§nmll Uttirmitg Jibwg THE GIFT OF A..A.^:G,.S..5.\ Vt^^^Vftv. Cornell University Library HD205 1898 .T23 Land question from various points of vie olin 3 1924 030 043 149 •?%>'? W/ h %r ^^°^^^ there be a " Land Question' ' any more than a VV t^y house question, or a horse question, or a question concern- ing any other kind of recognized property ? Is land " property ? '1 For many centuries, human beings, when slaves, were considered "property." Is there any analogy between human slave "property" and land "property?-!' , Slaves, when freed, can " own and control " themselves ; but land, being inanimate, cannot ' ' own or control ' ' itself. It must be owned or controlled by human beings. Then shall its ownership or control be by private persons, or by the conimuhity in its public capacity ? If private ownership of land be admitted, should unlimited private ownership of land be permitted ? An inventor of a machine may have his invention patented, and thus be protected in the. ownership or control of his invention. But his patent • ' runs out ' ' after the lapse of a certain term of years, and then his invention belongs to the general public. The instrument, or docu- ment, by which public lands are conveyed to individuals is also called a "patent" (see the word "patent" in the dictionaries). la^^je any reason why a " patent " to a tract of land should be perpeif^|kid a "patent" to an invention be limited to a term of years PWi land "patents" should "run out" like other patents and like franchises, would not the land question be a much simpler problem ? Is it right that special privileges of any kind should continue perpetually, regard- less of the rights of future generations ? Nature has stored in the bowels of the earth vast treasures of iron, lead, tin, zinc, coal, gold, silver, oil, natural gas, etc. Did "nature" intend this wealth for certain individuals and corporations or for humanity ? Many important questions affecting the interests of the public arise concerning the timber growth on land. Communities frequently determine the kind and height of buildings that private parties may build upon the land. Then why should not the community, or the Government, determine what rights private per- sons may have concerning timber on the land, when not cultivated nor protected by man ? If public rights obtain above the surface, why not beneath the surface ? If both above and beneath the surface, why not the surface itself? The most conservative people are usually willing, to allow matters that affect the public interest to be decided according to what can be shown to be the best Public Policy. The various phases of the land question should be tested by what seems to be The Best Public Policy both for the present and the future. The Land Question FROM Various Points of View. A STUDY IN SEARCH OF THE HIGHEST TRUTH AND BEST POLICY, AND NOT A PROPAGANDA PRINT. FUBHSHT BY C. K. TAYLOR 1520 Chestnut Street, Philadelphia, Pa. Lan- guage is a growth rather than a creation. The growth in our vocabulary is seen in the vast increase in size of our dictionaries during the past cen- tury. This growth is not only in amount, but among other elements of growth the written forms of words are becoming simpler and more uniform. For example, compare English spelling of a century or two cen- turies ago with that of to-day ! It is our duty to encourage and ad- vance the movement toward simple, uniform and rational spelling. See the recommendations of the Philological Society of London, and of the American Philological Association, and list of amended spellings, publisht in the Century Dictionary (following the letter z), and also in the Standard Dictionary, Webster's Dic- tionary, and other authoritative works on language. The tendency is to drop silent letters in some of the most flagrant instances, as ugh from though, etc., change ed to t in most places where so pronounced (where it does not affect the preceding sound), etc. The National Educational Association, consisting of ten thousand teachers, recom- mend the following : "At a meeting of the Board of Directors of the N. E. A. held in Washington, D. C, July 7, 1898, the action of the Department of Superintendence was approved, and the list of words with simplified spelling adopted for use in all publications of the N. E. A. as follows : tho (though); program (programme); altho (although); catalog (catalogue); thoro (thorough); prolog (prologue); thorofare (thoroughfare); decalog (decalogue); thru (through); demagog (demagogue); thruout (throughout); pedagog (pedagogue); "You are invited to extend notice of this action and to join in securing the general adoption of the suggested amendments.— IRWIN SHEPARD, Sec'y." The publisher of this Series feels it a duty to recognize the above tendency, and to adopt it in a reasonable degree. PREFATORY REMARKS. The land question is a very old question, and a many sided problem. Many theoiries have been proposed to solve this problem. Many books have been written on this subject, but their purpose has usually been to propag^ate some special theory. My purpose has been to produce a book which will present the problem from various points of view, and from the pens of various writers. No such attempt has, in my knowledge, ever been made before. How- ever, I vyill feel flattered if others vnll follow with the same broad abject in view, and improve on this attempt as much as possible. The broad question of land value mig^ht be divided into four general heads: 1. The agricultiiral value of land; depeaading upon productivity and convenience to markets. 2. The timber value of land; depending on the kind, size and number of the trees, and convenience to markets. 3. The mineral value of land; depending upon the mineral bear- ings, whether rocks, metal, coal or oil, and convenience to markets. 4. The site value, or communal value, of land; that is, the value w^hioh is created by the presence of the community. While numbers 1, 2 and 3 depend in great measure upon access to communities, for communities are "markets," number 4 depends entirely upon the presence of the community. It is not strange that problems arising from land and its various values from various sources, with all the mighty interests involved, should have, from time to time, engaged the attention of philosophers, theorists and statesmen; and, being still tuasettled, that they should now press for rightful settlement. A primeval forest contains valuable timber which no human hand has planted or protected. By the advance of civilization, and its improved methods (as rail-roads, etc.), this forest becomes ac- cessible. To vs'hom does that timber belong? Amid the indescribable geologic turmoil gone thru by our mother Earth in past ages, valuable mineral deposits were made here and there beneath the surface. Do they belong to the accidental dis- coverer, to the local community, or to the general government? While these are large 'questions, in which the community enters as a factor in giving value, of recent years the battle has waged chiefly in reference to values created entirely by the community. Perhaps this is because of the unprecedented creation and develop- ment of these values during recent years, to the extent that, in several instances, communal land values in a, single large city now exceed the agricultvural value of all the land in an average size state. Instead of treating the question under sepairate heads, as sug- gested by the above, I have adopted the historicai method in plan- ning this book. The brief history of land tenures in all ages and countries involved wide reading and thoro research, possible only by means of faithful assistance, which I was fortunate in being able to obtain. The same is true of statistical researches to indi- cate the present distribution. It will be noticed that the occa- sional expression by an assistant of views developt by the researches have not been restrained, as truth is the sole object sought, and not doctrin nor dogma. However, I do not wish to be held respon- sible for all such views expressed. Instead of seeking to establish a doctrin or theory, my object has been to present facts and figures, which I hope others will use with as beneficial results as possible. With this purpose in view, I employed legal talent to examin the federal and state constitu- tions, with reference to the admissibility of land' reform under them as they now exist. The only way to take hold of a problem is to begin at the bottom, and this I have endeavored to- do. Xow a word in reference to the "single tax" and single taxers. I beg-an this work so strongly inclined in favor of Mr. George's theory that I at first askt only single taxers to contribute to this book — perhaps I then thought that there were no students of the land question ■^^■orth considering other than single taxers. That they did not take vigorously hold of my plan and make this book a propaganda instrument for the single tax is entirely their own fault, for they had au excellent opportunity tO' do so, owing to my attitude at the time I planned the book. But many ardent single taxers are "fearfully and wonderfully made." They are the most earnest and most sacrificing propagandists that I know of; but many of them ^vould rather mount a barrel on a street corner and address, with all the energy and enthusiasm at their command, any who will stop to hear them, even tho it be only a crowd of urch- ins, than to settle down in a. scholarly way and write up a special feature of the land question, for a work like this. However, the following- pages show some well known names to w^hom these remarks do not apply, and I wish here to duly present my acknowl- edgments. It is perhaps fortunate in the interest of truth that my original plan -i-sas not carried out; and perhaps certain prominent single taxers unwittingly served the interests of truth by neglecting my request to contribute to this book. Some of the topics that I first had in mind are, for this reason not here presented, but I think it is a decided advantage that other topics have been substituted, not at first a part of my plan. While my personal attitude toward the "single tax" may not be of any interest to othea-s, I will ask the privilege to say that I believe there is a valuable truth contained therein, but no theory or doctrin can contain all the truth. The increasing of tax on land values, and the removal of tax on other forms of wealth, should be a gradual process, and not a sudden movement, which would cause great disturbance, and do great and unnecessary harm. If grcuhially proceeded with, it can be tested as we go along, and be stopt at any point if desired. Here, in Philadelpihia, taxation for local purposes has been re- moved from all personal property except "cattle over the agie of four years," and horses. Gold watches lingered on the list until quite recently, and it is expected that horses and cattle will be removed from the list soon. Thus practically the entire local tax is placed on real estate, but that includes building's and other im- provements, as well as the land. There is no demand for placing taxation again on furniture, jewelry, machinery, stocks of goods, etc., and if such were proposed I thinli it would be vigorously opposed. The State of Pennsylvania taxes only seeui-ities, as bonds, stocks, mortgages, promissory notes, accounts drawing interest, etc., (stocks and bonds of corporations within the state, which corpora- tions pay a direct tax to the state, are exempt), and the inevitable "cattle over the age of four years," and horses and veihicles. There is also a mercantile tax, that is, a tax on sales of merchandise; but stocks of goods and all other personal property, except as above mentioned, and real estate, are free from state taxation. The Philadelphia method is an approach toward the single tax, but just what iniiuenoe this has had toward making it "the city of homes" I am not able to say. Certainly there is nothing "in- quizitorial" in the Philadelphia taxing system; and any movement back to that condition would not be popular. It is doubtless an advantage that "instruments of production," as machinery, tools, etc., be free from taxation; but lajid is an "instrument of produc- tion." It is a satisfaction to have personal belongings free from the unwelcome questionings or investigations of the assessor. I think it very important that the homes of the poor shoidd be free from all taxation. Of course, all want to escape taxation, but taxes must be placed soraewhea-e. Where shall they be placed? The vast majority will doubtless agree that public franchises should be taxt; but we want to look forward to a time when all public franchises will be owned )).> the ijublic, and when such public utilities as transportation, the water supply, gas and electric light, etc., will be conducted by the public at cost, in which event such franchises will have no tax- ing value. At present I am inclined to think that National revenue should come chiefly from mines and forests, as ably set forth by Mr. McCreerj-, in the latter part of his article in this book; and also from a National inheritance tax, applying only to large estates, and being so graduated as to bear most heavily on the largest estates; that local revenue should come chiefly from local fran- chises (until they are owned by the public) and from community- created land values excepting the homes of the poor. With these remarks I commit the following pages to the reader, asking that he approach the great Land Qiiestion as a student searching for fact and truth, and as a politician (in the best sense of the word) searching for the policy that will best serve the interests of the masses of the people. Philadelphia. C. F. TAYLOR. CONTENTS. Page 1. A Brief History of Land Tenures and Titles . 7 2. Distribution of Land in Various Count? ies . . jp J. Alien Landlordism tn America ... §4. f. Our System of Distributing the Public Lands . 6p 5. Constitutions and Comments .... 12'/ 6. Religion of the Land Question .... i^g 7. Two Parables ....... 16^ 8. Forestry ........ 16'j p. A Criticism of the Single Tax . . . jSj 10. Reply to "A Cfiticism of the Single Tax'" . . 20^ 11. Memorandum, in Relation to "A Criticism of the Single Tax'' ...... 223 12. fohn Stuart Mill' s Plan of Land Reform , . 2JI A BRIEF HISTORY OF LAND TENURES AND TITLES. Someone has said that man is a "land animal." It is beyond question that land is as necessary to his existence as is water to the fish. As from the beginning down to the present he has occupied and held the land of earth in many different ways and for many different purposes, the history of land tenures to a certain extent involves the history of the human race. To enter into the details of such a subject would fill a very large volume; and as I am limited to only a part of an ordi- narily sized volume, I must limit my discussion to a very general outline of the subject. Since the complete establishment of the doctrine of evolu- tion by the natural sciences, all recent historians trace back the countries under discussion to the time when men lived in caves and subsisted principally on the wild animals which they killed with the flint spear heads which are now found deeply buried in the earth in ne^arly every country and which are relics of the glacial period. In his late history of the JSTetheir- lands, Professor Blok says: "On the banks of the Muse and Lesse men lived centuries ago in caves, amid natural surroundings much like the present polar regions. The reindeer and mammoth were their con- temporaries on the ice which once covered the country and which has left its marks on the ground. During ages these men must have dwelt here, hunting and fishing in their struggle for life, as arduous for them as the long series of tribes and races after them. Kude stone weapons and imple- ments, with a, few bones of man and his prey are all that is left of them." So in his "Early Man in Britain," Mr. Dawkins gives the evidence which shows that man inhabited that country as far back as -the paleo'lithic age, living in caves and along the rivers and sea shore. Both Prof. Petrie and Miss 8 THE LAND QUESTION. Edwards trace the history of Egypt back to the same period. The latter, after discussing the matter in full, says: "Erom the prehistoric cave-dweller we pass at one step to the ancient Egyptian draughtsman. In the history of art all is blank between them. AYe cannot measure the abyss of time which separates the one from the other. We only know that in the meanwhile there had been changes of many kinds — upheavals and subsidences of land and water, disappearances of certain forms of animal and vegetable life and the like. We do not know — we can not guess — how long it has taken the ancient Egyptian to work up from pi'imitive barbarism to that stage of advanced culture at which he had arrived when we first make his acquaintance on his native soil. This is about the time of the building of the Great Pyramid, or nearly six thousand years ago. Already he was a consummate builder, geometrician and mathematician. Already he was in possession of a religious literature of great antiquity. He was master of a highly complicated system of writing and lie had carried the art- of sculpture, in the most obdurate material, to as high a degree of perfection as was possible with the tools at his command." Sir IT. H. Johnson, in his very recent work, says that these early Egyptians were of that primitive negroid type of man of the tertiary epoch from which were afterwards evolved the black negTO, the yellow Hamite and thC' white Semite. Scholars agree that the cave-dwellers, cliff-dwellers, hill-men, lake-dwellers, dolmen builders and mound builders have left us undisputed evidence of the pre^historic occupation of the earth by man. With this pre^historic back-ground as a start- ing point, we find that man's use and tenure of land may be divided into the following general types: 1st. Savage hunting and fishing tenures. 2d. Tribal hunting tenures. 3d. Pastoral tenures. 4th. Communal agricultural village tenures. 5th. Eamily tenures. 6th. Individual tenures, or private ownership. 7th. Government tenures. 8th. Eeudal tenures. history of land tenures. v Savage Hunting and Fishi:xg Tenures. It can not be said with, any degree of accuracy that there was any real tenure of land when man was yet in the savage state. His manner of living precluded any fixed habitation. The hunting of wild animals for food and clothing necessi- tated a wandering, roving life over large scopes of territory, and prevented even the bare occupation of any particular spot of ground for any great length of time. The whole earth was occupied and used by men in common. Xo man claimed any particular part of it as his property. We, therefore, had at this age of the world a kind of communal tenure, or occujja- tion of all the earth by all mankind in common. This was the only tenure known to man for thousands of years. AVe still have examples of such tenures among the wild tribes of South America, Australia and Africa. Bancroft tells us that when California was discovered there were "whole tribes subsisting on roots, herbs and insects, having no boats, no clothing, no God." Tribal Hunting Tenures. As men gradually formed into different tiibes, each tribe naturally took possession of and laid some sort of claim to a certain particular portion of land for its hunting grounds. The American Indian tribes at the time of the discovery of America furnish a good illustration of this type of tenure. Their fierce tribal wars were waged principally in defense of the territory thus occupied and claimed by each tribe. That Asia and Africa were iliws occupied by savage tribes for ages before the Assyrian and Egyptian nations and governments came into existence, is beyond question. Their rude stone implements and weapons are found deeply buried in the ground in nearly all parts of those countries. Pastoral Tenures. After man had domesticated sheep and cattle and had learned to depend upon them mostly for his food and clothing, we find him making a new use of land, and creating a new 10 THE LAND QUESTION. kind of tenure, in the occupation of land for the purpose of pasturing his flocks of sheep and cattle. This, also, is a con- dition of society which is incompatible with a fixed place of residence and fixity of tenures. Men still lived together in tribes, but the tribes wandered about as change of pasturage became necessary or as fancy dictated. In later ages as the land was being gradually taken and permanently occupied for agricultural purposes, these pastoral tribes were gradually forced to seek new and unoccupied pasturage lands for their flocks. But they did not, in the earlier stages at least of this form of life, claim any ownership to the soil. Their tenure was only one of temporary possession. When one tribe aban- doned a certain territory another tribe was perfectly free to occupy it at any time. The tribal foirm was necessary in this condition of society in order that men might the better protect themselves and their flocks from the wild animals and the almost as wild men who were still in the hunting stage, and wiho roamed thru the surrounding regions. One man and his family living alone mth his herds could not long survivei. Tlie communal life and the communal occupation or tenure of land were even more necessary than they were in the savage state of society. The family was usually the unit of these communities, and as they grew and became too large they would divide up into separate tribes. The origin of the Hebrew nation, in the true middle ages of history and at a time when the nations and governments of Egypt, Chaldea and Assyria were at the zenith of their power, culture and civiKzation, furnishes a good illus- tration of the pastoral tenirre. The agricultural growth of the Chaldean and Assjaian. nations was so rapid that the uncultured pastoral tribes we're rapidly pusht away from their former pasturage grounds. About 2000 B. C. one of these tribes with Zerah at its head eonigrated westward from "Ur of Chaldee," to the land of Haran, where he finally died. Afterwards his son Abram and his nephew Lot and their families, slaves, flocks, herds and tents, moved still further westward to the land of Canaan. Finally their tribes and ' flocks and herds became too large and unwieldy and Abram HISTOEY OF LAND TENUEES. 11 and Lot and their sheplierds quarrelled. Abram begged Lot to depart from him and asked him: "Is not the land before thee?" Thereupon Lot and his tribe and herds withdrew to the "plain of the Jordan." But Lot claimed no title in the land he abandoned. It was only a matter of temporary occu- pation, and his successors in the valley of the Jordan doubt- less laid no tenure to any particular part of the soil until after they began to cultivate the soil, plant vineyards, build houses and make other permanent improvements. In this way the pastoral tribes have occupied large portions of the earth until the present time. The more fertile portions of the earth have now been permanently settled upon for agri- cultural purposes, but there are yet large scopes of elevated, arid, desert country that are still inhabited by wandering pastoral tribes which wander from place to place very much likei their ancesto^rs did ten thousand years ago, and before there were any cities or governments on the earth. • The Bedouin Arabs of the deserts of Arabia and the wandiering tribes of the arid steppes of Asia are tlie best surviving illustra- tions of this tenure of land. Communal Village Ageictjltueal Tenuees. We now come to the period in the history of the race when man became tired of his uncertain subsistence upon the wild game, fruits and nuts of the forest and also of depending solely on his flocks and herds, and he began to depend princi- pally upon the cultivation of the soil for food supplies both for himself and flocks. This required a fixed tenure of some particular spot of ground for at least the time required each year for thei planting, cultivation and harvest of the crops, and by gradual degrees this accustomed man to a fixed habi- tation and tenure for longer periods of time than he had pre- viously been accustomed to. But as the population was sparse and land correspondingly abundant, there was no thought of a permanent tenure or ownership of any particular spot of ground by any individual or collection of individuals. As the crops required protection from the wild beasts of the surround- 12 THE LAND QUESTION. ing forests and hostile hunting tribes of men, the first agri- culturists, like the first shepherds, were^ forced to combine into small communities; and as such they jointly occupied and tilled the soil. But as they did not at first make permanent improvements, and as they were still of a roving disposition, they frequently moved about from place to place "as spring and plain and grove attracted their fancy," and their joint tenure was only one of temporary occupation. That this was the earliest form of agricultural tenure is well establisht. The communal agricultural village tenures are still found in moet of the uncivilized and half civilized nations of the present time, and their impress is found upon the customs and laws of most of the civilized nations. Thousands of these com- munal villages exist today in India and other Asiatic countries, and also in Africa, Australia and the islands of the sea. Caesar and Tacitus found them in Grermany and Great Britain, and until comparatively recent times they were the prevailing tenures thruout Russia; and splendid specimens of them exist today in Bulgaria, Servia and Bosnia. In Russia these vil- lages are designated by the term "mir;" in Germany, "mark;" and in Switzerland, "allmend." From a recent writer we give the following condenst account of these villages in Fiji as they exist today: The villages are divided into village lots (yavu) of suitable size for families, residences and gardens, and each faudly gi'oup is given one of tliese lots, which is then sub- divided into smaller lots, one for each family of the group. The village is surrounded by a moat and war fence. The land outside of and surrounding the village is divided: 1st. The isle, or arable land for joint cultivation; and 2d, The veikau, or joint timber and pasture land. In some villages the arable land is divided into separate parcels and one assigned to each family each year, the size of the parcels being regulated bv the size of the family, and they are subject to frequent readjust- ment and redistribution. If adtonily moves from the village, it loses its interest in the village real estate; and if a new family is admitted, it is given by the council a village lot and right to use the village land. In some of the villages the HISTORY OF LAND TEI^UEES. 13 arable land is not divided, but each, family uses each, year what- ever portion is most convenient. These Fiji villages have the essential features of the early •communal village tenures the world over, and which existed in every nation from its prehistoric period down to the time when by force of military conquest and despotic general gov- ernments and unjust laws these aboriginal communal tenures were destroyed, the land confiscated, and legal j)rivate owner- ship of the village real estate was asserted by the conquerors. This has gradually been their fate. GBut some times, as in many cases in India, by a gradual system of partition, the lands have been subdivided and allotted to the separate families or indi- viduals in fee simple; but for social, religious and civil pur- poses the villages still retain their original form and govern- ment. As these villages would become too populous by a process of natural growth, the younger members would form a new association and go out and take new land and form a new village' — "swarm" as it were — and in this way they would gradually spread over a country. The distinctive and funda- mental principle of these village tenures is that the allotments were to families and for family use and support, and not to individuals to be by them frittered away in the bundred differ- ent ways that private indi\dduals now fritter away their land and thus rob their families of their inheritance and support. The son stayed with his father until he married, and his family was then given an allotment of land for family wse and sup- port. He could not sell or mortgage it. When the family ceast to use it, the land was allotted to some other family for its support. Abandonment of these fundamental principles has led us to the present condition in most nations where a few individuals have monopolized the greater part of the land to the utter exclusion of the many and their families. The greatest question now confronting the so-called civilized nations is as to how they can best retiirn to that prosperous and happy condition of society where there were no tramps, beggars, poor-houses, or charity societies, and when each family desiring it had its house, garden and cow and enuf 14 THE LAiro QUESTION. land for its support — no more no less. There is still an abund- ance of land for this purpose in every nation.