attorney has been engaged for some time in a close examination of the law and compilation of authorities, and now gives it as his opinion that it will be set aside by the United States Supreme Court if it shall ever be brought before that tribunal. In speaking of this move by Marshall, Field & Co. the Kansas City Star says:

The constitution of the United States empowers congress to “lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises to pay the debts and provide for the common defence and general welfare of the United States.” Only this and nothing more. Neither the payment of debts, the common defence of the country nor the general welfare of the people demanded an increase of taxation. The purpose of the McKinley bill was avowedly to promote certain class interests to the detriment of the general welfare. The supreme court has already said, in a famous opinion delivered by the late Justice Miller, that to take money from the pocket of one man to transfer it to the pocket of another is none the less robbery because it is done under the form of taxation. The same principle applied to the McKinley bill would wipe it from the statute books and serve notice on congress that it has no power under the constitution to use the form of taxation as a blind for enabling one class of the people to rob another.

* * * *

The firm behind this case has plenty of money with which to follow it up, and they promise to prosecute it to the fullest extent. If they succeed they will be entitled to the everlasting gratitude of all people who have to work for a living. The firm of Marshall, Field & Co. is the one that inaugurated the system of advertising their wares—copied by other dry goods firms—that brought down upon the McKinley bill such crushing condemnation at the hands of the women of this country, and made so popular the answers by salesmen that “The prices are increased on account of the McKinley bill.” THE STANDARD wishes Marshall, Field & Co. success in their efforts to kill the protection jackal.

* * * *

Despite the protection papers to the contrary the prices of cigars of every grade have gone up. The cigar smoker has now three courses open to him: First, to pay more for his regular smokes; second, to smoke a poorer grade of goods and pay the old price for them, and third, to give up cigars and smoke a pipe. The result will be that less cigars will be smoked; the result of that will be that fewer cigar makers will be needed; the result of that will be that the demand for work by cigar makers will cause a reduction of their wages. And then will be seen one of the beauties of the protective system in its most beautiful beauty.

* * * *

The good wife who is now obliged to pay a dollar and a quarter for a dozen “one dollar” towels, will not be comforted by the news that a linen factory is to be started in Minnesota on the strength of the extra quarter of a dollar which she is obliged to pay in order to keep it running.

* * * *

How the McKinley bill “raised” wages can be seen by the few nubs of news which we have gathered from various sources:

The Pullman Car Company on January 1 made an average cut of 10 per cent. in the wages of its 1,500 employes.

A large manufacturing establishment in Buffalo was subjected to an increased duty on its raw materials. It promptly cut the wages of its workmen, and continued to import material as before.

In Paterson, N. J., the weavers in the silk mills are striking against a reduction in wages of 20 to 25 per cent.

The Trenton pottery manufacturers, who are given an absolute monopoly of their trade by the McKinley bill, have reduced wages by from 10 to 40 per cent.—the largest reduction since the establishment of the business. Their workmen have acquired skill in that special occupation and know nothing of any other, so they have to take what they can get.

In Newark the Clark thread works have temporarily shut down, throwing 3,000 people out of employment.

When we come to consider how the increased cost of food and clothing has decreased the purchasing power of the hard-earned dollars, we can see that, though some wages have not been reduced so far as the number of dollars received is concerned, yet all wages have as a matter of fact been reduced.

* * * *

The miners and coke workers of the Connellsville region, Pennsylvania, met by delegates at Scottdale last week to formulate certain demands on their employers. After agreeing to demand certain

p. 12, col. 2

things, interesting only to their industry, they made one demand that is of universal interest. They demanded that their house rent shall not exceed 12 per cent. per annum of the assessed value of the house. It would seem that they do not consider the land worth anything, only the house. If we could make that method of paying house rent the rule in this city, how soon the tenement houses would be emptied, and how soon everybody would be looking out for larger quarters! Yet that thing will happen here one of these days.

* * * *

The Harrisburg Patriot of a late date says:

“The wages of about 1,500 working men at the Homestead steel works of Andrew Carnegie are to be reduced on January 1, in order, probably, that Andrew may donate a library or a hall of some kind to a town in Scotland with the money that ought to go to his employees. Mr. Carnegie has been made wealthy by a protective tariff. It gives him the privilege of making all the money he can, but it doesn’t stipulate the amount which his workingmen shall receive. It isn’t at all difficult to see who reaps the benefit of a high tariff.”

* * * *

Mr. George W. Knight, dealer in watches, musical instruments, etc., at San Marcos, Texas, sends us a trade circular saying that the new tariff law is very indefinite as to whether gut strings for musical instruments pay 25 per cent. or are free of duty. Pending final decision the merchant says he will go back to the old prices, but, should the law be interpreted to demand 25 per cent. duty, he reserves the right to advance prices 25 per cent. without notice. Mr. Knight says that he is constantly receiving such circulars and that he is now paying for some goods he sells exactly double the price he paid last September.

* * * *

The Washington correspondent of the Boston Post says:

Captain John Codman, the well-known advocate of free ships, had an amusing encounter with one of the agents of the subsidy lobby while the bounty bill was under consideration last week. He was standing in one of the corriders^sic of the house when he was approached by one of these gentry with the delicate insinuation that the latter could “help your friends” in procuring a bill for free ships. Captain Codman was a little taken aback at this way of approaching him, but made up his mind that he would have a little fun out of it. “My friends! who are they?” he asked.

“The shipbuilders on the Clyde, who employ you, as I am informed,” said the lobbyist.

“Who says that?” asked the captain.

“Oh, Mr. Thurber and the Marine Journal, of New York, say so,” was the answer.

“Do you know what my salay^sic is?” asked the captain.

“They say it is $5,000 a year.”

“Well,” said the captain, after musing a moment, “what will you attend to the interests of my employers for at this session?”

The lobbyist thought it would be worth about $300, whereupon Captain Codman sat down and wrote an order purporting to be drawn on the associated shipbuilders of the Clyde for that sum, the amount to be deducted from his salary. The lobbyist said he would a little rather have it cashed.

“Oh,” said the captain, “you take it to Mr. Thurber, of New York, and no doubt he will discount it for you, as he seems to know just what my salary is and I get the information from him.”

The lobbyist by this time began to see the point and walked away without seeming to care ,for^sic the liberal slice assigned him of Captain Codman’s alleged salary. In view of the tightness of the money market just now, Mr. Thurber would probably not care to cash a draft upon a deposit which exists only in his own imagination.

* * * *

A straw wrapping paper trust is the latest addition to the institutions to which the Bellamyites look as the forerunners of their socialsticic^sic industrial republic.

A NEW SERIES OF REPUBLICANS^sic.

New York Evening Post.

A new kind of Republican club is starting up in Massachusetts, which takes for its creed on the tariff question the following resolution:

“We believe in a protective tariff that shall impose duties where they are needed, and only where needed, to equalize the labor cost of production and to develop American resources and American commerce, but not to relieve favored corporations or individuals from foreign competition.”

This is not McKinleyism. It is the kind of republicanism represented by the Chicago Tribune, the St. Paul Pioneer Press, the Omaha Bee, the Keokuk Gate City, etc., in the West. It has one representative journal in Boston, however, in the Transcript, which says:

“The McKinley prices for all household supplies, from dry goods to provisions, are the true educators of the people on the tariff question, and ex-congressmen are not needed to instruct them. The lesson is a severe one, and its severity is daily increasing, but it is getting in some most important work for the good of the country.”

“THE REDS” ARE LEFT OUT.

New York World.

“All persons”—not red—“born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States.” “The right of the people”—not red—“to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” So reads the constitution, revised in crimson.

Current Thought,

MAYOR SARGENT’S MESSAGE.

One of the most remarkable inaugural addresses ever made by the mayor of a city was that of Hon. Joseph B. Sargent, who, on January 1, was sworn into office as mayor of New Haven, Conn. Mr. Sargent is a well-known manufacturer and an outspoken free-trader, but he is a student of political economy who has advanced views on social questions, and he evidently has the courage of his opinions. The first part of the message relates to the improvements necessary to New Haven’s growth and prosperity. He recommends the ownership by the municipality of gas, water and other works and the street car lines, and the establishment of new public parks and public comforts and conveniences. The full text of the message has come to hand too late to permit the summarizing of this portion of it, but this will be done in the next issue of THE STANDARD.

