January 21, 1891 Vol. IX, No. 3Whole No. 212

THE STANDARD

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

VOL. IX. | NEW YORK, WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 21, 1891. | NO. 3.

p. 1, col. 1

NEBRASKA’S TROUBLES.

—The Supreme Court of Nebraska has allowed ex-Governor Thayer to file a quo-warranto petition citing Governor Boyd to show cause why he should not vacate his office. “However,” the court continues, “we recognize Jas. E. Boyd as the legal Governor of Nebraska and all the State departments do likewise. We would advise the ex-Governor to quietly and peaceably submit to the Governor, as it will do him no good to further resist.” In spite of this direct mandate Thayer atempted^sic to hold the office and refused to surrender his rooms to his successor. A number of State officials proceeded to the Capitol and gave him notice that if he did not move they would move him. Thereupon he moved. In this whole period of usurpations, successful and otherwise, there has practically been none more audacious than that of this man, Thayer, who proposed, in defiance of the count of the Legislature and the mandate of the Supreme Court, to decide for himself that he was Governor and continue to hold the office despite the popular verdict.

A SINGLE TAX ASSESSOR.

—The Democrats of Binghamton have nominated John H. Blakeney for City Assessor. Mr. Blakeney is a well-known Single Tax man, and if elected he will doubtless go as far toward assessing vacant land at its true value as the law and public opinion will permit. It is to be presumed that a knowledge of this fact led the Democrats to nominate him. “It goes.”

TAXING PERSONAL PROPERTY.

—The committee on legislation of the Real Estate Exchange held its first meeting last week, and the president, George R. Read, in his opening address, discussed rapid transit and other questions likely to affect the price of real estate. He also said that it was to be expected that bills looking to the taxation of mortgages and personal property would be introduced as usual, and that the effect of such taxation would be to drive away from our city capital and business, and thereby ultimately injure the value of real estate. He hoped that the committee would be as successful in defeating such proposals this year as it had been in the past. The intelligent real estate owner who expects to improve land that he holds is beginning to see the folly of taxing personal property as plainly as do the Single Taxers. He is not likely, perhaps, to become more than a Single Tax man limited, but that far he is in time sure to come.

MR. THURBER’S LETTER.

—Captain Codman hits hard, and that his blows are felt is shown by Mr. F. B. Thurber’s foolish “stop my paper” letter printed elsewhere. The tribute that F. B. pays to the patriotism of his brother, H. K., is touching. Nobody doubts the patriotism of either of the noted brothers. They have managed to identify it so closely with their well advertised business that it is understood by all p. 2, col. 2 men. But, if F. B. were as honest as he is patriotic, he would not try to confuse the pending subsidy bill with a measure to pay a fair price for carrying the mails by established lines of steamers. However, it is not worth while to comment at length on the utterances of a man who exposes his own mental weakness as Mr. Thurber does, when he tells how Peter Cooper changed his belief in the propriety of permitting Americans to buy ships abroad. Any man who had the slightest conception of the processes of trade would have told the old gentleman that the Englishmen were not contemplating making us a present of any ships, but they would doubtless demand good raw material on which American labor had been expended in exchange for any vessels they sent us. Mr. Thurber says that it seemed to him “that the whole doctrine of protection was summed up in those few words” of Mr. Cooper’s. So it seems to us; and yet they were words of foolishness that ought not to deceive a school boy capable of swapping a top for a jack-knife and understanding that he was no poorer for thus obtaining the thing he wanted.

TORPID SINGLE TAXERS.

—The Providence Telegram has printed a series of letters discussing the Single Tax question, and it declares that they have called forth no letters from correspondents such as usually come in when a question of public interest is discussed in its columns. It naturally concludes that the people of Rhode Island are indifferent to the subject. Nevertheless, there are a good many Single Taxers in the State, and one of two things is certain: either they do not see the Telegram, or they are lamentably lacking in zeal for the principles they profess.

TAXING FOREIGN CAPITAL.

—The Indiana House of Representatives has passed a resolution proposing that Indiana shall co-operate with Illinois, Michigan, Wisconsin, Iowa, Kansas, Ohio, Kentucky and Pennsylvania in an inquiry as to how much capital is loaned in those States, with a view to taxing such capital. The resolution includes the other States named, because it has dawned on the Indianians that if one State begins taxing such capital, alone, the lending companies will withdraw from that State. It seems to us this ought to recommend the scheme. We take it for granted that the States that are trying to tax capital find they have too much of it and want to drive it away. If this be the case action by a single State is sure to be more effective than joint action by a treaty between several States, which may perhaps be found violative of the Federal Constitution.

DEEPENING THE HUDSON.

—A Government commission gave a hearing at Albany recently to persons interested in a proposal to deepen the Hudson river from Coxsackie to Albany or Troy, so that ocean-going vessels may reach those cities. Mayor Manning, of Albany, said that an ocean-going steamship can be loaded at that city for $500 less than in New York. Ex-Assemblyman Youngman of the same place showed the advantage of transferring canal-boat cargoes to ocean steamers at Albany, and declared that the present facilities in this State are inadequate to the task of transporting the products of the West to the sea-board. All of the speeches made were in favor of the proposition. Of course, it is manifest that the same arguments that justify the original construction of the Erie Canal apply to any proposal to facilitate intercourse between the interior and the sea-board. Martin I. Townsend, of Troy, insisted that the proposed improvement should be extended to that city, so as to connect with the Cham plain Canal as well as the Erie. So long as the existing methods continue, this proposal has a better claim on the Federal Government than almost any other. It will continued on p. 3 →

[continued on page 3 — text breaks off mid-sentence at the foot of the column; page 3 opens “be noticed, however, that the men urging it…”; no jump line printed]

THE SPEECH OF INGALLS.

—The remarkable speech of Senator Ingalls, of Kansas, a brief abstract of which is printed elsewhere, simply shows that the recent elections, and especially the failure of his own party to retain political control of the State of Kansas, have demonstrated to at least one keen politician the final overthrow of the policy to which he has been wedded, and taught him that the hope to political success depends on the recognition of living issues instead of in appeals to past prejudices. Though he is himself a man without any military record, the senior Kansas Senator has been the most blatant of the demagogues who have sought to retain power by appeals to the passions and prejudices aroused by the civil war. He makes a slight attempt to maintain an appearance of consistency with the past, by pretending that the liberty-destroying Force bill is an honest attempt to remedy acknowledged evils in the South, though he confesses that it is an utterly inadequate remedy.

From this on, his speech was a new departure. His description of the growth of the money power from the time when there was “neither poverty or riches” in our country, and his denunciation of the unequal distribution of the wealth created by all, was eloquent and truthful, but it gave evidence that Mr. Ingalls had long been acquainted with the facts he now states so strongly. The questions, therefore, arise, “Why has he so long ignored them? Why has he so persistently sought to thrust such issues aside and subsitute^sic for them the dead issues of twenty years ago? Why has he persistently sought the reputation of the most radical of the leaders of the party that has been the tool of monopolists in imposing burdens on the poor for the purpose of increasing the disproportionate wealth of the rich?” There is one simple and sufficient answer to these questions. The Republicans cannot elect a Senator from Kansas, and the new People’s party, representing new issues and ignoring old prejudices, can.

The speech also affords evidence that the Kansas Senator has learned something else. He took occasion in the beginning to declare that his former declaration that “the purification of politics is an iridescent dream,” and that “the Decalogue and the golden rule have no place in a political campaign,” was not intended to inculcate a doctrine but to describe a condition. What he then said (May 2) was as follows:

The purification of politics is an iridescent dream. Government is force. Politics is a battle for supremacy. Parties are the armies. The Decalogue and the golden rule have no place in a political campaign. The object is success. To defeat the antagonist and expel the party in power is the purpose. In war it is lawful to deceive the adversary, to hire Hessians, to purchase mercenaries, to mutilate, to kill, to destroy. The commander who lost a battle through the activity of his moral nature would be the derision and jest of history This^sic modern cant about the corruption of politics is fatiguing in the extreme. It proceeds from the tea-custard and syllabub dilettanteism, the frivolous and desultory sentimentalism of epicenes.

No one who reads the last two sentences will give him any credit for his recent disclaimer. He not only described a condition, but he denounced as “cant,” which he found “fatiguing in the extreme,” the demand of decent people for a change in that condition, and declared that such a demand proceeded only from “tea-custard and syllabub dilettanteism,” and “frivolous and desultory sentimentalism.” His attempt at a disclaimer merely shows that, in the insolence of power, he uttered audacious sentiments that he now fears will injure his political prospects, and he therefore tries to explain away that which, had his own position remained unchanged, he would have gloried in. His declaration, as it originally stood, was the key-note of his party’s legislation and of Reed’s rule, and it is encouraging to find that the most outspoken expounder of criminal politics has discovered that there is such thing as a conscience^sic in public affairs, which, when aroused, still cares for the Decalogue and the golden rule.

p. 4, col. 2

Otherwise the speech has no significance except as a bid for Granger votes, and a sign that clever rascals understand that if they are to continue in public life they must pretend to serve the public and cease to be the open agents of the monopolists and other oppressors of the people. If it has any effect on the majority in the Kansas Legislature, it will show that the indignant people of that State have chosen to fight their battles men either too stupid to go abroad without guardians, or knaves who are anxious for a pretext for selling their votes.

HILL FOR SENATOR.

—It was probably inevitable that Governor Hill should be chosen as Senator from this State to succeed Mr. Evarts. Nothing could have prevented it but his refusal to take the place, and he had the good sense to see that it would not serve his own interests to refuse. If the alternative was the election of Smith M. Weed, an avowed protectionist, there is some reason for satisfaction in Mr. Hill’s election, for whether he has any well-grounded opinions on economic questions or not, he is not the kind of man to long resist the steady drift of his party’s sentiment toward free trade.

For another reason Mr. Hill’s election will prove advantageous. As Governor of this State his affiliations and influence have been on the side of the tendencies that drag down our politics—tendencies that exalt the machine and make political principle a matter of little consideration. It was his regard for politicians of the baser sort that led him to resist ballot reform so strenuously, and to mutilate the measure finally passed, after he no longer dared resist public opinion in the matter. His friends deny that Mr. Hill purposely sold out Mr. Cleveland in 1888, but none of them dare deny that it was Hill’s allies and supporters, the liquor dealers, who accomplished that result, and their treachery to his party’s Presidential candidate has never interrupted for one moment their intimate relations with the beneficiary of that treachery, who holds the office of Governor, as the result of a deal that elected Harrison President. The man who engages in such politics can only retain popularity so long as he retains the power to reward allies and punish deserters—unless he has some higher qualities.

Mr. Hill’s friends claim that he has such qualities. The New York Sun especially lauds him as a great statesman. If he has any ability for other “statesmanship” than that which calls forth the fatal favor of the wickedest man of the nineteenth century, he will now have a chance to show it. He will hold a seat in a body where States are measured as well as men, and he will enter it as the successor of one who is a physical and mental wreck, with a stupid man as his colleague. The circumstances are favorable, and we shall be glad to see the new Senator develop the qualities that he has failed to display as Governor. We shall be glad, indeed, to see him develop into a really great man, but we cannot honestly say that we expect him to throw Carlisle, Gray, Vance or any other conspicuous Democrat into the shade during his six years’ stay in the Senate.

Mr. Hill intends to hold on to the Governorship until he enters on his duties as Senator. This is hardly respectable, but respectability has never been a fad of his, and nothing else could have been expected. His acceptance of this plan merely shows that he appreciates the situation and understands that he cannot afford even a moment’s interruption of his hold on official place. Nevertheless his power as Governor will soon end, and, having no patronage at his disposal, he will obtain no power over politics in this State as Senator. His Presidental^sic pretentions^sic were always preposterous, but his ability to bedevil the situation and to compel his continued on p. 5 →

[continued on page 5]

GOLD MORTGAGES.

—Howard L. Smith, of St. Paul, Minn., in a ietter^sic to the Evening Post of this city discussing the proposed silver legislation, says that probably 90 per cent. of the farm mortgages in this country are negotiated by banks or by corporations organized for that specific purpose, and it has long been the custom of lenders through these agencies to make the mortgage debt, both principal and interest, payable in gold. Mr. Smith thinks it probable that nearly 75 per cent. of the mortgage indebtedness of this country is thus made payable in gold, though probably not one farmer in fifty is aware of the fact. So long as all the various kinds of currency in use were interconvertible at par, payment in any one of them was accepted as a compliance with the contract; but, says Mr. Smith: “Once let the impending silver standard be reached, and gold rise to 120 or thereabouts, and these thrifty people who are now so anxious to have their debts scaled down by act of Congress, will awake to the fact that they have been scaled up instead of down. We can imagine the maledictions of the ‘honest’ granger lover of ‘cheap money’ as he passes over one hundred and twenty dollars in silver to pay an installment of one hundred dollars interest in gold.”