* As I have said, the system of private ownership has in many nations supplanted thesie village camimunal family tenures. In other countries remnants only remain, as in Switzerland, where the pasture and woodland of each village is still held in common for the benefit of all of the families of the village. In other nations, such as India, in Asia, and in Bulgaria, Servia and Bosnia in Europe, also in many of the aborginal nations and tribes of Africa, Australasia and South America, the communal family village tenures remain in their pris- tine vigor as to their essential features, altho they have taken on many varying minor features. In Bulgaria, Servia and Bosnia we find the best illustrations of this kind of tenuiei in Europe. The villages contain from twenty to sixty inhabit- ants each, and the inihabitantB of each village jointly oiwn and cultivate from forty to eighty acres of land. The commercial use of and speculation in land is unknown. It can neither be sold, mortgaged or devised. It is only held for the joint personal habitation and cultivation of the inhabitants of the village. Eamily allotments are made, and the children remain with their parents until they marry. If a man or woman with- draws from the village, he or she thereby abandons all interest in the village real estate. At one time in its history, Kussia was inhabited by these trampless, beggarless, communal co^rporative villages, whose citizens lived in peace and plenty. But finally a despotic military general government was establisbt over the land. The military despot divided up the land into large estates and distributed them among his military chieftains (lords) to who'm the legal title and possesion of the lands and villages was given, and the villagers were thus robbed of their land and reduced to a state of tenantry. As the rentals demanded by the lords became unbearably oppressive, the tenants began to leave the villages and lands' and seek more tolerable con- • The GoTernment of the UniteiJ States of America has parted with its land in such a way that the land is rapidly accumulating into the hands of the few. It must gradually but equitably regain its title to those lands and put them out to its landless citizens in such unalienable family rights. HISTOBY OF LAlifD TENTJEES. 15 ditions. In order to prevent this self-protecting movement, despotic laws were passed and enforced by the strong hand of the army, preventing these tenants from leaving their native villages -and lands. They were thus deprived of their personal freedom and reduced to slavery (serfdom) and were from that time bought and sold by the lords along with the land. In 1861 their freedom was restored to them. In all equity and justice they had ^as much right to the restoration of their land to them as their freedom. This right was partially recog- nized by the government and each lord was required to sell a small portion of land to each former serf whoi was a house- holder. But as it was not near enuf for his support, and the terms of pa,yment were very harsh, the usurers and the lords soon got the most of the land back. The mass of the people of Kussia axe now demanding that their land shall be returned to the.m and taken from {he lords w'ho never earned the land and nev^r had any equitable right to it. The Russian peasant argues that the land should belong to a man only so long as he personally occupies and uses it, and that when he ceases to so personally occupy it he has no more right to it than has the fisher over the water wherein he has fisht, or the shepherd over the meadows whereon he formerly pastured his flocks, or the hunter to the land he has hunted over. The Eussian peasants still live in villages, but without their land they can only live on such wages as the lords see fit to pay, and the result is that thousands of them starve every season that there is not a full crop. The present so-called vested rights of the lords are based on the robbery of the peasants of their lands, and simple justice requires that the land should be re- stored to the people, and it should be restored tO' them in the old time inalienable village and family tenures, so tha insa- tiable, usurious, capitalistic private land owaer cannot re-take it and keep it from the future millions of peasants and their wives and children. Family Tenures. The next step from the joint commimal village tenures seems to have been separate family tenures. It is true that in 16 THE LAND QUESTION. their later history after the formation of governments the strict legal title was usually vested in the husband and father ; but it is also true that he held the real estate for the benefit of the entire family, and that the tenure was in reality a family tenure. It is evident that this idea was borrowed from the more ancient family village tenures. As the members of each family of the village toiled together as a family on the land, planting, cultivating and harvesting, it did not occur to them that the land existed for the sole benefit of any one mem- ber of the family — the male head of the family — but in their primitive simplicity they believed that it existed for the joint benefit of all of the members of the family cultivating it. So when in the course of time separate families began to take possession of and cultivate a separate tract of land, it was con- sidered as a family enterprise and for the equal benefit of all of the members of each family, and that they all had a joint and equal interest in the land from which they jointly drew their daily subsistence. Proof of this is found in the history of many of the older nations. When the early Greeks made their first division of land, the portions were allotted to the families — and not to the head of each family. The latter could not sell the land, nor could he devise it to strangers. At his death the land went by force of law to the son or sons who continued to hold it for the benefit of the family. Plato said: "You can not leave yovir property (land) to whomsoever you please, because your property be- longs to your family; that is, to your ancestors and your des- cendants." And again he says that a man may not deprive his descendants of his land "because he owes to his descendants such as he received from his ancestors." B^it finally in that nation- this salutary principle was lost sight of; the head of the family selfishly and unjustifialbly assumed sole and complete ownership of the family patrimony, and those sacred family homesteads became mattexs of bargain and sale, with the in- evitable result that the land of the nation rapidly accumulated into the hands of the few to the robbery of innocent women and children, and of future generations. Lycurgus made a redistribution of the land, but under unrestricted private ownership it soon again accumulated into the hands of the few. HISTOEY OF LAND TENUKES. 17 The Hebrew nation furnishes us with a very interesting and valuable illustration of family tenures. When that nation entered Canaan after the escape from Egypt under Moses, the land was divided up into fields of from sixteen to twenty-five * acres each, anid by lot one field was given to the head of each family as a family patrimony. The man simply held the title in trust for the family. He could not alienate it by deed or will. He could only part with the possession of it by lease — or sale of tempoirary possession — until the year of jubilee, ^hich occurred ©very fifty years, when the possession of the land would reveirt to him if he was still living; or, if he were dead, then it reverted to his heirs. At his death while still in posses- sion of the land, by a peremptory law of inlheritanoe the lanxl went to the family as follows: A double portion to the oldest son, and if there were no son them to the eldest daughter, and - the remainder of the land went to the other children in equal share. The same rule of distribution prevailed on the day of jubilee where the ancestor had leased the land and afterwards died. It is commonly thought that there was a general redis- tribution of land every fifty years, but this is a mistake. There was only the expiration of leases and the consequent reversion of the leased land to the lessors or their heirs. It is evident that this prevented land monopolization by capitalists. The world needs something of that kind to-day above all other things. When Rome was founded we ai*e told that Romulus di- vided up the land among his followers and tlie'ir families into hereditary portions. But this was aftersvards followed by private ownership of the land by the head of the family and the resultant spirit of land commercialism, which, as in other nations soon resulted in the land monopoly of the few and the landless condition of the many. This was temporarily remedied by the redistribution of land under the agrarian laws. But the fatal mistake was made of redistribxiting the land to individuals instead of to families, and as a matter of couree the land soon again accumulated into the hands of the rich, the powerful and the shrewd, and the families of the improvi- dent, ignorant and foolish were soon rendered landless. It 18 THE LAND QUESTION. has always been thus anid it will always contimie tO' be so as long as homesteads are not held as a sacred trust for the benefit of the family, to be handed do'wn as a sacred legacy to the succeeding generations of the faffiily. The bloody but futile attempts under Tiberius Gracchus for another redistribution followed. And finally when that great empire fell it was principally because of the fact that it had past laws that violated the sacred right of the family to enuf land for its sustenance, and which permitted the few to monopolize the land of the nation. A recent writer tells us that in Ohina the land is still held mostly by hereditary family tenures, and that therefore large estates are the exception. At the death of the father the legal title passes to the oldest son, but the other sons (and daughters until they marry) and their families have the right to remain on the land. These small family tenures of land have been the principal cause of the peace and stability of that great and ancient nation. They have enabled that vast and dense popu- lation to live in peace and plenty for thousands of year^. So, in Germany the separate family tenures were a gradual offshoot from, and for a long time existed alongside of, the callage teniires. These family tenures existed in Chaldea thousands of years before the Roman, Grecian, Hebrew or German nations came into existence. We have a surviving remnant of the family tenure in the present laws giving the wife an inchoate interest in the real . estate acquired by the husband, and of which she can only divest herself by a deed of conveyance. I:n'dividual oe Private Tenures. The first individual tenures, or private ownership of land, as distinguisht from family tenures, are found in the first countries to become thickly settled for agricultural pur- poses, and where commerce and towiis and cities first arose. The male head of the family separately entered upon these commercial enterprises, and when he acquired a town or city lot and built upon it for business purposes it was but natural HISTOEY OF LAND TENUEES. 19 that he should take the title in his own individual name and sell or dispose of it as he pleased independently of his family. Where there are towns and cities, the neighboring agricultural lands soon acquired a commercial and speculative value, and individuals began to invest capital in them for speculative purposes, and to take the titles in their own individual name, so they could the more readily dispose of them. Agricultural populations first became dense in the fertile alluvial soils of the river valleys, and it is there that we find the first towns and cities and the establishment of govern- ments, the origin and growth of commerce and the arts and sciences, and all of those things that are included in the term civilization. The earliest civilization of which we now have any knowl- edge arose in the valleys of the ISTile in Africa, and of the Euphrates, Tigris, Indus and Yangtse Kiang in Asia. The trend of scholarship at the present time is to assign tO' Egypt — the valley of the Nile — the oldest civilization on the globe, and it is there that we find the first individual land tenures known to history. The first general govC'rument over Egypt was establisht by King Mena about seven thousand years ago. Long prior to that time the country had become thickly settled, towns and cities had sprung up, writing had been invented, many of the arts and sciences had been considerably developt, and smaller governments had been establisht over portions of the country. This advanced state of society evidently i)vesumes a private ownership of land and a trafiic in both city and country real estate, altho the aborigines long before that time had success- ively past thru the hunting, grazing, and village tenures. Soon after its establishment by ilena, the general government began to create private tenures. The biography of the soribe Amten, which Egyptologists have discovea?ed, sho-ws this clearly. Amten lived a little over six thousand years ago, and he was one of the king's favorite scribes and book-keepers. He inherited from his father one estate and he acquired twelve others, and the king gave him "two hundred portions of culti- vated land." His son was also a scribe and the king gave him 20 THE LAND QUESTION. "four hundred portions of corn land." Papyrus and stone engraved deeds of conveyances of real estate of a later date clearly showing private ownership have been discovered, in which the grantor and grantee were described as minutely as were the boundaries of the real estate conveyed, and on which the government charged a registration fee of five per cent, of the consideration paid for the real estate. So in Chaldea, Nineveh and Babylon private tenures of real estate are traced back to a very early date. Their deeds were written on soft clay tablets and then baked, then deposited in the temples, where vast numbers of them have been found as temple after temple has been unearthed. So in most commercial nations these private individual tenures, by a gradual process of growth and legal evolution, have prevailed over all other tenures, and the real estate of the commercial world is now so owned and held. Adult person.^ of both sexes may buy, sell, and devise real estate as freely as they can personal property — in fact too freely so far as family homesteads are concerned. These private fee simple tenures of land assume many legal phases, such as life estates, estates' in remainder, tenures in common, joint teiiancy, estates by entirety, dower estates, estates tail, title by prescription, etc., but to enter into a technical discussion of these would fill a large law book.. In England these technical legal tenures mostly arose out of ex- ceptional conditions of society. Many of them were imported into this coimtry, but the most of them have been abolisht here by special statutes in the varioais states. As will be seen further on, centuries ago the land of England was divided up into very large feudal estates. These large landed estates have been perpetuated and held together and kept from subdivision among heirs by the laws of primogeniture of estate tail. Primo- geniture is a law of descent, and applies to the succession or iu- lioritance of the real estate of a man who makes no will, in which event the law of primogeniture easts all such land upon the oldest son. Estates tail are where a land owner by deed or will conveys his land to his son or another person for life and at his death to a certain heir or heirs of the body of the life HISTORY OF LAND TENURES. 21 tenant, such as to his oldest son, or to his sons. In this way those large estates hla,ve been kept undisturbed and have been handed down intact from generation, to generation in the same family. GOVERNMENT TENURES. All of the tenures thus far discussed preceded in point of time the formation of general governments as distinguisht from tribal or village govemm'emts. Upon the establishment of a general government, it at onoe takes jurisdiction in some form over the real estate of the nation. It either confirms and establishes the tenures previously existing in the nation, or it overthrows them and establishes others. Under the old despotic forms of govea-nment based upon the doctrine of the divine right of the king, the government in the person of the king usually claimed and asserted full oavnership and control of the land of the realm. By the iron hand of a despotic military government and despotic laws, the title of the land was taken from the people and vested in the king, and it was by him usually given to his generals, lords and priests, and they rented it out to the people on such terms as they saw fit to require. Not only were the people deprived of any tenure to this land by this assertion of government tenures, but, as we have already seen, they were frequently reduced to slavery and were bought and sold with the land. The early Egyptian transfers of land usually included the description of the land together "with numerous peasiants, both male and female;" as, "four portions of com land with their populationu" Under the system of serfdom in Eussia the peasants were robbed of their land and reduced to slavery, and bought and sold along with the land to which they were attacht. These illustra- tions, differing as they do six thousand years in point of time, are but two of the many illustrations of these autocratic gov- ernmental tenures thiat have prevailed nearly all over the earth at one time or aniother. Even these tenures of the favorites of the king were temporary in their nature. The king retained the strict legal title and could at any time retake possession of and reallot them as he pleased. And as we have seen, govern- 22 THE LAND QUESTIO^I. ments of a more liberal and free character, such as those of Kome, Greece aiid the Hebrews, retained and exercised the right to redistribute the land among the people when it had accumulated into the hands of the few. The two latter gov- ernments exercised this authority to release mortgages from lands where the money lenders had acquired mortgages on the land of the nation to such an extent as to endanger the peace and prosperity of the nation. All unowned or unoccupied land in each nation belongs to the general goiverimient, and laws are usually enacted providing methods whereby it may be sold and conveyed to private indi- viduals; as for example the homestead laws of the United States. However, in many of the older nations there was no orderly legal method devised for the safe and distribution of public lands, and they were taken in a haphazard way. In Turkey today any one may settle upon and improve public land without any legal conveyance or permit from the govern- ment. When the land is improved the government assesses it for taxation and recognizes the title of the occupant. But even where governments, for a valuable consideration, sell and convey land to an individual, yet they reserve the following very material powers' over it : 1st. The right to tax the land — in any way it sees fit; and toi sell it in case the tax is not paid. 2d. The right to confiscate the land, should the owner be guilty of treason or other felonies. 3d. The right to sell the land for the non-payment of any fines assest against the owner, or for the non-payment of any assessments made against the land for public improvements, etc. 4th. The right under the laws of eminent domain to retake the land when it is needed for public purposes, such as for parks, public build- ings, etq., upon the payment of the market value of the land. 5th. The right of the government at the death of the land- owner to take such part of his land and property as it deems proper.* * This is usually done by means of governmental inheritance tax laws which are in force in nearly all nations. These laws are based upon the universally establisht legal doctrine that it is the duty and function of the government, by establisht laws, to say what shall be done with a dead man's estate. It is for the government to say whether or not a citizen shall have the power to dispose of any or all of his property as he pleases by a last will and testament. If the government authorizes a last will, and a citizen HISTORY OF LAND TENURES. 23 The govemments of Europe own permanently vast areas of forest lands. The experience of the past has proven that at least twenty-five per cent, of the area of a country should be covered with forests in ordei* to preserve the natural cli- matic influences, normal degree of rain fall, etc. This can be done only by the government ownership of the forest-lands that should be permanently preserved. Private owners will fell their forests as they please. The government forests are carefully guarded and tended, and they are a great source of revenue. The timber is sold for manufacturing and heating purposes, and the trees felled are at once replaced by young trees, and in this way the crop of trees is being constantly renewed. The demand for wood for the purposes named is enormous, and the profits realized lessen the taxes of the people. It is gratifying to be able to state that our government is now establishing large government forests. FEUDAL TENURES. In some form or other, feudal tenures, of land have existed in the world ever since the unlimited private ownership and the government ownership of land, came into existence. In their essential features, feudal tenures are in many countries much more prevalent at the present time than at any other period in history.* die without liaving executed a will, or if tlie power to execute a will is not granted, then the government must decide what disposition shall be made of the estate of the decedent. Natural justice seems to dictate that the • estate should be given to the wife and children of the decedent and to the government in just proportions. I say "and the government," be- cause of the popularity of inheritance tax laws in the most of the en- lightened nations. Natural justice has also usually crystallized into laws providing that if the decedent left no wife or children, then a larger portion of the estate should go to the government for the general good of the community which contributed to the creation of these large estates and made them possible, and that the balance shall go to the more distant heirs of the decedent. The same God-given sense of natural justice will in the not distant future in all enlightened nations enforce the enactment of progressive inheritance tax, whereby the government will retain a rea- sonable part of large estates, and thus relieve the middle and poorer classes from the burden of taxation, and whereby the government will be enabled to buy land for village purposes, as outlined further on, and whereby the government can raise funds with which to improve all of the streets and highways of our towns, cities and country districts and keep them in re- pair. Many a poor man has lost his home by reason of these street assess- ments. AH highways in villages, towns, cities, and country should be splendidly improved, with funds arising from the taxation of large estates, so that our citizens can safely travel all over the country on bicycles, auto- mobiles, etc. All our highways should be put in as good condition as were the highways of ancient Rome, and no part of the expense should be levied on the homes of the poor. * Many persons limit the term feudalism to the military tenures that sprang up in Europe during the Middle Ages, which, in part, grew out of 24 THE LAND QUESTION. A pre^requisite to all feudal tenures lies in the ownership of the land of a nation either by a despotic government, or by a comparatively small number of its citizens. Either of these of necessity produces a landless condition of the great body of the people. As the landless must of necessity occupy land in some form or other in order to exist, it only remains for the landowners to fix the terms upon which they will allow the people to exist. This is feiuidalism. The neioessities of the landless man are now and always have been such that he must submit to such terms as the land'ovraier sees fit to require. As we shall presently see, these terms are much more oppressive now than at any other period knowai to history. This monster of human feudalism by means of feudal ten- ures, is hydra-headed. It has assumed many different forms thru the ages, and its historical delineation in each of the nations of the earth would fill a large volume. Theirefare I can only give a brief summary of its general nature and most typical forms. As to the kind of ownership of land that always reduces the people to the state of feudalism, as already indicated, there are two different forms : First, ownership of the land -of a nation by an autocratic military government; second, the unrestricted private ownership of the land of a nation by a comparatively few of its citizens. Each of these forms is equally effective in reducing the peojjle to the state of feudalism, but as we shall presently see, the latter is by far the more oppressive of the two. A recent writer has defined governmental feudalism as fol- lows: "In theory the land belonged to God (or the gods) who lets to the king (the earthly representative of God or the gods), who in turn sublets it to his gTeat vassals, and these in turn parcel it out tO' their subjects.* causes hereafter given, and in part by an unprecedented war-lilie state of society wliicli forced many small land owners to surrender the title to their land to the nearest lord, in order that he and his family might receive the protection of the lord. The smaller land owner usually retained posses- sion of his land as tenant and also attacht himself to the military staff of the lord to help to protect the common estate, and he also rendered such other services to the lord as might be required, altho at first they were very few. But this was simply military feudalism — one of the passing and now extinct forms of feudalism. This military feudalism afterwards de- velopt into the commercial or agricultural feudalism of the present day. • But as we shall see, the awful power of accumulated capital is as potent to reduce the people to feudalism as were the ancient kings and their armies. HISTOEY OF LAND TENURES. 25 Ancient Egypt fumislies us the first illustration of these governraental feudal tenures. Under the general goveniment of the Pharaohs the king assumed the legal title to all of the land of the nation and divided the country into districts called nomes, and over each nome he appointed a governor as the local ruler and taxgatherer. And as we have already seen, in many cases the people who had previously owned the land were reduced to vassal slavery, and when the land to which. they were attacht wa^ sold, they were sold along with it. But it must be noticed that that was not an age of commercialism. Money was very little used, notes, mortgages, bonds, stocks and banks were scarcely known, and the custom of accumu- lating large fortunes in money and credits was not dreamed of. Kemts and taxes were paid in the products of the ground, and when the granaries of the king and his govemo'rs were full, nothing more was exacted from the occupants of the soil. "VVe lea.m from Egyptologists that only from ten to twenty per centum of the annual crops was levied and collected for the support of the gqveomment. Thisi left an abundance for the support of the tillers of the, soil, which was wonderfully rich and fertile, and which yielded its crops with- out a great amount of labor. The foUoiwing Avill give a good idea of the state of the Egyptian people under these govern- mental feudial tenunes. Abooit 2758 B. C. Amemy was the king's governor over the Nome Ornx. In, his tomb' was found the following report of his administration: "I passed years as ruler in the Omx Nome. All the works of the king's house cam© into my hands. * * Not a daughter of a poor man did I wrong; not a widow did I oppress; not a farmer did I oppose; not a heirdsmaii did I hinder. There was not a pauper around me. There was not a hungry man in my time." In times of famine he says: "I made its inhabitants live, making provision for them; there was not a hungry man in the land, and I gave to the widow as to her that had a husband ; nor did I favor the elder above the younger in all that I gave. After- wards the -great rises of the Nile came, producing wheat and barley, and producing all things, and I did not exact the arrears of the farm." 26 THE LAND QUESTION. How does all this compare witli the present condition of society under unlimited private tenures? In these days of money, credits and banks it is easy for the landowner to ac- cumulate every thing he can squeeze out of the feudal tenant. If he does not need all of his share of the crop he can sell it for money and lend it out or deposit it in the bank. The result is that land has been monopolized by the rich as an invest- ment, a speculation. All over Europe and America the tenant 'is forced to pay from fifty to seventy-five per cent, of the crops to the landlord. Frequently money rent is exacted which is equally oppressive. If there is a failure of a crop the arrears are exacted by a judgment and execution on the perso-nal property of the tenant. MODBEN EEUDALISJI IN ENGLAND AND AMERICA. England furnishes us another example of the feudal tenure both ancient and modern. The former arose not from the usurpation of a native king, but by the conquest of the country by a foreign king. In 1066 William the Conqueror asserted legal title to the land of England and parcelled it out among his generals and favorites as local governors and tax-gatherers. But as a rule the local land-owners were not dispossest of their lands. They were allowed to keep them on the payment of a tax that only amounted to a very small rental. When rentals were paid in crops only about one-tenth was required. AVhen cash rent came into vogue only about six cents per acre was changed.