The message closes with a discussion of the relations of labor and capital, and a flat-footed declaration for the single tax in the follow-words:

“Capital is absolutely necessary to the civilized employment of labor.

“None of the operations of business, manufactures, building or tarming can be carried on successfully without the friendly union of the three elements. Labor without capital is the labor of the crude barbarian working without tools.

“A country with no capital, but with labor and directors of labor (or chiefs), is in a savage stage. A country with all three of the elements harmoniously united is civilized, enlightened and prosperous. Civilization cannot exist without capital.

“No civilized community would for a moment think of taxing labor nor managing ability. No intelligent community would attempt to tax either of those two elements of all successful industry and business for fear of driving them away. Why should civilized society punish successful industry by taxing the results of it? Why should civilized society punish capital, the savings from successful labor, and try to banish it and leave labor unemployed?

“Capital is timid and flies away on the first approach, or apprehension of danger. It ‘worketh where it listeth and we know not whence it cometh nor whither it goeth.’ It surely will not remain when in danger, nor will it work in any community except at market prices over and above all charges and risks.

“It seems to me that it would be for the benefit of all labor and all enterprise in the city of New Haven and would greatly increase its growth in business, population and capital, if capital were as free of taxation as is labor and as is managing ability. If such were the permanent policy of New Haven, capital would make its home here and work at a lower rate with labor, securely free from punishment for coming here and feeling safe in abiding here. Neither labor nor enterprise is taxed, nor should capital be taxed.

“Land, as our forefathers found it, is not capital. It was not created by the labor of the hand or head of man. Nature’s God gave it to humanity and to the animals without price. It should supply funds for all needs of government, and the rate of taxation on the land in the various localities should be in proportion to market price. It cannot be concealed and all owners can be served with exact justice. No encouragement should be given, through low taxation, for the holding of land out of use in order to compel the land-needy to pay profits to the early possessor.

“In the taxation of land only, for all necessary public revenues, the distribution of the tax over the whole community would be equitable and in proportion as nature’s God intended.

“Capital may be driven away and labor paralyzed by the taxing of capital, but the land cannot be driven away. The owner can annually or monthly recover from the user or renter the tax he has paid on lands used or occupied, but the tax on lands not in use, but held waiting till the increase in population compels its purchase at an expensive price, cannot be recouped by distribution over the people in the form of rents or otherwise. The owner of unprofitably used or vacant lands would be thus tempted to sell for occupancy or use, and thus poor men might get homes and the city would grow in consequence.

“It is claimed by students on the subject of taxation that the taxation of capital and all other personal property is unequal and unjust to the conscientious and truthful, because only the few give true statements of their personal wealth. One of the commissioners of taxes in the city of New York has recently testified, under oath, that ‘the taxation of personal property is almost an entire tailure: that it leads^sic to efforts, and very strenuous efforts, on the part of capitalists (all owners of personal property are capitalists) to remove their property beyond the jurisdiction of the city and state. It offers no encouragement for capital to come here; that the law, as construed by the courts, enables any one who chooses to so dispose of his personal property that the tax department cannot reach it. Those who understand the law and can take advantage of it, do so in a majority of cases. Those who are ignorant of the law and do not understand their rights pay taxes.’ The foregoing testimony was given concerning the present tax laws of New York which were made for the express purpose of increasing and equalizing the taxes on capital or other personal property, but resulting, as usual, in harm to enterprise and labor, and in no corresponding gain to any other property nor to the body politic in morals or wealth.

“It is claimed by investigators that the tax on buildings discourages the erection of buildings, and that old, small and unsuitable buildings are allowed to remain on valuable city land, because of the fear of taxes on expensive and more useful buildings, and thus building enterprise and employment of builders’ labor is not encouraged, and the land not put to the best use for the interests of the whole public. Chapel, State and Church streets in New Haven are evidences.

“It is claimed that by the taxation of personal property, liberal expenditures

p. 14, col. 2 > in proper articles of use, or art in all forms, and home adornment are discouraged to the injury of labor.

“That if personal property in a city were free from taxation more people of wealth would permanently reside in that city, and there expend their income and invest, or lend, their capital for use there, to the great benefit of labor.

“That much capital now invested in other states or foreign countries would come to the place of security and of freedom from taxation, to the great benefit of enterprise, labor and permanent wealth.

“That all mechanical, manufacturing and commercial industries would increase, to the great benefit of labor, the necessary co-partner of capital in all such enterprises.

“Any disadvantage or harm attempted to be put upon capital always reacts upon labor, while capital silently flies away to a place of security if not of profit.

“I do not point out nor consider what is sometimes claimed to be the inherent wickedness of forestalling the distribution of land to the whole people, but only its remedy, and the good of the city as a whole.

“Equitable taxation is most surely and easily arrived at by putting all taxation upon one article of such universal use that no person can exist without its direct or indirect use. Pig iron might be selected as the article, or pig iron and other metals. The taxes, if all of them were collected from metals, would be immediately and equitably spread over the whole community in just proportions. But the difficulty in taxation upon metals is first that there might be concealment of quantity, and, second, it would interfere with the manufacture of metal goods for export.

“Taxation of land only has no valid objection in equity, cannot interfere with manufactures and labor, and would tend to wider distribution of land and homes among the people.

“But whatever may be the future methods of taxation or sources of revenue for the support of local, state or national governments, let us hope that there may be no more collected than is absolutely necessary for the proper and economical administration of governmental affairs, and that there may be no direct nor indirect imposition of unnatural and therefore unjust burdens upon the whole for the benefit of any favored or grasping few.”

Personal.

Congressman-elect Jere Simpson, of Kansas, has taken an oath that he will wear no socks until the tariff tax (70 per cent.) is taken off.

* * *

George G. Guenther, of Ottawa, Ill., has written for the St. Louis Journal of Agriculture an exposition of the single tax in its relation to farmers, which will shortly appear in that paper.

* * *

H. L. Pleace, who was a delegate to the national conference from California, intends to start a weekly journal in San Francisco, to be devoted to the single tax. The San Francisco Star wishes Mr. Pleace all the success in the world, but advises him not to give up his old trade until he has familiarized himself with the new.

* * *

Edward Quincy Norton has a letter in the Mobile Item of the 27th ult. against an income tax and in advocacy of the single tax.

* * *

Mr. De Lancy Nicoll^sic, the new District-attorney, has made several excellent appointments and a number of poor ones. One of the very best is that of Henry B. B. Stapler to be an Assistant District-attorney. This is an appointment based on merit, with no element of the political “pull” in it.

* * *

Mr. Edward Grosse, who was one of the most efficient Assistant District-attorneys under Colonel Fellows, has retired and engaged in private practice at 38 Park row.

* * *

Sergius Stepniak, the Russian revolutionist, exile and author, arrived in New York on December 30, and he will deliver a number of lectures in this country. He is accompanied by Mrs. Stepniak. He is described as a mild-mannered Nihilist, sympathetic and overflowing with good nature. He is about five feet eleven inches in height and weighs 190 pounds. He has black whiskers, bushy black hair and black eyes and talks with great animation. Mr. Stepniak comes to this country as a representative of Free Russia, a paper published in England for the express purpose of awakening the public sentiment of civilized nations against the cruel course of the Russian government. Mr. Stepniak confesses that his name is an assumed one, but he does not care^sic to be known by any other under existing circumstances.

* * *

Jose Gros and Henry J. Wingardner have letters on the single tax in the January number of the Locomotive Fireman’s Magazino^sic.

* * *

It is to be regretted that Eugene V. Debs, grand secretary and treasurer of the brotherhood of locomotive firemen, and editor of their magazine, has announced his intention of resigning from his various offices in the order. Since his attention was called to the single tax as a remedy for our labor troubles he has been an eager student of the question, and has admitted into the columns of the magazine he controls many articles and letters from our single tax friends. We hope his successor will be as earnest in his search for the truth,

“THE MISTAKES OF MR. PALLEN’S HENRY GEORGE.”