Mr. Smith finds a certain grim satisfaction in the situation, and says that if the farmer were the only sufferer “it would be poetic justice * * * to let him find out for himself that honesty is the best policy,” but the possibility that others would be involved in disaster leads him to think that it may be wise to throw an obstacle in the way of silver legislation by offering “an argument even to the cupidity of the dishonest.” Does Mr. Smith regard the process he describes as strictly honest and honorable? He himself says that probably not 50 per cent. of the makers of these gold mortgages understood the nature of the contract they signed. Does he imagine that this ignorance is accidental? Does he doubt that the agents of the banks and mortgage companies took pains not to explain to the borrowers the exact terms of the contract? Are the farmers not likely, when the demand for gold is made, to raise a cry that they have been fooled and swindled^sic.

One of the most amazing things in modern life is the serene reliance on law by men who take a strange satisfaction in infuriating the men who ultimately make and unmake laws. The present condition of mind among the farmers of this country is one that bodes ill to many consecrated abuses and perhaps to some established rights. The great mass of people are becoming distressed and restless. Farmers and laborers are beginning to see that the producers have been cheated out of their product. There is a growing feeling among them that they are the victims of an ill defined but all powerful something that they call “the money power.” They feel that this power controls legislation and they think that it owns the courts. They are looking around for remedies and they are ever ready to accept crude plans

p. 6, col. 2 and foolish doctrines. Precedent has little weight with them, and the angrier they become the less they are

Mr. Smith may view with complacency the prospect of the defeat of these people’s hopes and an increase of their burdens when they are expecting them to be materially lightened. THE STANDARD, as the advocate of the steady and gradual removal of abuses, one at a time, until justice shall be re-established, does not share Mr. Smith’s cheerful confidence. It does not look forward with complacency to the time when the demand is made on our impoverished farmers for the fulfillment, to the letter, of the contracts they have unwittingly made through signing these gold mortgages. inclined to listen to professed counsels of reason and prudence.

TRUSTS TRIUMPHANT.

—The sugar trust is dead and the American Sugar Refining Company, its son and heir, will carry on the monopoly business at the old stand. This is the final result of all the vigorous proceedings in the courts of this State against a deliberate conspiracy to increase prices and restrain trade. The trust was practically a combination of all the sugar refining corporations in New York and its vicinity to regulate prices and control production. It was regarded as a combination in violation of the law against monopolies and the Attorney-General of New York, to test the matter, brought suit against the North River Sugar Refining Company, one of the parties to the combination. The result was that the contention of the Attorney-General was sustained and the charter of the defendant company forfeited. This decision was affirmed by the General Term, whereupon an appeal was taken to the Court of Appeals. The latter court, says the counsel of the trustees, recognized that “whatever restrictions there may be as to a number of persons entering into an agreement in restraint of trade, those persons may unite all their interests in a corporation and be within the law.”

This made the matter one of easy settlement. Duncan Cameron, of Brooklyn, having by suit interfered with the smooth working of the trust, those concerned went across the river to New Jersey and formed the American Sugar Refining Company, to which each separate company in the combination sold its plant. Hereafter that company will run what factories it sees fit and shut down others as its own interests may dictate, and there is apparently no power in the State of New York or in the Government of the United States that can seriously question the rights of those concerned to maintain their monopoly in this fashion. How do the advocates of regulative and paternal legislation like the outlook?

THE ADIRONDACK PARK.

—The New York Herald charges that Theodore B. Basselin, one of the three members of the State Forest Commission, is a stockholder and trustee in the Beaver River Lumber Company, and that he has strong private interests which lead him to scheme for a curtailment of the limits of the proposed Adirondack Park. The other commissioners are Sherman W. Knevals, lawyer, of this city, and Townsend Cox. Both the last named, the Herald says, are in favor of the preservation of the whole forest region of the Adirondacks by making it a State park, but that Knevals is under the influence of Basselin and votes with him, while Cox is a genial old gentleman who finds occupation and amusement with a deer park, the Catskills, and pays little attention to the other business of the commission. The Herald publishes a map showing the limits of the State park proposed by the commissioners and those of the whole forest region. It calls the region indicated the “Conspirators’ Park,” and says that compared with the whole continued on p. 7 →

[continued on following page]

WHAT REAL WOOL GROWERS WANT.—

The political wool growers out in Ohio—Delano, Harpster & Co.—are still clamoring for an increased duty on imported wool, but the men who really raise wool are beginning to see that such duties ruin their business instead of helping it. We print among our free trade news in this issue a preamble and resolutions adopted recently by the oldest and in many ways the most representative association of wool growers in this State. Those composing it were once devoted to the protection idea, and the resolutions acknowledge this fact with refreshing frankness and recant erroneous opinions with a manliness that cannot be too highly commended or too widely imitated. Nor is this all. These wool growers of Ontario and Livingston have not merely discovered that protection does not protect them, but they have learned some pretty sound political economy.

Much credit for this is doubtless due to the admirable campaign of education carried on by the Reform Club of this city. Last winter, under the auspices of the sub-committee for New York State of the club’s Tariff Reform Committee, sixteen meetings were held in Livingston and ten in Ontario. At six of these meetings joint debates were held. The speakers who took part in the campaign were John De Witt Warner, Walter S. Logan, W. B. Estell, Everett P. Wheeler, Lindley Vinton, H. B. B. Stapler, Wm. T. Croasdale, Joseph S. Havens and George P. Decker. The attempt to hold anti-protection meetings in these strongly Republican counties seemed to some a waste of money and energy, but the good result of the effort is made manifest in the passage of these resolutions by an association once fully under the sway of the protection superstition.

Special and more positive credit is due, however, to the energy, zeal and ability of one man, on the ground, and a member of the association. He has persistently preached the truth to his fellow farmers, and it was his address before the association that shaped the ideas and the very phraseology of the resolutions. That man is John M. Norton of East Bloomfield. In a private^sic letter to the editor of THE STANDARD Mr. Norton^sic attributes the change in sentiment in Ontario largely to the winter campaign of the Reform Club. He is doubtless right, but such a campaign is chiefly effective in arousing interest among the people, and in giving such men as Mr. Norton the opportunity to follow up the good work thus begun. It is a pity that the Reform Club has not sufficient funds to enable it to make another Winter campaign in every county in the State.

p. 7, col. 2

NEW YORK’S ASSESSMENT.—

A table has been prepared by the tax assessors of New York City showing what they call the values of real estate of the city, for the year 1891, as compared with the values in 1890. Of course, they are not the real values, for THE STANDARD has shown over and over again that improved real estate is assessed at about 60 per cent. or more of its true value, and vacant lots at 50 per cent. or less. The total assessed valuation for the whole city is $1,466,849,000, as compared with a valuation of $1,398,290,000 last year, showing an increase of $68,559,000.

The largest increase is in the Twelfth Ward, where, mainly on account of their criminal action in building houses and improving their vacant lots, the property owners are assessed over $19,500,000 more than last year. At 2 per cent., which will probably be about the tax rate, these bold individuals will be obliged to pay some $390,000 every year more than they did when their land was vacant.

In the meantime our Federal Government is taking care of the other criminals who live in the lower part of New York—those timorous men who are engaged in exchanging the products of our people for the products of other nations. Verily they, too, have their reward. Shall a man build a house and be fined, and another exchange canned American apples for Australian wool and not be fined ? Perish the thought. McKinleyism attends to all that. They pay their taxes too.

But the process does not stop there. All these fines on production and taxes on products are in the end paid by the people who buy the products, in increased prices—by the masses who hire and buy houses and buy the bulk of the manufactured goods.

And yet again it reacts ; for the more the people pay the less they can buy, and the less business the builders, and manufacturers, and sellers have to do ; and so it goes.

Now, when we all see that a single tax on ground rents will not increase the price of anything, that it will force idle lands into the market, and so reduce the price of other lands, force land into use and so stimulate production, force land speculators to work and so increase the productive forces, then we will stop this system of reciprocal injury.

[ornamental dash rule]

IS A TAX ON GROUND-RENT PAID BY THE TENANT?

I have sometimes irreverently made fun of those opponents of the Single Tax who insist that it will be distributed, just like a tariff tax, and, therefore, that it has no advantage over any indirect taxes. If it were in the least likely that the chief opponents of the tax reform would believe this theory, we would keep silence on the subject, because nine-tenths of all the opposition would be removed, and the Single Tax would at least be adopted in several States. For there is no opposition to it, of the least importance, except for the sake of maintaining a protective tariff, which does not affect local taxation, or of distributing the burden of taxation, so that poor folks shall pay the most of it.

But landlords are not so simple-minded as to be deceived by any such plan as this. They know very well that they now charge all the rent for land which they could possibly get, tax or no tax. Not one of them can be persuaded that a tax on ground-rents can ever be shifted upon tenants. So we must meet this idea with facts and figures in order to convince the tenant majority of the Ricardian doctrine that a tax on ground-rents will always be paid by landlords alone.

Suppose the ground-rent of the United States to be $900,000,000. Suppose the Single Tax, unlimited, to be adopted ; and this is the particular form of tax which Mr. Edward Atkinson and the other advocates of this continued on p. 8 →

[article breaks off mid-sentence at the foot of the page; no continuation line printed — presumably continued on page 8]

EQUALIZING LOCAL ASSESSMENTS.

Mr. H. N. Starr’s letter, in your issue of December 31, calls attention to a question of prime importance to the practical details of our movement—the question of equalizing local assessments so far as these relate to State or National taxation. Our main fight must be for some time to come against the tariff iniquity, but there will arise constant opportunities for individual skirmishers to exert an influence upon methods of local taxation, opportunities which it is highly important should be dealt with in a spirit that will attract and not repel our less philosophic neighbors, because of its immediate practicability. For this it is essential that we should come to the task equipped with defined conclusions as to certain matters of detail, the discussion of which, therefore, becomes of more than academic interest. One of these problems which is already pressing for solution upon us all as ordinary citizens, and not even especially as Single Tax men, is how to readjust our methods of assessment (upon whatever levied) so as to head off the tendency toward competition amongst the various counties and towns to avoid bearing any larger share than possible of State taxation. It concerns us particularly as Single Tax men as being the only important obstacle to getting at a true rating of land values. It is a problem which is coming more to the front too, as more attention is directed to subjects of taxation in general: the circular of Tax Commissioner Coleman, also recently commented upon in THE STANDARD, being only a specially salient instance of the temper of assessors in general.

This is to under-assess, not so much because of individual favoritism (though the practice undoubtedly leaves wider room for irregularity than would strict compliance with the law) as because it is upon these assessments that the quota of State taxation is based. It is, therefore, within certain limits, a much more popular plan to rate valuations low and make up the difference in the volume of local taxes by levying a relatively

p. 8, col. 2 higher percentage of tax, than to use a lower tax rate on a higher valuation. Of course, such an abuse, if persisted in under the Single Tax would partially defeat the object of the reform; and the inducement to local authorities to escape some share of State taxation would still exist when the Single Tax had been adopted; so that it would seem to be incumbent upon us in the interest of our cause, wherever changes in methods of assessment are under discussion, to try and mould sentiment so that the change decided upon will work our way. To this end it is necessary that we arrive at some plan of meeting this particular difficulty, after making allowance for local peculiarities; and that an agreement upon such points of detail is sometimes not premature is also illustrated by the comment by the Commercial Advertiser upon its Reform Club canvass, that one reason of the headway being made by the Single Tax was that its advocates, alone among free traders, had any definite programme to offer.

Of the answer to the problem I am by no means so sure as that an answer must be found. We cannot depend upon the criticism of other taxpayers to detect this kind of undervaluation, for those concerned to criticize do not have the requisite knowledge, except vaguely; as is proven by the continual and resultless squabbles before the State Board of Equalization over this point at present. The vigilance of the classes who are now landless, partly by choice and partly of necessity, and who will probably remain renters of land, though on very different terms, under any system, is not apt to be aroused until the abuse has gone so far as to develop afresh flagrant speculation in land. The machinery of taxation is likely to remain in local hands and certainly should so remain, in the interest of home rule. Mr. Starr’s suggestion—substantially that State taxes should be levied on a sort of snap-shot assessment, made in advance of town and county assessments, and subject to some modification after comparison with them—I fear is not practicable; or, at all events, would not be so regarded by the men upon whom its acceptance will depend. For myself, the only alternative that I have been able to think out is as follows:

That State taxes (and National direct taxes, so far as the principle could be made to apply), should not be levied in the form of a certain percentage of the assessed valuations, but rather as a stated percentage of the amounts actually raised in taxation by the several political subdivisions of which the State is composed; a sort of income tax, in other words, raised by the State from communal incomes instead of individual ones. As an example (and assuming somewhat arbitrary figures, as I have not the necessary statistics at hand to give them with a closer approximation to actual ones), let us assume that the total assessed valuation in New York State is $8,000,000,000; that the total State income required annually is $10,000,000; that the total local income raised annually is $80,000,000; that of this, New York City raised annually $40,000,000.