* This small rental or tax was suflicient to pay the expenses of the government and support the local feudal lords, who handled very little money (stocks and bonds were unknown to them) and who were satisfied when their granaries were full. The spirit of oommiercialism, of million-airism and. of greed as we now know them was unknown to those feudal lords who lived with their yeomaury as -with friends and neighbors. Their interests were identical in luany ways; • Now the rents have been inereast to an average of about ten dollnra por acre. """ the highways, and as the great preacher Hugh Latimer said from 28 THE LAND QUESTION. personal observation, "wliere, as have been a great many householders and inhabitants there is now but a shepherd and his dog." Other rich landlords evicted thousands of families from their humble homes in order that they might turn vast tracts of land into hunting parks, and many of these shameful, disgraceful parks still exist in England today. Thousands of humble cottages and even many villages were destroyed. The highways became full of beggars whose only crime was that they had not where to lay their heads; and with a fiendish idiocy that can scarcely be believed, the Parliament of England enacted a law making begging a capital crime, and a prominent English writer and Eellow of the Royal Society says that in the reigTi of Henry VIII, under this law, seventy-two thousand of these landless, homeless wanderers were judicially murdered, and countless thousands more were maimed and flogged, and that this policy was continued for many years. Finally the English rulers and legislators became ashamed of this barbarity, and they began to feed these poor people at the public expense; and today, at a cost of about fifty millions of dollars a year, the English government is supporting in idle- ness about one million of the descendants of these once happy and self-supporting small farmers, who were so wrongfully deprived of their lands. Some fine day the English people will reconvert the hunting parks and sheep and cattle pastures into small family homesteads and put their paupers to work again, and reconvert them into the industrious and prosperous citizens that their ancestors were. France achieved this great reform by a bloody revolution, but even that is better than to not achieve it at all. The English fairmer who is able to rent a piece of land is forced to pay such an extortionate rental that he has to work like a slave to pay his rent. Verily the un- bridled, unrestrained private ownership of land leads to the worst form of feudalism the world has ever known. The righteous redistributions of land among the people that have been made by so many nations in the past should be repeated in many nations today, and it should be done in such a way that future redistributions will not be necessary in all the ages of the future. The world should surely learn by bitter experience. HISTORY OF LAND TENURES. 29 The causes of ancient feudalism (land monopoly) and also of the still more oppressive feudal tenures under our present system of land ownership are frequemtly the same. Thus, Prof. Samuel Dill tells us that gold mono-metalism was the first and one of the principal causes of feudalism in Southern and Western Europe at the beginning of the dark ages. All debts and taxes in the Roman ooomtries were payable in gold alone. Bimetalism had not been establisht by free ooiaage of both metals, and their value was not steadied and held at a fixt ratio by the bimetalic tie. Consequently the value of each metal fluctuated greatly according to the supply of and demand for each metal. Prof. Dill says that during the fourth century, by reason of a decrease in its production, the value of gold inoreast one-fifth; and of course this produced a corresponding increase in the burden of the debts and taxes payable in gold. Many of the small land owners were unable to bear these additional burdens and they lost their lands and became the enforced tenants of the large land owners. After- wards followed the other causes that led to the almost uni- versal system of feudal tenures that prevailed in Europe during the middle ages, but which for lack of space can not be traced here.* * In utter disregard of the lessons of history, twenty-five years ago the nations of Europe and America took the fatal step that is fast reducing their small land holders to the state of feudalism. Those great nations had been freely coining at a flxt ratio and using as standard legal tender money all of the go,ld and silver produced from the mines and not used in the arts. Suddenly and within a very few years, at the behest of bond holders and money lenders, these mighty nations demonetized and closed their mints to silver, and threw all of their mighty present and future demand for primary money and basis for their enormous credits upon gold alone. A rapid and unprecedented increase in the value of gold, and therefore of the burden of debts and taxes, was the inevitable result. The price tables and index numbers of all of the gold standard nations unite in demonstrating beyond the shadow of a doubt that in twenty-five years, on account of this enormous increase in demand, the Talue of gold increast seventy-three per cent. This nearly doubled the burden of debts, interest and taxes, which are payable in a certain number of dollars, regardless of any increase in the value of the dollar. All his- tory teaches that this process is disastrous to small owners of real estate In both town and country, as their incomes are limited and they cannot meet any increase in the burdens of their debts, interests and taxes. The court records of one of our western states show that in a period of ten years since demonetization began, mortgages to the amount of forty millions of dollars were foreclosed mostlv on town and country homesteads. The num- ber of our tenement farms increast from 1880 to 1890 from 1,024,601 to 1,624,433— an awful increase of 599,8-32 in ten years. The same cruel pro- cess has been and still is going on in all gold standard countries. Tens of thousands of families have been turned out of their homesteads and reduced to a state of feudalism, and the process has only beunn. Many of the debts on these homesteads have been renewed and the time of payment postponed. The day of final payment and of foreclosure is certain to come to -many of them in the near future. The momentous fact looms up befire the vision of all sensible men, that England is going to establish the Rild standard in India with its population equal to the population of all of Con- 30 THE LAND QUESTION. In the United States of America, undeir the system of tin- restrictedpTivateownerehipof land, wb are rapidly approacliing the condition of England in regard to the accumulation of land in the hands of the few, tihe rapid increase of the number of tenants in both city and country, and also in regard to the oppressive tei-ms exacted from tenants by our landlords. Within the last one hundred years the greater part of our vast territory has been divided up by the Government into small tracts and given or sold at low rates to citizene who took pos- session of them as homesteads. But our statistics -show that under our present system' of unrestricted private ownership these homesteads soon begin to pass into the hands of unoc- cupying capitaliste. This movement has been gaining mo- mentumi with each passing- decade. Dtiring the decade of 1880 to 1890, sixty thousand of these farm homesteads per year passed into the hands of capitalists. In ten years nearly six hundred thousand families, numbering nearly three mil- lions of men, women and children, were rendered homeless and were forced to join the ranks of our feudal tenantry. If these farms averaged 100 acres in size, which is probably not an overestimate, then we have the awful fact that in ten years nearly three million acres of our improved farm lands passed from our home o^vners to non-occupying landlords. This growth of feiidalism in our country is alarming and shows conclusively that a remedy is needed. All history shows that laws allowing an unlimited private ownership of land result in land monopoly. The remedy lies in creating such restric- tions as will prevent such monopoly and produce a wide dis- tribution of land among the people. tinental Europe. As a matter of course, this will still further greatly en- hance the value of the standard gold dollars and still further increase the burden of debts and taxes. The Congressional Coinage Committee that met at Atlantic City, in May, 1899, declared that not only India, but that China and the whole world would soon be forced to adopt the single gold standard. The certain result of this will be the ownership of the land of the world by the creditor classes and the absolute reduction of the great body of the common people of all nations to the state of commercial feudalism, which, as we have seen, is the most oppressive form of feudalism known to history. It is for the United States (free America) to stem this tide of feudalism by a return to the free coinage laws of the Constitution and then pass such further laws as will protect, foster and encourage the creation of small family homesteads. Here, as in all other civilized coun- tries, agricultural tenants are ground down to the very lowest point Whether the rents are grain rent or cash rent, the greatest possible rentai is exacted from the tenants. They are only allowed sufficient margin to live in the rudest way, and they and their families are forced to" work in summer heat and winter sleet, snow and cold, for from twelve to six- teen hours a day. Such severe terms were unheard of in the times of the old military feudalism.— Compiler. HISTORY OF LAND TENURES. 31 REMEDIES SUGGESTED FOE PRESENT CONDITIONS. [The compiler of the foregoing facts became so interested in his investigations and so aroused to the necessity of land tenure reform, that he could not refrain from suggesting remedies, which are here presented,— ' 50 '* '* " 100 1,121,485 2,008,694 84,395 " 100 ■ 500 " 50' " " " 1,000 Farms of 1,000 acres and over 31,516 Total 2,659,985 4,008,907 4,504,041 These tables show the following surjorising and alarming facts: That the small estates under 20 acres have greatly decreased in niimber. That in the 20 years from 1870 to 1890 our small farms of from 20 tO' 50 acres only increased 55,163 in number, while our large farms of from 100 to 500 acres in size show an increase in number of 1,443,640 famis, or about four hundred per cent; and our still larger farms of from 500 to 1,000 acres increased from 15,873 in 1870, to 84,395 in 1890, thus showing an increase of over five hundred per cent, while the number of our still larger farms of over 1,000 acres each increased from 3,720 to 31,546, or an in- crease of over eight hundred per cent. AYe have 2,440,006 farms of 100 acres or less in size. If we average these at 50 acres each this gives 122,000,300 acres in small fai-ms. We have 3,246,120 farms of over 100 acres in size. If we average these at 400 acres each this will give us 1,298,448,000. That is to say, at this early time in our national history, about nine-tenths of our improved farm land is in large farms and owned by the rich classes. At this rate how long will it be until our small homesteads will be eliminated and swallowed up by the large estates of our capitalists? Every school boy DISTRIBUTION OF LAAD. 41 knows the enormous increasing power of accumulated capital. As these large estates increase in size and numbei', the gi-eater will be their power to absorb the smaller farms adjoining them. Our farms of 500 acres and over would now cover an area more than five times the size of the great state of Indiana, ■with its two millions and over inhabitants. That is to say, about 115,940 men own. a vast area of about 126 millions of acres of the best farming land in the world, and which should be divided amoug ten millions of people, and which is capable of giving support, self-employment, homes and haiDpiness to that vast number of people. And when we consider the further awful fact that about one-half of this vast expanse of 126 millions of acres of land, which within the memory of men still living was parcelled out by our government to our citizens in small farms, is now at this early day absorbed by and owned by 31,546 men and corporations, the situation is still more alarming. In one of his speeches Daniel Webster once said: "A free government cannot long endure where the tendency of laws is to concentrate tlie wealth of the country in the hands of a few, and to render the masses poor and de- pendent." In the light of the above facts can there be any doubt as to the tendency of our present land laws, and that radical changes in our land laws are absolutely necessary? The extent of many of these large estates is simply astound- ing, as is shown by the following list of a very few of the large land owners of this country: NAMES. NO. OF ACRES. Col. D. C. Murphy 4,068,000 Texas State Fund Ass'n (owned by 4 men) 3,000,000 The Standard Oil Company 1,000,000 John W. Dwight — a farmer in N. Dakota (nearly as large as Khode Island) 704,000 Ex-Senator Dorsey 500,000 E. C. Sprague 500,000 Miller and Lux (San Francisco) 450,000 Mr. McLaughlin of California 400,000 William A. Chapman 350,000 New York syndicate 300,000 Surveyor-Gen. Beals 300,000 Texas Land and Cattle Company 240,000 Bixby, Flint & Co .• 200,000 42 THE LAJSTD ^JUESTIOM'. Thomas Fowler 200,000 Abel Stearnes 200,000 The Murphy family of California 156,000 G. W. Roberts 140,000 Virginia Coal and Iron Company 100,000 And there are hundreds of large holdings of from ten thous- and to one hundred thousand acres each, and "which cannot be enumerated here. But there is another feature of this question that is highly important. The census of 1880 showed that at that time there ■were 1,024,601 rented farms in this country. The census of 1890 showed that there were at that time 1,624,433 farms oc- cupied by tenants. In ten years the number of farms owned by non-occupying landlords increased by the enormous sum of 599,832. At this enormous increase of landlordism, how long Avill it be until our entire country will be owned by landlords, and until our people will bereduced to serfdom ? These farms Avill probably average 100 acres each in size. ThiswoTild mtak© a total of 59,983,200 acres of improved farm land. This is an area more than equal to thq combined area of the two great states of Illinois and Indiana. Of course the greater portion of these farms were absorbed by creditors by the foreclosure of mortgages which the farmers were unable to pay because of the unprecedented fall of the prices of their farm products.* * That tbis faU of prices was the result of the rise in the value of money caused by the single gold standard, no man can deny. That this rise in gold was caused by the demonetization of silver by Europe and America, Ihus throwing oil of their immense demand for primary money upon gold alone, no man who has investigated Ibe question will deny. The effect followed Ibe cause in such an instantaneous manner that there is no possibilily of doubt as lo their relation. We have seen how this resulted in creditors robbing debtors of their farms from 1880 to 1890. They have been reaping the same cruel and unjust harvest ever since 1890. And if we continue our pri'srut inflated gold dollar, they will continue to reap that harvest for many years to come, and the reign of land-lordism will be supreme. But the demand of Inda for gold and the certain continued rise in gold that must occur when she begins to accumulate gold is the awful fact that now stares our mortgage debtors in the face. There is not a county in the United Slates in which there has not been mortgages fore- closed on farms because of the increase in the burden of debts and taxes consequent upon the rise in the value of gold and the resulting fall In the prices of farm products. Shall this process continue for an indefinite period in the future? The American people must answer by their votes. It is very easy for them to remove this cause of the horrible increase of land-lordism in tbis country if they desire to do it. Few people seem to be aware of the effect of demonetization on the land question. It has had the same disas- trous effect in England, as is shown by the following quotation from the report of the Bngish Royal Commission on Agriculture, made in June, 1897- "Thousands of once prosperous families have been reduced to want' Mortgagors, once independent men, easily able with old price levels to meet their obligations have heen crusht; mortgagees have sustained heavy losses; the clergy are impoverisht; hospitals, almshoTises, colleges, benefit societies, and numberless families, whose incomes ai'ose from land are being plnnged into ruin. Such are the fruits of the new policy of protecting DISTEIBXJTION OS' LATiTD. 43 But a still more alarming feature lies in the encxrmous alien ownership of our land. In addition to the numerous smaller alien holdings h>ere, fifty-six foreign persons and corporations own more than 26,000,000 acres of our land — ^an area equal to that of the great states of Ohio, Kentucky or Vii^nia. The enormous size of some of these holdings of land in this country by foreigners may be seen by the following partial list: NAMES. NO. OF ACHES. Baron Tweeddale 1,75€,000 Byron H. Evans 700,000 M. Ellerhousen 600,000 Robert Tenant 530,000 Duke of Sutherland 422,000 W. Whaley, M. D 310,000 Duke of Northumberland 191,460 Duke of Devonshire . 148,626 Earl of Cleveland 106,650 Lord Dunmore 120,000 Benjamin Neug-as 100,000 Earl of Carlisle 78,540 Sir W. W. Win 91^612 Duke of Rutland 70,039 Lord Houghton 60,000 Lord Duuraven 60,000 Duke of Bedford 51,085 Earl of Brownlow 57,799 Earl of Derby 56,698 Earl of Cawdor 51,538 Lord of London^boro 52,655 Duke of Portland 55,259 Earl of Pov^ls 46,095 Lady Willoug-hby 59,313 Earl of Yarborough 54,570 And there are hundreds of smaller foreign holdings of from 500 acres up. The ownership of our land by foreign land syndicates is also simply astounding. A Dutch syndicate owns 4,500,000 acres of our land in New Mexico and adjoining territories. Another Dutch syndicate owns 3,000,000 of acres in Teixas. money (gold)." When, in 1897, we sent our commission to England and other European countries to secure free coinage by international agreement, the English people were anxious for such agreement, but their bankers and bondholders, desiring to still further increase the value of their money and bonds and mortgages, controlled the English government and induced it to send our commission home in disgrace and defeat. We must now legislate for ourselves.— Compiler. 44 THE LAND QUESTION. An English syndicate owns 1,800,000 acres in Mississippi- A Scotch syndicate owns 500,000 acres in Florida. Furthermore these alien land o^vners have introduced their foreign methods of renting their lands here, that are very oppressive. For instance, Lord William Scully of London owns from fifty to sixty thousand acres of the best fanning land in Illinois. He rents it at the highest cash rental, and requires the tenants to build their own houses, bams, etc., and until the state law prohibited it they had to pay the taxes on the land. Since then the Lord has added the tax to the rent. From these poor people he receives about $150,000 per year for the privilege of merely existing on his soil. As all the government land that is worth having is now taken up, this is the very best these poor people can do for themselves. Do the people of the United States know of the above facts, as shown by incontestible official statistics? Or, are they totally indifferent to their own interests — have they gone into a state of dotage? Verily the idea of our forefathers that the repeal of the laws of primogeniture and estates tail would prevent the crea- tion of large landed estates in this counti'y, was a mistaken one. Have we enuf intelligence to learn wisdom by tlie sad lessons of experience? Our city millionaires have as yet hardly begun to invest their millions and himdreds of millions in farm lands and to utilize in large farming operations all of the modern methods and improved machinery. As our cities take charge of their own franchises, and as our trusts buy out our numerous manufacturing plants, the mil- lionaires will have to invest their uninvested millions in fann lands. The poor man desiring a homestead of a few acres will have small show when bidding against our city capi- talist or large land owners and foreign investors as well, unless the law comes to his aid by a liberal system of tax and mort- gage exemptions, heavy stamp duties on conveyances of land not to be used as homesteads, etc. The fact that under our present land laws over onenhalf of the small farms conveyed by the government to the people have been so soon absorbed into estates of 300 acres and over, is conclusive condemnation DISTRIBUTION OF 1,AND. 45 of our present land laws, and should make it perfectly clear to all that further legislation is needed. All good citizens should work earnestly for some satisfactory system of land laws that will stop the accumulation of land into the hands of the few, and guarantee homes and work to the many. DOMINION OF CANADA. Unlimited private ownership tenures prevail. The public lands are not all taken up yet, and in some of the provinces free grants of from one hundred to two hundred acres of land are made by the government to any actual settler over eighteen years of age. In other provinces small payments are required from settlers. There are no statistics available as to the pres- ent distribution of land, but in 1871 it was as follows for the provinces of Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Quebec and Ontario : Farms of 10 acres and under 40,281 10 acres to 50 acres 78,877 50 acres to 100 acres 141,300 100 acres to 200 acres 82,176 above 200 acres 25,228 Number of men owning and occupying farms, 324,160. Number of tenants, 39,583. Doubtless the same process of accumulation of land into the hands of the few has been going on there since 1871 as has been operating i" the United States, altho until their habitable public land is all taken it is not likely to proceed so rapidly. MEXICO. Private ownership. Since 1863 there has been in force laws providing for the sale of public lands at low prices to settlers. In many instances the native Indians are allowed to occupy land in an informal way on the payment of a small yearly rental or tax to the government. There are no statistics as to the distribution of land, but in so sparcely an occupied 46 THE LAIfI> QUESTION. country thea-e is not likely to be any dangerous monopoly of land. EI^GLAKD. The first attempt to ascertain the distribution of land in England in modem times was made in 1873 by a committee appointed for that purpo^ by the House of Lords. The report was publisht in two volumes known as the Bluet-book or l^ew Domesday Book. The report covered all holdings of land and lots in England and Wales eixcept the lots in London. The tabulated report is as follows: CTasslfication of Ownership. Les? than one acre — ^mostly Tillage, town and 1 aere a^^ andei 10 acres 10 acres " " 50 " 60 " " " 100 " 100 " " " 500 '■ 500 ' 1,000 " 1,000 " " " 2,000 " 2,000 " " " 5,000 " „ 6,000 " " " 10,000 " 10,000 " " " 20,000 " 20,000 " " " 50,000 " 60,000 " " " 100,000 " 100,000 and upwards Areas not specliied Bentals „ Total ownerships in England and Wales, exclu- aive of liOndon Number of Separate Holdings. 703,289 121,983 72,640 25,839 32,317 4,799 2,719 1,M5 581 Z& 66 3 1 6.448 113 972,836 Acres. 151,172 478,686 1,750,0S0 1,791,606 6,827,347 3,317,678 3,799,307 5,52»,180 3,974,7l!5 3,098^675 1,917,076 194,939 181,616 i',424" 33,013,-515 Gross Esto- nia ted Rental Value. £. 29,127,679 6,438,%'i 6,509,290 4^302,003 13,680,760 6,427,552 7,914,371 9,579,312 6,522,610 4,337,023 2,331,303 188,746 161,874 2,831,453 99,352,301 As to the farm lands this showing is most startling. The 874 proprietors of faxms over 5,000 acres in size owned 9,367,- 031 acres, or over OBe-fourth of the entire country — ^there being 37,324,885 acre® in all of England and Wales. The 5,048 persons who own farms of 1,000 acres and o«ver own a combined area of 18,695,528 acres. That is to say out of a population of 22,782,812 in 1871, the small number of 5,048 persons owned more than one-half of the farm land of the entire countiy Li England the twelve largest land owners owned an aggre- gate of 1,058,883 acres. In Scotland it was miach worse,^ as tJieare the twelve largest laaod owners owned 4,339,722 acres oat of a total area of 18,946,694. While in Ireland the twelve DISTEIBUTION OF IxAMD. 47 largest ItoMers o^ned 1,291,888 acres, out of a total of 4,233,- 2S9, or more th^an tweaty-five per cent. Since 1873 t^ie. b-Tirden of mortgage debts and taxes lias l>een almost doubled by the increase in tbei vahie of gold consequent upon tbe de- monetization of silver by all of Europe and tbe United States, and thousands of small farmers of England have gone down under the unjust burden and lost their land. It is tiierefore safe to say that there has been a very material increase over 1873 of the accumulation of the land of that country in the hands of the few. ^e late agricultural returns of England show that out of a total of 32,4:77,031 acres under crops and grass, not in- etnding- mountains or park land, 27,956,743 acres are occu- pied by tenants and only 4,520,288 acres by owners. In the absence of hope of relief in any other way, a revolution some- thing like the French revolution may perhaps be necessary for the purpose of bringing about a fair, just and equitable distribution of land, such as was. effected by the revolution in France. The above facts are simply appalling. Kelief should be had in some way. RUSSIA. The official statistics for 1892 show the following facts: Acres. The State Tbe Imperial tiuaily. „ The peasants 06h«r priraita ovneTS... Total.. 410,801,867 19,890,8.95 373,310,496 a»4,a04,582 1,098,507.750 Former serfs to the number of 9,158,755 have bought 87,093,609 acres of land, but much of this land is mortgaged. Their farms average a little less than ten acres each in size. About one-third of the total area, of Eussia is under forest. This comprises much of the land owned by the state. Many of these government forests are considered as protective' of rivers, etc., and are thought to be necessary to preserve the annual rajn fall of the surrounding country, and therefore 48 THE LAND QUESTION. these forests are very carefully protected. It is a crime for private persons to fell timber in them without permission of the government. These forests are under the care of thor- oly educated foresters. The government derives quite a large revenue from the sale of timber for building and manu- facturing purposes, firewood, etc. Large quantities of char- coal are also made and sold to the people. And something is generally realized by the sale of nuts, wild game, etc. As trees for these purposes are felled other trees are planted, and thus the supply is being constantly renewed. These govern- ment forests are found in the most of the European nations, and they not only serve useful purposes to the whole nation in the climatic influences mentioned, but they are also the sources of large revenues to the governments owning them. Surely the government o\vnei'ship of forests is a good thing. In no other way can large forests be protected and maintained for climatic influences in a nation. Something of this kind is very much needed in the United States. In the general article on land tenures in the preceding chapter, the Russian land question is discussed somewhat. In addition to that, the following quotation from an official re- port made in 1891 by J. il. Crawford, the American Consul General to Russia, will give a general idea of the situation in that countrj-: "It should be remembered that a large part of the fanning in Russia is carried on by rich landed proprietors, owning enonnous tracts of land, each of which is tilled by peasants, who are hired for a mere pittance in comparison with the price of farm labor in the United States, and is generally paid in such edibles as are in the least demand in the home or foreign markets." He also says that the peasants are gen- erally very poor and never have any money. And that some of the former serfs have bought small farms which are usually mort^-aaed at a high rate of interest. GERMANY. is a counti the followinj Germany is a coimtry of small homesteads, as is shown by le following statistics for 1895, showing the size and number DISTEIBUTION OF LAKD. 49 of enclosures, eacli cultivated by one houseiiold : Under 2-| acres, 2,529,132; between 2| and 25 acres, 2,329,367; be- tween 25 and 250 acres, 674,757, and over 250 acres, 25,061. About 25 per cent, of tlie covintry is in forests, mostly owned by the government and carefully cared for and protected. FRANCE. (as shown by the report of 1892.) Size of Farms Kumber of farms and per cent, of the tolal thereof i mbraced in each class Combined ^verage of holdings l^J^f' Per ct. of laud in each class Number of farms in each class Per cent, of total holdings Hectares Hectares Holdings under one hectare (a) *' from 1 to 10 bectares " 10 to 40 " of over 40 " 2,235,40.5 2,617,6,58 711,118 ISBiOTl 39.1!) 