Some time ago, through a fortunate accident, Mr. Thomas G. Shearman, of this city, was in St. Louis at the time when Conde B. Pallen, professor of philosophy in the Jesuit college in that city, had prepared himself to demolish the single tax doctrine and the theories of Henry George generally. As Professor Pallen had elaborately armed himself with statistics as his weapons of attack and defense, the St. Louis club was most fortunate in having Mr. Shearman on hand to take care of him. Mr. Shearman certainly did so to the satisfaction of the audience; and the Republic, in its account of the discussion, declared that Mr. Shearman, in response to Professor Pallen’s quotation of Mullhall’s figures, “proceeded to give quotations from English inland revenue returns which completely reversed the conclusion of Professor Pallen.” The latter protests against this statement, and, in a communication addressed to the editor of the Republic, let himself loose in this somewhat remarkable style:

“Owing to the lateness of the hour and the impatience of the audience I had no opportunity of replying to Mr. Shearman’s manipulation of the statistics quoted by me. But I beg to state very explicitly that the quotations Mr. Shearman employed as an offset to mine, so far from reversing my conclusions, are equally satisfactory to me in confirming them. I will fully accept them and demonstrate that they do not in the least invalidate my conclusions. The issue I made against the single tax was to the effect that Henry George’s assumption that all the increased produce of the world is absorbed by land rent, to the exclusion of labor from the proper fruits of its industry and to the exclusion of capital from the interest that properly accrues to it, was not in accordance with facts. I undertook to show this by statistics taken from Mullhall’s Dictionary. The total income of Great Britain for the year 1882 I compared with the total income of the year 1842. By subtracting the one set of figures, £540,000,000 (the income of the year 1842), from the other, £1,240,000,000 (the income of the year 1882), the difference gave the increased income of Great Britain at £700,000,000.

“This £700,000,000, if Mr. George’s^sic theory be true, should have gone to the landlords of Great Britain in the shape of rent. But did it? Let us see. The income from land rent in Great Britain in 1842 was £55,914,000, and in 1882, £69,439,000. The difference between the two sets of figures gives us, as increase in land rent, £13,525,000. According to these figures, land rent so far from absorbing all the increased product of Great Britain for the year 1882, viz., £700,000,000, actuallv^sic took only £13,525,000, or not quite 2 per cent., leaving the other 98 per cent. to interest and wages. Such was my statement of the facts in contradiction to Mr.. George’s theory.

“Mr. Shearman proceeded to deny the value of my statistics on the ground that I had understated the income from ground rent for the year 1882, inasmuch as my figures £69,439,000 took into consideration rent for agricultural lands only, leaving out of my estimate altogether the ground rent for, and occupied by houses, railways, waterways, as well as land used as game and fish preserves. Including these factors land rent for the year 1882 amounted to £186,000,000, an increase over my figures of £117,000,000. I might very properly dispute some of the elements brought into this computation of Mr. Shearman, and also restrict him logically to the consideration of agrarian land rents alone, in accordance with certain fundamental postulates of Mr. George’s theory. But in order to make my position more formidable than before, I will concede all that he has here claimed. I can afford to generously give him £100,000,000 or more out of the superabundance of figures at my disposal, and out of the wealth of my cause bestow that much in charity to the poverty of his. In truth, I care not whether he hang himself with a long or a short rope, so that he hang himself. I will, therefore, willingly donate him the £117,000,000 he claims over and above my figures, and admit that the total income from land rents in Great Britain for the year 1882 was £186,000,000. Now, Mr. Shearman altogether overlooked the fact that I was giving comparative statistics, and that the very gist of my argument lay in the comparison of the two sets of statistics for the two different periods of 1882 and 1842. Did Mr. Shearman forget this important point in the heat of the argument or in his anxiety of mind to get rid of the stubborn facts confronting him, or did he leave it out of consideration in order to throw dust in the eyes of his audience? How be it, as my figures of agricultural land rent for the year 1882 had no bearing whatever on the question except in contrast with the agricultural land rent for the year 1842, in order that this increased rent might be brought into comparison with the increase in total income for the same periods, so should his estimate of £186,000,000 for all ground rents in the year 1882 be compared for the same purpose with the figures for all ground rents in the year 1842. This point Mr. Shearman complacently ignored, but as the meat of the issue is involved in it, I will make the fatal comparison for him.

“By a simple proportion upon the legitimate ground that the excess of all land rent over agricultural land rent in 1842 was in about the same ratio as the excess of all land rent over agricultural land rent in 1882, we discover that the land rent from all sources in 1842 reached the figures £148,000,000 in round numbers. Now these are the figures which Mr. Shearman so inadvertently neglected to compare with his own figures, £186,000,000 land rent in the year 1882. Their difference will give just £38,000,000 as the increase in the total land income of Great Britain for the year 1882 over the year 1842. Now, what are the conclusions to be drawn from Mr. Shearman’s own figures? The entire land income of Great Britain absorbed a fraction over five per cent. of the entire increased product for the same year, leaving the other ninety-five per cent. to the starving capitalists and the pauper wage-earner! What a tragedy there is in one’s own figures when they tell the truth on the other side! Where is Mr. George’s theory p. 15, col. 2 in the presence of Mr. Sheasman’s^sic figures? What a pity that a statistician’s figures should be loaded at his own end.

“But I will make another contribution to Mr. Shearman’s side. I will make him a present of £48,000,000 more. I will deduct that amount from the entire land rent of 1842, in order that there may be no possible chance of a material overstatement on my part and in order that Mr. Shearman may enjoy a longer rope than ever in hanging himself. This will give us £86,000,000 increase in the land rent of Great Britain for the year 1882, still leaving £614,000,000 increase out of £700,000,000 to be divided between interest and wages! Is this anything like eating up the entire increased produce of Great Britain, as land rent should do according to Henry George’s wild theory? Not only has land rent not devoured the total increase but it has not even consumed its proportional share of the increased product of Great Britain for the year 1882. Placing the entire land rent at the low figure of £100,000,000 for the year 1842, we discover the percentage of total income appropriated by landlords to be a little over 18½ per cent. Placing the entire land rent for the year 1882 at £186,000,000 we find its proportion of the total income just 15 per cent. Here we have in land rents a decline of over 3½ per ceat. in proportion to the incrersed^sic income for the year 1882. In other words, according to these figures, the rise in land rents in Great Britain has not kept proportional pace with the increased product of that country. Mr. George’s theory is a chimera as fabulous as the beast of the ancient fable. His book, ‘Progress and Poverty,’ is addressed, not to reason, but to the imagination of the discontented. His premises are pure socialism, but he has not the logic or the audacity to go to their ultimate conclusion. Like all other socialistic theories of the day, it is suited to men who think feebly or imagine wildly. All fanatics are sincere, and dangerous in proportion to their sincerity. Honest they may be, but honesty is no criterion of capacity, and honesty lacking knowledge, like a child armed with a dangerous weapon, may do more damage than even the vicious-minded.