The system at present would be to assess the State tax at the rate of 12 1-2 cents on every $100 of valuation, collecting it through local agencies, which, therefore, collect ninety millions instead of eighty and hand over ten millions to the State officials, five millions of which would come from New York City. According to the plan which I have suggested, the State would not assess its citizens directly even in name—it does not now in fact, except in a few cases, as corporation stocks, etc., the city or county being the almost invariable intermediary—but would assess its component political units, each 12 1-2 per cent. of their respective corporate incomes, whatever that might be. The volume of both local and State revenue and expendi- continued on p. 9 →

[continued on page 9]

NOTES AND QUERIES.

William Wolff, formerly an active worker of the Manhattan Single Tax Club, is now in Germany. In a letter to Mr. Klein, of the club, he describes a so-called “free land” movement that is being vigorously pushed by a Dr. Hertzka, of Vienna. Mr. Wolff heard that free land societies were being started in Germany and Austria, and literature was being distributed, and he wrote to Dr. Hertzka for information. He learned that the whole social problem was about to be solved and the millennium forthwith introduced—unfortunately, however, not in Germany or Austria, but in Central Africa or the Islands of Polynesia, or wherever the societies could get some free land on which to start socialistic communities. The scheme is not to make land free, but to find some free land: to stave off the struggle at home by shipping the malcontents to foreign shores.

From the days of the Roman republic, when the soldiers and citizens were kept quiet by gifts of land in the conquered provinces, down to these times of Salvation Army colony schemes, this form of soothing syrup has been prepared and administered to the people by statesmen, philanthropists and knaves. In the present instance the socialistic idea of common ownership of land and capital, and of everybody belonging to a trade or professional guild, is introduced to make the drug more palatable. Germans, however, are fond of their fatherland, and whenever they realize that all the people need is access to the land, they will find the necessary land a good deal nearer Berlin than Central Africa. The Single Taxers of Germany, of whom there are now quite a number, will do their part in correcting this bogus “free land” idea, and common sense will do the rest^sic.

* * * *

The Duke of Bedford, who died last week, owned 118 acres of land in the very heart of London, and over 156 square miles, or 100,000 acres of agricultural lands. His income from both sources was said to be over $4,000,000 a year. On his London estates his tenants had erected some 30,000 buildings of every description, and a large number of these had, by expiration of leases, become the property of the duke. So that he was probably the largest house owner in England. The famous Covent Garden Market was on the duke’s property, and the ownership of this carried with it the right to levy tolls on every cart approaching within a quarter of a mile of the market, as well as the produce sold in the market. From these tolls he derived an income of over $100,000 a year. As a man he

p. 9, col. 2 was reserved and eccentric, and took no part in public affairs. The man who succeeds him, the present Lord Tavistock, is not much better. The old duke did as much to make landlordism odious as probably any landowner in the world. He was rapacious and grasping to the last degree, and took every advantage that law allowed him to take; but, while his tenants suffered, the community at large have gained in having so conspicuous a “bad example” of landlordism.

* * * *

A despatch from Toronto says that Lord Salisbury is urging the Dominion ministers to unite on a proposition to arrange all matters in dispute between Canada and the United States on a basis of commercial reciprocity. The fact that Sir John MacDonald and his colleagues have violently denounced reciprocity, and that it has been made the demand of the Canadian Liberal party, makes this alleged action of Lord Salisbury one of great embarrassment to the present Canadian Government. It would certainly be a singular thing if an alliance should be brought about between the Canadian Liberals and the English Tories.

* * * *

It is stated that the Ways and Means Committee will order a favorable report on a bill to levy a discriminating duty on tea imported from west of the Cape of Good Hope^sic via England. The idea is to encourage direct importation. The effect will be to raise the price of tea, for it is cheaper to import via England. The proposal does not mean that there is to be any attempt to raise a revenue on tea. Duties on tea and coffee for revenue purposes are not likely to be proposed in this country.

* * * *

The Memphis Appeal-Avalanche says that if John D. Rockefeller could convert all his property into cash immediately, and sail away to a foreign clime, there would not be money enough left in the United States to pay for the food of the inhabitants for two days. But the food would be left here, wouldn’t it? And the hands that perform labor would be here, wouldn’t they?

* * * *

A Columbia Professor says that the alleged meanest man in the world was pointed out to him in Chicago. Hitherto it has been supposed that he lived in New York. He is named Dunham, and owns a tract of several acres in Kenwood, a handsome suburb of the Windy City. He has steadily refused to sell or to allow any improvement. Streets, however, were put through his property, for which he was duly assessed. Under our law this would be difficult in New York City without the owner’s consent. Witness One Hundred and Eighth street, now covered by Lion Park, east of Ninth avenue. To revenge himself for the assessment, this exponent of landlordism is said to have put up six or eight shanties, just in the heart of the finest neighborhood. The neighbors are disgusted, but the gentleman is entitled to his pound of flesh, and until the Single Tax comes they are powerless.

* * * *

People who are shocked by the “immorality” of the proposition to take land values for public use ought to refresh their moral sentiment now and then by a study of the origin of existing titles. Here is a bit of history clipped by one of our correspondents from an old copy of the Youth’s Companion:

Some of the immense estates of English noblemen were accumulated in a remarkable manner in the fourteenth century. Just about the middle of that century, chiefly in the year 1349, under the reign of Edward III., the pestilence known as the “black death” swept through the country from London northeastward to Norwich and the Norfolk coast.

It has been estimated that more than one-half of the population of that district was destroyed by the pestilence in a single year. Whole families were rendered extinct in a few days.

What became of their property? By law it descended to their heirs. But the head of the household died. “Then who was his heir?” asks a recent writer on this horrible calamity.

“Any sons? Dead of the plague. Brothers? Dead of the plague. Wife? Dead of the plague. Children? Kinsfolk? All gone! Their blackening carcasses huddled in sweltering masses of putrefaction in the wretched hovels.”

As there were no heirs, the property passed to the lord of the manor. The rol’s^sic of the courts of the time are full of orders that the land be taken by the lord until the heir should appear. The heir never did appear, and once more was it true that to him that hath shall be given^sic

* * * *

The action of the tariff reminds the Southern Alliance Farmer of a rhyme with which an old negro used to describe the settlement which a storekeeper made with him when he divided their crop. The old darkey said: “Well, I jes’ tell you, Mars’ Harry; de ole boss he tuck down de book an’ ciphered on it awhile, an’ den he ’lowed:

Naught is a naught; figger is a figger— All for de white man, none for de nigger.”

* * * *

The New York Tribune is consistent about one thing—the proper recognition of the American hog by the French Government. It thinks that the protective tariff of the French, which now practically bars our hog out of France, ” will be lowered after the present ultra-protectionist mania shall have disappeared from French continued on p. 10 →

[continued on next page]

THE FIGHT FOR FREE TRADE.

The Sheep Breeders’ and Wool Growers’ Association of Ontario and Livingston Counties in this State held its twenty-fourth annual meeting at Honeoye, on January 8. The meeting was the largest held by the association for a number of years, and was notable for interesting extempore debate and for two papers, one of which by Mr. John M. Norton, of East Bloomfield, in Ontario, boldly denounced the protective tariff as destructive to the wool-growing industry. Mr. Norton^sic’s arguments must have been most convincing, as the association adopted the following resolutions:

Whereas, It has been the policy in the past for this association to annually pass stereotyped resolutions praying Congress to restore the wool duty of 1867 or its equivalent; and

Whereas, This association finally recognizes the unsoundness of its past position on this question, and ever ready to correct any error into which it may have fallen, we beg leave to submit the following:

First—We recognize that the wool duty is a delusion and a snare to the wool grower, and that it has largely been instrumental in driving to the wall an industry it was calculated to benefit.

Second—Prior to 1867, under the various changes of the wool duties, the price of wool fluctuated, not in sympathy with the tariff, but by reason of the ever-controlling law of demand and supply, the grower having received high prices and low prices under high tariffs, and, conversely, low prices and high prices under low tariffs.

Third—The success of the wool-grower depends on the success of the woollen manufacturer, while the American manufacturer is seriously handicapped by reason of being compelled to pay exorbitant tariff taxes on every pound of clothing wool imported for necessary admixture, while all foreign countries of any consequence have the benefit of free wool, and are thus enabled to undersell our manufacturers.

Fourth—The great wool tariff of 1867 resulted in driving from the eight chief wool producing States—for whose special benefit said tariff was conceived and passed—more than 50 per cent. of their sheep in a single decade, while the price of wool declined in a nearly corresponding ratio.

Fifth—The importation of foreign wool increased from about 26,000,000 pounds in 1867 to more than 126,000,000 pounds in 1871, just four years succeeding the highest duty ever imposed on wool and woolens.

Sixth—During eight of the past eighteen years the foreign price of imported clothing wools at the last port of export actually exceeded the price of our domestic fleece in the markets of Boston, New York or Philadelphia, while in no single year did the domestic wools bring the foreign price, plus the duty.

Seventh—England, France and Germany are the only three countries in the world that export woolen manufactures in excess of the imports of raw wool, in other words these countries, by admitting wool free, have created a demand for their home wool in excess of all wools required to clothe their people and after giving employment to labor, export more wool than they have imported. The United States, on the other hand, by imposing a high duty on raw wool has not only destroyed our export trade, but so throttled our manufacturers as to ruin the market for domestic fleece and give to the English, French and German manufacturers the cream of our markets for cloths.

Eighth—The free importation of raw wool into the United States would knock out the imports of woolen goods and would revive the present depressed state of our own manufacturers, thus giving employment to labor here and crate^sic an increased demand for our strong wools for necessary admixture.

Ninth—Recognizing the truth of the above facts, therefore, we, the members of the Ontario and Livingston Sheep Breeders’ and Wool Growers’ Association, in convention assembled, most respectfully petition Congress to immediately place wool and woolen manufactures on the free list, in order that their industries may again thrive and assume that magnitude commensurate with a nation of 63,000,000 of people.

* * * *

In a private letter to the Editor of THE STANDARD, written December 16, before this meeting was held, Mr. Norton says:

The most unpleasant result of the election that I have thus far discovered is that it has spoiled all the fun of talking tariff reform. You can kick a protectionist all over town now and he will just hump up and take it, and never kick back. I saw a good illustration of this at the annual meeting of our State sheep breeders’ association at Rochester last week. I have attended nearly all of these meetings since the society was organized, and have heard nothing but the one pitiful and never ending bleat for “protection.” The fact is, that this and all similar associations in this and other States have been officered, engineered and run solely in the interests of the high tariff monopolists.

As an illustration of their methods please notice the reverse side of these sheets, which President Cossitt circulated at our State shearing at Canandaigua last

p. 11, col. 2

spring. (They are headed by a petition for the immediate passage of the McKinley bill.)

Many of us have for years been disgusted with this course, but if any one offered the slightest remonstrance, he was promptly jumped upon by the whole gang and effectually squelched. I had resolved that if the opportunity ever offered I would stir them up a little, anyhow. So, when invited to read a paper at the meeting, I mixed them a mild dose just to see how it would work. One year ago they would have jumped on me by the dozen and tried to choke me off, but now they took their medicine as meekly as lambs. In the discussion that followed they didn’t get up and dust worth a cent. President Cossitt asked me if I was willing to risk the destruction of our wool-growing industry, by letting in ten cent Australian wool. I answered, yes, if the tariff was all that prevented our getting what wool we needed at that price; it was certainly the greatest outrage that was ever perpetrated upon the American people.

Then Vice-President Bucher spoke in the interest of American labor, claiming that because when wheat was high farmers and farm laborers were most prosperous the rule should also apply to wool. I told him the cases were not parallel, for while we raised a large surplus of wheat for export we had to import more than half our wool and woolen goods, and so I failed to see how it could benefit a laborer to double the cost of his clothing. The president saw how things were going and soon called a halt, remarking that we wouldn’t turn this into a political discussion; which was cool, considering the fact that his own address in the forenoon was made up almost wholly of a rabid partisan defence of protection in general and the M’Kinley bill in particular.

Mr Norton goes on to describe what he considers the good effect produced by the Reform Club’s meeting held in his own town, East Bloomfield, and to which he says much of the credit is due for the fact that the town went Democratic last November, almost for the first time in its history.

* * * *

Nearly ten thousand men will be thrown out of employment by the shutting-down of twenty-three Northern blast furnaces. What is the matter, Aunt William McKinley?