4.5.90 12.48 2.43 1 ,327,300 11,244,700 14,313,400 22,193,400 0.59 4.29 20.H 162.21 2.67 22.80 28.98 4.5..5.3 5,702,7,52 ino.oo 49,37^,800 8.66 100.00 (a) 1 bectare ^ 2.471 acres, or not quite 2^^ acres. The total number of land owners is 3,387,245. The total number of tenants who do not own land is ,S00.4[)4. Of these 5S."'),G23 pay cash rent, and 220,871 rent on the shares. There are r)l)9,075 persons who own small pieces of land and also rent land from others. There are 588,950 agricultural day laborers who own their own homes. This shows a much better distribution of farm land than there is in the United States. Yet when the statement is analyzed it does not show such a good distribution of farm land in France as there is generally thought to be. AYhile the small holdings of 24 acres and under number 4,852,963, yet they comprise only 25.47 per cent, of the total amomit of land. The large farms of 100 acres and over (40 hectares) average 401 acres in size and comprise 45.55 per cent of the farm land of the nation; yet this vast area is owned l)y only 138^671 per- sons. Out of a population of .'58,517,975, in the entire nation, nearly one -half of the farm land of the nation is owned by 138,071 persons. Yet this distribution is much better than it 50 THE LAND QUESTION. was before the revolution of 1Y89. Prior to that time about two-thirds of the land of France belonged in large tracts to the Catholic Church and the Nobles. The JSTobles were the de- scendants of the Feudal Lords and they still held the large feudal estates intact. During the revolution the government forced the Church to sell its lands to the state in exchange for assignats; and at the samie time it confiscated the lands of the Nobles^ and it then sold all these lands in small tracts to the people. HUNG-AKT. In 1888 the distribution of land was as follows: Size of Farms. Under 43 acres 43 to 286 acres 286 to 1,430 acres ... 1,430 to 14,300 acres Over 14,301) acres.... Number of Farms. 2,348,107 118,981 13,757 4,695 231 Total area. 21,489,900 9,6.S9,600 20,383,200 9,523,800 5,619,900 Over sixty per cent, of the population are engaged in agri- cultural piirsuits. SPAIN. No statistics as to the exact size and number of the farms have been prepared, but the following list as to the tax assess'- ments shows a very good distribution of land: Properties assessed at from 1 to 10 reals^ 624,920; from 10 to 20 reals, 511,666; from 20 to 40 reals, 642,377; from 40 to 100 reals, 788,184; from 100 to 200 reals, 416,546; from 200 to 500 reals, 165,202; from 500 to 10,000 reals and upwards, 279,188. SWEDEN. The whole number of farms-in 1896 was 333,073, divided in size as follows: Under 5 acres in size, 72,020; from 6 to 60 acres in size, 217,650; from 50 to 250 acres in size, 32,463; above 250 acres in size, 3,211. Only 8.4 per cent, of the area is under cultivation, 3.6 per cent, in meadows, and 47.5 per cent, under forests. DISTRIBUTION OF LAND. 51 SWITZEELAISTD. The soil is very equally divided among about 300,000 peasr ant proprietors. The government owns 1,119,270 acres of forests, which are very carefully preserved because of their climatic influences, and the area of forests is being extended by artificial tree planting and cultivation. TURKEY. The most of the land is still owned by the government and is rented by it to the people on the payment of certain fees and one^tenth of the products. On failure to pay fees or tithes or to cultivate the land for three years the land reverts to the state. A small portion of the land has been sold to citizens in fee simple, but they also have to pay tithes. Small farming in a very primitive manner prevails. There are no statistics as to land distribution. Heavy taxation, and particularly the corrupt methods of tax gathering, are responsible for the neglect of agriculture in Turkey. As a consequence the own- ership and improvement of farms, particularly small farms, is correspondingly discouraged. CHINA. There are no statistics to the land distribution. There are comparatively few large estates. For the most part the coun- try is divided up into small family homesteads that are kept ia the same family for many generations. INDIA. In this vast country, with its three hundred millions of inhabitants speaking 11 >^ different dialects and lang-uages, there are to be found all kinds of real estate tenures, but the four principal ones are as follows: First, village tenures as described in the preceding chapter of this book on land ten- ures; second, the Zamindari tenure, where proprietary broth- 52 THE LAND QUESTION. erhoods hold large estates — sometimes of several hundred thousands of acres each; third, ordinary private individual ownership; and fourth, government tenancy, where the gov- ernment owns the land and the occupant rents directly from the government. Under all except the second tenure men- tioned, the holdings are generally quite small, but there are no statistics showing the distribution of land among the people. AUSTRALIA. But a comparatively small portion of Australia has been settled. In most of the provinces free grants of 160 acres of land are made by the government to actual settlers. In some places a small fee of 2s. 6d. per acre is charged. In Queensland only about three per cent, of the land has been settled. In South Australia a little larger per cent, has been taken for both agricultural and pastoral purposes. In Victoria, out of a total area of 56,245,760 acres, 23,090,- 664 are taken by settlers. The total number of cultivated holdings in 1897-98 was 34,990. In New South Wales, out of a total area of 138,848,000 acres, 45,738,687 acres had been settled in 1897 and 124,184,- 284 acres had been leased by the government for grazing pur- poses. The holdings were as follows in number and extent: Farms of 1 to 15 acres, 15,179; farms of 16 to 200 acres, 28,404; farms of 200 to 400 acres, 8,679; farms of 400 to 1,000 acres, 7,625; farms of 1,000 to 2,000 acres, 2,431; farms of 2,000 to 10,000 acres, 2,108 ; farms of 10,000 and . upwards, 674. In "Western Australia, out of an area of 624,588,800 acres, there were 133,182 acres under crop in 1897, and 8,746 per- sons exclusive of families were engaged in agricultural pur- suits in 1891. In Tasmania, out of a total area of 16,778,000 acres, 4,768,901 have been granted to settlers and 833,575 leased as sheep runs. DISTEIBUTION OF LAND. 53 NEW ZEALAND. Of a total area of 67,000,000 acres a little over one-half has been conveyed to settlers or leased for pastoral purposes. The following table shows the holdings in 1898: Sizes of Holdings. Number of Holdings. Acres. 17,133 ■ 11,182 7,068 9,192 5,481 0,436 1,956 2,454 345 246 164 102 68,920 317,321 ' 50 to 100 " 558,797 1,396,099 ' 200 to 320 " 1,431,406 2,492,276 * 640 to 1,000 " 1,611,267 ' 1 000 to 5000 " 6,16.'>,n9 ' 5,000 to 10,000 " 2,416,149 ' 10000 to 20000 " 3,501,676 6,251,819 Ui wards of 50000 " , 9,769,121 Xotal 60,759 33,980,479 64 THE LAND QtrESTTON. ALIEN LANDLORDISM IN AMERICA. Its Extent, Evils, and Proposed Remedies. By Ex-Oongressman John Davis, of Kansas. The first question in tMs discnssion must be tlie nature of ownership. Land and its appurtenances and its products are necessary to the existence of the human race. Man must hare light, air and water, all of which belong to the earth. He must also have food and clothing, which are products of the earth. Hence, by the laws of nature and of necessity, every human being has the inherent right of access to the soil. This statement is so plain and self-evident that all the best writers acknowledge it, and there is no need of argument. So universally is this fact agreed to, and so necessary is the possession of land by man, that land grabbing for speculative purposes has been a mania of the ambitious in ancient, me- dieval and modern times. Original title to land and the possession of it has usually been obtained thru the power of either the sword or the purse. The man or the nation wielding the heaviest sword among barbarians is usually the greatest land-gTabber. It is his high- est ambition to conquer and hold large territories-, that he may collect tribute from the inhabitants — from the people occupying the lands and from their posterity forever. Among nations whoi claim to be civilized, the purse is used for the acquisition of lands instead of the sword. It is less odious, less obvious and less noisy. But the purpose is the same as when the sword is used. In the presence of an open purse, all men usually surrender and thank the hand that grabs their homes. All men will resist the lion, because he is uproarious, bloody and destructive, but they court the boa because in squeezing the life out of them he does it quietly silently and even "charmingly." Let me illustrate: ALIEN OWNEESHIP OF LAND. 55 Suppose Great Britain werei to send an iron-clad tO' the coast of IsTew Jersey and capture a bit of sandy beacli on whicli to erect fortifications, and over which to float the British flag. How our American blood would boil. That bit of worthless sand would be reclaimed if it cost the life of every able bodied man in America., Yet on the other hand, British landlords have sent that other war power, the purse, into the very heart of this nation, and have captured many thousands of acres of the best lands on the continent, vdthout boiling to any alarming extent our American blood. Wby would Great Britain capture this country with the sword? The answer is plain: That she might levy tribute on our people. Why do British landlords capture our lands with the purse? Th^e answer is equally plain: That they may levy tribute on our people. Let us examine a few facts as they exist to-day, black and portentous, in the land of boasted freedom. One William Scully, a British landlord, has sent his purse to America, and has actually captured many thousands of acres of the richest lands in the State of Illinois. And now the American citi- zens living on those acres pay hundreds of thoiusands of dollars per annum to that British landlord for the privilege of culti- vating the American soil on which they and their children were bom. They pay greater tribute than King George ex- pected to exact by the sword in the days of 17Y6. That same landlord, William Scully, of London, has captured several thousand acres in Marshall and Marion counties, Kansas, and other thousands of acres in other parts of that State. All this is done by that war power known as "the purse." It is done that Mr. Scully may levy tribute on the people of America; that his children may levy tribute on our children, and that his grandchildren may levy tribute on our grandchildren, and so on down to the latest generation. What more coidd Mr. Scully do with the sword, if he had all the armies of Europe at his back? In some parts of Colo- rado the people of that State are paying tribute to European landholders for every blade of wild grass cropped by their cows and othei- animals which are necessary for the support of their families. 56 THE LAND QUESTION. In this connection it may be stated that tables have been published resting on facts and conditions existing a dozen years ago, sho-^ving that twenty millions of acres have long been held in fee simple by European landlords and syndicates, and from which those alien owners havei been collecting reve- nues. During the last decade matters have been growing rapidly worse. So rapid and continuous has been the growth of European investments in American lands, both directly and indirectly, that no man has been bold enough and wise to construct modern tables as fast as the facts and circumstances have changed. The direct investments, like those of Mr. Scully^ have been large; but the indirect process, by means of mortgages and foreclosures thru loans of European capital on American real estate, has been far larger. When a loan is made on a farm a part of the equity in the case passes to the capitalist, and he immediately collects a revenue on the same in the form of an- nual interest. The farmer sun-enders an equity, and to- the same extent becomes a tenant, and begins tO' pay rent to his capitalistic landlord. To give the reader a slight idea of the extent of this species of landlordism, I call his attention to the last census, which shows that in 1889 over six billions of dollars were loaned on American real estate. See census report, 1890, "Real Estate Mortgages," page 87. The amount in the State of ISTew York alone figured up approximately one billion six hundred mil- lion dollars. In Pennsylvania the amount was over six hun- dred millions, and in Kansas, two hundred and forty-three millions. The tables by states and counties, in the same vol- ume', show that in most of the states the amounts were quite as frightful. It is not claimed that all these loans were European capital, but that a large share of them were, say fifty per cent, or more, no intelligent person can doubt. The amount of American equities thus surrendered to European capitalists and the amount as tribute annually paid to holders of those mortgage equities are sufficiently astounding to blanch the cheek of American patriotism. ALIEN OWNERSHIP OF LAND. 57 Since 1890 many thousands of mortgages have heen issued, thousands have been retired by payment, and other thousands have been canceled by the transfer of lands to the holders of the mortgages. To what extent this has been done it is very difficult to ascertain. Hence up-to-date tables of alien landlordism in America must be more or less inaccurate ; nor is the exact amount of either acres or dollars very important. One or two things, however, are of paramount consequence. (1) Are the equities sufficiently large toi induce European capitalists to attempt to control American legislation in their own interest? and (2) is the tribute sufficiently large to pau- perize the American tenants ou the one hand, and on the tther, to make European landlords all powerful in American affairs? A single remark made by Mr. Scully respecting the Illinois legislature throws a flood of light on these points. He never fails, it seems, to be present during the sessions, cither in person or by attorney, and boasts that the legislature is always friendly, and has granted every favor that he has asked, and that he can evict a tenant more speedily and cheaply in Illinois than in Ireland. It is true, the Illinois legislature has passed laws forbidding the further acquisition of lands by aliens, but they did not affect former holdings. Mr. Scully favored these laws, because they tended to silence the 2>ublic clamor against him, and caused him no inconve- nience. He merely subscribed his name to an oath of alle- gience as an American citizen, and continued to reside in Lon- don, spending his time and money abroad, as l)efore. A table on my desk already refesrred' to gives a list of thirty-two foreign syndicates, companies and individuals who owned in this country moi'e than twenty millions of acres of land. This list is incoanplete. JSTeitlier William Scully, with his extensive holdings in several states, nor the Maxwell land grant of a million acres in Colorado', are mentioned; nor are any of the acquisitions thru mortgages and othenvise since 1889 included in the table. It is impossible to get the exact figures of latest date; nor could we conceive their magnitude were they before us. The imagination can scarcely compre- hend the extent of our thraldom — the extent to which we 58 THE LAND QUESTION. are in the hands of our alien masters. In order to give m/ readers some notion of .the practical workings of alien land- lordism inAmerica, I will continue the narration of facts with regard to the Scully holdings. I do this not that Mr. Scully- is better or worse than others, but his record is an old one, and is, perhaps, better known and verified than that of others. Mr. "William Scully, of London, in company with his fam- ily, paid a visit to Central and Northern Illinois in 1850. The rich prairie lands of that state belonged to the United States government, and were subject to public entry. Mr. Scully, being an experienced landlord, saw his opportunity. By the purchase of soldiers' land warrants he became a large owner of real estate at from sixty cents to one dollar per acre. The amount in Illinois alone belonging to him is estimated >.t seventy-two thousand acres. By the building of railroads, the settlement of the country, the growth of towns, and ac- cess to convenient markets, his lands have risen in value until, in some cases, they are considered worth seventy-five dollars per acre. However, Mr. Scully's plan is not to sell lands, but to rent or lease them. His policy is to spend little by way of impTovem.ents, requiring his tenants toi build, fence and improve to suit themselves, at their own cost, avoiding everything except the rudest buildings and other fixtures ab- solutely necessai-y. The tenements are meagre and unsightly. There must be no school houses, no good roads nor other im- provements which Mr. Scully can prevent, lest the taxes on his lands shall be increased. Until recently the tenants were required to pay the taxes. By law, now, the landlord must pay the taxes, the amount of which is added to the rent and the tenants repay to him the full amount. The rentals on Mr. Scully's lands have usually ranged, during recent years, from two to four dollars per acre, and his annual net income from his Illinois investments is over two hundred thousand dollars. Besides paying the rent at -these rates the tenant is bound by contract to dig out and clean out as often as needed all ditches and drains on the premises, to trim all hedges, to continually mow down or pull up all weeds and burrs, or to forfeit a specified sum of money per rod or per acre for his negligence. AXIEN OWNEESHIP OF LAND. 59 Mr. Scully's business is done entirely thru agents, wlio obey orders from London. The tenants are largely Swedes, Danes and Germans, with a smaller number of Irish and native Americans. Mr. Scully prefers hard working men, accus- tomed to severe discipline and a low order of living. They are more contented and patient, and pay to the proprietor greater profits. His leases are very exacting. They are said to be "ironrclad, double riveted, with holes punched for more." One farmer said: ""When a tenant signs one of these agree- ments he'll know what a lease means." Of course, the crops and all products are subject to lien for the payment of rent. The merchants of neiighboring villages are warned by printed circulars to buy nothing of Scully's tenants who are in arrears for rent, otherwise Mr. Scully will hold them bound for the rents. A special commissioner sent out some years ago to investi- gate the question of landlordism in America (reported in the No'rth American Eeview) says: "Probably the history of con- stitutional government does not furnish a more one-sided scheme of legislation than the landlord and tenant laws thus manufactured in the western states. They are implements for esacting rent as simple, terrible and brutal in their de- signs, as a revolver in the hands of a peremptory road agent; at any rate, they have resulted in fixing on the free soil of the United States a land system^ that belongs to the ages of bar- barism. Think how appalling will be the amount of rent tribute that will leave our shores when for one Scully there will be hundreds, compelling Americans tO' pay them for being allowed to live in the United States. "Oh, my countrymen, ponder on these things. Give your earnest attention to the repeal of pernicious land laws in order that the few million acres now available for settlement shall be reserved for those seeking cheap homes. Every foot of land that has been used to build up the system of public land- lordism was part of the public doimain within the memory of those now living. Every foot of this land was stolen from the American people, and if justice were done, every foot of it would be restored to them." 60 THE LAND QUESTION. I will now give another view of an indirect method of en- larging the system: About two hundred millions of acres or more, equalling about eight times the area of the state of Ohio, have been donated to corporations to aid in building railroads in this country. These lands were not sold at first to actual settlers in order to get money to build the roads, but they were mortgaged, mostly in London, for the required money. These mortgages bore interest to be paid ultimately b|^ the American people in the form of interest or dividends ^ the cost of the roads; or in other words, the mortgaged ]#nds began immediately to' yield a revenue to the London bondholders, which, in effect, was rent on the mortgaged lands. The lands were afterwards placed on the market for sale, and widely advertised in Europe and America. They were sold, in part, to actual settlers, in part to speculators for sale again, and in part to investors or future landlords, who began at once to people them "with tenants. In this way several mil- lions of acres have become pei-manent holdings in the hands of alien landlords. These alien landholders have also in soni : cases been stockholders in the railroads, and as such have had a sort of unity of interest and strong sympath,f "with the rail- road corporations. This sympathy, or mutual interest, has led to mutual favors and co-operation in controlling American legislation in their respective interests. ]Sro legislation to prohibit or restrict rJien landlordism in America can be accomplished without meeting and overcom- ing both parties herein referred to, especially if attempted by Congress. Altho Congress was the first owner of the lands, made the appropriations to the roads and final titles to pur- chasers, yet it has failed to say to whom the land should be sold, in what quantities, or for what purposes; delegating the whole matter to the respective states, which, in most cases, could take no part in conveying the lands. Llence, we have no effective legislation by Congress restricting or suppressing foreign investment in American soil. This leaves the weaker state governments to cope with a power which the general government declines to meet and conquer. Having added this view of the case to the general discus- ALIEN OWNEESHIP OF LAND. 61 sion, our attention should be turned to tlie important inquiry as to the course and origin of the evils of landlordism, and as to why the alien system is worse than the domestic variety. In answer it may he said that the evils arise in the wrong system and purpose of the acquisition of lands. Instead of the lands being granted to individuals as a natural and in- herent right belonging to all men, for personal occupancy and use, they are now granted to the heaviest sword, as the lands of England were sui-rendered to William the Conqueror ; or to the longest purse, as the lands of America have been and are being surrendered to the capitalists of Europe. The principle heretofore acted upon of selling lands to all comers without resti"iction of quantity to single buyers, and without question as to the purpose for which they have been purchased, whether for personal occupancy and use, or for mere speculation and greed have led to all, or nearly all the evils we witness. Kegarding the difference between the varieties of landlord- ism, whetlier alien or domestic, it may be said that under the alien system the money paid as rent goes to a foreign coun- try, and thus contracts the domestic monetary circulation. This, at once, lowers prices of all property, including farm products, making the next year's rent harder to pay. This system, operating year after year, destroys the home market for products, and ultimately the tenants must seek a foreign market for their crops in order to raise money to pay their rent, bearing all rislcs and meeting all expenses of shipments and sales. As practical examples of final results we may note the con- dition of the rack-rent tenants in Ireland and India, under the landlord system of Great Britain. On the other hand the domestic landlord receives his money at home. The payment of rent does not necessarily contract the currency. The home market is not destroyed, and the next year's rent may not be any harder to pay than that of the present. Moreover, should tenants become greatly dis- tressed, the home landlord may observe it, and seeing with his own eyes, his human heart may be moved to pity, and G2 THE LAm) QUESTION. kind words or deeds may effect relief. TMs would not be the case where all business is don© thru agents, who dare not vio- late the orders of the absent master living in a foreign land. Both varieties of landlordism aret founded on the principles of merciless greed, and are surely as bad as the author of evil could desire to have them; but the alien variety is two or three grades worse than the domestic. A pertinent inquiry may now arise as to the source^ and origin of the immense quantities of money so freely used and loaned by foreign investors in bonds and lands of the United States. Let us examine the case; it is a historic item which all should understand: About the beginning of the seven- teenth century there was chartered by the British government what was' long known as "The East India Company." This was a number of merchants associated together for what ap- peared to be the very innocent purpose of trading in the East Indies. As the facts developed, it was found that the com- pany was both a commercial and military corporation; its pur- pose being the conqiiest, robbery and general spoliation of the richest empire in Asia. For two hundred and fifty years that company enjoyed a monopoly of the wicked business. As the conquests' proceeded many tons of gold and silver were captured as spoils, and thus many millions of coin were shipped from time to time to the company's headquarters in London. Other millions were realized from co^mmodities cap- tured or obtained at nominal prices by the traders, who held a monopoly of the business at both ends of the line. This vast wealth during the past two hundred years has been loaned to individuals, to corporations, to cities and counties, to states and nations, and invested in railroads, mines and lands, wherever a revenue could be realized. The hundreds of millions annually flowing into the London vaults as profits on those billions of investments were continually seeking re- investment in every profitable thing in all parts of the world, including every form of industry and business, and in the lands of all nations wherever landlordism, land monopoly or land speculation is pei-mitted. And this is the great aggrega- tion of active and aggressive wealth known, as the London axiejst ownership of land. 63 Money Power.* It is the megattierimn of liistory now domi- nating and distressing the world. It is the beast of the apo- calypse trampling humanity to death. The record of alien landlordism, founded on the conquests of the sword and the purse, regardless of human rights, is a black and cruel rehearsal of the murder of nations, filling the world with mourning. The remedy, for such a system must be found in a change of foundation principles: By the laws of nature every human being has equal and inherent rights tO' his personal share in the bounties of the Creator. E^'ery human being has a natural right to such portion of sunshine, atmosphere, water and soil as are necessary to his comfort and support. So long as a man occupies and uses for his personal benefit a certain spot of soil, it is his; when he ceases to occupy and use, his title ceases, and that particular spot of soil, with its connected sunshine, air and water, becomes the property of the next occupant. Of course, the statute laws must define what shall co'nstitute occupancy, and direct as to the proceed- ings which shall be necessary in the transfer of premises from one occupant to another, and from an occupant to his heirs; but the occupancy must not at any time cease beyond a reas- onable and lawful period. The title founded on occupancy and use has its gi-adations or degrees of excellence. The man or the nation that can and does occupy best has the best title. The American Indian once occupied the soil of the present country known as the United States. As such occupant he owned the country ex- cept in the presence of a better title founded upon a better use than the Indian was making of the land. [A gentlpman who lias assisted in mailing extensive researches in the interest of this book, wishes to add the following note in this place.