To this astonishing letter Mr. Shearman has replied, through the St. Louis Republic, under the title which heads this article, as follows:

> “In a recent debate at St. Louis, in which I took part, Mr. C. B. Pallen claimed that while Henry George had asserted that rent absorbed all the increase of product, English statistics showed (1) that the rent of land in 1840 was £55,914,000, and in 1877 was £69,439,000, being an increase of only £13,525,000; and (2), that the increase of British production in the same time had been £700,000,000. This, he inssisted^sic, as I understood him, proved that rent is constantly diminishing in its relative demands upon the community, and is at all times a trivial item. > >”The hour being very late, I contented myself with proving that British and Irish ground rents, instead of being only £69,000,000 were actually, at least, £186,000,000. > > “Mr. Pallen is dissatisfied, and has written a letter to the St. Louis Republic, couched in the lordly terms ot^sic superiority which usually characterize arguments upon his side, and which are especially appropriate when addressed to one so much his inferior in intellect and social position as myself. > >”Some friends in St. Louis want me to reply. But I dread to encounter so potent an adversary as Mr. Pallen: and besides, it would be presumptuous in me to answer a rebuke from one so vastly my superior. That he is thus superior, is undeniable; for every line of his letter shows that he is thoroughly convinced of the fact, and who could possibly be a better judge? > > “So I will not reply to Mr. Pallen. But as he condescended to borrow this particular argument from other people, I will reply to the argument. > >”First. I was not aware before that Henry George ever said that rent swallowed up the entire increase of product. He must have said so; because Mr. Pallen says that he said so; and Mr. Pallen is infallible. Obviously Mr George has said this in some private conversation with Mr. Pallen. Wine must have been flowing freely at the table, and its effect upon Mr. George must have been disastrous. Or (happy thought) Mr. Pallen met some other ‘Henry George,’ who had just escaped from the St. Louis lunatic asylum. > > “For ‘Henry George’s assumption that all the increased produce of the world is absorbed by land rent’ (vide Pallen, witness), is a transparent and ludicrous absurdity. If it were trne^sic, then, as population doubled, all the people would have to live upon the same income which sufficed to support half of them, and so on, indefinitely. A city like New York, beginning with 20,000 families would divide income as follows: > > 1800, 20,000 families……………… { Earnings, $4,000,000. / Rent, say $1,000,000. > 1850, 100,000 families……………… { Earnings, $40,000,000. / Rent, $37,000,000. > 1900, 500,000 families……………… { Earnings, $300,000,000. / Rent, $297,000,000. > >”Thus the allowance to each family for food and clothing, etc., would fall from $150 in 1800 to $6 in 1900, and indeed the average allowance to each family to-day could only be $10 a year. > > “The ‘Henry George’ whom Mr. Pallen met undonbtedly^sic asserted some such nonsense as this. The Henry George whom we know never said or dreamed of it. I remand Mr. Pallen’s ‘Henry George’ to the lunatic asylum from which he has emerged without hesitation or regret. > >”Second. But our Henry George has said that ‘with increase in productive power, rent tends to even greater increase.’ (‘Progress and Poverty,’ p. 254.) This is not equivalent to saying that rent gets all the increase or anything like it, or even that rent actually increases faster in proportion than productive power. It tends to do so; but this tendency is resisted by other causes. > > “This statement, moreover, refers to the civilized world as a whole. The natural tendency of British rents to rise has been hindered by the opening of American and Australian lands. Include all these, and the increase of rent would be found vastly greater in proportion than in Great Britain alone. > >”Nevertheless, how is it in Great Britain? We have the statistics (not including Ireland) of the gross income from real estate from 1842 to 1884, continued on p. 16 →

THE COMING ISSUE.

John Filmer in The New Earth.

The people of the United States will soon have to face a more serious crisis than any that has occurred since 1861. The reckless extravagance of the last congress has left as a legacy to its successor the duty of raising possibly as much as $100,000,000 to meet deficiencies.

How can this be done?

Not by means of the tariff, for protectionists cannot consent to any change in it that will produce more revenue, nor can free traders reimpose duties on articles now free without surrendering the principles they are contending for. The choice must be narrowed down to an increase in the public debt or direct taxation. The former will not be seriously entertained by either protectionist or free trader. Direct taxation must then be resorted to.

What is there to tax?

Incomes? Many poor farmers and others who are engaged in occupations that do not yield an income large enough to tax, will at first favor such a tax, not merely because it would be to their self-interest, but because it would appear to them to be the way to reach the rich. But the discussion that will follow the introduction of such a measure, will lead them to see that there is one object to tax, which if taxed to the full will not only relieve them of their present unjust burdens of direct and indirect taxation, but will most effectually reach the wealthy classes, not by taking from these their present riches, but by taking the value of the natural opportunities, the possession of which has enabled them to unjustly acquire the wealth of others. And no doubt at the right time some member of congress will be ready to propose as a substitute for a tax on incomes, a tax on the value of land. And although at the outset there may be many free traders who would favor an income tax, and likewise many protectionists who would prefer a tax on the value of land, yet as the issue between restriction and freedom becomes more clearly defined the division of the people must be on the following lines:

Choose ye then whom ye will serve,

MAMMON or GOD.

JIM’S STRADDLE.

Letters to the Editor.

Single Tax News.

NEW YORK STATE.

James C. Murray, Oswego.—“Twenty-eight petitions. We have adopted the platform.”

John P. McCarthy, Cortland.—“I send one dollar for the use of the national committee, and will try and send one dollar a month for this year. This town is badly in need of light on the land and labor question.”

MASSACHUSETTS.

James R. Carret, Boston.—By invitation of the Brockton Central Labor Union I lectured to them on the single tax on the evening of Friday, January.2^sic. Notwithstanding bad weather there was a fair-sized audience, which gave the subject intelligent and favorable consideration. After speaking about three-quarters of an hour I answered questions, and a discussion took place, in which different persons in the audience joined. Among those who spoke was Mr. Ira Copeland of Brockton, who should be known to readers of THE STANDARD as a thorough-going single tax man. Mr. Copeland made a good point, obvious when stated, yet which impresses one as a fresh contribution to single tax arguments. As he put it, the state pursues and punishes men who make and circulate counterfeit money. Yet it grants to certain persons monopoly privileges in land, and permits them to form corporations and make and circulate counterfeit capital, on which the community is compelled to pay the holders an income. For shares in corporations, which hold such privileges, are in no true sense capital, that being wealth which is devoted to procuring more wealth. The state should as well forbid and try to prevent the making of the latter form of counterfeit as the former.

The union expects to have two more lectures on the subject—one on the 9th inst., from the Rev. J. G. Brooks of Brockton, at whose suggestion the course was established. I understood that Mr. Brooks’ subject will be: “Why I am not a single tax man.” The lecturer for the third evening is not yet engaged. I hear of movements in one or two places looking to the formation of single tax clubs. I ex;ect^sic that the remaining delegate to the general committee of the Massachusetts single tax league needed to enable the organization to be completed will be elected this week, and that the single tax men here will then be able to do more work, both for the aid of the national committee and for pushing the cause in the state.

At the request of a friend of the late Mark W. Cross, who is attending to the settlement of his affairs, I have taken charge of the funds and subscription cards held by Mr. Cross as treasurer of the Massachusetts single tax league, to hold temporarily until a new treasurer can be elected by the league.

W. L. Crosman, Roxbury.—I was very much surprised to see by yesterday’s papers that a good single tax man is dead—Mark W. Cross. He was elected treasurer of the Massachusetts single tax league at its recent organization. He attended the conference, and his number on the photograph is 232. He did not take a very active part in single tax work, but did what was best to him—contributed liberally his money.

E. T. Turner, Boston.—The Boston single tax league held its annual meeting for the election of officers Sunday, December 28, at G. A. R. Hall, 616 Washington street. The following officers were elected: President, Edwin M. White; vice-presidents, Sylvester C. Fay, Hamlin Garland, G. K. Anderson, Moses True Brown, William Lloyd Garrison; corresponding secretary, Mrs. Emily T. Turner; recording secretary, Mrs. C. Rich; press secretary, Levi H. Turner; treasurer, William E. Bell; executive committee, D. Webster Groh, Andrew Garbutt, Edward Doherty.

William Burhenne was elected delegate to the Massachusetts State League.

It was voted to appropriate ten dollars for advance order of “Protection or Free Trade.” A committee of three was appointed to aid in the further circulation of this book. The platform of the National Single Tax League was adopted.

It was voted to hold meetings in this hall the second and fourth Sundays in each month at 2:30 P. M. for the ensuing four months.

The following resolution was unanimously adopted:

Whereas, death has removed from our midst our member and co-worker, Mark W. Cross; in view of the active interest of the deceased in the measures of practical reform advanced by our own and other organizations, and his engagement in many works of philanthropy and public spirit, be it

Resolved, That the Boston Single Tax League expresses its deep sorrow at the loss of its vice-president, and extends its warm sympathy and condolence to his bereaved relatives.

John Adams, Dorchester.—There will be a meeting of the Dorchester club January 16, 1891, at Fields building, Fields Corner, at 8 P. M., at which all members are requested to be present, as the election of officers and other important business will be transacted.