* * * *

Some weeks ago there appeared in this department of THE STANDARD a comment on a statement attributed by one of the daily papers to Fire Commissioner Purroy, who was represented as complaining that the McKinley bill had added to the expenses of the Fire Department by increasing the cost of cannel coal. The Press showed with great glee that cannel coal is a bituminous coal, untaxed, and that its price therefore has not increased. As this, by necessary inference, carried with it the confession that the price would have been increased had a tariff been put on that variety of coal we were satisfied. Mr. Purroy, however, writes us that he did not make the statement attributed to him, and we, therefore, in justice to him, publish that fact.

* * * *

The striking coal miners of Alabama who recently appealed for financial aid have given up the fight. Four thousand of them, in one camp, decided last Thursday to return to work, and eight hundred in another camp had already returned.

* * * *

The first result on wages that has occurred since the McKinley bill became a law, in Pitisburg^sic, seems to be a reduction of ten per cent. in its largest steel works. “As the McKinley bill has advanced the price of most of the necessaries and comforts of life from ten to twenty per cent., is the reduction in wages of ten per cent. in the nature of compensation?” asks the Pittsburg Post.

* * * *

The members of the Ohio Wool Growers’ Association are angry at the wool manufacturers, because the latter are showing symptoms of favoring the importation of wool into this country free of duty. The wool growers say that this is in violation of an agreement between gentlemen of the two associations prior to the passage of the McKinley bill, when each association agreed to work for the interest of both. Columbus Delano explained to the Ohio wool growers last week that they had made a sacrifice for the McKinley bill, and now the manufacturers dare assert that they were deceived and expect to have the schedule modified. The fact is, he said, they want free wool and high protection on manufactured goods. He announced, as the ultimatum of the wool growers, that “when the Wool Growers’ Association went down the manufacturers’ association would go with it.” In other words, free wool and free goods, or protection to each, is their determination.

* * * *

Passavant & Co., the glove importers, of whom we spoke last week, have decided not to abide by the adverse judgment of the Board of General Appraisers. It appears that the major part of the testimony against them was taken in secret session, and in the absence of the attorney of the firm. Passavant & Co. believe they have been made the victims of a gigantic conspiracy, and they say they will leave no resource untried which gives promise of securing them a fair and open trial. If no other course is open to them, they declare that they will ask for an investigation of the case by a Congressional committee. Meantime, glove wearers will pay more than they used to for their gloves.

* * * *

An English firm is about to erect a factory in Bridgeport, Conn., for manufacturing velvet ribbons. This bit of news has been gleefully circulated by the protection papers as an evidence of the good continued on p. 12 →

CURRENT THOUGHT.

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR.

COMMENTS ON THE STANDARD.

HON. W. E. RUSSELL., Governor^sic of Massachusetts.—I have had the pleasure of taking THE STANDARD for some time and always read it with pleasure. I congratulate you on its success.

W. L. CROSMAN, Roxbury, Mass.—Last week’s issue of THE STANDARD surpassed in excellence the previous week’s number. Such a superior publication merits unbounded success.

C. F. PERRY, Quincy, Ill.—Serious illness in my family has prevented my expressing ere this my great pleasure over the new makeup of THE STANDARD. Really, I should not have thought such improvement possible in that already admirable paper. I trust the excellent work will be duly appreciated.

C. J. BUELL, Minneapolis, Minn.—I like THE STANDARD very much in its new shape. It is an improvement over the old STANDARD. Perhaps it does not contain any more reading matter, but it is in better shape to glance over and get at the points one wants to read first.

JAMES J. MEADE, New York City.—I am very much pleased with the new STANDARD. It is a great improvement on the old in its style and finish. I wish you a long and prosperous career.

GEORGE WHITE, Union Printing Company.—“THE STANDARD looks very well, indeed. I hope its progress will justify my present opinion—that it will be a success.”

M. HENNING, St. Louis.—I like the new STANDARD. Raising the price was the proper thing to do.

JOHN F. BAKER, Kingston, Ontario, Can.—Allow me to wish the STANDARD all success for the future. While we all deeply lament the sacrifice of his health that Mr. George has so generously made, “pouring out the wine of his life” for the cause so near to us all, I feel sure we may find reason to congratulate ourselves on having so worthy a successor to THE STANDARD’S editorial chair.

EDWARD H. BAILEY, Bleomington, Ill.-—I admire^sic the new form of THE STANDARD and you may count me as one who is glad that its retail price has been increased to 10 cents a copy. This more nearly represents the value of the paper. To me THE STANDARD is a necessity. I feel that I could not be without it at any price.

JOHN M. GUNN, Findlay, Ohio.—I like your paper more than ever in its new dress, and I am working hard to advance the great ideas it sets forth.

S. C. REESE, Pana, Illinois.—I am much pleased with the new twenty-four page edition of THE STANDARD, and especially the type, as I do most of my reading “on the road.”

GEORGE ADAMS, Haledon, New Jersey.—When I saw our favorite STANDARD in new form, I felt somewhat like others I heard express themselves—disappointed, not liking its form at first sight: but after perusing it over and re-reading “THE STANDARD’S Partisanship” and “Professor Seligman Once More,” I felt assured we were in safe hands. After further running over its contents, I am free to say, I like it better and better, and doubtless others will arrive at the same conclusion. Let us each try and get two more subscribers, then the editor will be able to carry out his promised purposes.

“THIEVES AND BEGGARS.”

THE SINGLE TAX IN FRANCE.

NEUFCHATEL-EN-BRAY, France.—It was perhaps necessary that I should be brought near to death in order fully to realize the present world-embracing status of the Single Tax movement. The incident that brought my life nearly to an end and my mind to a better appreciation of the great movement we are in took place the night before I left London.

My five months’ stay in the British capital was closing with a round of farewell calls at the homes of a number of Single Tax men, on the evening of Saturday, December 20. The last one I visited was Rev. Albert Spicer, at his country home at Wocdford^sic, near Epping. I left his house and took a cab to catch the 12 o’clock train back to my lodgings in the city. I missed the train, and the waiting-rooms being shut, I determined to make my way over the Thames to Charing Cross, and took the footpath over the railway bridge. I was half way across when, in the narrow walk coming straight upon me, three very dark, sinister-looking fellows loomed up.

When they came up to me one put his arm across my path and barred my way. The others grasped me violently by shoulders and arms. I struggled violently and raised a cry for help. A passer-by came to the rescue, and the ruffians ran off. At the Charing Cross entrance to the bridge I found a policeman, but he had heard nothing, so noisy was the bridge. He said I might easily have been robbed and tossed into the Thames, rolling dismally yellow with drifting ice. I am still surprised that I am not at the bottom of the North Sea.

As I stood questioning the policeman, a young man came up who, having missed his train, was in the same predicament with myself. He spoke good English but had a foreign air.

“You are a stranger and I a foreigner,” I said, “and so it is all right.”

“I am not an Englishman, I am an Australian,” he answered.

We walked on together in search of a hotel, where, in mutual confidence, we shared the same room. My new found friend was named Clements: he had much interesting information to impart in relation to Australia, and turned out to be a bright, thoughtful and radical fellow of great promise.

We struck a mutually agreeable vein of conversation when he fell to telling me of Henry George and all he had heard of him in New South Wales, my friend’s permanent home. He told me of the Single Tax leaders in the faraway land, and pictured to me so hopefully the condition of the Single Tax movement there that in the morning the remembrance of the terrifying scene of the night before had gone with the fog.

I am once again on my native soil. I more than ever regret, after seeing how advanced the cause is in England, that France, which led in the movement a hundred years ago, should to-day be behind. But wait! She will once more take her old place. What we lack here is means of getting the truth before our people. I believe that if “Progress and Poverty” sold for $3 in England that country would be no further advanced than France, where that almost prohibitive price prevails.

As for tracts we have none to speak of. I read the catalogue of the Single Tax Library, and I am not surprised at the rapid strides the Single Tax cause is making where English is spoken. Here when I wish to bring to bear any influence upon a possible convert I must send him English tracts and trust to his ability to read them.

Oh, if we could but reach our people. They are so quick to see the faults of governments, and history tells us how quick they are to correct them, even by heroic means. I believe—and I say this from no excess of patriotism—that no nation would give the Single Tax heartier support than would the French if they were once awakened. Let me but give an instance of how quickly an interest can be aroused.

I am now at Neufchatel, one of the leading towns in Normandy, about twenty-five miles northeast of Rouen. The town is not my native place, although it was there I first saw that light which dawned on me with the arrival here of William E. Hicks, now of New York. He spent some time with us in 1888 and 1889. One of the wealthiest men of the place, and a city councilor, M. Adolph Mansire, got into discussion with Mr. Hicks, and was converted. A French copy of “Progress and Poverty” was bought by the American traveler and left in the town. I have come back to the place to find that here one and there one has read the book and seen the light. M. Mansire goes serenely on, gathering in converts in the course of his business. A keen business man, American in energy and methods, he may in the near future be sent to our legislative halls at Paris.

That one well-thumbed copy of “Progress and Poverty” (you would never dream now it had once cost $3) has stirred up a feeling in this town that could easily be crystallized into a centre of influence that would make itself felt throughout the north of France. continued on p. 15 →

[continued on page 15]

MISSOURI DEMOCRATS AND THE SINGLE TAX.

“A small but select crowd in the present general assembly (State Legislature of Missouri) is that of which Julian, of Kansas City, is a member,” says the Kansas City Star. “They are Free Traders, and they are not afraid to push their idea. In the House there is a little crowd of hard-working advocates of Henry George’s idea of Single Tax. Speaker Tuttle is himself a Single Tax man; so is Julian; so are Ryan and Parker, of St. Louis;”Dick” Dalton, of Ralls, and one or two others.”

Mr. Julian has recently brought himself and the Single Tax question into great prominence in Missouri by offering an out-and-out Free Trade resolution in the Democratic caucus meeting which renominated Mr. Vest for the United States Senate. Of course, the machine men voted it down, but before the vote was taken there was a lively hour or so of debating, in which Mr. Julian took a promanent^sic part. But it did not end there. The newspapers took it up. The Kansas City Journal, a Republican paper, gloated over the spectacle of “Young Julian,” compelling his party to squarely face the real question. Then it proceeded to point out that Julian was not satisfied with Free Trade alone, but was a Single Taxer, a communist, a man who went aronnd^sic with copies of George’s books in his pocket, and with his head full of ideas about dividing all the land up and other fantastic notions. The Journal trusted, however, that he would be able to place the Democratic party on record in regard to all these ideas. This article elicited a reply from Henry Ware Allen, who wrote to the Kansas City Times. He showed that real free trade meant the Single Tax; that Julian was a true Democrat who held the same views as were held by many of the members^sic of the New York Reform Club, and were advocated by the New York Times. The Times followed with an editorial calling Julian a “bright and brave young Democrat,” with views that are “the expression of enlightened conviction.” It acknowledged that everybody would be better off under absolute free trade, but held that Julian was premature in presenting his views, as neither the country nor the Democratic party were ready for free trade or direct taxation yet. The Kansas City Star published the article from which an abstract is given above. It said that Juiian^sic would again bring up his resolution when the joint ballot for Senator was taken in the Legislature. And it added:

Of course, there is a strong feeling among the Alliance men in favor of free trade. H. Martin Williams, the president of the Henry George League, of Missouri, and a member of the Farmers’ Alliance, who is reading clerk of the house, says that free trade is one of the principles on which the Farmers’ Alliance is founded and that Jerry Simpson and the other Kansas Alliance men whom he met at the Florida Convention are all out-and-out free-traders. The George men also claim that they detect a leaning in favor of the doctrine upon the part of many of the Alliance members,

UNDERVALUATION OF REAL ESTATE.

The letter of the Manhattan Single Tax Club to President Coleman of the Tax Department has elicited the following comment from Cyrille Carreau, a well-known real estate broker of this city:

Gentlemen: Your letter to President Coleman of the Tax Department of New York City was published in The Tribune, and I read the same with interest. While I think you are correct as to the law, I think you fail fully to appreciate the position that President Coleman and his associates are placed in, doing as they are, what seems to be the duty of the assessors throughout the State, viz., to make low, conservative valuations for the purpose of assessing the same for the collection of taxes. That this undervaluation is wrong under the law we only need to read the law to know and fully to appreciate: and to know and fully appreciate how generally this undervaluation is resorted to by all the counties of the State, we only need to go to all the counties and try to buy properties for anything like the assessors’ valuations. The assessors’ valuations of New York City properties are correct from the point of view taken by all assessors of all counties as a whole, with, perhaps, the only difference that the New York City valnations^sic are nearer the full values than in other counties in which I have had and still have personal knowledge.