— C.F.T.] * And bv demonetizing silver and throwing npon gold alone all of the enormous demand of Enrope and America for primary money, the.v thereby almost doubled the value of their billions of money, and of course, this almost doubled the burden of the debtors to whom they had loanedthis enormous amount of money. Millions of mortgage debtors have been un- able to bear this villanous and unjust additional burden, and the Money Power forthwith foreclosed the mortgages and ejected the debtors from their homes. This for the most part, accounts for the remarkable increase in the number of our rented farms shown by the last two census reports. In 1880 they numbered 1,024,601. In 1890 they numbered 1,624.43.3— an in- crease of 599,832 in ten years. Our census of 1900 will show a like increase. If we continue to adhere to our present 200 cent dollar and to the 300 cent dollar that is sure to come when India, with its 300 millions of people, be- C4 THE LAND QUESTION. On the plan of Indian occupancy it required several square miles of land to maintain a single Indian. The white man came -with an ability to occupy the country to better purpose. Under civilized management it was practicable to maintain a hundred men by agriculture on the same number of square miles which sujjported but one Indian, used by him as hunt- ing grounds. The white man, obviously, according to the' laws of justicci, had the better title. The white man, vidth his culture and personal industry could develop more humanity, more wealth and more happiness on a given tract of land than could be produced by the processes of savagery. In that fact is found the right and justice of his title. It is honestly thought by many that the Indian has been unjustly crowded to the wall by the white man. That posi- tion is untenable. The Indians have not been crowded to the wall. They still possess more land in their lawful reserva- tions, in proportion to numbers, than our American citizens possess, as the following facts show: There are in the United States, eKclusive of Alaska, two hundred and sixty thousand Indians, and there are two hun- dred thousand square miles (one hundred and twenty-eight million acres) of reservations set apart for their use, making about five hundred acres for each Indian. There are in the United States about twenty persons to each square mile, mak- ing thirty-two acres for each person; so that the allotment for' each white man is far less than for each Indian. In the In- dian territory, south of Kansas, there are over thirty-one mil- lion acres of land for eighty thousand Indians, making about four hundred acres for each Indian. In Kansas there are about thirty acres of land for each individual person. Besides these inequalities in the matter of real estate, the Indians re- ceive from the general government annually millions of dol- lars in cash and commodities, to be paid thru the labor of American citizens. Surely the Indian has not been driven to the wall. See Greneral Sheridan's Eeport, American Cyclo- pedia, annual. Vol. X, page 763. gins to acciuuuliitt' gold, the number of mortcao-e eviotinns m;^t k„ ALIEN OWNEESHIP OF LAKD. 65 "We now meet in this discussion anotlier element — it is tlie speculator. After having made the conquest of a continent against the Indian becaiise of his inferior title to the lands, we now admit a master — the land speculator — with no natural right whatever. Yet having admitted his claims, under our laws, we should treat his investments with all the considera- tion that they deserve. We should follow the practical de- tails authorized by our laws in similar oases, and thus, if we can, open up tlfe lands of speculators and landlords for set- tlement and use by the people. It is a custom under our laws to condemn, appraise and pay for private lands and other property required for public use. A railroad is considered a public necessity, and the builders of railroads are authoorized to condemn, appraise and pay for such lands as are needed for railroad purposes, re- gardless of private titles. This can be done even in cases where the road passes thru the farmer's occupied preimises, and also thru thickly inhabited cities. All this is done by authority of our present laws, because the public benefit is rightly considered as superior to private rights. Now to remedy the evil of alien landlordism let us treat the absentee landholder precisely as the railroad corporation treats the farmer. Let his lands be condemned, appraised and paid for by the state or general government for the pur- pose of disj)o«ing of them to actual settlers. Let this be done on the ground that it is greatly to the public benefit that American families should possess and occupy their own homes, in fee simple, spending their money at home for the public benefit, instead, of sending it abroad for the enrichment of aliens. A comparison of facts and conditions already noted will prove my position to be the true one. Mr. Jefferson pro- nounced the small land holders the "most precious part of community." Wlien the nobility of France owned large estates and the great mass of the people were tenants and paupers, the government was imbecile, and the country drifted into bloody revolution. When those estates were subdivided into millions of small homes, France was able to meet and 66 THE LAND QUESTION. conquer on the battle field all central and southern Europe, because the people had something to fight for. Are not the free and independent farm'eirs of Illinois, with their com- fortable homes, capacious bams, good roads, frequent school houses and general comforts and conveniences better citizens than it is possible for the rackrented, poverty stricken tenants of Scully ever to become? Evidently it is "for the public benefit" that all American^ families should occupy homes of their own, and that to promote this improveened to settlement and entry — by acts of CongTess approved i[arch 2, 1889; May 2, 1890; February 13, 1S91; March 3, 1891, and March 3, 1893. "Within the last quarter of a centui-j^, between vast grants to railroad companies and gigantic swindles by corporations and by individuals, om* public domain has diminisht sO' rapidly that it has dawned upon the comprehension of the average citizens that the supply of government land is becoming lim- ited. The natural resnlt has been a great difference in the conduct of those endeavoring to obtain lands toward each other. Passengers upon an ocean steamer, who, upon going into the dining cabin, should iind seats and plates and food enuf for three times as many persons as there were on board, would be very likely to be well behaved and courte- ous, "in honor prefening one another." But if they knew there were only seats enuf and food enuf for one-third of the passengers, and that whoever failed to get a seat at the table must starve, there would inevitably be crowding and crushing and trampling under foot; the necessity of the case would compel everyone to be selfish and inconsiderate. In opening to settlement the lands of Oklahoma, the old rule that has workt at least fairly well in the settlement of the northwest was continued in force^ — the first to arrive upon a given quarter section was held to be entitled to it. But it proved a conspicuous illustration of the unwisdom of putting new wine' in old bottles. "When -the moment arrived — ^twelve o'clock, noon, of the day mentioned in the pTOclamation issiaed by the President in pursuance of the several acts of Congress respectively — there were on each occasion from three to ten times as many l^ersons upon the borders of the territory opened to settlement and entry, waiting to make the race, as there wei-e cultivable quarter sections to be had. The scenes that followed were a disgrace to civilization. The brutal disregard for the rights and lives of others in that mad scramble has rarely been equaled outside the struggle of the British prisoners to obtain access to the single window that admitted air into the '"Black Hole" of Calcutta. 82 THE LAND QUESTION. Observe, I bave not said that all the crowd who made the race into the newly opened territory were in good faith seeking homes. Perhaps the majority were speculators — ^not npon a grand and respectable scale, but of the small and low-lived type. One of the class, if successful in reaching some eligible quarter section in advance of anyone else, would "stake the claim," put up a sod sihanty at the expense of ten dollars, break half a dozen acres (by way of "improvem.ent" as demanded by the law), make the merest pretense of "residence," and when opportunity offered, sell the land — in case he had made "final proof" and obtained "final certificate;" if not, sell a "relinquishment." * FRAUD, PEEJUEY AND VIOLENCE IN OKJ.AHOMA. Two persons in the frantic race who "located" (stuck a stake with a flag attacht) half a mile apart, arriving at the same second of time, could not know, until they had hunted up the comer posts and run the "lines," whether or not they were upon the same quarter sectiooa. If they were, a "contest" between the two resulted — ^each, perhaps, honestly believing himself to have been the first to reach the tract. In at least as many other cases, one of the claimants was well aware that he had arrived a few minutes or seconds later than the other, but, despairing of obtaining any eligible land elsewhere by priority of arrival, determined to obtain this land — by any means he could. It is a matter of record, proved by proceedings in court, that gangs of unsorapulous rulfians were organized weeks be- •One gentleman, who never owned a hundred dollars In cash or any kind of property in his life before going to Oklahoma, rode into the territory on the Chicago and Rock Island Railroad on the day of the opening, jumped from the train as it was slowing up for one of the stations, and was the first to "stake and flag" a fine quarter-section within a mile of the embryo city. He obtained work to drive a team that was employed in carrying freight from the railroad station to a village fifteen or twenty miles away. He obtained title to the tract by swearing that he had "resided" upon it- having "been there" nearly every day. And he had. When he started out with his employer's team and a load of freight in the morning he drove across a corner of the land, and did the same on his return trip the next evening. In a few days after "making proof" and obtaining "final certifi- cate" he sold the quarter-section for three thousand dollars. When the facts were discovered by the government, his "final certificate" might have been "canceled" for fraud — but then the innocent purchaser of the land would have lost the earnings of a lifetime that he had invested therein. He could have obtained nothing from the fraudulent entryman, for the latter had gambled away the last dollar of his Ill-gotten gains inside of six weeks, and left the Territory— for Heaven knows where. DISTRIBUTION OF PUBLIC LANDS. 83 fore tiie opening, who on that day rode into the territory to- gether. If they weire fortunate ernif to- reach some eligible valley or plain in advance of anybody else, well and good. If not, they wo^uld scatter themselves upon tracts already occu- pied, -with the perfect understanding that they were to "stand by one another." In other words, in case of contest with right- ful claimants they were to be witnesses one for another, and "swear each other thru." Kuffians who did hot belong to such leagues before going into the territOiry, organized them soon afterward. There ia an occult free^mansory among scoundrels whereby one of them recog-nizes another of his kin. In every neighborhood these characters drifted into companionship thru mutual affinity, boimd together by the tie of a common iniquitous in- terest, antagonistic to the welfare of honest settlers. As a rule, "the children of the world are wiser than the children of light," and the second arrival upon a given tract, well aware of the weakness of his claim so far as it depended upon the basis of "priority of settlement," would seek to fortify it by hastening to the local land office to place his entry of record — frequently traveling all night to do so. Meanwhile the really prior settler, feeiing safe because comsoions of his priority, would postpone filing his claim for a few days, until he could get a roof upon his shanty, or some other "convenient season." When the trial beitweem the two came off, the man with his entry of record had the advantage; his opponent was com- pelled to "file a contest" against him, and the burden of proof was upon the party attacking the entry to show affirmatively, by a preponderance of evidence, that he was, in fact, the prior settler.* But this was generally by no means so easily done as he had expected. If he brought a do-zen of his neighbors as witnesses to prove that they rode in from the boundary with him, that there was nobody on that quarter section when he reacht it, and that the hour and minute of his arrival was 12.48, the other side would produce fifteen witnesses to prove • "A contestant alleging priority of settlement, as against the rigM of a record entryman, is not entitled to a favorable judgment if the fact aa alleged is not establisht by some preponderance of testimony." Syllabus to decision of the Secretary of the Interior, rendered July 7, 1896, in the case of Perry et al. v. Haskins, Alva land district, Oklahoma. 84 THE LAND QUESTION. that tliey rode into the territory with the other man, that there was nobody on the land when they reacht it, and that the time of their arrival was 12.46. ISTothing was left for the local officers and the General Land Office and the Secretary of the Interior — if the case was appealed to these tribunals, as thou- sands of them were — but to hold that the charge against the entry had not been sustained by a preponderance of evidence.* Worse even than perjury is the violence sometimes resorted to, and more often thi'eatened, to drive the party in possession from his claim. Revolvers and rifles, in the hands of masked or unmasked ruffians, are a frequent episode in the story of these Oklahoma contests. Any attempt to punish the miscre- ants is met by abundance of testimony showing that at the time of the assault or threats the alleged perpetrators were peaceably engaged a dozen miles away. Such violence some- times culminates in murder. In the case of Charles B. Hunt y. Charles W. Garland, contesting the claim of the southwest quarter of section 2, township 15 north, range 3 west, Guthrie land district, Oklahoma, Garland was killed and Hunt became insane. In the case of James M. Johnson v. Jonathan Hen- derson, involving the claim to the northeasit quarter of section IS, lo^v]lship 17 north, range 1 east, same land district, Hen- derson was killed. These are cases that have become notori- ous; others might be cited, but the mention of names in such a connection would not be pleasant to the friends of the dead or of the living who are accused or suspected of having killed th.em. The trouble has not been so much with individuals as in the method of disposing of the lands — a method which has incited, invited and rewarded the perpetration of fraud, perjury and violence, and under which the honest homeseeker has, in a woeful number of cases, been made the victim of organized bauds of villians. Is it entirely complimentary to American *No band of men were ever more diligent in tlieir labors and zealous in their efforts to detect fraud and accomplish justice than the fifty men in the General Land Office and the fifteen men in the office of the Secretary of tlie Interior, the most of whose wori: for the past ten years has been to examine and sift the testimony coming before them in cases of contests appealed from the local offices in Oklahoma; but there has been nothing for them to do except to decide according to the weight of evidence— unless the witnesses on one side or the other are impeached, or unless upon a careful sifting of the testimony a certain portion of it is shown to be so self-contradictory as to be manifestly unreliable. DISTKIBUTION OF PUBLIC LANDS. 85 statesjnarjsliip that onr lawmakers have as yet been imable to devise any method of dealing Avith our public lands that will not inevitably lead to such injustice and such tragedies? FRAUD UNDER THE DESERT-LAXD ACT. Congress past an act approved March 3, 1877 (19 Stat., 377), providing, among other things, that any qualified citizen may " * * * upon payment of twenty-five cents per acre, file a declaration, under oath, with the Register and Eeceiver of the land district in which any desert-land is situated, that he intends to re- claim a tract of desert-land, not exceeding one section, by conduct- ing water upon the sarae within the period of three years there- after." At the end of three years the entryman must pay a dollar per acre in addition to the twenty-five cents per acre paid at the beginning. Upon the passage of this act, one person could make entry of a section of land under it, a quarter-section imder the pre- emption .act and a quarter section under the homestead act — making a total of one and a half square miles of land. This appeared unreasonably liberal, and by act of March 3, 1891, the pre-emption act was repealed and the desert-land act amended so as to permit one person to hold not more than three hundred and twenty acres thereunder. By the same act the period within which the land must be reclaimed and paid for was extended to four years. .The frauds under this act have been enormous, and can be classified under a few heads. (1) Inasmuch as tmoe the amount (for foiirteen years, from 1877 to 1891, four times the amount) of land could be entered by one person under the desert act as under anj' other one act, and as only twenty-five cents per acre need be paid before the expiration of three years (recently four years), and as the re- clamation of desert land was somewhat expensive work — there was a strong temptation, which was not in all cases suc- cessfully resisted, to take up under the desert-land act land which was not desert in character. 86 THE LAND QUESTION. (2) Enormous tracts of lands' — millions of acres in the ag- gregate — ^kave been entered by employes of irrigation compa- nies or of wealthy individuals; the entrymen, under the direc- tion of and with money furnished by their employers, would reclaim the land, and immediately after receiving "final cer- tificate," in. accordance with agreements previously made, wo'uld deed the landj to their employers. (3) Fraud has been further encouraged and facilitated by the fact that under this act residence upon the land is unnec- The details of thia methods: by which employes make en'tries in the interests of their employers have been so fully set forth heretofore in this article that a repitition would not appear to be called for. The presumption that such tempting facilities for fraud as this act affords would be taken advantage of is 80 strong that it seems hardly worth while to make extracts from the wagon loads of special agents^ reports in the Greneral Land Office for the purpose of proving that such has been the fact. Reference will be made to but a single conspicuous in- stance. The morei important decisions of the Secreitary of the Inte- rior are printed in volumes entitled "Decisions of the Dep'art- ment of the Interior Relating to Public Lands," generally re- ferred to more briefly as "Land Decisions." The volumes of these decisions are issued annually. Volume 12, of this work (embracing decisions from January 1 to June 30, 1891), con- tains, beginning on page 34, a decision in the case of James B. Haggin, a somewhat noted millionaire of CMif omia, who was reported by a special agent of the General Land Office to have been the beneficiary of a large number of fraudulent desert- land entries in the Visalia land district, in that state. Said de- cision states that during the month of April, 1877, One hun- dred and fifty-one desert-land entries were filed in that (Vi- salia) land office, covering 34,978 acres, which at once passed into the hands of Mr. Haggin, and for which he p.aid to the Receiver $8,744.45. Haggin's claim was that he had loaned money to these 151 entrymen, and that they had assigned to him their "final certificates." Of course they never paid him DISTEIBUTION OF PUBLIC LANDS. 87 the money ostensibly loaned, and he kept tlie lands. This will serve as an illustration of the wholesale manner in which the restrictive provisions of the desert-land act have been eivaded in the interests of monopoly. It may be proper to add that under this law an honest en- trj'man stands no chance whatever. He is deipendent for water upon the irrigation company. The company will not extend its ditch ^vithin his reach; or, on the ground that it has no more water than is needed by its own stockholders, or some other plausible pretext, it will leave him vrithout the means of reclaiming his land^ until the time prescribed by law has expired. The decision of the Secretary of the Interior in the Haggin case, just referred to, says (page 39) : It appears from the records of yoior office [Visalia] that in town- ships 23 and 23, in ranges 24, 25 and 26, over twelve thousand acres of land covered by desert-land entries have been abandoned because the entrymen can not obtain water. These entrymen (not the same as those who transferred their land to Mr. Haggin, but honest entrymen, who refused to transfer to him, and so were left in the lurch) afterward askt the government to refund the twenty-five cents per acre paid by them, upon making their applications. But the government replied that, inasmuch as it had always stood ready to comply with its part of the contract, and pass the title of the land to any entryman who should reclaim it, and as the entryman had failed to comply with his part of the contract, the money al- ready paid was forfeited, and would not be refunded. In many cases the injustice is so glaring that the General Land Office wonld gladly recommend the payment of the money; but Congress has never made any appropriation for such repay- ment, and the Constitution of the United States says, "jSTo money shall be drawu from the treasury but in consequence of appropriations made by law." FRAUDULENT PRIVATE LAND CLAIMS. The "Louisiana Purcihase," made by the United States m 1803, came burdened with a considerable number of claims, resulting from grants made by prior French and Spanish gov- 88 THE LAND QUESTION. emors to indiTidiTals. The same was true of Florida, ceded by Spain in 1819 — including those portions of Florida that were annexed to Alabama and Mississippi in order to afford those states a shore line on the Gulf of Mexico. As the result of the war with ]\rexico Ave acquired from that country, by the treaties proclaimed July 4, 1848, and June 30, 1854, a total area of a little over 568 square miles, dotted all over with Spanish gi-ants to private parties. The total area of these private land claims is estimated by the Commissioner of the General Land Office, in his report for 1876, at eighty million acres — one hundred and twenty-five thousand square miles. By the treaties under which this new temitory was acquired, the rights of the gTantees of these private land gi-ants were solemnly guaranteed. In a region soi sparsely settled as Florida, Lo-uisiana and northern Mexico were a hundred years ago, land was of little value, and was given away liberally to persons wishing ranges for raising herds of horses or cattle. The land was not sur- veyed, and our excellent system of public land surveys was un- known. Sometimes the boundaries of a grant were desig- nated by vague reference to other grants, or water courses, or mountains, or mesas, or even trees; so»metimes the area was specified, sometimes not. Generally a written application was made for a certain tract, and the Governor, knowing noth- ing of the topography of the out-of-the-way region, in question, in granting the land applied for would follow the exact lan- guage of the application. The vagueness in the description of boundaries left a large inviting field for fraud, of which the unscrapulous, perhaps a century later, could easily avail them- selves. For instance: Salvador Gonzales, then living a few miles east of the city of Santa Fe, in what is now Kew ]\[exico, in the summer of 1742 sent to Don Gaspar Domingo de ^Mendoza, Governor and Captain Geaieral of Mexico, a petition running tliu-: "I find myself with a large faiiiily; and not having a spot of land to enable me to plant a cornfield for their support, is a motive im- pelling me to seek a piece of land; and having found one which is on this side of the river, I request the same, and its boundaries are the following: On the east the land adjoins the hills; on the west DISTRIBUTION OF PUBLIC LANDS. 89 the edge of a Canada; on the north a road leading toward a bald mountain; and on the south it adjoins the land of Jose Antonio Lucero." The grant was made in accordance Avith the terms of the petition on August 2, 1742. Its boundaries can be clearly identified to-day, and the tract lying between the objects men- tioned embraces O'ne himdred and thirty-one acres. But old man Gonzales, if in the other world to which he long ago went he is aware of what occurs on earth, must be amazed beyond measure at the way his little cornfield has grown in the past one hundred and fifty-odd years. On June 13, 1873, parties alleging themselves to be heirs of said Gonzales, filed in the office of the Surveyor General of ISTew Mexico a map of their claim, with a description thereof. The then Surveyor General for that territory re- commended that the claim be approved by Congress. Protests were filed, as the result of which a subsequent Surveyor Gen- eral, Hon. George W. Julian, made an examination into the merits of the claim. He found that the grant had been enor- mously "expanded" by substituting other roads and creeks and mountains for those mentioned in the grant. On the south the claim adjoined the Lucero ranch, and on the east it was bounded by the same range of hills as of yore; on the west it extended to a "canada," indeed (a ra-^ane), and on the • north to a road leading toward a "bald mountain;" but lliis "canada" and this "road" were each eighteen or twenty miles away from those which unquestionably constituted the origi- nal boundary of the grant. The motive for this enormous "expansion" is to be found in the fact that within the tract which these claimants are endeavoring to get Congress to per- mit them to steal there ai-e several hundred families, who sup- pose themselves to be living on public lands belonging to the United States, which they propose to take up under the homestead law whenever it shall be surveyed, and those claim- ants propose, if they can induce Congress to confirm this ex- panded claim, to compel these hundreds of families to buy the land of them, or to pay them rent for the use of it. The full story of this attempted fraud may be fmind in the report of 90 THE LAiro QUESTION. Surveyor Greneral Juliaix to tbe Oommissioaier of the Greneral Land Office, undea- date of Feboniaiy 18, 1886. The Surveyor General says: "The claimants accompanied the petition by a sketch-map, repre- senting an area of two hundred and forty thousand acres, or thr^e hundred and seventy-five square miles. The grantee asked only for a spot of land on vchich 'to plant a cornfield.' If they had said, in so many words, 'We have entered upon a scheme of wholesale rob- bery of the public domain thru the machinery of the Surveyor- General's office,' their purpose would scarcely have appeared more glaringly manifest." This bold attempt at defrauding the government and the settlers does not stand alone. A large proportion of these pri- vate land claimants are "expansionists." A few other in- stances : The grant to Luis Jaramillo was for one league square^ — 4340 acres. His successors in interest claim 18,046 acres. One of Surveyor G-eneral Julian's predecessors recommended that Congress confirm this claim, but Mr. Julian recommended its rejection as "palpably fraudulent," because the only wit- ness to the larger bo'undaries " * * * could not write his name. This witness was not cross-examined, nor was the government represented by any one, while the deputy was interested in making the grant as large as possible, so as to increase his compensation [for surveying it]. He was thus placed under a strong temptation to employ an accommo- dating witness." Regarding the claim of Ignacio' Chaves, Surveyor General Julian writes (June 17, 1886): "All the facts and circumstances unerringly indicate that the survey of the claim of Ignacio Chaves et al. covers more than ten times the quantity of land granted. According to statements filed under oath in this office, the survey covers land that has been occupied from ten to fifteen years by persons believing the same to belong to the public domain. Affidavits are on file from old resi- dents of the vicinity who state that they know the boundaries of the grant well, that the same are indicated by well-known land marks, which they pointed out to the surveyors making the survey thereof, but that their information was not heeded, and the bound- aries fixed at other points." In 1728 Antonio Luoero petitioned for "a piece of land upon the mesa of Coohita, to plant thereon and thereon to DISTEIBTJTION OF PUBLIC LANDS. 