F. Berry, Haverhill.—“Five petitions. By an error I am announced as chairman of the single tax committee of this city. I am not; we have no chairman.”

RHODE ISLAND.

David Harrower, Wakefield.—“To supply the committee with funds and extend the circulation of THE STANDARD is, in my estimation, the most essential work the single tax men generally can do.”

p. 18, col. 2

NEW JERSEY.

John Morrison, Washington.—“Thirty-one petitions. Our club has adopted the platform. Brother Corling has been very ill. The following are our officers for the coming term: president, A. W. Davis, of Oxford; vice-president, H. L. Beatty, Portmurry; treasurer, N. Beatty, Beattystown; secretary, John Morrison, Washington, box 272.

“We have called a special meeting to elect delegates to the industrial senate, which meets in Trenton in February, and we hope all single tax clubs will send delegates, so as the single tax will be heard in the hall of the legislature this winter at Trenton. We have members who are single tax men in the lower house, but do not think they will be heard.”

J. A. Craig, Paterson.—“Our club has adopted the platform.”

PENNSYLVANIA.

Thomas Leary, Quay, Elk County.—“Everything looks encouraginghere^sic. I am circulating ‘Protection or Free Trade?’ and want 25 copies of the cheap edition.”

J. Barber, Bradford.—“We have adopted the platform and ask to be enrolled in the league.”

J. M. Wilson, Cochranton.—“Six petitions. I have got the editor of our local paper to publish the platform.”

C. Estella Bachman, Mauch Chunk.—“I realize the importance of having as many signatures as possible to the petition, that their number may of itself bear down opposition. As an individual I might not be worth much to the cause, but as secretary of the single tax women’s enrollment committee, I can get many other women to work for signatures to the petition, besides doing what I can personally.”

A. H. Stephenson, Philadelphia.—“Our society has adopted the platform.”

Wm. W. Wiles, New Brighton.—“Thirteen petitions. I regard the petition as the best plan yet devised to get the single tax before the people.”

H. L. Buzzell, Meadville.—I feel a little lonely here, as I don’t know of any single tax men in town, although I have been informed that there are several of them around. As a theological student I do not have so much time to devote to the cause as I should like. I have been a cat worshipper for some three years. The different phases of the social question have been aired this year in good shape, much to the disgust of many who think that the minister should not mention the evils of society nor dispute the justice of the present abominable constitution. If the Christian ministry does not stand for justice, and if the minister must hold his peace on social topics in these stirring times, Christianity becomes hypocrisy, and the clergy spiritual frauds. I would request every single taxer in town to drop me a postal and I will call upon him and see what can be done. Address H. L. Buzzell, box 473, Meadville, Pa.

MARYLAND.

Francis Mooney, Baltimore.—“Five petitions. I have been rather slow in my labors for the cause but promise to labor with more zeal in the future. Our society hails with delight the issuing of ‘Protection or Free Trade?’ in cheap form as a means of effecting enormous propaganda work.”

MISSISSIPPI.

W. A. Harris, Vicksburg.—“Ten petitions. The most of the signers are men who have recently been making improvements on their city property, and they feel the burden of the increase of the tax. One of the signers, Mr. Samuel French, can make about as good a single tax talk as if he had been in the business for years, and others are strong republicans, whose eyes have been opened by the McKinley tariff bill. I would not take a thousand dollars for the good the tariff bill has done in this locality as an eye-opener.”

TEXAS.

Albert Philpot, Saint Jo.—“Thirty petitions. Our people are wakening up as never before, I think, on the question of taxation. While all recognize that something is wrong, the single tax is generally new to them, having heard nothing of it except garbled reports from the country press.”

OHIO.

L. E. Siemon, Cleveland.—“Our club has ratified the platform and subscribed ten dollars per annum to the funds of the league, payable half in January and half in July.”

Miss M. B. Hunt, Kennedy.—“Enclosed please find one dollar for the national committee.”

Billy Radcliffe, S. T., Youngstown.—“Our club has adopted the platform and re-elected the old set of officers.”

“Our club is still in the field and doing work whenever the opportunity presents itself. Our meetings at present are somewhat irregular, but every Sunday night finds a few of the faithful together at my hotel, where we talk over the doings of the week and stir up or convert the guests if there be any. Sickness has kept our secretary and other members close to their homes, as Youngstown, like other places, is well blessed with landlords and mud.

“There is a great deal of live kicking around the court house by tax payers, and I find it a good place to distribute tracts. One man, after having paid his taxes, showed his receipt to the clerk and asked, ‘What’s this dollar for?” ’For a dog,’ said the clerk. ‘I’ve got no dog,’ says the taxpayer. ‘Go see the auditor,’ says the clerk. The taxpayer then went to the auditor, who told him to go the assessor^sic, and after spending all his spare time for a week running about from place to place, he at last got an order for his dollar, which he not having the time to attend to gave me to collect; at last I got the dollar, and now the taxpayer tells me to invest it in ’Protection or Free Trade?” and I’ll do it.

“I have my conference picture framed and hanging near the door, so that all my customers will see it as they are leaving. I find it takes their eye, and they carry off a single tax platform, a supply of which I have hanging under the picture.

“The Farmers Alliance fever will break out here Monday, January 5th. I expect to be in the neighborhood and if the ‘natural opportunity’ pre- continued on p. 19 →

[text breaks off here at the foot of the printed area; the lower part of the page is blank/unprinted in the scan, and no continuation line is visible]

INDIANA.

Noah Harris, Indianapolis.—“Seven petitions. Two of the signers are blacksmiths, two house painters, one bricklayer, one is the owner of three tenement houses, who sees the justice of the single tax and one is a farmer, whose wealth has recently been augmented by increased land values in the natural gas belt. I loaned him ‘Social Problems,’ will next send him ‘Progress and Poverty.’ He is anxious to see and hear Mr. George. Inthe near future^sic I expect to hear of the formation of a single tax club—through his efforts—at the city of Kokomo, for he will not fail to water the seed that I sowed broadcast through that hot-bed of protection.”

R. F. Schermerhorn, Quincy.—“Our club has adopted the platform.”

James H. Risdon, Elgin.—“Four petitions. No. 1 sees plainly the advantage of the tax on land values and exempting improvements from taxation: No. 2 is a bright young man and thinks the single tax principle is all right if the people are ready for free trade: No. 3 is a young man and a democrat. and is the owner^sic of two houses and lots; No. 4 is a straight out single tax man.”

ILLINOIS.

Warren Worth Bailey, Chicago, Dec. 26.—The present week has been a quiet one in single tax circles owing to the holiday season, but I have at least one or two bits of interesting news showing the progress of our ideas. On Tuesday evening I was invited to attend a ballot reform meeting at the rooms of the personal rights league. About a dozen gentlemen were present, including County Commissioner Lieb, President Jesse Cox, of the Nationalist club: Mr. Jenkins, of the Union League Club; W. H. Dyrenforth, Charles Borg, and one or two representatives of organized labor. Judge Murray F. Tuley, Chancellor of the circuit court, presided, and Mr. James T. Healy, a prominent Republican, acted as secretary. Scores of letters from leading citizens of both parties were read, the universal sentiment being one of approval of the step in favor of the Australian system.

I was called on to say a few words and, after referring to the fact that the ballot reform movement was begun by Mr. George, and that it had been steadily and enthusiastically supported by all single tax men, I directed attention to an objectionable feature of the bill prepared by the league as follows:

“The state and county auditors and city clerks shall respectively place upon the several ballots printed by them the name of each candidate for office who shall have been nominated as hereinbefore provided and whose certificate of nomination has been presented within the time specified and on payment of the fee prescribed by law, which shall be for the white ticket fifty ($50) for each name tendered, to be paid into the state treasury; for the blue ticket, ten ($10) for each name tendered, to be paid into the county treasury; for the red ticket, five ($5) for each name tendered, to be paid into the city treasury.”