As to the undervaluation of vacant lots, I wish you would consider how near the owner of a vacant lot comes to the position of a benefactor; who buys a lot and allows the space (for air and other benefits) to be used by the residents of the location, and what better use or improvements can be made further to increase the benefits from such open space or lots, as in the case of the city paying large amounts for open spaces or parks, could not your objections be partly disposed of by what benefits vacant lots now confer on the residents and such improvements in that direction can be made until a point could be reached that vacant lots would really be desirable from all public points of view, and also beg to differ from you as to your further views as to speculation in unimproved lots, also as to builders being ready to build on them, etc. There is now in New York ample accommodation for a further population of about 250,000 people ready to be occupied, and vacant only for the reason that the supply is larger than the demand; also, there is a large proportion of non-paying tenants, who move very often and pay very liltle^sic rent. For, among other reasons, the fact that owners are helpless in the face of this over-production and other unfortunate factors which are at work in many departments of our city. Now,

p. 15, col. 2 > any state of things which would tend to increase this overproduction would correspondingly diminish the object of such buildings, so far as they are or could be a paying investment.

The only way to stimulate improvements, in my judgment, is to give property more protection, and to secure to the investors some encouragement and justice which can be relied on as to their nature and durability, which cannot be found while the State charges the city of New York one-half of the expenses of the State, and only seeks to increase our burdens, and make a technical charge that our assessors do not obey the law, nor in the sentiments that your letter above referred to and hereby partly noticed. Your object and intentions command my highest respect and consideration, but I most respectfully differ with you as to remedies you suggest, as they are in the direction of increasing the evils you propose to stop or decrease.

CYRILLE CARREAU.

THE SINGLE TAX CLUB.

Oh there’s many a club in this city of ours,
And never a night in the year
But you’ll find, if you seek, an assembly or clique
Together discussing the news of the week,
Or the gossip from far and from near.

On our avenues wide and our boulevards grand,
When the shadows of evening descend,
In their gay lighted halls where soft radiance falls,
On the glittering splendor of fair palace walls,
There are meetings of clubs without end.

In these brilliant displays of gay fashion’s ways,
Every eve you may witness a throng,
There they sumptuously dine on rare viands and wine,
And the mirth is so great and the wit is so fine
That life seems not a dirge but a song.

But ah! there’s a club in this city of ours,
And it’s not wholly void of renown,
Its members to greet, it’s a treat, when they meet
In their plain little room in a hall off the street,
In the far business side of the town.

It’s a right loyal band of brave women and men,
And their hearts are aglow with a flame,
Which unceasingly buras^sic and yet never expires,
For ’twas caught from the altar of Truth and its fires
They burn on through glory or shame.

In this club’s modest halls, on the ungilded walls
The fair light of hope seems to shine,
And in truth there’s no gloom, for the lightness and bloom
Of high thoughts and grand themes gild the plain little room
With a radiance almost divine.

They are pledged to each other, these intrepid hearts,
And they’re pledged to a high, holy cause.
They’d win a lost heritage, theirs by their birth,
Banish woe and bread—want from the face of the earth,
Write anew their beloved country’s laws.

To this favorite club oft we lovingly yearn
A right worthy offering to bring.
All in vain—for alas and alas, at such times,
To the heart and the lip come the foolishest rhymes,
And this is the song that we sing:

Oh, it meets in no palace,
It offers no “grub,”
Our nice little, dear little,
Single Tax Club.

It’s not famous for “style,”
And yet it’s no “scrub,”
This fine little, brave little
Single Tax Club.

Where so many revolve,
Of them all it’s the hub.
This smart little, bright little
Single Tax Club.

Oh, it’s tender in years,
In fact, but a cub.
This young little, pert little,
Single Tax Club.

But it’s growing apace,
And ah! there’s the rub.
It’s a live little, strong little
Single Tax Club.

Then up with its banner.
Beat the drum, rub a dub!
Hail the new little, true little
Single Tax Club.

Chicago, Ill.

MRS. M. BECK.

MASSACHUSETTS MAYORS WRITE ON LIVE QUESTIONS.

The newly elected mayors of Massachussetts^sic are abreast of the times, which is more than can be said of mayors in other States—New York, for instance. Following are a number of excerpts from the messages of the chief officials of a number of Massachusetts cities and towns, which breathe the right spirit on methods of taxation and municipal ownership of public franchises.

Mayor Bosson, of Chelsea:

I think it is generally conceded that there are marked inequalities in the valuation of property. The assessor’s list should be carefully revised. The only remedy and the only way to correct opinions which are unfavorable to the city’s real estate interests is constant readjustment so that all property be fairly assessed and none bear more than its fair portion of the public burden.

The Mayor of Pittsfield:

Let us pay as we go. An increased total valuation of assessable property seems desirable, which does not necessarily mean an increase of taxes, for more personal property may be brought to light. There should be no delay in improving the sewerage. Unless we propose paving the principal thoroughfares, they must, to meet the demands of public use, be macadamized, and that, too, in a thoroughly intelligent manner.

Mayor Lambrie, of Northampton:

There is an opportunity for reform in the assessments made for taxation. Some of our citizens are assessed for the full valuation of their property, while others pay only on a portion of their property. I am free to recommend as a good business investment the employment of one or more of the assessors a greater length of time. I advocate the immediate employment of one of the best-equipped assessors at once to make, under the supervision of the full board, a full and complete revision of our tax list. From investigations and estimates I have made, which are proved to be correct from practical experience, I am satisfied it need not cost half the amount now paid by the city to buy, own and operate a lighting plant. Good lights are a necessity. We now have a monopoly to deal with. Free competition is not now admissible. I advocate municipal control^sic. ;

Mayor Fogg, of Lynn:

I suggest that more room be furnished for the assessors in the City Hall, and that still further plans and more accurate surveys of lands in the more central sections of the city be made to enable the assessors to accurately assess each and every foot of land contained therein.

Mayor Fairbanks, of Quincy:

Light has become a necessity, and there is no true business reason why a city should not only have the right of furnishing light as a protection to travel on its highways, as an aid to its police force, but also to supply its surplus to private citizens. I am aware of the many obstacles apparently in the way, but I think the Council can render important service to the city by studying this problem, and becoming acquainted with the steps being taken in other cities to accomplish this one object of properly lighting our city.

Mayor Coughlin, of Fall River:

I recommend that the Council inquire into the matter of securing a plant for the city, in order that the latter may do its own street lighting at less expense than at present.

Mayor Dodge, of Newburyport:

By the provisons^sic of the statute by which the Newburyport Water Company received its charter, the city has the right to purchase the property after ten years. The time expires October [1?], 1891. I would suggest that a joint special committee be appointed to investigate this question, that they learn all the facts they can bearing upon it, and that at the next election an informal expression of the will of the people be asked for as to whether, under the conditions as they exist and in view of the knowledge they may then have, it will be wise to decide to purchase the property of the Newburyport Water Company.

Mayor Hibbard, of Newton:

“Would it not prove to be of advantage to the city of Newton to own and control a suitable plant for lighting the streets and city buildings?” asked the Mayor. The keeping of all franchises within direct control of the city is earnestly recommended.

Mayor Hibbard but follows up action taken by the Newton Common Council under his predecessor, for there have already been filed with the Secretary of State of Massachusetts the two following, which shows how far the idea of municipal ownership of public franchises has advanced:

City of Newton, for authority to lay and maintain in the streets of that city, tracks and appliances for street railways on which cars may be propelled by horses, electricity or otherwise.

City of Newton, by Mayor Burr, for authority to assess and collect from the street railway companies license fees, etc.

Mayor Babbitt, of Taunton, speaking on the question of an improved system of sewerage, shows that he is in favor of the plan advocated by the Chicago Single Tax men, for he says:

Property which receives the sole benefit of an improvement should pay the whole cost. So I suggest that the just way to secure relief to those suffering for the want of a sewer system, is to ask the legislature for authority to establish a sewer district, with the necessary power to borrow money, take land, tax the property within its limits, and such other privileges as may be required to carry the work to completion. Such an act should, of course, be submitted to the taxpayers of the district for acceptance before becoming a law.

FORESTRY ABROAD.

In a paper on “Government Forestry Abroad.” read before the Forestry Association in Washington, recently, Mr. Gifford Pinchot gave some facts which prove that, in respect to their treatment of wooded and forest lands, people are beginning to return to first principles. His remarks on the Prussian system of forest management are especially interesting. Of the total wooded area in Prussia, 29 per cent. belongs to the State, 16 per cent. to towns, villages and other public bodies, and 55 per cent. to individual owners.

The attitude of the government in the management of the

p. 16, col. 2 “State” forests, says Mr. Pinchot, is briefly summarized by Downer, the chief of the forest service, thus:

The State believes itself bound in the administration of its forests to treat the government woodlands as a trust held for the nation as a whole, to the end that it may enjoy for the present the highest satisfaction of its needs for forest produce and the protection which the forest gives, and for all future time at least an equal share of equal blessings.

With respect to the second class of forests, those belonging to towns and villages, Mr. Pinchot says:

The State everywhere exercises oversight and a degree of control over the management, but the sphere of its action varies within wide limits. Thus far, however, the action of the government is alike not only throughout Prussia, but in all parts of Germany. It prevents absolutely the treatment of any forest of this class under improvident or wasteful methods, nor does it allow any measures to be carried into effect which may deprive posterity of the enjoyment which it has a right to expect. It is unquestionably true that in France, as well as in Germany, the State management of communal forests lies at the root of the prosperity of a large proportion of the peasant population. While, on the other hand, villages whose taxes are wholly paid by their forests are by no means rare; on the other hand, the sale of communal forest property in certain parts of Germany in 1848 has been followed with deplorable regularity by the impoverishment of the villages which were unwise enough to permit it.

The forests of private owners are not so strictly supervised as those of the towns and villages, but that control necessary to prevent “deforestation,” that is, the destruction of the forests, is vigilantly exercised.

In Switzerland the state and communal forests are managed as in Prussia, while the private forest-owners may not reduce the area of their woodlands without the consent of the cantonal government, they must plant up the land cut over which is without natural re-growth, and are bound to take proper care of the growing stock. The consent of the Federal Assembly is necessary to the clearing of private land on the steeper slopes. In France the policy is like that of Prussia, and one of the most important results has been the correction of the torrents from the Alps, Pyrenees and Cevennes Mountains by the planting of over 350,000 acres of mountain slopes with forest trees. In India, under the new system, the supply of timber and forest products has been constantly increasing, the annual revenues from the State forests has been constantly increasing, and the water supply has been assured by the preservation of the forests. Italy, on the other hand, feels the evil effects of having sold a large part of her public forests a few years ago. The trees have been ruthlessly cut down: and if agriculture is to continue in some districts the government will have to replant the forests at enormous expense.

THE SONG OF THE SHIRT.

“HOW SHARPER THAN A SERPENT’S TOOTH^sic.

St. Louis Globe Democrat (Rep.)

It is to be hoped that Ohio will elect Mr. McKinley to the gubernatorial office if he is to remain in politics. That is to say, there is a pronounced desire that he shall be placed where he cannot do any more fooling with the tariff.

THAT’S WHAT THEY ARE.

Puck.

“What are the Eleusinian mysteries, Pa?”

“The Eleusinian mysteries, my son, are the reasons given by the Republican party for the McKinley tariff^sic.

SINGLE TAX NEWS.

SINGLE TAX LEAGUE OF THE UNITED STATES.

NATIONAL COMMITTEE, 42 UNIVERSITY PLACE, New York, January 20, 1891.

We publish this week in our STANDARD club list, only such clubs as have indorsed the platform adopted at the National Conference and applied for enrollment in the League.

The attention of officers of Single Tax organizations is called to the resolutions adopted at the National Conference to the effect that all organizations subscribing to the national Single Tax platform shall be eligible for membership in the League. Thus far but very few clubs have formally subscribed to the platform and enrolled themselves in the League, and officers of organizations that have as yet made no move in the matter are earnestly requested to bring the question before their clubs and apply at once to the secretary of the National Committee for enrollment.

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

It has also taken up the newspaper work of the Memphis committee, and is now engaged in circularizing newspapers in every State, calling their attention to the wide-spread interest now shown in the subject of the Single Tax, and urging that they call on tne^sic press companies supplying their ready prints and plates for Single Tax matter.

p. 17, col. 2

[SINGLE TAX LEAGUE OF THE UNITED STATES, continued from column 1]

Subscriptions toward expenses of this committee’s work, received since our last report, are as follows:

E. J. Shriver, New York City ………. $12 00 Subscriptiors^sic previously acknowleuged^sic ………. 1,365 20 Total ………. $1,377 20

(NOTE.—Owing to an imperfect type the subscription of Chas. R. McGinnis, in our subscription list of January 7th, read $2 instead of $12)

Cash contributions for the week ending January 20 are as follows:

Chas. Terrell, San Francelso^sic, Cal ………. $1 00 T. B. Moore, Fassett, Pa ………. 15 Jas. McDaniel, Minneapolis, Minn ………. 5 00 Long & Kees, Minneapolis, Minn ………. 5 00 Alfred Sherlock, Minneapolis, Minn ………. 5 00 James Baxter, Minneapolis, Minn ………. 5 00 B. Aronson, Minneapolis, Minn ………. 5 00 S. S. Cochrane. Utica^sic, Kansas ………. 10 ………. $26 25 Contributions previously acknowledged ………. 928 66 Total ………. $95[4?] 91

The enrollment now stands as follows:

Reported last week ………. 96,205 Signatures received since last report ………. 447 Total ………. 96,652

For news budget, see roll of States.