91 cultivate ten fanegas of wheat and two of corn" (abont thirty- two acres)' "and to pasture my small stock and hoipsei hecrd." His successoi^ in interest now claim 104,554 acres, or more than 163 square miles. The Felipe Lafoya grant has been expanded from one square league (about 4340 acres) to 22,578 acres. The Juan Luis Orbez claim has been expajnded from 33,250 acres to 116,200 acres. The Pacheco claim has been expanded from 4428 acres to 148,863 acres. The Benabe M. Montano claim has been expanded from 31,000 acres to 161,057 acres. The Antonio Sala^ar claim has been expanded from 2900 acres to 23,351 acres. The Francisco Salazar claim has been expajided from 40,000 acres to 472,737 acres. The grant to fifty-eight persons, residents of the village of San Miguel, of village lots, originally amounted in the aggregate to sixty-one acres; their descendants now claim 315,300 acres. Regarding the Francisco Anaza Almazan grant. Surveyor General Julian, in his letter of May 7, 1886, to the Greneral Land Office, says (referring to his predecessor, who had re- comniended its co^nfirmation by Congress) : "On his own showing-, if the grant was valid at all, its area did not exceed five hundred acres, and should have been surveyed ac- cordingly, if any boundaries had been given; but his deputies stretcht the lines so as to include over forty-five thousand acres, and he approved their work. This performance takes rank among the most shocking of the land frauds of New Mexico." In many cases there never has been any such grant as that alleged; the documents upon which the applicants base title are palpable forgeries. Thus, in regard to the alleged grant to the town of Socorro, Surveyor General Julian writes (Au- gust 3, 1886): "There is no indication that this paper was ever deposited in the archives of Mexico. Its entire appearance is unofficial and suspici- ous. The name of the governor bears but little resemblance to the signature of that officer upon numerous papers in this office that are genuine beyond question. The paper here is unstamped, and in kind unlike that used at that date by the government officials of Mexico. * * * I am of the opinion that this paper is a for- gery." Equivalent to forgery is another common form of fraud: Oases of grants actually made, but to persons who died and 92 THE LAND QTJESTION. left no heirs, or "where, for some other reason, there has been no claim to the land for a hnndred years — until now conies a speculator with an eye to a sharp deal in real estate, and in- duces some senile old man or superannuated old woman to swear that he or she is a distant relative and the sole heir of that ancient and long-forgotten grantee. Oonceming such a case Surveyor General Julian writes to the Commissioner of the General Land Office (April 9, 1888): "At the date of our treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo there was no ground for suspicion that it M'as private property. It has been treated as a part of the public domain by the land department of our government ever since, and there has been no shadow of a reason for treating it otherwise. From 1400 to 1800 persons have settled on it, and many of them have asserted title under the home- stead and pre-emption laws, some of whom have received patents from the United States. These settlers have establisht prosperous towns and villages, churches and schools, and their possessions cover all the tract that is fit for cultivation. They had no knowl- edge whatever of any claim to it as a Spanish grant until the iiling of this claim in this ofBce. After sleeping soundly on her supposed rights for a lifetime, it is suddenly revealed to Apolonio Lucero that she is the owner of this body of land, covering an area of more than one hundred thousand acres. She sells it to Gavino Garcia for fifty dollars, as stated in her deed; he conveys his right to Mariano S. Otero, the present claimant, for one dollar. These facts perfectly define a trumped-up claim." Could there be a sharper satire on our system of land tenure than such a scene as this? FEADDS UNDEE MINING LAWS. The mining laws are little used for the pui-pose of defraud- ing the goivemment. There is no great temptation to make a false pretense that a certain tract of land is mineral, and pay $2.50 for it as placer land, or $5.00 for it as a lode claim, or $10.00 for it as coal land ($20 if mthin fifteen miles of a rail- road), when it can be obtained for $1.25 under the commuta- tion provision of the homestead law, or still more cheaply by hiring a Mexican "greaser" to commit perjury and so expand a private land claim. But there is no end to the frauds perpetrated upon a con- DISTEIBDTION OF PUBLIC LANDS. 93 fiding public to induce tiiem to invest in mines of magnificent promise — iipon paper. A few months ago I received a lithograplied letter bearing date at Qrede, Colorado, stating that a mine had been discov- ered producing a sufficient amount of gold to the ton of ore, according to the certificate of two assayers with very scien- tific names and imposing titles, to make all its stockholders independently rich. But the discoverers were a couple of comparatively poor yoimg men, who had not the means to purchase the machinery for "devieloping" the mine — enlarg- ing the tunmel to reach the ore, hiring workmen to mine it, purchasing a steam engine and hoisting apparatus with which to bring it to the surface, etc. In order to place the shares within everybody's reach and ensure a prompt response, they had been placed at the low price of ten dollars eadh. As a special inducement to me, I was informed that if I would send one dollar prior to a certain date, a paid-up (ten dollar) cer- tificate would be sent mfe, on which I would receive the same dividends as if I had paid full price for the stock — a statement concerning which I entertained no doubt whatever. Having then in contemplation the writing of this article regarding land frauds, and being in pursuit of inf oi-mation on such sub- jects, I etoiclosed my dollar, and in due time received a certifi- cate, showing that I was the O'Wner of a ten-dollar share in the famous mine, and entitled to dividends accordingly. I have not been disappointed in my expectation — of learn- ing something. I have learned that the circulars and certifi- cates wei-e printed in a job office here in Washington; that the list of names of persons supposed to be gullible enuf to con- tribute a dollar to the support of the "promotoi-s" was made up here; that the cu-culars were sent by express tO' Creede and mailed back to us at Washington, and finally that, according to the records of the General Land Office, no such mine has ever been located at Creede — or anywhere else. Quiet in- quii7 has developt the further fact that several of my acquain- tances — and only the swindlers themselves can tell iiow niuny with whom I do not happen to be acquainted — ^liave paid their dollar apiece for a teivdollar certificate of stock in a mine that is purely a myth. 94 THE LAND QUESTION. The practice of mixing gold and silver ia its native fann in the sand of a creek, or shooting it with a shotgun into a rock in order that it may be found theore by a subsequent examiner, has become so common that the expression "to salt a minei" has found its way into the dictionary (under "salt"), with the accompanying definition, "to artfully deposit minerals in a mine iu oi'der to deceive purchasers regarding its value." It is within ti'e memory of the present generation that Hon. Eobert 0. Schenck, once a member of Congress from Ohio, and later United States Minister to England, became the un- doubtedly unwitting instrument of inducing our English cousins to invest many thousand pounds in the famous "Emma Mine," a notoriously fraudulent concern. On the other hand, if an entryman under the mining law strikes a vein of gold, or iron, or coal, or oil (for oil is in the eye of the law a mineral), hie at once becomies the victim of a gang of unscrupulous scoumdreils, who file "protests" under varioTis pretexts, solely for blackmailing purposes. The case has been known where a couple of partners have been working in a mine, and one of them has, accidentally, fallen down a shaft, under circumstances' such that the sur- viving partner became sole owner, instead of half owner, of a hundred thousand dollar mine. The principal demoralization resulting from the mining laws, however, is th© eiffect of what may be called psychological causes. Under our present law mining is as essentially a lot- tery as m'arriage. The large majority draw blanks; but there is on© chance in a thousand of obtaining a magnificent prize. Hence it appeals to the gambling instinct in human nature. Persons possessed of the gambling instinct are attracted to that employment, and persons who accidentally drift into that employment find in it that which awakens and develops the gambling instinct. T'ake a community of farmers, or the average warkiogmen of a country village: when tbeii- working hours are over they will be found amusing themselves by pitching quoits or play- ing base ball, or gathiering at a debating club or singing school. With the men of a typical mining town that way of DISTKIBUTION OF PUBLIC LAXDS. 95 spending their earnings would seem prefpostei'ously tame. Tlieir gambliag instinct has been aroused and developt, and therewith its coarse concomitants of intemperance, profanity, turbulemoe, lioemtiousnese and other features not conducive to the highest ciYilization, notwithstanding the glamour thrown over mining life by the genius of Bret Harte, Joaquin Miller and other western writers. Suppose, arrangements could be made whereby the man who' labors iri. the discovery of mineral, in the localities where the geological or other sur- vey indicates that mineral may probably be found, shall re- ceive liberal wages for his labor, and whereby, when it is discovered the man who unearths it shall be liberally paid for his labor; but let the mineral itself, being the gift of nature, to the whole community, and not merely toi the man who is first to stumble upon it, be consid'ered and treated as belonging to the people of the nation or the ^tate in their colleetl\'e capacity, and its values turned into the treasm-y for the sup- port of the govemnnemt. Under such circumstances the ele- m'snt of g'ambling would disappear fro^m mining, and its vicious and violent concomitants would disappear with it. There would be no reason in the nature of things — as there is now — why everj stream with gold dust scattered in its bed might not run through a "peaceful valley," and every mountain in whose veins mineral wealth abounds become the nucleus of villages as' tranquil as the hamlets on the hillsides of Switzerland. AVTiether in "placer claims" or "lode claims," life might pass as uadisturbed by scenes of violence and murder as among the workmen who last year finisht the "subway" under Boston common, or those who now, in gov- ermnent employ, are tunneling the hills noa-th of Washington city prefparatory to an extension of its water works. TIMBEE FRAUDS UNDER COLOE OF LAW. All the frauds here-in-before referred to pale into insig- nificance beside those perpetrated up'on the government by stealing its timber. Firat, because of the greater number of acres involved. Second, because the government's own estimate 96 XJlJli Uja-IMJ V^U Jl.OiJ.l-'-L-^. of tlie value of its agricultural laud is $1.25 per aore ($2.50 per acre within the limits of railroad grants); while its tim- bered land frequently has from two thousand to three thou- sand dollars' worth of timber om each Quarter section. The lumber companies (as hereinbefore explained in the case of cattle companies) use their employes as fictitious home- stead eiitrymen (or pre-iempto>rs, until the pre-emption law was repealed). A little shanty, not quite the size of a street- car, is built upon "skids," so that it can be easily drawn from a piece of land which has been cleared of its merchantable timbei' to one which the Ciompany proposes next to denude. Thfei lumberman's occasional visit to this "claim shiamty" is made to count far "residence." He cuts down the largest trees (for the company's use), and is prepared to swear that be has bieen "clearing" his "farm." The peelings of his po- tatoes, the seeds of his canned tomatoes, etc., are thrown into a ditch and covered, and he is ready to testify that he has done a little something in the w"ay of "cultivation." The seeds of such apples as he may get hoid of and dat are dropped somewhere, and fiirnish a foimdation for the statement that he has planted a f ew^ fruit tre-eS'. Of course, it is all a wretched farce, but the Commissionier of the General Land Office, fif- teen- hundred miles away in Washington has no means of ' knowing that. The local officers have little induGemenit to ask tronblesonie questions. Among the "silent partners" of the lumber company there is generally at least one Senator or Eepresentative in Congress to whom the officers owe their position, and they woiild not have been recommended for ap- pointniant if such Senator or Ejepresentative had not sup- posed them to have, if not "horse sense," at least as much sense as "the ox who knoweth his owner and the ass his mas- ter's crib." (Isaiah, i, 3.) A convincing proof of the falsity of the doctrine of total depravity appears in the fact tliat so many of these land offi- cers are as honest as they are, in tlie face of the temptations placed before them by existing land laws. A few years ago the Register at Duluth, Minnesota, reported to tlie General Land Office: DISTRIBUTION OF PUBLIC' LANDS. 97 "It is a well-known fact that ninety per cent, of the entrymen In this district under the homestead or pre-emption law abandon their homes as soon as final proof is made, and are thereafter hard to find; and if found, they all stick together and help each other out, and the government is beaten." He added, in substance, that he eoiild not perform the du- ties which confined him tO' his office' in Dnluth from 9 A. M. until 4 P. ~SL dailj^ and at the same time examine the con- dition of lands in the wildemiess a hundred miles distant that had been entered by peirsons Avho claimfed to have resided upon, impi-ored and cultivated them; and, therefore, he sug- gested that a special agent be sient up into north east em* Min- riescrta to investigate mattei's. A special agent made the in- vestigation, and reported the results, which the Grenieral Land Office submitted to the Secretary qf the Interior for instruc- tions as to what to do. The Secretary's instructions, under date of April 29, 1897, may be found in volume 24 of the "Land Decisions" of the Interior Department, beginning on page 352. Preliminary to formulating the instructions the Secretary sets forth in striking terms the absurdity of the supposition that any human being would honestly take up theBe lands for a home: "It is shown by competent witnesses that there are fifteen hun- dred to three thousand dollars worth of timber on each quarter- section. The pre-emptors and their witnesses testify that it will cost fifty or sixty dollars an acre to clear the land of its timber; and after it has been so cleared it will be worth for agricultural purposes five or six dollars per acre. According to the forestry map prepared to accompany the U. S. census reports, this reg-ion is among- the most heavily timbered of any except a narrow strip close upon the Pacific coast. The lands are distant, in an air line, from forty to fifty miles, and by the nearest practicable route from sixty to seventy miles, from the nearest village, post ofBce, or market — to -wit. Tower, Minnesota. Every article needed by the pretended pre-emptor in supporting his own existence must be brought this distance^for the last ten or fifteen miles packed upon his own back. The most of them allege as an excuse for their almost continual absence from their claims the fact that they were very poor. But it is shown that each of these pre-emptors paid certain "locators" from $100 to $200 for showing what tracts were racant. If they were so poor, and were in good faith seeking homes for themselves and their families, it seems unaccountable that they should pay such a, price for being led into the almost inaccessible 98 THE LAND QUESTION. depths of a vast wilderness, to one of the most infertile portions of the continent, and pay for such lands, when in order to reach them they were compelled to cross hundreds of thousands of acres of more productive land, less difficult to prepare for cultivation and open to homestead settlement and entry 'without money and with- out price,' on condition of making such land their home. * * * The testimony shows that the 'house' testified to by the pre- emption claimant is a small and uninhabitable shanty; that there has been no 'improvement' beyond the cutting- down of trees enuf about the shanty to build it; and that the alleged 'residence' has consisted of occasional and rare visits to the land. The witnesses in behalf of the pre-emption claimant are almost uniformly other pre-emption claimants who are also charged with fraud." The blank form furriishied by the goveTnmeiit comtaining qujeetions to be aiisweired by a perso-n offsTing "final proof," among o'tlier tilings, inquii-es wbetlieir tlie applicant is mar- ried. If SO', it netxt inquires whether his mfe has lived with him on the land. If not, some very plausible reason for her failure must be shown. The bogus eutrymen, in these lumber reigions, if married, rarely take their wives into- the woods with them — fifty to seventy miles from the nearest village or miarket. The companies arrange tO' board the lumbermen, not their mves. The fimal proof of a married man, wlho is the figurehead of a lumber company in obtaining (for the company) title to the land, generally furnishes the excuse that his wife was sick, and unable to endure the' hardships of au' inclement whiter on the "fai'in" which he lias selected, tho in hope of being able to do so when he. builds a better house. This excuse must be accompanied by the certificate of a physician. Every lumiber company has its own physician, hired by the year, as railroad companies hire their legal coun- sel, and one of the priiLcipal duties of these physicians is to furnish cei'tificates that the wives of lumbennen are sick. As was said by the Secretary of the Interio'r in the instructions of April 29, 1897, already quoted from (Vol. 24, page 356, of "Land Decisions"): "A physician's certificate showing that the wife has been con- tinuously ill and unable to remove to her husband's 'home' during the period of his alleged residence upon his pre-emption claim appears to be as uniform and indispensable an adjunct as an affi- davit of citizenship." DISTEIBUTION OF PUBLIC LANDS. 99 Tbe fact that these lumbermeai never take their wives into the lumbeir camps "with them does not necessarily carry with it the idea that there are nOi women there. They do- not, how- ever, act in the capacity of cooks, for the cook of a lumbeir camp is generally a man. They are not, as a rule. Salvation Army lasses. In fact, the lees said about them, the better. SnSioe it to say that their presence adds to the otherwise sufEL- ciently numerous elememts of demoralization about a lumber camp. In the Duluth district case, just cited, more than one hun- dred and twenty entries, embracing about twenty thoiusand acres, were canceled in p'ursuance of the Secretary's in'Struc- tioins. But while the special agent had been completing his investigation and making out his report, and before the Gen- eral Land Office, which had a great many other things to do and not enuf clerks to do them with, had foauid time to take up the matter, and before the Secretary of the Interior, with his inadequate force, had reacht the delayed report and r&- oommendation of the General Land Office, the lumber compa- nies bad stript the land of the last stick of its saleable timber, and that was all they cared for. And the bogus entrymien had received from the lumber company their fifteen dollars a month and boiard while cutting down trees and maldng a pre- tense of "residing" in the logging shanties, and that was all they cared for. And the bogus entrym'en had "skipt" from Minnesota to Montana or Manitoba and left the government Avithout a witness to pro-\-e its charge against the lumber com- pany that had robbed it. Inspector A. R. Greene, in his report, dated ISTovember 3, 1884, to the Commissioner of the General Land Office, said: "In respect to the fra.ud-ulent entry of timber-lands, I have had opportunities to become well informed as to the practices in Montana, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Alabama, Florida, Louisiana, Mis- sissippi, Arkansas, and Missouri; and to some extent in Wyoming, Colorado, New Mexico, and Arizona. I believe that a majority of the entries of vpell-timbered pine lands under the homestead and pre-emption laws are fictitious— made in the interest of millmen and lumber companies, their employes being- used to perpetrate the frauds." 100 THE LAND QUESTION. From such langiuage as that used above, the conclusion should not be drawn that tlie pre-emption and homestead laws ane the only ones that have been made use of to defraud the government of its timber. aSTo sooner did Congress pass an act permitting Indians who would forsake their tribal relations and become citizens to select "allotments" of land for agri- cultural or grazing purposes, than the timber thieves pro- ceeded to use this act as an instrument for defrauding thei gov- ernment. The General Land Office Annual Report for 1898 says (page 83): ■'These allotment applications have been made and allowed for lands not subject to allotment, by white persons and others not entitled to allotments, and in nearly every instance in the interest and for the use and benefit of timber and land speculators. From the cases so far investigated and reported upon, it is entirely within bounds to estimate that not five per cent, of the Indian allotment applications made under section 4 of the act of February 8, 1887, are legal and made in good faith for the use and benefit of the applicant as contemplated and requii'ed by the general allot- ment act." TIMBER TEAUDS WITHOUT COLOR OF LAW. There is a certain advantage to a lumber company in pay- ing (tlii'u its employes) for the land from "^vhich it cuts its timber. In such case any legal action taken by the govern- ment is directed toward the bogus entryman personally. After the entryman has made his "final proof" and received from the local officers a certificate that, according to such proof he has acquired a right to the land, he is at Hberty to sell it to a lumber company or any one else, and it is pretty difficult, es- pecially after the disappearance of the entryman from the scene, to prove any gi'oss misdemeanor on the part of the lumber company. The only party against whoan any serious charge could be brought would appear to be the United States government, for its foolishness in selling a quarter section of land containing two or three thousand dollars' worth of timbieir for two hundred dollars. ISFot all the lumber companies, however, are so honest — or prudent, as the case may be. For instance: In February, DISTRIBUTION OF PUBLIC LANDS. 101 1884, tihe Secretary of tlie Interior receiYed a letter from a responsible party (not one of its own agents) stating: "I desire to call your attention to the matter of E. H. & Co., a firm doing- business in the town of Missoula, and who are large contractors and lumber dealers.; They have from two to three thousand men here steadily chopping' the government timber, sawing it up into lumber and shingles for their own benefit, and pocketing the proceeds themselves. If anybody else wants any to fence with, or for firewood, they make a terrible fuss about it, and threaten to put them into states-prison. The mills are running day and night, and are cutting out all the available timber." An investigation into the matter clevelopt certain facts wMcli are set fortk in tlie instirnetions of the Secretery to the Conmiissioner of the Cieneral Land Office under date of July 25, 1885, and printed in Vol. 4 of the "Land Decisions" (page 65). Therein it is stated that the Inniber company referred to was (and is) incorporated under the law of the Territory of Montana, and had a "silent partner" in the shape of the Northern Pacific Eailroad Company, which owned 5001 of the 10,000 shares of stock (of $100 each). Upon another fact reported by the special agent the Secretary commients thus : "The injustice to other mill-owners and lumber-dealers is strongly portrayed in the special agent's report that the Northern Pacific Eailroad charges this company, for transporting lumber from Spokane Falls to Endicott, $23 per car-load, while all other parties are charged $47 per carload. * * * In this way all other manufacturers and dealers thruout this vast extent of territory have been compelled to become tributary to this company, or to suspend operations and go into bankruptcy.'' The railroad company -was called to account by the Inter- state Commerce Commission for making such a discrimina- tion in rates as is above set forth In reply it contended that it charged fu.ll price for carrying so much of the lumber as belonged to the other 4999 stockholdetrs of the lumber com- pany (besides itself), and pertinently (or otherwise) inquired whether the Interstate Commerce Commission proposed to compel the Nortliern Pacific Eailroad Company to pay itseK for carrying its own lumber.* •There is on file in the General Land Office a report of a special agent reeardine a city near the foot of the Roeljy Mountains— not a village, hut an incorporated city-the mayor of which, at the date of the report, was the owner of seven sawmills, located on as many different streams coming down 102 THE LAND QUESTION. In.' WisconsLa two great lumber companies, both stealing by wbolesale from govermneaKt land, found tliem^elves in- fringing upon, other preserves. Considerable trouble amd iU feeling arose, wbich was finally adjusted by appointing a oom- mittee of arbitration, consisting of tbe tbree leading OifEcials of each company. They held a meeting and drew a line, pledging each other that Company A should cut moithing north and Company B nothing south of that line. This "agreemient among gentlemen" was strictly adihered to. lur deed, the proverbial "honor among thieves" was carried so far that when a government detective appeared in thlei camp of Comimny A, its managers sent a courier by honsebaok a hundred and seventy miles to the headquarters of Company B to inform its managers in timie to. take measuires for self -protec- tion. CATTLE COMPANY FEAUDS WITHOUT COLOE Of LAW. Cattle companies are organized mth different ends in view. Onie, taking a long look ahead, with the idea of being a "Cattle and Land Oompany," finds it in line with its ultimate purpose to use its cattlemen as figureheads vs^ith which to fraudulently procure title to lands. Then, in case the cattle business proves unpnofitable, it will have another string to its bow in the shape of some hundreds of thousands of acres of land. But suppose a cattle oompany looks forwar'd to an ex- istence of only eight or ten years, and then a dissolution of the syndicate and a division of the profits — in that case why load up with a vast amount of land ? A cattle oompamy with this end in view will not care tO' beoonia owmers of more land than is needed for buildings, corr'als, etc., and will feed ite cattle mainly on governmenit land, v?ithout the expense of buying it. A case of this kind is referred to in Special Ageojt H. H. Eddy's report to the Grenjeral Land Office (June 4, 1883): the valleys between the mountains, and forming the larger stream upon which the city is situated. These sawmills were kept running day and might, sawing lumber stolen from goverhraent lands. The flumes in whicli the logs were floated to the sawmills, cheaper than horses could hare drawn them, were constructed of government timber. There was not a business house, nor residence, nor church, nor other structure of any sort down to a pig-pen, in all that city, that was not built of lumber that had been stolen from the government. DISTEIBUTION OF PUBLIC LANDS. 103 "I have the honor to report that I have examined the fence in- closing- public lands, built by the D e Cattle Company. I find that the fence is built on an irregular line, determined by the topography of the country, and not in accordance with the United States g-ovemment survey. * * * The lands inclosed are the best grazing lands I have seen in New Mexico, being well watered, and producing a splendid growth of grass, which is very hardy and nutritious. The only pretense of ownership to any of the lands inclosed is by virtue of certain homestead claims located along Tequesquite creek, the greater part of which, as may be seen by reference to my reports. No. 103 to 124 inclusive, are fraudulent." For a description of frauds of a similai- cliaraoter, but coia- duoted upon a grander scale, see Annual Keport of tlie Gen- etpal Land Office for 1883 (page 30) : "The practice of inclosing public lands by private persons and companies for exclusive use as stock ranges is extensively con- tinued. These ranges sometimes cover several hundred thousand acres. Special agents report that they have ridden many miles thru single inclosures. Summer and winter ranges in different sections of the country are frequently controlled in the same man- ner by the same persons, who cause their cattle tO' be driven from one to the other, according to the season, keeping the whole of the land under fence, and preventing the stock of smaller ranchmen from feeding upon any portion of it. Reports have been received of the use of violence to intimidate settlers and expel them fromi the inclosed lands. * * * This system of illegal fencing is wide- spread thruout those portions of Kansas, Nebraska, Colorado, Dakota, Montana, Wyoming, Arizona, and New Mexico, that are adapted to stock-raising. Reports of such illegal fencing of public lands amounting to more than 1,250,000 acres have been filed in this division (page 210)." A. R. G-reene, in his report of JSTovem'ber 3, 1884, to the General Land Office, said: "The effect of such domination upon immigration and settlement is the worst that can be imagined. The best lands, and practically all the waters, are controlled by men who have no interest in the welfare of the country, who evade taxation, and in many cases owe no allegiance to our laws and governments. They have abundant physical power always at hand to enforce their schemes of spolia- tion and set the local authorities and people at defiance. Settlers avoid such localities as they woidd a district smitten with a plague." BEIBEEY OF GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS. In the spring of 1873 numerous petitions wetre received at the Interior Depamtmeoit urging am examination into the mat- 104 THE LAND QUESTION. ter of fraudulent entries at the Santa Fe Land Office, ISTew Mexico. Among those on file are two fTom oitizens of San Miguel county, om-e dated Mai-oh 15, witli fifty-five sigmaturee, and one dated JMaroh 16, with one hundred and forty-six sig- natures, telling substantially the same stoi-y. Eieferring to the methods by which public lands ai'e past into the possession of cattle companies, the letter of the 16tlh says: "These companies have hired men in their employ who make it a business to file on land, under assumed names, and enter them at the land office. Upon the land whereon our homes are situated being surveyed, we sent up our filings to the Eegfister at Santa Fe, and they were returned by him, with statements that the land upon which we had been living for ten or twelve years had been taken up by parties who we know have never been on the land — made either in the name of fictitious parties, or of men who have been dead for years." These letters to tlie Interior Diefp-artment were referred by the Secretary to the Commissioner of the Land Office, who, in the spring of 1S9-1:, sent a special agent, Frank D. Hobbs, to the Santa Fe office to make an investigation. This agent's series of reports would cover a hundred pages of this book, and the reader would find thieni very mjanotono-us. They show, in short, that the "final proofs" made upon a largie num- ber of entries in that land district weire in the names of mythi- cal persons, the fact that they had resided upon and improved the land being sAvom to-, when, in fact, nobody had ever re- sided upon, or improved it. For instance, in his first report, dated June 21, 1884, he stated: "Homestead entry No. 1716, by Ambrozio Lopez, for the N^ of the S. E.