My objection to this provision was that, if adopted, it would give an excuse to the party machine for levying blackmail on the candidates, ostensibly or really as an offset to the cost of conducting the official ballot. I held that it was the duty of the state to pay the entire expense attaching to the election of its servants. I expressed the opinion that the Massachusetts law was the best one yet adopted in this country, and voiced the hope that the ballot reformers of Illinois would not fall behind that commonwealth in providing for a free, fair and secret method of ascertaining the popular will. My position was sustained by one or two gentlemen, and the bill will go for final revision before submission to the general assembly to a committee of conference and co-operation, in which representatives of the Single Tax Club, the Union League and Iroquois Clubs, the labor organiza.tions and many other prominent associations will be invited to take part.

At the conclusion of this meeting I had the pleasure of meeting Judge Tuley for the first time. He told me he was a constant reader of THE STANDARD, and when I said I had heard that he was slightly inclined to our views, he replied that it would be impossible for one to read THE STANDARD long without becoming more or less indoctrinated with its views. “I agree with these to a considerable extent,” said he, “but I am not yet prepared to accept the whole single tax doctrine. However, I believe Mr. George has done more to advance the cause of ballot reform than any other man in America, and he deserves the thanks of all lovers of pure government.”

But if Judge Tuley is not yet prepared to accept the single tax, there is one of his confreres of the bench who is at least prepared to say that he “is not certain that the single tax is not the best system ever yet devised.” Judge Altgeld made this remark to me recently, and he expressed the further opinion that the present revenue law of Illinois ought to be wiped off the statute books entirely. He likewise said that he regarded Mr. George as one of the greatest men of the time.

Nor is Judge Altgeld alone, among the judiciary of Chicago, in his high regard for Mr. George. I am informed that Judge Samuel P. McConnell goes even further. A conversation between him and several members of the bar was recently repeated to me. I do not now remember the details, but the substance was this, that Judge McConnell, who has a world-wide renown as the occupant of the bench during the celebrated trial of the Cronin murder case, explicitly and in set terms declared his belief in the single tax. I have no reason to question the accuracy of the report of this conversation, and I suspect that Judge Perry, of Qaincy^sic, and Judge Maguire, of San Francisco, are to be credited in great measure for the accession of so able a convert. For Judge McConnell is easily one of the strongest men on the Chicago bench, and should he cast in his lot openly with our movement it would receive a tremendous impetus.

Mr. James A. Herne on Tuesday evening attended a reception at the Iroquois club in honor of the newly elected Democratic congressmen. Mr. Herne went as the guest of Mr. Edward Osgood Brown.

Announcements.—January 8, Charles W. Phillips: “What is Socialism and Who are Socialists?” January 15, Henry D. Lloyd: “A Conservative View of the Labor Question,” January 22, James Malcolm; “Personal

p. 19, col. 2 Property Taxation in Illinois.” February 12, Edward Osgood Brown: “Andrew Napier DuQuoin.” Our friend Robert Cummings discussed the question of anarchy here the other day with Mr. George Ward.

The club gave a reception to Mr. Herne New Year’s eve, which drew out one of the largest crowds we ever had.

TENNESSEE.

Adolph Seguin, Memphis.—“Two petitions; also a dollar bill toward the expenses of the national committee. Would like to make it more, but circumstances will not allow.”

MISSOURI.

H. Martin Williams, St. Louis.—“I shall during the next two weeks write to a hundred or more single tax men in this state, and urge them to subscribe directly for THE STANDARD, and also to contribute to the committee fund. There is this obstacle in the way of both these necessary things, and that is the poverty of our people, especially those in the rural districts, but I think I will be able to do something here in the city that will supply the committee with some of the sinews of war. I think I may safely say that after the next two or three months this state will be able to send you at least fifty dollars a month. I shall be at the state capital during the session of the legislature, which will last seventy days.”

R. F. Young, Kansas City.—“The officers of our club for the coming term are as follows: President, Charles E. Reid; vice-president, Hermann Hermelink; secretary, R. F. Young. We have adopted the platform.”

MINNESOTA.

E. Herrmann, St. Paul.—“This city is getting to the front on economic questions. About five weeks ago the labor lyceum was inaugurated for the purpose of discussing economic questions in their relation to the wealth producing masses. These meetings, held every Sunday afternoon, are attracting the attention of the intelligent citizens.

“The following questions have thus far been under discussion:

“1. ‘Education and its bearing upon child labor.’ 2. ‘The single tax. 3. ’Labor organizations.’ 4. ‘Co-operations.’ 5. ‘Causes of wealth.’ In all these discussions the single tax doctrines are the leading arguments.

“At the People’s Lyceum every fourteen days the following subjects have passed review:

“1. ‘The Guilds of the Middle Ages.’ 2. ‘Taxes.’ 3. ‘Interest.’

“To-night ‘Wages,’ by Miss Eva McDonald, a prominent single tax alliance and labor speaker and organizer. Judging from the interest taken in this last subject by the people, I expect very interesting and lively discussions will follow the paper. On all of these occasions a few of us single tax advocates are on hand to preach the new political economy and with remarkably good success, apparently because single tax advocates are getting as thick as bees.”

NORTH DAKOTA.

S W. Bradford^sic, Ayr.—“We have kept things hustling here, and I am now trying to organize a state league for the purpose of carrying on the free trade propaganda with renewed vigor. The fight here for congress was made exclusively on the tariff issue. The republican candidate was a Norwegian, who got the whole Scandinavian vote. Benton, the democratic candidate, was assailed in a most outrageous manner by the Fargo Argus, between whose editor and Benton there exists a personal quarrel of years standing; and yet the republican majority was cut down in one year from over 14.000^sic to a little over 6,000. If we can organize and get in some work such as we should be able to do. North Dakota will^sic be all right for anybody the democrats may nominate, except Hill. We look on Hill as a traitor. If the west could be sure that Cleveland would be in favor of more currency, he would get there, no matter how New York might go. We are against national banks out here, and we want money to be cheaper.”

SOUTH DAKOTA.

R. Hill, Mellette.—“I sent a dollar for the national committee.”

IDAHO.

P. J. McLean, Gem.—“Four petitions. I can’t do much here with the petition, but hope to do something by spring. Business is paralyzed. Four banks have suspended. Many poor workingmen have lost their little savings. We look for hard times this winter.”

CALIFORNIA.

R. W. Kennedy, San Jose.—“Single taxers are becoming quite numerous here. Many who know nothing about the single tax complain bitterly of present methods and say that something must be done.”

OREGON.

L. W. Hyland, Portland.—“Two petitions.”

Wm. E. Norton, Monroe.—“At our Christmas tree celebration, Christmas eve, I received from the tree ‘one pair of single tacks.’ They were made of wood, about fourteen inches long, with heads four inches in diameter, and were painted a steel color. They looked very pretty, tied together with a pink bow, and in answer to the applause and laughter, I accepted them with a few appropriate sentences. The occurrence that created the next greatest merriment was the presentation of a large white cat to Master Edmund C. Norton, who is the youngest single taxer in the county (ten and a half months), with this inscription: ‘Single tax cat,’ ‘Have you seen the cat?’ on i[t?]. The leaven is still working, and there will be good results from it in the future.”

INDIAN TERRITORY.

Thomas Howie, Vinita, Cherokee Nation.—“Seventy-five petitions. One of the signers was minister to Liberia under Grant’s administration.”

CANADA.

R. T., S. T.. Toronto.—I think the proposed change in the subscription price and size of THE STANDARD is a good thing, and I, for my part, am very willing to pay the increased price. I also want to put myseif on record as another single tax man who is in favor of woman suffrage. The single tax association meets every Friday, with an average attendance of about continued on p. 20 →

[continued on page 20]

AUSTRALIA.

The legislative assembly of Queensland has passed a bill^sic for the imposition of a tax of three pence in the pound on capital land values, irrespective of improvements. The upper house, however, threw out the bill on the second reading. This is the first start of the single tax in Queensland, and a good one it is. The landlords of the upper chamber may resist for a little while, but will soon have to give way.