GEO. ST. JOHN LEAVENS, Secretary.

NEW YORK CITY.

To-morrow (Thursday) evening Mr. Jnlien^sic T. Davies will deliver before the Manhattan Single Tax Club his long-promised lecture on “The Total Abolition of Personal Property From Taxation.” As has been said before in these columns, Mr. Davies is a Republican and Protectionist, and it is therefore all the more remarkable that he should take such a view on personal property taxation as is outlined in the title to his lecture. All friends are invited to be present on this occasion.

BROOKLYN.

Robert C. Utess.—Twelve petitions, which makes my quota up to date 732, with more to hear from.

James B. Connell.—At the last meeting of the Eighteenth Ward Democratic Association we introduced a resolution protesting against the election of Smith M. Weed, Protectionist, by a Democratic Legislature, giving us Single Taxers a chance to get a whack at the high tariff policy, which doughheads of all descriptions are beginning to find ont^sic the injustice of.

NEW YORK STATE.

Robert White, Buffalo.—Fifteen petitions. One of the signers, Mr. J. V. Wackerman, is one of the wealthy men of our city. He recently bought $100,000 worth of real estate, but says the Single Tax cannot come too soon for him for then he can afford to build on it; but under the present system of taxation he declares he will never build another house.

C. H. Fuller, Middletown.—On Tuesday evening, January 13 last, Fathe^sic Huntington addressed a good sized audience at Grace Episcopal Church on the labor question. He told how in two ways men could be starved to death in the midst of plenty. One way would be to chain every man to a rock, the other to put them on the highway and line either side with soldiers and a few Pinkerton men. One would be as effective as the other. Christ did not teach men to pray each for his own miserable, little soul, but his prayer was “Our Father, thy Kingdom come on earth.” Christ was put to death because he was a social reformer, and were he here to-day he would be called a crank or an Anarchist. The address made a deep impression, all agreeing it to be a masterly effort, and that he, Father Huntington, is rendering a great service in the cause of humanity.

MASSACHUSETTS.

James R. Carret, Boston.—A sufficient number of delegates having been elected by the local clubs, a meeting of the general committee of the Massachusetts Single Tax League was held on the 11th inst., at which the following officers were chosen: Chairman, James R. Carret; secretary, Mrs. Emily T. Turner^sic: and as treasurer, George Cox, Jr., of Malden, (address 72 High street, Boston,) in place of the late Mark W. Cross. Messrs. Levi H. Turner, Edwin M. White, and Wm. F. Morrill were appointed a committee with full power to add to their numbers to take charge of the petition to the Legislature for a change in the law so as to apply the Single Tax in local taxation. Mrs. Emily T. Turner, who was elected secretary, later declined, as she felt that she could not give the necessary time for the proper performance of the duties. An executive committee of seven was chosen, consisting of the treasurer, secretary (vacancy to be filled), and five others, Messrs. James R. Carret, Q. A. Lothrop, Harry Lloyd, William Burhenne, and Mrs. Rich.

S. T., Boston.—The Building Laborers’ Union held a meeting on January 11 in Caledonia Hall and voted to set apart one hour at each meeting for the discussion of some particular topic connected with the labor question, the selection to be made at the previous meeting.

Levi H. Turner, Boston.—Since my return to Boston in the Fall I have been a very busy man. Having lost my situation and broken out of the business channels by going West in the Spring, my return at a time of commercial stagnation has necessitated a close and vigorous application to business. I mention this by way of apology, for the fact of my frequently declining the invitation of our friends in this vicinity to speak at Single Tax meetings. I have been unable, personally, to reply to the many inquiries relative to my proposed lecture on “The Northwest and Its Opportunities,” and I take this method of informing our friends in Maine and Eastern Massachusetts that I shall not be able to have this lecture ready as early as I anticipated, owing to pressing business engagements. This is also my first opportunity to formally thank our Single Tax friends in Washington State, and more especially those of Denver, Col., for the many courtesies shown to us during our stay in those States. On Sunday, December 28, the continued on p. 18 →

[Text breaks off mid-sentence at the foot of the page; the continuation is not on page 17 and no “continued” line is printed.]

NEW JERSEY.

M. J. Flynn, Camden.—Twelve signatures. I confidently expect to have a larger number the next time you hear from me.

PENNSYLVANIA.

S. T., Philadelphia.—At the regular meeting of the Philadelphia Single Tax Society, held January 15, an interesting address on “Propoganda^sic” was given by U. C. Munch. A discussion of ways and means followed. A letter was read from S. C. Rogers, of Buffalo, suggesting the use of the unemployed in selling the half million edition of “Protection or Free Trade?” The society decided to give a positive order for one thousand copies, which will be sold by canvassers at twenty-five cents a copy, the profit to be turned over to the society’s library and propaganda fund. A committee was appointed to arrange for a thorough canvass of Philadelphia to solicit subscriptions to the book.

VIRGINIA.

K. B., Herndon.—Twelve petitions. This is a rather difficult community to stir up on the Single Tax, for everybody seems to be comfortably well off. Even the poorest negroes have homes and can always earn enough to get plenty to eat and there is no difficulty in getting plenty of fuel. Consequently there is an almost unarousable apathy.

WEST VIRGINIA.

W. I. Boreman, Parkersburg.—I have just been putting in a half day with part of the fence motto brigade, Messrs. Wilcox and Dean, in lettering the fences along the turnpikes leading into town. It is a most excellent plan for local work, easily learned, quickly done. We make the letters from five to eight inches long, and, first sizing the boards of a panel or two with flour or starch paste, we put on the letters in white paint and cut around them with black and fill in the spaces with the same. Three can work at this at once and in five or ten minutes produce a motto that will stand for years. Put the paint right on the pasted board before the sizing is dry. This is a great saving of time and the brush slips easily over the surface. We devote most of our work now to the tariff and to local taxation. Here are a few of our mottoes, put up to-day: “Free Trade in ’92;” “God hates a protection Democrat;” “A new game called protection, or fleece the farmer;” “Farmers assessed at 65 per cent.; town lots at 15 per cent;” “Protection for the manufacturer, the poorhouse for the farmer.” Both Republicans and Democrats see this, and it starts a discussion at once. We have mottoes on most of the roads leading into town and will soon go through the town itself. Anybody can do this work. If you have no painter in your crowd, take your scissors and cut out a few letters for a pattern from some stiff cardboard advertisement and then cut around these letters with your black paint. The farmers are discussing the tax question and the tariff, and by keeping them going we will make votes. The Aus tralian ballot will be passed by our Legislature this winter, I think, as Governor Fleming has recommended it, and the Legislature is largely Democratic.

TEXAS.

Will M. Buell, Baird.—Seven petitions. The minds of the people are running our way.

B. Romberg, Black Jack Springs, Fayette county.—Eleven petitions. We are all farmers around here and hard to convince. I circulate all the STANDARD’S I get in the neighborhood.

OHIO.

J. M. G., Findlay.—Although I strike snags quite often in trying to advance the Single Tax it does not discourage me. I only wish that every voter would read our literature. We will form a club here soon.

INDIANA.

Mrs. J. D. Gunn, Evansville.—Twenty-four petitions. A number of our most intelligent ladies are enthusiastic in the cause. Have just been reading with delight “The New Declaration of Rights,” and “The Coming Billionaire.” They have given me new hope.

ILLINOIS.

Warren Worth Bailey, Chicago.—The audience which greeted the Hon. Henry D. Lloyd at our meeting Thursday evening, January 15, was large, intelligent and appreciative. His address was in his very best style, abounding in epigram, in scintillating wit, in antithesis and vivid illustration, in biting sarcasm and merciless thrusts at sham and pretense, the whole irradiated with the flashes of genius, and softened by the finer touches of a broad and purely human sympathy. His subject was “A Conservative View of the Labor Question,” according to the announcement, but he really dwelt upon the New Conscience, tracing the development of freedom and human rights historically from the earliest times to the present, when old forms are crumbling, and the shells that once protected and now restrict growth are being cracked and thrown off as the seed bursts its pod

p. 18, col. 2 or the butterfly its chrysalis. But unfortunately there was a halting short of conclusions in the brilliant journalist’s stirring review and prophesy^sic of the great labor movement, a hesitation in grappling the real problem, a curious failure in stating the ultimate principles which should govern and direct the New Conscience. Mr. John Z. White, in moving a vote of thanks to the speaker, referred to Mr. Lloyd’s singular conservatism in this respect, at the same time paying him a deserved tribute. Mr. Marshall Beck also spoke briefly in commendation of the spirit of the address, referring with much feeling and delicacy to the fact that Mr. Lloyd was the champion of the poor, not because he was himself poor, but simply because he saw that the poor’s cause was just, and that it was his duty to leave the place among the high and the contented to go forth to do battle for the lowly and the oppressed. The discussion then became general, taking a considerable range. I think Mr. Lloyd was agreeably surprised by the character of the audience and the keenness and strength of his critics. He certainly followed their remarks with close attention, and, instead of leaving at 9:45, as he had intended, he remained till the meeting adjourned at 10:30, and then continued the discussion with various members of the audience who pressed about him. Mr. Ripley introduced a resolution favoring a constitutional convention, and it was referred to the legislative committee without debate. A resolution was adopted authorizing the purchase of 500 copies of “Protection or Free Trade?” for distribution by the club. It was also ordered that a monthly collection be taken at our meetings for the benefit of the National Committee. Announcements—January 22, James Malcolm, “Personal Property Taxation in Illinois;” January 29, H. E. Bartholomew, “Why I Believe in the Single Tax;” February 5, Leon Hornstein; February 12, Edward Osgood Brown. Mr. Phillips has indefinitely postponed his address on Socialism, which we had hoped to hear next Thursday evening. There is very little doubt that the special assessment system will be greatly extended in this city during the next two years.

Ernest J. Foord, Chicago.—Twelve petitions. I am serving upon the jury for a few days and several of the endorsed signatures are my “fellow jurors,” to whom I have been preaching the gospel of the Single Tax—sort of “courting them.” I hope before these “twelve good men and true” shall have disbanded to send you the remainder of their signatures, making the verdict in favor of the Single Tax unanimous.

Robert Aitchison, South Chicago.—Twelve petitions. When I started to ask people to write their names I thought I would only have to ask, but now I know different. Some men could not see through a mill stone even with a hole in it.

S. T., Bloomington.—I do not find it easy to get signatures to the petitions here. In this city of culture and wealth, of colleges and clubs, there are fewer free-traders and there is less radicalism than any city I ever struck. The population is composed largely of very conservative people. This is due, doubtless, to the fact that this is a city of very prosperous people. Though containing a population of 30,000 there is no labor organization to speak of, though the great Chicago and Alton Railroad has here its immense shops employing several hundred men. There are also many manufacturing establishments here, but I never hear of a labor meeting. Even the coal miners are not organized, though there are many of them. The laboring men of every class, as a rule, own their own homes and their little lawns. There is a general feeling of contentment, and few seem disposed to complain of the general conditions. So that, when I approach men to sign the petition I am generally reminded that “everything is all right. I am satisfied.” But I do not lose courage, but keep digging away at them. One of the petitions sent herewith is that of the editor of the Sunday Eye, Mr. C. M. Leek, a very brainy man and one the most forcible^sic editorial writers in the State. His conversion, I believe, is only a question of a short time. The other, Charles E. Reed, is one of the most prominent and highly respected merchants in the city. He is an absolute and radical Free Trader, and deeply interested in the Single Tax. His brother, also a Free Trader, would not sign the petition. His refusal was a great surprise to me, knowing him to be a radical. I had the pleasure of meeting our good friend James A. Herne a few days ago.

B. P. Murphy, Pinckneyville.—Robert Cumming, of Duquoin, this county, addressed a large and appreciative audience in the court house at this place last Saturday, on the Single Tax on land values as elucidated in “Progress and Poverty.” Mr. Cumming is a young man who works hard in the coal mines during the day and spends his leisure time in study. He has thoroughly mastered the economic problems in “Progress and Poverty,” and has a felicitous way of presenting his views in a graceful, quiet and dignified yet forcible manner that secures the attention and respect of all who hear him.