\ the S. W." of the N. E.S and the S.^ of the S. E." of 12-26-26; proof shows residence from April, 1887, to April, 1893; two acres under cultivation for five seasons; improvements consisting- of house, corral, and stable, valued at $375. An examination shows that there is nothing whatever on any portion of this claim, there never has been any cultivation, and there is not the slightest evi- dence of present or past occupation. The land was conveyed to J. E. Temple, April 16, 1883, by warranty deed, the consideration being $450." After many pages of statements of this character ]\lr. Hobbs sums up his report of this date by saying: DISTEIBUTION OF PUBLIC LAXDS. 105 "I state emphatically, and without fear of contracliotion from any quarter, that all of said entries are fraudulent; that all of said names are fictitious names, and that not one of said parties ever lived in Colfax county." His report explains at length liow he arrived at those co-n- cliisions. He went to the lands described in the several entries and found living thereon not the alleged enti-ymen, but other men, who had been mlaking their homes on the lands for from ten to twenty -five yeairs — many of them, in fact, since the country was a p'art of Mexico; and of course theses old resi- dents knew whether the land tliiey lived on had been also re- sided upon and cultivated by some one else. Then these pre- tended entrymen alleged residence for several years; as in in the case of Ambro'zio Lopez (supra), from April, 1SS7 to April, 1893. If such had been tiie fact, their names would have been upon the rolls of the census of 1890. But not one of the names of thesie pretended entrymen was tO' be found upon those census rolls. Each pnetended entryman's final proof was corroborated by at least two witnesses. If the sig- natures of the entrymian and his witnesses had all three been in the same handwriting it wo'uld have lookt suspicious to a really observant man; but in this case tiliere were more than two himdred entrymen, and more than four hundred cor- roborating witnesses, all in the saniei handwriting. In many of these cases the fees of the local officei's and the fees for the necessary printing were paid by one man, and he the well- known agent of onie of the lai'gest cattle companies in Is ew Mexico. Here is another mystery: The law requires that, before any person can make entry of public land, public notice shall be given in several different ways, one of which is by publica- tion in a newspaper of general circulation in the county in which the land lies. Yet here were several hundred men, old residents of thei county, none of whom had seen the notices of intention to make final proof for the lands on which they lived printed in any newspaper of the county. How came they all to fail to see any such notic'e in any case ; The explanation was simple. The notices of these fraudulent entries were 10(3 THE LAND QUESTION. printed in only three copies of eaeh issue — one to be: ke-pt on file in the office for examination, one to be sent to the manageir of the cattle coanpany and one to be seiit to t!he Regisiteir of tha land office at Samte Ee. Them the aidvertiseniemts were "lifted out," and did not appear in the copies that weire sent to subscribers. There are on file in the General Land Office at Washington two copies of "The Stockman," p'rinted at Springer, Colfax coimty, New Mexico, for March 17, 1883, one of which contains eighteen final proof noticets thiat does not appear in^ the other, and thait did not appear in the copies of "The Stockman" of the samo number and date that were sent to subsciibei's. In the papers sent to subscribCTs were inserted, in place of these* land notices, patent m'edicine and other ad- vei'tisements, dupKcated, having already been printed on the other side of the same sheet. There is also on file an affidavit, dated July 31, 1884, from the foreman^ of "The Stockman," A. L. Clark, in wihich (among other things) he says: "We g-ot ten dollars for each, of these fraudulent notices, and five dollars for those that appeared in the reg'ular and full issue. The notices came from the Register, with, a check or mark on them indicating which were to g'O' into the reg'ular issue and which into the fraudulent. * * * Olney Newell, who was the actual owner of the 'Stockman,' told me that he establisht said paper in Spring-er for the express purpose of printing' fraudulent land notices." There is on file in the General Land Office an affidavit by W. H. Sturges, a printer in "The Stockman" office (dated August 1, 1884), in whioh he says: "I know from personal knowledge that land-proof notices were publisht in a few papers only, and kept out of the regnlar issue. They were markt in a manner to give us an understanding- of it, and they must have been markt in the land office, as they came from there direct thru the post office." The m'anifest purpose of omitting the final proof notioefe from the geneiral idditioin of the paper was to prevent tihe per- son actually living on the land from seeing the notice. If, in his ignorance, he fail^ed toi learn' that Uh© land upon whidh he was residing and which, he had spent the labor of a life- time in improving, had been "emteired'" by anothier, until patent had issued to that other party, the only reicourse DISTEIBUTION OF PUBLIC LANDS. 107 of the defrauded party was to institute suit in tlieUnited States District Court, "witk evetiy probability th^at ttJe cattle compa- nies would liave om hand unscrupulous employes eeuf to "swear him down," and in, an,y 'event thc' costs of court would amount to moire than the valuei of the land. As a special agent, H. H. Eddy, at Santa Fe, wrote to the General Land Office May 17, 1883: "I have grare doubts about the ability of the Government to indict, with the naost positive evidence in its favor, any Jlexican before a Jlexican grand jury; and even if an indictment were ob- tained, to convict before the same kind of a petit jury. These large land owners have come to believe that this kind of fraud can be committed with absolute impunity." I have not mentioned thle name of this Register at Santa Ee, because I do not "\vish toi cast any reflection upon the repu- tation of an able and honest man; and in the oo'urse of this investigation his- ability, honesty and integrity were oertiiied to by the then Governor of ISTew Mexico, the Secretary, Au- ditor and Treasurer of the Territoiry, the Attoimey Gieneral, the United States Attorney, the Chief Justice and the Asso- ciate Justices, the United States ilarshal, the Territorial Dele- gate to Congress and some dozens of other high dignitaries. Biit this incident furnishes a sad illustration of the manner in whioh striangely coincident facts may weave a web of cir- cumstantial evidence for the entanglement of a capable and conscientioius official, 'and may serve to show that gross frauds might be perpetrated in case a piurchasable and dishonest official ever should obtain a position of high respo^nsibility in the Land Department. EAILEOAD LAND FRAUDS. There would seem to have beien small tempitation to rail- road companies to- dbfraxid the government of its land. They have been able to get abont all they wanted as a gift. Land is the first and most important requisite for a railroad; at least enuf for "right- of way" for its line and to build sta- tion houses upon. Many railroad companies have askt more than this to compensate them for pushing their lines in ad- 108 THE LAND QUESTION. vance of civilizatioiii into regions where fox years tliere wonld not be tiravel and traffic sufficient to repay the expense of building and operating. In consideration of this reiason (and others) Congress had granted to raih-oad companies, in addi- tion to right of way for tracks and 9ta;tion houses, in round numbers, 155,505,000 acres of land. Of this amount, 667,- 000 aeries have been forfeited for failure to comply with the reqiuremiemts of the law, leaving ia their possession 154,838,- 000 acres — ^enuf to make oonsiderably more than five states as large as x^ew York or Pennsylvania. Occasionally it has oocunied that OongTess, or a state legis- lature, as the case may be, has recfused to do for a railroad ci5m- pany all that it askt. A majority were opposed to confeiTing any furtihei- favors. In such case it was necesrary for some of the adverse majority to be "convinced." They generally were. Anj^ one who imaginies that all the arguments used on such occasions are to be found recorded in full in the columns of tho "CongTessionial Becord" are probably laboring under a hallucination. Someitimes, indeed, notwithstanding earnest efforts and a heavy ^expense for "whitewash," faint indications to^ the conitrary ooze to the surface of histoa-y. In May, 1863, a jo'iat stock company was organized, entitled "The Credit Mobilier Company of America," with a capital of $2,500,000. In January, 1867, the chartefr ha^ong been purchased by a company organized for the consteuction of the Union Pacific Eailroad, the stock was increast to $3,750,000, and afterwards rose to great value, paying 'Cnormoius dividends. In- 1872, in the coui*se of legal proceedimgsi involving the- ownership of the stock, it was disclosed that several members of Congress, the Vice President of the United States and one of the candi- dates for the Vice Preeidency, wei-e stockholders. The fact that these high officials were pecuniarily interested in a con- cern regarding which they had been and. would be called upon to legislate, created intense public excitemient, followed by a CongTcssional investigation in the winter of 1872-3. On February 27, 1873, the Senate Committee made a report, which closed with a reconrtnendation that one Senator, named therein, be expelled; but no action was taken, and five davs DISTRIBUTION OF PUBLIC LANDS. 109 later his term expired. In tiilei Hoinse of Rei>resentatives reso- lutions were' past censuring two of its members. Tlie kind of argumiente used to "conivinoe" legislators that they ought toi confer a land grant, or ougli/t to refrain from voting to forfeit one, are somewhat dimly shadowed forth in a correspondence that was luioartthed in a law suit at Santa Rosa, California, some years ago. Graneiral Golton, a gentle^ man intimately connected with the managemejit of the Cen- tral Pacific Railroad, died. His widow and ohildren concluded that they had not been fairly dealt with by the railroad co^m- pany, and instituted suit against it. In the co-urse of the suit they placed in evidence, as exhibits, a largei number of letters, enuf to fill forty pages of this book, addrest to G enteral Ool- ton by one of tlie managers of the railroad company, a,t a time when the latter was in the e^ast, lobbying with Congress to procure an exteuBdon of the land grant to the company, to prevent a forfeiture of its granit abeady made, to secure other favors and to prevent otii'ea- adverae legislation. Possibly a few extracts from tlhis pile of letters may prove "interesting reading."* From C. P. H. to General Oolton: New York City, December 1, 1874. "Have any of our people seen Low and Frisbie? They are both men that can be convinced. * * ^ In this connection it would help us very much if we could fix up California Pacific income and extensions on the basis that was talked of, even if we had to pay something to convince Low and Frisbie." New York, May 1, 1875. "I note what you say of Luttrell. He is a wild hog; don't let him come back to Washington. But as the House is to be largely demo- cratic, and as if he were to be defeated it would likely be charged to us, I think it would be well to beat him with a democrat; but I would defeat him anyway, and if he got the nomination put up another democrat to run against him, and in that way elect a republican. Beat him!" New York, January 14, 1876. "Your telegram that C. has had for his services $60,000 in Southern Pacific bonds, and asking how much I think his services are worth for the future? That is a,^ very difficult question to answer. In view of the many things vve have now before Congress * * ■* it is very important that he and his friends in "Washington ♦And yet there are persons who object to the government owning and operating the railroads, lest they might iecome engines of political corruption! 110 THE LAND QUESTION. should be with us; and if that could he brought about by paying C. say $10,000' or $20,000 a year, I think we could afford it — but of course not until he has controlled his friends. They could hurt us very much on this land matter. * * * I would like to have you get a written proposition from C. in which he would agree to con- trol his friends for a fixed sum; and then send it to me." 1 New York, January 29, 1876. "I returned from Washington this morning, and must return to- morrow morning; but I dread it very much. Scott is working mostly among the commercial men. He is asking for so much that he can promise to pay largely when he wins. He switched off Sena^ tor Spencer, of Alabama, and Walker, of Virginia, this week; but you know they can be switched back with the proper arrangements, when wanted." i New York, February 14, 1876. "Scott is developing more strength for his Texas Pacific than I thought it possible for him to do. He has men all over the country, to bring influence to bear on their naembers of Congress. They have considerable money, and have convinced several parties that I thought we had sure. I am doing all I can; but it is the liveliest fight I was ever in." New York, October 7, 1877. "The committees are made up for the Forty-fifth Congress. I think the Kailroad Comnaittee is right; but the Committee on Territories I do not like. A different one was promised me." "Friend Colton: ^^^ ^°''^' November 9, 1877. * * * I do not think we can get legislation this session for the extension of land grants, unless we pay more for it than it is worth. We have a hearing to-morrow before the Judiciary Committee. The temper of Congress is not good; and somehow I do not feel so much like doing battle with the whole human race as I once did." New York, September 30, 1878, * * * "Scott is to make his greatest effort as soon as Congress meets. His bill has been reported by both the House and Senate Committees, and will be called up and past the first day, if he has the votes. I hear of him in almost every congressional district, interfering in the election of members." JSTumerous eases hia,^ne ^occuiroed. where' railroiad companies have made swo.rn reports to tine United States goiyernm'ejit that certain portio-ns of road had been built according to law, and have thereupon obtainied title to land that had been condi- DISTRIBUTION OF PUBLIC LANDS. 1 1 i tiomally graiubeid, and jet it has tiamed out that no road had beem boult. Tihes« frauds occur most frequently, because they can be perpeitrated most easily, when a grant of land is made, not directly to a railroad company, but to the authori- ties of a state for the benefit of a railroad company. The United States has in this way lost many millions of acres of its dhoicest lands. Perhaps the mioeit conspicuous of this form of fraud is not in connection with a railroad company, but with a govemmeait aided wagon-roiad oompaoiy, which belongs geur erally under the same head. Congress, by Act of July 5, 1886 (United States Statutes, Vol. 14, page 89), past an Act granting the State of Oregon lands to the exteoit of 1920 acres per mile to aid in the con- struction of a military wagon roiad from Albany to tilie east- ern boundary of the state. It was provided by Section 4 of said Act: "When the Governor of said State shall certify to the Secretary of the Interior that any ten continuous miles of said road are com- pleted, then a quantity of land hereby granted, not to exceed thirty miles, may be sold, coterminous to said completion of said road; and so from time to time until said road is completed." The Govemoirs of Oregon at differetnt times certified tO' the completioin of njumerous ten-mile sections of said road, and the United States governmemt con'^ieyed title thereto to the state of Oregon. That state disposed of the laiir. An interesting case was that of Albert G. Lewis, who ap- plied to enter as a homestead the south half of the southwest quarter and the south half of tlie southeast quarter of section Y, township 14 north, range 68 west. El Paso county, Colorado. He was careful to comply with the requirememts of the law as to residence, improvements and cultivation. If the culti- vation did not result in raising any very profitable crop it was not his fault, but that of the land, which had no soil, being the pinnacle of Pike's Peak. As a matter of fact, the purpose Lewis had in view was to fence in the surmnit of the moun- tain, and charge every visitor fifty cents for entering the en- closure to reach the top of the mountain. The government refused to permit the entry, on the ground that the applica- tion was made at a time when the land was not open to entry, being as yet covered by a mihtary reservation. But certainly there ought to be some broader foundation than such a mere legal technicality whereby to escape such a national scandal as was in this case narrowly averted. DEMOEALIZING METHODS OF -TAXATION. The first paragraph of this article speaks of "demoraliza- tion" as distinguisht from "fraud." Webster's Unabridged Dictionary defines "fraud" as being deception deliberately practiced with a view to gaining an unlawful or unfair advan- tage." Across the road from my house and lot lies a lot with no house on it yet. A year ago a gentleman of my acquaintance bought it for $360. Last week he sold it to a man who wishes to build upon it for $450. ~Mj friend, has paid one year's taxes, $3 — ^that is all. The lot is in the same condition it was when he bought it a year ago; possibly the "jimson weeds" sioner of the General Land Office, but it never reached a decision. Another tribunal— one that had no legal .iurisdiction of the case, but that assumed jurisdiction and exercised it very effectually— took up the matter. The then Governor of Kansas sent word to the entryman that if he should set foot on that Polander's farm, and the Polander should shoot him dead— and he Ifnew how to shoot— and if a jury could be impaneled in Kansas that would find him guilty of anything, he (the Governor) would pardon the Polander in an hour. That ended the matter. The blackmailing entryman filed a "re- linquishment," and the Polander received a patent for the land. But that was an exceptional case. There are thousands of instances where poor ignorant persons have lost all they had in the world thru this provision of the homestead law. DISTHIBUTION OF PUBLIC LANDS. 117 are a little larger and the old tomato cans a little more numer- ous. But my friend has done nothing to increase the value of the lot. Popiilation has pusht out this way. The streets in this vicinity have been paved. Electric lights have been ex- tended within three blocks of it. There is an increasing pros- pect that a new street car Hue will be constructed across the city not far away befoire long. In short, the increast value of that lot has been the result of nothing done by my friend, but of the presence and labor and enterprise of the public. In other words, the public have increast the value of that lot $90 during the year, which he has coolly put into^ his pocket — all except three dollars. My friend has sold a good many lots before this, and has a good many yet left for sale. In fact, he is a dealer in real estate. He has been "making money" thereby at the rate of twenty or twenty-five per cent, per annum for the past quar- ter of a century. He has not perpetrated a "fraud." He has not "practiced deception." He has never so^ight to obtain an "unlawful" advantage. He is one of the most respectable, highly esteemed citizens. And right here is whtere the de- moralization comes in. Men's ideas of honesty are distorted and their moral sense blunted all the more because it is "lawful" for a man to reap where he has not sown, to gather where he has not scattered, to put in his pocket the value contributed by the public, and that honestly ought to be restored to the public. As the young grow up in a community in which such transactions not only aire not regao-ded as disbonorable, shameful, degra:ding, but in which a person is all the more respected and esteemed because he has never done anything useful for the community in return for the wealth he has taken from it, their eyes remain blind to the enormous wrong and inconceivable meanness — in the white light of Absolute and Eternal Justice- — of thus passing thru life as a parasite upon one's fellow men. Again: This District of Columbia — which practically is identical with Wasihington city — ^has now a population of a little more than three hundred thousand inhabitants. The assest valuation of out personal property on July 1, 1899, was 118 THE LAND QUESTION. $13,431,475 — or $44.66 per capita. In 1878 our population was not qiiite 140,000 (by thie census of 1880 it was 147,293). The assest Yaluation of personal property in the District in 1878 was $17,239,050 — or $121.40 per capita. Does' any human being believe that, while ail other portions of the United States have been rapidly growing in wealth in the shape of cash in bank, horses and carriages, gold watches, street railway cars, shares in institutio'us paying dividends, etc., in the capital of the nation this form of wealth has di- minisht from $121 to $45 per capita during the past twenty- one years? Or are our personal property owners a set of un- mitigated liars when coooif rented by th'e City Assessors? Aside from personal property, the assest valuation of the District of Columbia and the tax thereon, at 1-| per cent, on the dollar, is as follows: Value of land, $102,901,846; of improvements, $80,254,525; of both, $183,156,371; tax, $2,747,345. To this add the tax on $13,431,475 of personal property at 1-| per cent. — $201,472 — and w© have the total taxation, $2,948,817. Now let us see who pays the tax. To illustrate by actual examples: Lot and small house, 'No. 114 Tenth street soiu/theast; land, $320; improvements, $650; total, $970. Tax (at 1| per cent.), $14.55. Lot and larger house, No. 232 Eleventh street niorthieast; land, $800; improvement, $1580; total, $2380. Tax, $35.70. Benton's store (and offices above), ISTo. 182 Fourth street southwest; land, $2220; improvements, $4200; total, $6420. Tax, $96.30. JSTational Capital Bank, comer of Pennsylvania avenue and Third street southeast; land, $8200; improvements, $14,- 800; total, $23,000. Tax, $345. The above are typical illustrations — an ordinary ho'Use, a rather elegant dwelling, a store and a bank. Now suppose we should radically change our principle and our policy. As a matter of principle let us hold that the value of the land of this city, being the result of the presence, labor and enterprise of the public, and not of any one man, should inure to' the benedfit of the public, and not of any individual. In pursuance of this principle, let us adopt the policy of taking DISTRIBUTION OF PUBLIC LANDS. ii9 somowliere near th© rental value of the land — or call it "tax," if you ctoose — and turn it into the city treasury, and not tax anything else, unless we find that we have to. LBy way of experiment, let us try how it would work to tax the assest value of our city lots four per cent. Then the owner of the sanall house on the $320 lot would have to pay $12.80— instead of $14.55. The owner of the larger housie on the $800 lot would have to pay $32 — ^instead of $35.70. Benton would have to pay upon the $2220 lot occupied by his store, $88.80— instead 0(f $96.30. The JSTational Bank lot, assesst at $8200, would have to pay $328 — instead of $345. In short, everybody with any improvements worth men- tioning would gain more by having all improvements ex- empted from taxation thau he would lose by the increast rate of taxation on land. But what would the city then do for revenue? There is no occasion for alarm on that score. As heretofore stated, the assesst valuation of all thie land in the city is $102,901,846. Fo'ur per cent, of that would be $4,116,074 — instiead of the present revenue of $2,948,817. The diminution in the amount of taxes paid by the owners of houses and stores and other improvemente would be more than made up by the speculators who are holding vacant land for a rise, but who would thien be oompelled to bear their share of the public burden or sell out to somebody that would. Subtract $2,948,817 (the income under the present plan) from $4,116,074 (what it would be under the land tax plan), and there vrould be a surplus of $1,167,257. A man earning $1.50 a day in a year of 300 working days will earn $450, and $1,167,257 would pay the wages of 2594 men for a year — men who are now out of employment and supported as paupers or thieves. With this $1,167,257 income annually in addition to what is now raised, by taxation the city could soon build a filter with which to purify the filthy, typhoid impregnated water we are now compelled to drink; could reclaim the malaria ] 20 THE LAND QUESTION. breeding mai-sh that spreads cHUs and fever thru half the city with ever j east -wind ; could pave additional miles of city streets each year; coaild add to our insufHcient police force, and do many other things to make our city pleasanter, health- ier and safer for every inhabitant. The present system of taxation, by encouraging speculation in land, puts mo-ney directly or indirectly into the pockets of not more than ten thousand (at the most extravagant esti- mate) of the inhabitants of our city (amd elsewhere) who have done nothing to earn it. The remaining 290,000, for the lofty and unselfish purpose of filling the pockets of these real estate speculators and tlieir families and parasites with unearned wealth, insist upon drinking the washings of the carcasses of horses and mules that lie rotting in the waters of the upper Potomac; breathing the miasmatic exhalations of Anacostia flats; travelling upon streets ankle deep in dirt in dry weather and mud in wet weather, and supporting as paupers or thieves 2594 families- of men who might be continually at work im- proving the present condition of thing's. ON A BEOADEE SCALE. "Land," says Webster's Unabridged Dictionary, is "any ground, soil or earth whatsoever, as meadows, pastiixes, woods, etc., and everything annexed to it, whether by nature, as trees, water, etc., or by the hand of man, as buildings, fences, etc." That trees growing upon lauid should be regarded as a part of the land is rational and consistent; both are created by na- ture, without aid from the hand of man. In like manner, as we have already seen, minerals contained in the soil and rock are sold by the government as a part of the "land." But that "buildings, fences," etc., should be considered as "land" is irrational and inconsistent. They are things made by man, while not a foot of land was ever made by human hand. If we sometimes speak of "made land" it is a misnomer; we simply place something on top of laud already in existence, to cause it to extend above water. To term and treat "build- DISTRIBUTION OF PUBLIC LA^■DS. 121 I ings, fences," etc., as land is as absurd as it would be! tO' say that a "borse" means a borse, bamess and buggy; more ab- surd, for, in fact, man may bave sometbing to say as. to wbetber a borse sball come into existence or not; but tbe e-xistence of land is so-metbing over wbiob be. bas no control wbatever. However tbis idiotic legal quilp originated, it is perpetuated mainly for tbe advantage it gives tbe capitalist over the poor man. If you buy a piecie of land from me, paying nue in part and giving me a mortgage on tbe land as security for tbe bal- ance, and if you fail to pay for tbe land I can fotreclose tbe mortgage, and under law take back not only tbe land, but wbatever improvement you bave placed upon it. Som-e states permit tbe maker of tbe improvements in sucb a case to remove tbem; but sucb a law is largely a mockery and a snare, for bow is tbe loser of tbe land tO' take away witb bim wben be leaves it bis breaking, bis well, bis oa-cbard, etc.? Tbus our laws, in tbeir very definition of "land" are so arranged as to favor tbe rich and oppress tb© poor. But even accepting tbe legal definition of land, so far as it embraces trees growing upon or minerals contained in tbe soil, tbe masses do not ob- tain tbeir fair sbare of tbesei forms of natural wealtb. Upon tbe tbeory beretofore broached (of course not original with tbis writer, but at least as old as !Moses), that the land of a country belong-s in equity to the people of that coimtry, and hence that any income therefrom should belong to the people, the value of the trees upon tbe surface, while yet uncut, and of tbe minerals in tbe so'il while yet unmined, belongs to the people, and should go into tbe public treasury. That the product of mines should in some way inure to the benefit of tbe public is an idea so natural that it seems to have been very generally entertained among ancient nations. Di- odorus (liber 4) gives as an explanation why the Oarthage- nians were able to hold tbeir oivm against tbe Romans for so lone a time, the fact that tbe former obtained from the mines of Spain an inexhaustible fund of wealtb, which went into the ptiblic treasury. After tbe capture of Spain by tbe Eo- mans (says Polybius, as quoted by Strabo) tbe latter took from the mines near Nova Carthago nearly four thousand J 22 THE LAND QUESTION. dollars a day, but wbetKer tlie govemimeiit claimed all that was mined, or whetheir this foTir thousand dollars a day was merely the. "royalty," does not clearly appear. RoUin, in his "Ancient History," tells us (B-ooik VI, Sec. 5) : "The Athenians had some silver mines in a part of Attica called Laurium, the whole product of which used to be distributed among them. Themistocles had the courage to propose to the people that they should abolish these distributions, and employ that money in building' vessels. No people ever willingly sacrifice their private interests to the general utility of the public, or purchase the wel- fare of the State at their own expense. The Athenian people, how- ever, did it upon this occasion; moved by the earnest remonstrances of Themistocles, they consented that the money which arose from the product of the mines should be employed in the building of a hundred galleys. Against the arrival of Xerxes they doubled the number; and to that fleet Greece owed its preservation." If Themistocles had been a modem business man he would have secured the passage of a law recognizing private prop- erty in mining lands, organized a syndicate, bougiht in the mines of Laurium at five dollars an acre, made himself a mil- lionaire upon the profits therefrom and let Greece go to the d ]. The idea that the gifts of nature should be considered and treated as belonging to the entire oommjunity and not a favored few, altho pretty thoroly smothered by the mercenary spirit of the age, still survives in some out-of-^;he^way localities. For instance, there is Frteudenstadt, a hamlet in a valley among the Alps in the southwestern piart of the German em- pire, 45 miles southwest of Stuttgard. That region has been favored with but few natural resources; but betweem three and four hundred years ago an^ old moink got the notion into his head that, while whatever a man produced by his labor might belong to him individually, what ever natural wealth or resources were found in a given region beloiUged equally to all the members of the community inhabiting that region. This theory and practice has been pursued ever since. In this region are some pits of valuable fireclay, which the people dig and pile up for purchasers. The men who do the dig- ging receive day's wages; but whem^ the clay is sold, the pay for the clay itself — what is called "royalty" — goes into the DISTEIBUTION OF PUBLIC LANDS. 