Sir Henry Parks^sic for the government of New South Wales has introduced a most sweeping elective reform bill, which provides for all that the most thorough democrats have asked. It gives female suffrage, provides for single electoral district, abolishes property qualification and cumulative voting, does away with hustings nominations, provides stringent provisions against fraud, and compels the closing of liquor saloons on election day. The bill also admits the military and police to the franchise. This is the most sweepingly radical measure that has ever yet been proposed, but it is likely that it will go through. The government have not yet announced specifically their financial proposals, but they have hinted at sweeping reductions in the tariff and the imposition of taxes on land values and on property to supply the loss of customs revenue. The single tax men welcome the proposition but will fight the property tax.

The single tax men throughout Australia seem to be in the highest spirits. Although the great strikes have resulted in much loss, they have done a great deal to call public attention to the social problem. The government of New South Wales has appointed a royal commission to take evidence and report upon the cause of the conflict between labor and capital, and the best means of preventing labor disputes. Several single tax men have been named on this commission, Mr. Frank Cotton being of the number. The Rev. Dr. Roseby, of Sydney, chairman of the Congregational union, the leading man of the Congregational clergy of New South Wales, has delivered an address upon the relations of Christianity to the social question which has attracted much attention. He declares that it is hopeless to attempt to elevate men so long as they are placed in conditions where their integrity is impossible. Hence the most urgent reform is the adjustment of the land laws on the basis of justice to all.

The result of the American elections has produced a profound effect in Australia, delighting the single tax men and depressing the protectionists.

THE TRUTH IN AN OYSTER SHELL.

Mauch Chunk Democrat.

The real truth is that the McKinley tariff is rapidly raising prices whilst the working people’s earnings are growing less all the time. The rich and strong luxuriate on the protective oyster all to themselves, whilst the working people are only permitted to smell at the shell from afar off!

p. 20, col. 2

FARMERS COMPLAINING OF UNEQUAL TAXATION.

Boston Globe.

The New England farmer is not so much troubled about the currency question as is the western farmer, from the fact that existing conditions make him chiefly anxious to keep what he has rather than to invest more in farming.

With the view of not being taxed out of existence, we find the chief theme of the Massachusetts and New Hampshire state granges to be that of equitable taxation.

It is no secret that under existing statutes those best able to bear the expense of government manage to shirk taxation to a scandalous extent. The farmers’ property is largely in visible terra firma, and cannot escape the search of the assessor. That of the manufacturer and merchant consists to a large extent in personal property, mortgages, notes and various certificates of value, which it is easy to keep out of sight when it is desired to evade taxation. When Vanderbilt recently asserted that he had “no political interest in New York,” he meant that he did not care who presided over the city’s affairs, so long as he was able to shield the great bulk of his personal property from taxation.

The complaint of the Massachusetts grange, which finds an echo in every other New England state, is that taxation is not uniform—ranging from $5 per $1,000 in some towns to $25 in others. This might, under some circumstances, be due to natural causes, but usually is not. Capitalists in some towns, having the means to make the sacrifice, induce the town to invite manufacturers in, under the promise of tax exemption. The law of 1881, which practically exempts from taxation money loaned on mortgages, is also held by many to be unjust. Above all, complaint is made against the lax administration of the tax assessments, whereby tax evaders find escape comparatively easy. All these causes acting together, say the committee on unequal taxation of the Massachusetts grange, produce the net result that whereas the average rate of taxation in the state is $15 per $1,000, it would be only $8.44 if those who are able to evade taxation paid their just share.

Such a showing is certainly not creditable to the state. If conservative people do not wish to see the poorer classes driven into indorsing Henry George schemes, and the more rash communistic proposals of the farmers’ alliance, the legislature should be moved to revise the whole system of levying and collecting taxes, so as to make them as uniform and equitable as possible.

MARY’S LITTLE LAMB. AND THE TAX THAT KILLED^sic IT.

J. D. MILLER, IN PUCK.

Mary had a little lamb, Its wool was white as snow: We used to weave it into cloth, But that was long ago.

They put a tariff on one day, The woolen mills shut down, And why the stocks have ceased to pay [end of line obscured by dark blotch; punctuation, if any, not visible] Ask Mr. Ammidown!

Oh, Mary and her little lamb! How charming were their ways! She took the lamb to school with her In those low-tariff days.

Now little maidens’ wraps are wove [end of line obscured] Not as they were of yore— The lamb that went to school one day [end of line obscured] Now goes to school no more.

The wool from off dear Mary’s lamb Once Mary’s figure graced: Now Mary wears a cotton gown, And clothes of shoddy waste.

If you will calculate the tax^sic. And are not quite a clam, You’ll learn a lesson at the school From Mary and her lamb!

IT NEEDS TO BE SHELTERED.

Chicago Tribune (rep.)

It is pleasant to see the solicitude with which Major McKinley protects his tender young offspring, the McKinley bill, from exposure to the rough winds of argument and blows of amendment. He fears that in its present feeble condition either of these might prove disastrous to it. From present appearances it is unlikely that anything on which a tariff amendment can be plastered will be allowed to come up at this session if the McKinleyites can help it. No republican congressman will be given a chance to amend the precious bill or say a hard word against it. That suits the democrats perfectly. They want the new law to stay just as it is, so that they can “work it for all it is worth” in 1892.

THE TARIFF AS A LOCAL ISSUE.

Puck.

Mr. Mainstreet (of any American city)—That McKinley is a nice man! Eggs are forty cents a dozen!

Mr. Rutherford B. Henkoop (an American farmer)—That McKinley is a nice man! Eggs are forty cents a dozen!

HARD TO FIND.

New York Weekly.

First Astronomer—Is there any mention of comets in the McKinley bill?

Second Astronomer—I don’t know. Why?

First Astronomer—They seem to be unusually scarce and high.

THEIR CASE IS SAD INDEED.

Puck.

The protection papers are feeling very much distressed, because they cannot tell any more lies that people will believe.

THF SINGLE TAX PLATFORM.

ADOPTED BY THE NATIONAL CONFERENCE OF THE SINGLE TAX LEAGUE OF THE UNITED STATES AT COOPER UNION, NEW YORK, SEPT. 3, 1890.

We assert as our fundamental principle the self-evident truth enunciated in the Declaration of American Independence, that all men are created equal, and are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights.

We hold that all men are equally entitled to the use and enjoyment of what God has created and of 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 attach to land should be taken for the use of the community.

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

To carry out these principles we are in favor of raising all public revenues for national, state, county and municipal purposes by a single tax upon land values, irrespective of improvements, and of the abolition of all forms of direct and indirect taxation.

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 we propose 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, but 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 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., to be determined by impartial periodical assessments. Thus the farmer would bave^sic 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 wonld^sic 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 where land has little or no value irrespective of improvements, and put it on towns and cities where bare land rises to a value of millions of dollars per acre.

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

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

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

With respect to monopolies other than the monopoly of land, we hold that where free competition becomes impossible, as in telegraphs, railroads, water and gas supplies, etc., such business becomes a proper social function, which should be controlled and managed by and for the whole people concerned, through their proper government, local, state or national, as may be.

p. 21, col. 2

SINGLE TAX LEAGUE OF THE UNITED STATES.

[Advertisement] Consumption Cured.

An old physician, retired from practice, had placed in his hands by an East India missionary the formula of a simple vegetable remedy for the speedy and permanent cure of Consumption, Bronchitis, Catarrh, Asthma and all Throat and Lung Affections, also a positive and radical cure for Nervous Debility and all Nervous Complaints. Having tested its wonderful curative powers in thousands of cases, and desiring to relieve human suffering, I will send free of charge to all who wish it this recipe in German, French or English, with full directions for preparing and using. Sent by mail, by addressing, with stamp, naming this paper, W. A. NOYES, 800 Powers’ Block, Rochester, N. Y.

[Advertisement] Journal of the Knights of Labor

“That is the most perfect government in which an injury to one is the concern of all”

THE JOURNAL is acknowledged to be the

Leading Labor Paper in the Country.

Its columns every week contain contributions from the ablest thinkers upon economic questions. It is the only paper in which the

Principles and Platform of the Order

are authoritatively discussed and explained. Among its contributors are:

T. V. Powderly, “Merlinda Sissins,” Ralph Beaumont, Phillips Thompson, Henry A. Beckmeyer, Rev. Wm. L. Bull, A. W. Wright, Michael Corcoran, L. P. Wild, Cicero Perry, Clark Orvis,

and others of equal ability.