IOWA.

J. Hagerty, Burlington.—One petition from one of our strongest protectionists. Our club is very active.

MISSOURI.

W. B. Addington, St. Louis.—Seven petitions.

MINNESOTA.

C. J. Buell, Minneapolis.—The Single Tax is moving right along here. The fact that Mayor P. B. Winston has joined our league has caused considerable comment in the newspapers. Very many of our leading business men here are Single Taxers; while as to the masses of the people, I have very little doubt that they would give a large majority for the Single Tax, if the matter could be presented to them on its merits. In the meantime we are trying to so amend the constitntion^sic that the people of any county or city, or of the State at large, can vote upon the matter. There are a good many Single Taxers in the Legislature. The entire Democratic contingent from this county—nineteen in number—with one possible exception, will favor our bill, and one of the two Republicans will also favor us. Mayor Stivers, of Brainard, who is in the house; also John Sheets, of Todd County, Mr. Bull, of Wright County, and J. A. Keyes, of Winona, are Single Taxers. It was Keyes who put through the Australian ballot law two years ago, and he is now at work on a bill to apply the reform to the entire State. I don’t know how many other Single Taxers there may be in the house, but our bill continued on p. 19 →

[continued on next page — text breaks off mid-sentence at foot of column]

NEBRASKA.

E. Flannagan, Lincoln.—A. J. Cornish, though elected to the Legislature as a Republican, is the most pronounced Single Taxer in this county. He has introduced a bill, based on the Australian plan, providing that the State shall print and distribute all ballots, and he desires the friends of ballot reform to furnish him with the very best information on the subject. Address him at Lincoln, Lancaster County, Neb. I think there will be a law exempting from taxation anywhere from $300 to $1,000 of the products of labor, by the time our reform Legislature adjourns. Some radical legislation is looked for from this assembly, especially relating to taxation, interest and corporations, and best of all I’m led to believe the people will laugh this time. The independents have a good working majority in both houses and may have the Government yet.

Edwin Welsh, Omaha.—Twenty-seven petitions. One of the signers is a millionaire, L. Woodworth, who considers it unjust to fine a man for improving the city, while another is rewarded for retarding its growth. The Single Tax idea is growing in Nebraska.

SOUTH DAKOTA.

W. E. Brokaw, Flandreau.—Fifty-seven signatures. Saturday night, January 3, I talked to a fair audience in the school house at Estelline. At the close of my talk I answered questions, most of which were asked by a couple of bankers. While answering a question of one of them he walked out. I was told that finding himself cornered, he left for fear of being laughed at. The opposition of these men caused the farmers present to take more kindly to the subject. I obtained a number of signatures for the petition and subscribers for the special edition of “Protection or Free Trade?” also a subscriber for THE STANDARD. I proceeded to Brookings Monday. Tuesday night I talked in a school house ten miles from Brookings. The interest in the subject was manifest by the questions asked and the discussion after the meeting. There I also obtained subscriptions for the book and signers to the petition. At each place I distributed tracts and a few old STANDARDS I happened to have. Wednesday night I spoke in the Court House at Brookings. I had my smallest audience there, but the presentation of the truth seemed to have the same effect that it has on a larger crowd. Thursday Mr. Lattin took me to White. Although it had been announced that I would speak there, no arrangements had been made for a place to speak in. The school house seemed to be the only place obtainable, but it could not be had for less than $2.50. As that was about half the size of my “pile,” and as I could find no one, or number of men, willing to guarantee the amount and trust to a collection, I could not secure the school room. After considerable “rustling” I was offered the use of a store room. Something like twenty men were “scared up” at that late hour, 8 P. M., and I stood near the door while my auditors sat on counters, boxes and chairs, and listened to an hour and a half’s talk on “taxation.” Many questions were asked in the half hour or so following my talk, and eight men paid a dime apiece for the new edition of “P. or F. T?” and thirteen signed the petition. One of the farmers present took me home with him, and in the morning I caught a hand-car ride from his place to Bushnell. Thus you see I labor under difficulties. At Bushnell I was taken in by the postmaster, who is also a storekeeper. Friday night I talked to a group of men in the school house there. One of the farmers present, who was a rank protectionist, said he wished he had known what it was going to be, and urged me to let him know if I ever came that way again, and he would have the house filled to hear me. While answering questions this man asked: “What you are after is to kill speculation, is it?” I replied that it was, and then he said, “Now I begin to get it through my thick head.” Later, after I had answered some of his objections to free trade, he said: “I’ll have to be going home, or you’ll make a free trader of me.” While waiting to catch a ride to Aurora the next day, that man came in with some of his neighbors, and and when I left^sic there were a dozen or so in the store vigorously discussing the Single Tax. Saturday night, the 10th, I talked to about fifty men and a few women in the Methodist Church at Aurora. The man who made arrangements for me had read “Social Problems” and favored the idea. The pastor of the church had listened to me talk in his church at Gary last Spring. Mr. Van Doren, one of the organisers of the State Alliance, came over from Brooklings^sic with Mr. Lattin to hear me, and while answering questions he made several statements

p. 19, col. 2 that corroborated some of mine. Mr. Lattin took me home with him that night, and Sunday afternoon took me to Mr. Perley’s, near Flandreau. Mr. Perley has arranged for me to address the County Alliance at Flandreau this afternoon. I expect to go to Baltic to-morrow, the 13th. At one place I met an editor who said he had just refused a chance to get a Single Tax department in the patent side of his paper. I told him he had better reconsider and he said he believed he would; for, if the subject was being agitated, his readers might as well get a chance to study it, but he had not supposed before that it was being agitated much. A Protectionist, who came to hear me at one place, declared my talk “splendid,” although heretofore he could not be got to go to hear anything contrary to “Protection,” while I talk pure Free Trade. He even went so far as to subscribe for the coming edition of “P. or F. T?” At other places other Protectionists have been similarly affected. The idea of limiting land-holding to use and thus freeing resources by the Single Tax removes all their fear of Tree Trade^sic. I notice that “Tariff Reform” is a term little used among the farmers where I have been so far; they talk of “Free Trade” and “Protection,” and the Independents mostly seem to think the tariff is an evil that should be abolished but cannot be “reformed.” The action of the State Board of Equalization in raising the assessments, instead of equalizing them, is creating more interest in the tax problem. This board, the chairman of which is the Governor, increased the assessed returns from 25 to 75 per cent., and on bank securities, etc., 100 per cent. But the bankers refuse to pay the additional amount. They will not pay taxes on $200 when the note is only a $100 note. On the other hand, most of the farmers will pay the increased amount. As a result the agitation of the tax question becomes easier, and any opposition of bankers to the Single Tax only serves to make it more popular with the farmers.

CALIFORNIA.

S. Byron Welcome, Los Angeles.—Thirty-three petitions. Unconscious Single Tax men are abundant. Nearly everybody is dissatisfied with the “McKinley Discovery.” Free Trade is getting a stronger hold. It is no longer a bugaboo. Protectionists are very scarce and timid; Nationalists seem almost extinct: Socialists are few and thick-skulled as ever, and real Democracy crops out everywhere in discussion.

Mrs. Frances M. Milne, San Luis Obispo.—Find inclosed $2, from my mother (Mrs. F. M. Tener) and myself, $1 each, our annual subscription to the National Committee. Everything here just now is very dull, with the railroad topic the only interest. You can imagine our great happiness in Mr. George’s recovery. Would that we could make some offering to the Single Tax worthy of such joy.

OREGON.

C. M. Crain, The Dalles.—Thirty-four petitions. Will Uren, Wallace Yates, B. S. Riggen and others, are succeeding in having some good, straight Single Tax articles published in the Oregonian, and the feeble attempts of the editor to combat their sound, political, economic logic, is making us many converts.

WASHINGTON.

James S. Paton, Douglas.—Inclosed find petitions, also a postal note for $2.50, our first contribution to this year’s work of the National Committee. Our numbers are steadily increasing in this vicinity.

William R. Van Dolahr, Port Angeles.—Nineteen petitions.

PERSONAL.

Gertrude Franklin Atherton, in her article in the January Cosmopolitan on “The Literary Development of California,” says that though not born in the State “Henry George needed the rich suggestions of the new country to teach him the heights and the depths of the great problem he has solved.” Here it seems we have a Californian who understands that Mr. George has solved the problem he set out to solve.

* * *

When the New York Times declares in a headline that “Chandler’s Great Steal” in New Hampshire “was in line with his whole corrupt career,” people old enough to remember the Florida steal in 1877, and the attitude of this same New York Times toward the great fraud, are disposed to rub their eyes and look carefully at the head line of the paper to see if it is really The Times.

* * *

In a private letter from Kansas Mr. Louis F. Post says: “I have had a long talk with Jerry Simpson. He is a true blue Single Taxer, deep-dyed, and carries Social Problems with him wherever he goes, as the exponent of the views he holds in common with us. Do not let the foolish,”sockless statesman” stories mislead you as to what he is. He is the best man in the Kansas delegation and will make a good Congressman. He wears socks.”

* * *

George E. Bedell, of Herkimer, this State, and William Evans, of St. Louis, Mo., were in this city last week. They both visited the rooms of the Manhattan Single Tax Club, where they were entertained by members of the club.

* * *

W. H. Wakefield, writing from Lawrence, Kan., under date of the 10th instant, says that he had just received a call from Louis F. Post. The Topeka Capital of January 15 says that on the previous evening Mr. Post spoke before the Citizens’ Alliance on free trade. The capital says^sic Mr. Post is a natural orator.

* * *

Last Sunday morning W. L. Crosman, our Roxbury, Mass., correspondent, sat down to his breakfast. He folded his Boston Globe, so he could read it easily while discussing the various viands placed before him-meanwhile^sic thinking of the toilsome week to begin on the following morning, But^sic before he had finished reading the Globe he learned, through its columns, that he could lie abed Monday morning if he wanted to, for the paper on which he worked—the Boston Post—had locked out its old compositors and taken on a force of non-Union men.

THE SPEECH OF MR. INGALLS.

The passage of the free coinage bill by the Senate last Wednesday, was the occasion of the most exciting debate that has occurred in this Congress. It lasted ten hours in all, of which Mr. Ingalls occupied two hours to deliver a brilliant speech, in which he touched on a great many things besides the coinage of silver dollars. It was mainly devoted to pointing out the dangers which menace society from the unjust and unequal distribution of wealth. A condensed report contains the following:

The moral sentiment of mankind had been aroused at the unequal distribution of wealth aud^sic at the unequal diffusion of the burdens, benefits and privileges of society. At the beginning of the second century the American people had become profoundly convinced that the ballot was not the panacea for the evils of society, that it had not abolished poverty nor diminished injustice. They had discovered that political equality did not result in social fraternity; that under democracy the concentration of greater power in fewer hands was more possible than under a monarchy. George Washington, the first President of the Republic, had, when he died in 1799, the largest private fortune in the United States, but all of his belongings at the time of his death only reached the sum total of between eight and nine hundred thousand dollars. That was less than a century ago, and yet it is within bounds to say that at the present time there are many scores of men and of corporations in this country whose annual income (and there has been one man whose monthly revenue) exceeded the entire accumulations of the richest citizen of the United States at the end of the last century. The population of the Union was then 5,300,000, and the estimated wealth of the country was between three and four thousand million dollars. There was not a millionaire and there was not a tramp or pauper in the country. Labor was the rule and luxury the example^sic. The prayer of Agar was then absolutely realized. There was “neither poverty nor riches.” Since that time the growth in wealth and numbers of the United States had had no precedent in the building of nations. The people of the United States now performed one-third of the world’s mining, one-fourth of its manufacturing, one-fifth of its farming and possessed one-sixth of its accumulated wealth. The United States had become the wealthiest nation on the face of the earth. Its progress exceeded the fictions of the Arabian Nights. There was nothing in the story of Aladdin that rivalled it. It was without parallel or precedent. But the people had suddenly awakened to the conception of the fact that the great bulk of the property of the country was passing into the hands of those whom Senator Sherman called by euphemism the speculators of the country. One man in this country had in a lifetime acquired, out of the aggregate of the Nation’s wealth earned by the labor of all, a sum that exceeded the assessed value of four of the smaller States, and which was many times more than the entire wealth of the Republic when it was founded. This was the most terrible commentary ever recorded in the book of time. And Nero fiddled while Rome burned. The means mistically^sic denominated financiering, speculation. This process was going on with constantly and frightfully accelerating rapidity, by means of combinations. We were accustomed to speak of this as the land of the free and the home of the brave; and it would soon be the home of the rich and the land of the slave. It was no wonder that the laboring and agricultural classes of this country had at last awakened. Referring to the late election he said that it was neither a Republican defeat nor a Democratic victory. It was a great uprising, independent of and superior to both political parties. It was a peaceful revolution.

Mr. Ingalls then went on to advocate unlimited coinage, and claimed he had been a supporter of the idea contained in the bill for the last fifteen years. His speech was a strong bid for the support of the Farmers’ Alliance majority of the Kansas Legislature, in his fight for re-election to the Senate.

“PROTECTION OR FREE TRADE” AND THE HAND-TO-HAND CLUB.

The success of the half-million edition of “Protection or Free Trade?” is now so far assured that the first hundred thousand will be put to press early in February. Whether the edition will ever reach the half million or million mark will depend entirely on the continuance of the enthusiastic work now being done nearly everywhere for it. Recognizing fully that this success will not be due to any one individual^sic. but to the united efforts of all reformers, and that whatever honor may be derived therefrom should not be monopolized, it has been decided that the “Hand-to-Hand Club^sic.” composed of all who assist this work, shall issue this edition. Every subscriber for one hundred copies or more, and every one who obtains subscriptions for at least one hundred copies, will thereby become a member . This will enable every one of us to get some share of the glory, for while we may not all be able to afford to subscribe for this number each one of us can, with very little effort, get subscriptions from our acquaintances for more than one hundred copies. Mr. Logan Carlisle, son of Senator Carlisle, has accepted the presidency, and Mr. William Lloyd Garrison the vice-presidency, as will be seen from following^sic:

William Lloyd Garrison, Boston, Mass.—You are welcome to use my name as vice-president of the Hand-to-Hand Club if it will be of any service to the cause. I think you have hit upon a very effective plan of converting the people to free trade ideas. Nothing more lucid or effective has ever been written upon the subject than Mr. George’s book.

Louis F. Post.—The only work worth doing in the West is what you propose. Ordinary tariff reform literature would be like Presbyterian sermons to a Calvinist. It would be agreed to, but what good? What is needed is the kind of literature that will show the effect of protection in separating producer and consumer; that will show, without saying it, that the relief of a greater volume of currency would at best be but temporary. “Protection or Free Trade?” is the only book that in present political conditions can do that. The “money maggot” has possession now, and no mere fiscal reform has any show. It may be good enough in its way, but “what the people want is more money and less misery.”

Oliver T. Erickson, Minneapolis, Minn.—Enclosed find orders for 1,107 copies of “Protection or Free Trade?” If I have as good success in the next two weeks my orders will reach two thousand by February 1—one two-hundred-and-fiftieth of the entire number needed. If Single Tax men generally take an interest in this matter we ought to get there with both feet in very short order.

p. 20, col. 2 [Hand-to-Hand Club letters, continued from c1]

W. E. Brosaw^sic, Watertown, S. Dak.—To show that we mean business I enclose one order for five hundred from our club, one hundred from the secretary for his own use, and five odd ones I picked up. To-morrow I strike out and hope to pick np^sic a good many by the wayside. Whoop her up!

George C. Gunther, Ottawa, Ill.—Enclosed find money order for $11, $10 of which is for one hundred copies “Protection or Free Trade?”

R. H. Hasewitter, Hermann, Mo.—Send blanks and I’ll see how many subecribers^sic I can get.

Judge Isaac Howe, Redfield, S. Dak.—Put me down for fifty copies. It is the best scheme yet devised to educate the voter. Thought must precede intelligent action, and I know of no book so well calculated to arouse thought and stimulate inquiry as “Protection or Free Trade?” It is so plain and fearless in statement and so convincing and unanswerable in argument that he who runs, though a Protectionist, may read and understand.

H. Hubbard, Painesville, O.—Put me down for a hundred copies. Have been loaning a single copy for the last two years, whenever I found a good subject and have seldom failed to make a convert. Will use ten copies myself, keeping them loaned to protectionists all the time and instruct friends to do the same. I believe ten dollars invested now in this way is worth five hundred during the campaign.

Patrick Molloy, Elk Garden, W. Va.—Have got thirty-five subscribers so far. Send circulars. I may be able to increase it.

Charles S. Prizer, Reading, Pa.—I will take a hundred copies. Will send cash February 1.

Warren Worth Bailey, Chicago, Ill.—Enclosed are orders for 195 copies. If I had more blanks I could have them filled.

J. H. Barber, San Francisco, Cal.—Enclosed find $1 for ten copies.

Thomas Bowman, Council Bluffs, Iowa.—I enclose order for a hundred copies.

Bolton Smith, Memphis, Tenn.—Put me down for one hundred copies.

R. T. Snediker, Hartford, Kan.—Send a hundred copies if possible before the farmers begin plowing, which is in March.

P. J. Snay, Galion, O.—I said I would get one hundred subscribers but will not be satisfied unless I make it five hundred. Am getting subscripscriptions^sic every day and find it easier than to get petitions signed. The Farmers’ Alliance and Knights of Labor hold conventions here beginning on the 20th, and I want to use the occasion to do some work.

Robert Tyson, Toronto, Can.—Send subscriptions for a hundred and forty-five additional copies.

W. A. Van Epps, Olympia, Wash.—Put me down for fifty copies.

A. J. Watson, O’Neill, Neb.—No better plan could be adopted to strengthen the ranks of reformers. Enclosed find order for a hundred copies.

C. W. Kellogg, Chicago, Ill.—Enclosed find subscription for one hundred copies. The world will be ours within ten years if we can get this half million copies properly before the people.

Gus A. Menger, St. Louis, Mo.—Please increase my order to a hundred copies.

M. Hemming, St. Louis, Mo.—I cannot use more than a hundred copies just now, but hope to increase this later. This is the best work Single Taxers can do just now. Everyone has friends who can readily be persuaded to subscribe and the great good to be effected from this work ought to prompt every worker to devote at least a few dollars to circulate this book free.

Subscribers will save us much trouble and expense, if they will, so far as possible, send cash with their orders. The first hundred thousand will be printed in February and will be sent to subscribers from whom the cash is actually received. We hope this will induce workers to redouble their efforts, not to relax them. The actual subscriptions received to date foot up a little less than thirty thousand, but from present appearances the hundred thousand mark will be passed before February 10. Please address for subscription blanks, circulars, etc., W. J. Atkinson, secretary Hand-to-Hand Club. 42^sic University place, New York.

AGAINST SUBSIDIES.

Boston Post, January 15.

> The letter of Captain John Codman, which we reprint in another column from the New York STANDARD, contains some remarkable statements concerning the manner in which the Farquhar subsidy scheme is “promoted” in the House. The methods employed lead Captain Codman vigorously to denounce it as “a bill for the benefit of beggars and theives^sic.”

In this connection, but relating to the merits of the bill itself rather than to the lobby methods by which it is urged, the recent protests of the merchants of Baltimore is of interest. These merchants represent that they have acquired a trade with South America in vessels which “have been built and are owned by Baltimore houses, and are profitably employed without the aid of subsidy, notwithstanding the obstacles created by existing laws imposing onerous taxes upon shipping.” They say that this trade, the result of years of effort, which is steadily increasing, is now threatened by the proposed legislation, and they “earnestly appeal” to their Senators and Representatives “to intervene and with every proper means oppose the shipping bill.”

LET GERMANY PUT A TARIFF ON THE IMPORTED ARTICLE.

Boston Globe.

> The girls of Germany are beginning to resent with great bitterness the competition of American beauties, who generally succeed in carrying off the first prizes in matrimonial husbandry, while ostensibly “completing their studies.”

Linn County, Kan., once elected a man to the State Senate who travelled to the capital of the State in an ox cart instead of by the stage coach, and who, in fencing his farm, tied the poles to the posts with hickory withes instead of nailing them, because there was a tariff on nails.

THE 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 have no more taxes to pay than the speculator who held a similar piece of land idle, and the man who on a city lot erected a valuable building would be taxed no more than the man who held a similar lot vacant.

The single tax, in short, would call upon men to contribute to the public revenues, not in proportion to what they produce or accumulate, but in proportion to the value of the natural opportunities they hold. It 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.

[Advertisement] Henry George & Co., Publishers

HENRY GEORGE & CO.,

PUBLISHERS,

42 University Place, New York City.

[Advertisement] Geo. P. Rowell & Co., Newspaper Advertising Bureau

[Illustration: display advertisement. A man in a cap, leaning back, kicks a small round object (a ball or bundle) high into the air, with speed lines trailing from his foot; large hand-lettered words “Don’t kick” above him; the following hand-lettered text beside him, with “advertise” underlined.]

Don’t kick

because your business is bad. but^sic advertise If you^sic 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.

p. 22, col. 2

[Advertisement] The Berkshire Life Insurance Co. 

ORGANIZED 1851^sic.

THE BERKSHIRE

Life Insurance Co.,

OF

PITTSFIELD, MASS.

Send your age, name and address and receive a SPECIAL STATEMENT showing the SUPERIOR ADVANTAGES and LIBERAL OPTIONS of the new TWENTY PAYMENT INVESTMENT and PROTECTION POLICY, together with the GUARANTEED CASH and PAID UP VALUES after the SECOND YEAR. This policy affords all the advantages of Life Insurance during the early or producing years of life, and at the same time makes sure a provision for advanced age. Being a POSITIVE CONTRACT, it is especially adapted to suit the needs of business men.

You should send for particulars of this investment to

GEORGE W. ENGLISH, Manager,

271 BROADWAY,

NEW YORK CITY.

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. 4. | NEW YORK, WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 28, 1891. | ONE YEAR, $3.00^sic / FOUR MOS., $1.00 WHOLE No. 213.

[Notice] THE STANDARD.

[Advertisement] THE WATERTOWN JOURNAL

HAS A

Single Tax Department,

EDITED BY

W. E. BROKAW.

Member of the National Committee for South Dakota.

The JOURNAL is the leading Reform paper in South Dakota. Subscribe for it.

Try it 3 months for 25 cents.

Address THE JOURNAL, Watertown, S. D.

[Advertisement] MASON & HAMLIN

MASON & HAMLIN

[Illustration: an upright piano/organ cabinet]

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] 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

[1?? — figures illegible] Fourth Av., bet. 13th and 14th Sts.

p. 24, col. 2

[Advertisement] LOVELY AS A ROSE! (Glenn’s Sulphur Soap)

LOVELY AS A ROSE!

As we gaze upon a new-blown rose, we involuntarily exclaim, “How lovely!” Our admiration is excited by the color and delicate tints of the flower. So it is with

A Beautiful Maiden.

Her clear velvet-like skin and peachbloom complexion fascinate us. These exquisite charms always result from the use of

GLENN’S SULPHUR SOAP.

A never-failing remedy for removing all imperfections from the skin and making the complexion

PEERLESSLY BEAUTIFUL.

FOR SALE BY ALL DRUGGISTS. BEWARE OF IMITATIONS.

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

[Advertisement] Concord Co-operative Printing Co. (Ld.)

Concord Co-operative Printing Co. (Ld.)

104 ELM ST., COR. CANAL, NEW YORK.

Book, Job and Newspaper Printing.

p. 24, col. 3

[Advertisement] SCOTT’S EMULSION

SCOTT’S

EMULSION

DOES CURE

CONSUMPTION

In its First Stages.

Be sure you get the genuine.

[Advertisement] “PROTECTION OR FREE TRADE?” FOR TEN CENTS.

“PROTECTION OR FREE TRADE?”

FOR TEN CENTS.

To insure the success of the half million edition of “Protection or Free Trade?” at TEN cents a copy, postag^sic paid, every Reformer is urgently requested to fill out this blank, subscribe for as many copies as possible, and ask his friends to do the same. “He gives twice who gives quickly.”

[Printed vertically at left of form:] Return when signed to [W. J. A?]TKINSON, [line obscured]

I hereby subscribe for . . . . . . . . copies of a special paper covered edition of “PROTECTION OR FREE TRADE” by Henry George, for which I agree to pay ten cents per copy.

Name . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

No. and Street . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

City or Town . . . . . . . . . . State . . . . . . . . . . .

Deliver to. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

“Written with a clearness, a vigor and a terseness that at once attract.”—Philadelphia Record.

“Whatever may be Henry George’s defects as an author he never writes a dull book.”—Home Weekly^sic

“The fullest and clearest presentation of a much disputed subject yet made.”—Kansas City Times.

“An argument of great ingenuity and power, logically worked out and attractively formu-lated^sic.”—Chicago Times.

“Another great book, written in that clear, eloquent, analytical style that made fame for”Progress and Poverty.” The most thorough investigation of the subject that has yet been put into type.”—N. Y. News.

[Advertisement] Don’t kick (Geo. P. Rowell & Co.)

[Cartoon: within an ornamental border, a man in a cap kicks hard, his motion lines sending a small dog(?) flying through the air past the hand-lettered words “Don’t kick”. Hand-lettered text:] 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.