TERMS OF SUBSCRIPTION:

$1 per year, 50c for 6 mos^sic , 25c for 3 mos.

In bulk packages to one address, 25 copies, 3 months, $5.

Send subscriptions to JOHN W. HAYES, General Secretary-Treasurer, Box 885, Philadelphia, Pa.

[Advertisement] MORRIS R. GEORGE,

Manufacturing Jeweler

AND

ENGRAVER.

Society Badges and Jewels Made to Order

S. E. COR. 11th and SANSOM STS^sic ,

PHILADELPHIA.

JOBBING. DIAMONDS RESET, ETC.

[Notice] Back Numbers Wanted

We need, to complete Volume I. of THE STANDARD Nos. 1 and 2.

We will send twenty cents’ worth of Tracts in exchange for either of these numbers.

[Advertisement] Handy Binders for The Standard

A lot of Handy Binders, made especially for filing TH STANDARD^sic, are now ready.

Price—75 Cents, to any address.

Address

THE STANDARD, 12 Union Square, New York City.

[Advertisement] Holland’s Coffee and Dining Rooms

143 Fourth Av., bet. 13th and 14th Sts.

[Advertisement] Henry George & Co., Publishers

THE STANDARD

A WEEKLY REVIEW OF PUBLIC AFFAIRS.

PUBLISHED EVERY WEDNESDAY, BY WM. T. CROASDALE, AT NO. 42 UNIVERSITY PLACE.

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

VOL. IX., No. 2. } WHOLE No. 211. }

NEW YORK, WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 14, 1891.

{ ONE YEAR, $3.00. { FOUR MOS., $1.00.

THE STANDARD.

[Advertisement] Mason & Hamlin

MASON & HAMLIN

[Illustration: an upright cabinet organ]

ORGANS:

Highest Honors at all Great World’s Exhibitions since 1867. One hundred styles, $22 to $900. For Cash, Easy Payments and rented.

PIANOS:

The Improved Mode of Stringing Pianos, invented by Mason & Hamlin in [1882?], is a great advance in Piano construction, experts pronouncing it the

[Greatest?] [Improvement?] in Pianos in Half a Century.

Illustrated Catalogues Free.

ORGAN & PIANO CO.

BOSTON. NEW YORK. CHICAGO.

[Advertisement] A Single Tax Button in Gold.

We have just received a neat button in gold, with blue enamel ground. It has the cat’s head in the centre with “Single” above it and “Tax” below it. It is round in shape and smaller than a three-cent piece. Sent to any address on receipt of fifty cents.

HENRY GEORGE & CO.,

42 University Place, New York.

[Advertisement] Handy Binders for The Standard.

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

Price—75 Cents, to any address.

Address

THE STANDARD,

42 University Place, New York City.

[Advertisement] [Holland’s?] Coffee and Dining Rooms

[143?] Fourth Av., bet. 13th and 14th Sts.

p. 24, col. 2

[Advertisement] Pears’ Soap

Pears’ Soap

has been established in London 100 YEARS both as a COMPLEXION and as a SHAVING SOAP, has obtained 19 INTERNATIONAL AWARDS, and is now sold in every city of the world.

It is the purest, cleanest, finest,

The most economical, and therefore

The best and most popular of all soaps

for GENERAL TOILET PURPOSES; and for use in the NURSERY it is recommended by thousands of intelligent mothers throughout the civilized world, because while serving as a cleanser and detergent, its emollient properties prevent the chafing and discomforts to which infants are so liable. PEARS’ SOAP can now be had of nearly all Druggists in the ’Jnited States, BUT BE SURE THAT YOU GET THE GENUINE, as there are worthless imitations.

[Advertisement] Ely’s Cream Balm

[Illustration: display advertisement, white lettering on black, with a profile of a human head lettered like a phrenological chart. Main lettering: “Ely’s Cream Balm For CATARRH THE POSITIVE CURE.” Lettering on the head: “THE CURE FOR CATARRH COLD IN HEAD HAY FEVER [DEAFNESS?] HEADACHE ELY’S CREAM BALM”]

ELY BROTHERS, [56?] Warren St., New York. Price [50?] cts.

[Advertisement] The Single Tax Library.

Cents.

1. A Syllabus of Progress and Poverty. Louis F. Post. 8 pages …….. 3
2. Out of print.
3. First Principles. Henry George. 4 pages …….. 2
4. The Right to the Use of the Earth. Herbert Spencer. 4 pages…….. 2
5. Farmers and the Single Tax. Thomas G. Shearman. 8 Pages …….. 3
6. The Canons of Taxation. Henry George. 4 pages …….. 2
7. A Lawyer’s Reply to Criticisms. Samuel B. Clark. 16 pages…….. 4
8. Back to the Land.. Bishop Nulty. 16 pages …….. 4
9. The Single Tax. Thomas G. Shearman. 8 pages. …….. 3
10. The American Farmer. Henry George. 4 pages…….. 2
11. Unemployed Labor. Henry George. 4 pages …….. 2
12. The Case Plainly Stated. H. F. Ring. 8 pages…….. 3
13. Social Problems. 342 pages. 12mo. Paper…….. 35
14. Objections to the Land Tax. Thomas G. Shearman. 4 pages …….. 2
15. Land Taxation. A Conversation Between David Dudley Field and Henry George. 4 pages …….. 2
16. How to Increase Profits. A. J. Steers. 2 pages …….. 1
17. The New Political Economy. E. O. Brown. 4 pages …….. 2
18. Thy Kingdom Come. Henry George. 4 pages. …….. 2
19. The Functious of Government. Henry George. 8 pages …….. 3
20. The Menace of Plutocracy. Thomas G. Shearman. 8 pages…….. 3
21. Tenement House Morality. J. O. S. Huntington. 4 pages…….. 2 22, 23, 24, out of print.
22. Taxing Land Values. Henry George. 8 pages…….. 3
23. Henry George’s Mistakes. Thomas G. Shearman. 8 pages …….. 3
24. The Democratic Principle. Henry George. 8 pages …….. 3
25. Progress and Poverty. Henry George. 512 pages …….. 35
26. Out of print.
27. Property in Land. Henry George. 77 pages …….. 15 31 and 32, out of print
28. The Gospel and the People. Bishop Huntington. 4 pages …….. 2
29. Single Tax Platform. By Henry George. 2 pages…….. 1
30. Justice the Object—Taxation the Means. Henry George. 8 pages…….. 8
31. One Tax Enough. Thomas G. Shearman. 8 pages…….. 3

PRICES OF SINGLE TAX LIBRARY:

Two-page Tracts—1 copy, 1 cent; 40 copies, 10 cents; 100 copies, 20 cents; 1,000 copies, $1.50. Four-page Tracts—1 copy, 2 cents; 20 copies, 10 cents; 100 copies, 40 cents; 1,000 copies, $3 00. Fight-page Tracts—1 copy, 3 cents; 10 copies, 10 cents; 100 copies, 80 cents; 1,000 copies, $6.00. Sixteen-page Tracts—1 copy, 4 cents; 5 copies, 10 cents; 100 copies, $1.60; 1,000 copies, $12.00. No extra charge by mail.

Address, THE STANDARD, 42 University Place, N. Y. City.

[Advertisement] Don’t kick

[Cartoon: a man in a bowler hat delivers a high kick, sending a small round object (a dog or animal curled in a ball) flying off to the upper right, with speed lines. Hand-lettered display text reads: “Don’t kick because your business is bad. but advertise If you don’t know how^sic to. write to us and we will tell you.”]

Don’t kick

because your business is bad. but advertise If you don’t know how to. write to us and we will tell you.

We will prepare your advertisement or give you advice and assistance to aid you in preparing it yourself. We will have the advertisement set in type and procure illustrations if any are needed. When a satisfactory advertisement has been produced we will furnish proofs and an electrotyped pattern to be used in duplicating the advertisement if the display or illustration make an electrotype desirable.

Address GEO. P. ROWELL & CO.,

Newspaper Advertising Bureau,

10 Spruce St., N. Y.