123 treasury. Upon thje (hill sides is some surplus timbeir. The men who out down and pile up the timber axe paid day's wages; wbeai the tLmiber is sold, its value as it stood uncut upon the stump — ^in short, the "stumpage" — goes into the treasury. The income from these sources pays their share of the tax levied for the support of the German empire, pays all their own officials, builds their school houses and pays their teachers, builds their churches and pays their priests. The people have not been taxed a cent in three hundred and fifty years. Their income always exceteds their expenditures. In 1882 this surplus was divided among the inhabitants per capita, each man, wam:an and child receiving (in terms of our money) $13.55. The amount distributed in 1883 wooold have been $16.55, but the citizens voted to apply it to building water works. The above is condensed from an article by Henry Labouchere in the London "Truth," and I have no in- formation of more recent date. Then there is the little suzerainty of Andorra, among the Pyrenees, between Franee and Spain. It occupies a territory of 144 square miles, and has between 15,000 and 20,000 in- habitants. They have so-me iron and lead miaes and some timber, the "royalty" and "stumpage" of which goes into the pubUc treasury. They cairry this principle to its logical conclusion so completely that when outsiders drive their cattle and sheep down into Andorra valley to pasture on the "com- mons," the pay received for pasturage goes into the public treasury. The money received froom. these sources pays all their. expenses, including a tribute of 960 francs annually to France, and about as much more for the support of the Bishop of Urgel, within whose spiritual jurisdiction they reside. I wonder what success a person would have who should go over to Freudenstadt or Andorra and endeavor to induce the inhabitants to transfer their mines, clay pits, timber land, etc., into private hands, and permit the profits from them to serve to build u.p the fortunes of individual owners, while they supported their little governments hereafter by taxing them- selves? 124 THE LAND QUESTION. When Minnesota was admitted into the Union as a State, the United States goiremment donated to her for school piu'- poses eveiy sixteenth and thii-ty-sixth section of land. The state adopted the policy of leasing its mining lands. The St. Paul Pioneer-Press of February 26, 1893, says editorially: "The splendid results of the law requiring- the mineral lands be- longing to the public school fund of Minnesota to be leased instead of sold are now beginning to be apparent. A revenue from leases of $8,390 in 1890, of $11,635 in 1S91, of $18,300 in 1893, of $40,000 in 1893, with the development of our mineral resources as yet scarcely begun, shows what may be expected in the future." I am without informatioin as toi results since the date of the editorial from which the above is quoted. The question naturally arises, why wo^uld not the policy which preseiwed the eixistencei of Greece, which brought im- mense treasures into the coffers of Rome, which gives abun- dant satisfaction today wherever it is in operation, work equally well in these United States? Heniy A. Robinson, formerly Labor Commissioner of Michigan, later Statistician of the AgTicultural Department at Washington, basing his calculations upon the census of IS 90, estimates that the "royalty" value in the gTound of the coal mined ui 1889 was a little more than $28,500,000; gold and silver, $23,500,000; iron, $11,500,000; products of other mines, including oil and gas wells, $36,600,000; total, $100,- 000,000. (This omits royalties from stone quarries, phos- phate beds and numerous other minor sources.) The "stump- age" of the timber cut was $225,000,000. Total from mines and timber, $325,000,000. The expenses of the United States government and the amount raised by various forms of taxation (tariff and internal revenue) in 1889 was a little less- than $300,000,000. The "royalty" on the minerals raised, plus the "stumpage" on tim- ber- cut, would have amounted to $25,000,000 more than the entire expenses of the federal government. Another calculation: Suppose the people of the United States had been taxed only $150,000,000 that year— just one- half of what they were taxed— for the support of the, federal DISTEIBUTION OF PUBLIC LANDS. 125 government, and that tli© royalty of tke minerals and the stumpag© of the tiniber had been turned into the treasury, the total would have been $475,000,000, or $175,000,000 more than was raised. Estimating wages at $1.25 a day, or $375 a year, the government conld have employed continu- ously in constructing reservoirs or irrigating ditches to im- prove its arid lands, or in building canals or railroads for it- self, five hundred thousand workmen, who^, as it was, were idle, clamoring for work, and by their competition hammering down tO' the starvation level the prices of those who had been so fortunate as to find employment. The refusal of the government to use for its o^vn support the rental value of its ordinary land, the royalty of its min- erals, the stumpage of its timber, etc., renders it necessary to P'ass other laws most oppressive, unrighteous and deanoraliz- ing. The tariff laws, inciting to smuggling, provoking per- jury in undervaluation, and when honestly euforoed wofully discriminating against the poor man. Internal revenue laws, inducing the making of "moonshime" whisky, the murder of revenue ofiioers and other forms of lawlessness. But when I ask the average farmer, "Would you not like such a change in the tax laws as would relieve you of one- half the tax you are now paying, and place it on the shoulders of the land speculators, the mine owners, the timber syndi- catec, the oil companies and others who are now enriching themselves by monopolizing the bounties of nature?" he answers, "The old plan, by which I and my ancestors have been fleeced in the p'ast, is good enuf for me." When I ask the average laborer, "Would you not like a system of taxa- tion that would furnish employment to a million more work- ing men than can now find employment" (half a million in the cities and another haM a million, in the coiuntry) "and raise the wages of all?" he turns upon me with a sneer and says, "Tou are a crank and an anarchist — go hence!" I could very well afford to go — for while the farmer and the workingman are paying twice the tax they need to, they are also pajdng at least half of mine. But alas ! this is not merely a question as to which shall pay his own or the other's tax, 126 THE LAND QUESTION. but one of konesty or morality and national welfare. Aside from the fact that otir system of land laws opens iavitingly wide tlie door to gigantic frauds upon tlie government and upon individuals, and ofi ers an enormous premium on per- jury, tbeir effect, even wten enforced in strict accordance with the intent of the legislative pow-er that enacted them, is con- spicuously pernicious. If it be demoralizing to train a nation to become a set of liars when confronted by tax assessors or custom house officers; if it be demoralizing to educate the young to the idea that labor is degrading, and that the most respectable and honorable tbing in Mfe is to enrich one's self by being a parasite upon ou'e's fellow creatures; if it be de- moralizing for the goTremment not only to throw away its rich- est treasures, but to do so upon a lottery plan, which encour- ages gambling and a horde of kindred vices; if it be demoiral- izing to increase the number of the landless multitude who have no stake in the welfare of our nation; if it is demoral- izing to have a million idle m)en among us, necessitating a "slum" ward in ©very city and a grand army of tramps tra- versing the country, then I have proived the proposition with which I began this article — that in addition to being the pro- lific parent of fraud and perjury, our land laws, eiven when honestly and faithfully administered, are a soturce of wide- spread and woful demoralization. CONSTITUTIONAL PEOVISIOKS. 127 CONSTITUTION AND COMMENTS. Provisions of our Federal and State Constitutions relating to taxation, showing what property must be taxt and ^rhat property may be exempted from taxation, thus show^ing what constitutional obstructions there are to the various land reforms now^ being proposed. Section 2 of Article 1 of the Constitution of the United States provides that "Direct taxes shall be apportioned among- the several states which may be included within this Union, according' to their respective numbers, which shall be determined by adding- to the whole number of free persons, including those bound to service for a term of years, and excluding- Indians not taxed, three-fifths of all other persons." The last clause, "three-fifths of all other persons," related to negro slaves, and has been repealed by the thirteenth and fourteenth amendments to the constitution, abol- ishing slavery and giving to negroes the right of citizenship. Section 9 of Article 1 provides that: "No capitation or other direct tax shall be laid, unless in proportion to the census or enumeration hereinbefore directed to be taken." Also, "No tax or duty shall be laid on articles exported from any state." The fifth amendment to the Constitution of the United States provides, among other things, that no person shall "be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law, nor shall pri- vate property be taken for public use, without just compensation.'' The Supreme Court of the United States has held that any enactment of a state legislature in regard to taxation, that in effect takes private property without just compensation is in contraven- tion of the Constitution of the United States and therefore void. Cote vs. La Grange, 113 U. S., 1. The term direct tax has been construed to mean a poll tax, tax on lands, houses, etc. The income tax law of Congress, passed in 1894, was only declared unconstitutional as to such parts of an income as might arise from interest on municipal bonds and rents on real estate; and the court held that the tax on rents would have been valid if it had been apportioned among the several states as required by the constitution. The court held that it was against the general intent of the constitution for the general government to tax state or municipal bonds, or for local governments to tax government bonds, for the reason that this would be taxing the powers of the respective governments, and that the one has not the right to tax the powers, instrumentalities or property of the other. The term indirect tax usually applies to import duties, im- posts, exercises and also to our system of internal taxation on in- heritances, conveyances, bonds, mortgages, etc., and liquors and tobacco. 128 THE LAND QUESTION. Section 9 also provides that "No tax or duty shall be laid on articles exported from any state." And Section 10, Article 1, pro- vides that no state shall, without the consent of Congress, "lay any imposts or duties on imports or exports," or "lay duty of tonnage," except in certain cases named. Section 8, Article 1, provides that the Congress shall have the povier to lay and collect taxes, duties, etc., for three different pur- poses, to wit: "To pay the duties, and provide for the common de- fense, and general welfare of the United States." And it further provides that all such duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States. ALABAMA. "The General Assembly shall not tax the property, real or per- sonal, of the state, counties, or other municipal corporations, or cemeteries; nor lots in incorporated cities or towns, or within one mile of any city or town, to the extent of one acre, nor lots one mile or more distant from such cities or towns, to the extent of five acres, with the buildings thereon, when the same are used exclu- sively for religious worship, for schools, or for purposes purely charitable; nor such property, real or personal, to an extent not exceeding twenty-five thousand dollars in value, as may be used exclusively for agricultural or horticultural associations of a public character." Section 52, Article 4. The General Assembly shall by law prescribe such rules and regulations as may be necessary to ascertain the value of' per- sonal and real property exempted from sale under legal process by this constitution, and to secure the same to the claimant thereof." Section 53. Article 4. "All taxes levied on property in this state shall be assessed in exact proportion to the value of such property." Section 1, Arti- cle XI. The courts have decided that the above provision does not limit the taxation to property or polls alone, but that an income tax of one per cent on all incomes over $500 is valid. "The General Assembly shall not have the power to levy, in any one jear, a greater rate of taxation than three-fourths of one per centum on the value of the taxable property within this state." " Section 4, Article XI. "Xo county in this state shall be authorized to levy a larger rate of taxation, in any one year, on the value of the taxable prop- erty therein, than one-half of one per centum." Article 5. There is a proviso to this section to the effect that for the purposes of erecting public buildings or bridges such special levys may be made as may be authorized by law. "The property of private corporations, associations and indi- viduals of this state, shall forever be taxed at the same rate; pro- vided, this section shall not apply to institutions or enterprises de- voted exclusively to religious, educational or charitable purposes." CONSTITUTIONAL PEOVISIONS. 129 "No city or town or other municipal corporation other than provided for in this article, shall levy or collect a larger rate of taxation, in any one year, on the property thereof, than one-half of one per centum of the value of such property as assessed for state taxation during the preceding year." An exception is made as to the city of Mobile. This does not apply to street assessments. ARKANSAS. "»V11 property subject to taxation shall be taxed according to its value, that value to be ascertained in such manner as the General Assembly shall direct, making the same equal and uniform through- out the state. No species of property from which a tax may be collected shall be taxed higher than another species of property of equal value, provided the General Assembly shall have power from time to time tr tax hawkers, peddlers, ferries, exhibitions and priv- ileges in such manner as may be deemed proper. Provided, further, that the following property shall be exempt from taxation: Public property used exclusively for public purposes; churches used as such; cemeteries used exclusively as such; school buildings and apparatus; libraries and grounds used exclusively for school pur- poses, and buildings and grounds and materials used exclusively for public charity." Section 5, Article XVI. All laws exempting property from taxation other than as provided in this constitution shall be void. Section 6. "The power to tax corporations and corporate property shall not be surrendered or suspended by any contract or grant to which the state may be a party." Section 7. "The General Assembly shall not have power to levy state taxes for any one year to exceed in the aggregate one per cent, of the assessed valuation of the property of the state for that year." Section 8. "No county shall levy a tax to exceed one-half of one per cent, for all purposes, but may levy an additional one-half of one per cent, to pay indebtedness existing at the time of the ratification of this constitution." Section 9. "The General Assembly may, by general laws exempt from taxa- tion for the term of seven years from the rati ti cation of this consti- tution the capital invested in any or all kinds of mining or manu- facturing business in this state, under such regulations and restric- 'tions as may be prescribed by law." Section 3, Article X. CALIFORNIA. "The legislature shall not pass local or special laws in any of the following enumerated cases, that is to say:" * * * "Fourth— For the assessment or collection of taxes." "Twentieth— Exempt^ ing property from taxation." Section 25, Article IV. "No county, city or town, or other public or municipal corpo- ration, nor the inhabitants thereof, nor the property therein, shall be released or discharged from its or their proportionate share of 130 THE XAND QUESTION. taxes to be levied for state purposes, nor shall commutation for such taxes be authorized in any form whatsoever." Section 10, Article XI. "The legislature shall have no povi^er to impose taxes upon counties, cities, towns, or other public or municipal corporations, or upon the inhabitants thereof, for county, city, town, or other municipal purposes, but may by general laws, vest in the corporate authorities thereof the power to assess and collect taxes for such purposes." Section 12, Article XI. "All property in the state, not exempt under the laws of the United States, shall be taxed in proportion to its value, to be ascer- tained as provided by law. The word 'property' as used in this article and section is hereby declared to include moneys, credits, bonds, stocks, dues, franchises, and all other matters and things, real, personal and mixed, capable of private ownership; provided, that growing crops, property used exclusively for public schools, and such as may belong to the United States, this state, or to any county or municipal corporation within this state, shall be exempt from taxation. The legislature may provide, except in the case of credits secured by mortgage or trust deed, for a reduction from credits or debts due to bona fide residents of this state." Section 1, Article XIII. Churches are taxed in California. Only property be- longing' to the public and growing crops are exempt from taxation. "Land and the improvements thereon, shall be separately as- sessed. Cultivated and uncultivated land, of the same quality, and similarly situated, shall be assessed at the same value." Section 2. Section 11 authorizes income taxes, and Section 12 requires a poll tax for school purposes of not less than two dollars on every male inhabitant over 21 and under 60 years, except idiots, paupers, etc. "The holding of large tracts of land, uncultivated and unim- proved, by individuals or corporations, is against the public interest, and should be discouraged by all means not inconsistent with the rights of private property." Section 2, Article XVII. Section 3 pro- vides that state lands suitable for cultivation shall be granted to actual settlers only. COLORADO. "All taxes shall be uniform upon the same class of subjects within the territorial limits of the authority levying the tax, and. shall be levied and collected under general laws, which shall pre- scribe such regulations as shall secure a just valuation for taxa- tion of all property, real and personal; * * * And, provided further, that the household goods of every person being the head of a family to the value of two hundred dollars shall be exempt from taxation." Section 3, Article X. All public property, including public libraries, is exempt; and it is further provided that property used exclusively for religious and charitable purposes, "shall be exempt from taxation, unless otherwise provided by general law." Section 5, Article X. CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS. 131 CONNECTICUT. The constitution of Connecticut does not contain any provisions in reg-ard to taxation. Section 2, Article 1, declares as follows: "That all political power is inherent in the people, and all free governments are founded on their authority, and instituted for their benefit; and that they have at all times an undeniable and indefeasible right to alter their form of government in such man- ner as they may think expedient." Therefore they made their con- stitution very short, and confined it principally to defining the three departments of government, legislative, judicial and execu- tive, and to the various offices thereunder. The people are left free to adopt such system of taxation as they may desire. This is the model constitution of this country. It is a pity that the people of all our states were not equally sensible. Freedom is the true goal of a Republic. We should be free to adopt such laws and systems of laws as changing conditions and circumstances may require and as the people may desire. The legislature has exempted from taxation all property used for public, scientific, educational, religious, burial and charitable purposes; also the property of disabled soldiers and all blind per- sons to the amount of $3,000, wearing apparel of every person to amount of $25, family household furniture to amount of $500, farm- ing tools to amount of $200, and the produce and young live stock on each farm; the fuel and provisions for each family; swine to value of $50, and poultry $25, cash to amount of $100, tools of a mechanic to amount of $200, private libraries to amount of $200. The property of all ex-soldiers and their wido^^;^ and widowed mothers to amount of $1,000. DELAWARE. (New Constitution of 1897.) "All taxes shall be uniform upon the same class of subjects within the territorial limits of the authority levying the tax, and shall be levied and collected under general laws, but the General Assembly may by general laws exempt from taxation such prop- erty as in the opinion of the General Assembly will best promote the general welfare." Section 1, Article VIII. "In all assessments of the value of real estate for taxation, the value of the land and the value of the buildings and improvements thereon shall be included. And in all assessments of the rental value of real estate for taxation, the rental value of the land and the rental value of the buildings and the improvements thereon shall be included. The foregoing provisions of this section shall apply to all assessments of the value of real estate or of the rental value thereof for taxation for state, county, hundred, school, muni- cipal or other public purposes." Section 7, Article VIII. This prohibits the exemption of improvements on real estate under the single tax system. 132 THE LAND QUESTION. FLOEIDA. "The legislature shall provide for a uniform and equal rate of taxation, and shall prescribe such regulations as shall secure a just valuation of all property, both real and personal, excepting such property as may be exempted by law for municipal, literary, scien- tific, religious or charitable purposes." Section 1, Article IX. "There shall be exempt from taxation property to the value of two hundred dollars to every widow that has a family dependent on her for support, and to every person that has lost a limb or been disabled in war or by misfortune." Section 9, Article IX. GEOEGIA. Paragraph 1 of Section 2, Article 7, contains the usual provisions as to uniformity of taxation. Paragraph 2 gives the legislature power to exempt property used for public, religious, charitable, educational and library purposes exclusively. Paragraph 4. "All laws exempting property from taxation, other than the property herein enumerated, shall be void." IDAHO. Section 19, Article 3, prohibits the passage of local laws "for the assessment and collection of taxes," or "exempting property from taxation.'' "All taxes shall be uniform upon the same class of subjects within the territorial limits of the authority levying the tax, and shall be levied and collected under general laws, which shall pre- scribe such reg'ulations as shall secure a just valuation for taxation of all property, real and personal. Provided, that the legislature may allow such exemptions from taxation from time to time as shall seem necessary and just." Section 5, Article 7. Section 9 provides that "the rate of taxation on real and per- sonal property for state purposes shall never exceed tsn (10) mills on each dollar of assessed valuation." The section further pro- vides that as the taxable property increases, the rate shall be de- creased, according to a scale fixed. In addition to the usual ex- emptions the legislature has exempted growing crops, public and private libraries, tools of mechanic, farmer, miner and householder to the value of $200, and property of widows and orphans to amount of $1,000, where the total assessment is less than $5,000. ILLINOIS. "The General Assembly shall provide such revenue as may be needful bj' levying a tax, by valuation, so that every person and corporation shall pay a tax in proportion to the value of his, her or its property, such value to be determined, * «- * * jjj such manner as it shall from time to time direct by general law." Sec- tion 1, Article IX. CO^TSTITTJTIONAL PEOVISIONS. 13S Section 3 gives the General Assembly authority by general law to exempt from taxation real and personal property used exclu- sively for public, charitable, school and religious purposes, and also for agricultural and horticultural societies. Counties shall not make a levy exceeding 75 cents per $100, except authorized by a vote of the people to do so. INDIANA. "The General Assembly shall not grant to any citizen, or class of citizens, privileges or immunities which, upon the same terms, shall not equally belong to all citizens." Article 66 of Bill of Rights. "The General Assembly shall provide, by law, for a uniform and equal rate of assessment and taxation; and shall prescribe such regnlations as shall secure a just valuation of all property, both real and personal, excepting such only, for municipal, educational, literary, scientific, religious, or charitable purposes, as may be especially exempted by law." Section 1, Article 9. The state courts have held that no property can be exempted from taxation by the legislature except such as falls under the classes above mentioned. A law exempting widows to the amount of $500 was held to be class legislation and void under the above section of the bill of rights. IOWA. Local or special laws for the assessment of taxes are prohibited. Section 30, Article 3. The above Indiana law against class legislation is also in the constitution of Iowa. Section 6, Article 1. The constitution does not set any other limits upon the people or legislature as to what may or may not be taxed or exempted. In addition to the usual exemptions as to public, church, school and charitable property, the legislature has made .the following ex- emptions from taxation: "The farm produce of the person as- sessed, harvested by him, and all wool shorn from his sheep, within one year previous to the listing; all poultry, ten stands of bees, all swine and sheep under six months of age; and all other domestic animals under one year of age not hereinbefore exempt; all obli- gations for rent not yet due, in the hands of the original payees; private libraries, professional libraries to the actual value of three hundred dollars; family pictures; household furniture to the actual value of three hundred dollars, and kitchen furniture; beds and bedding requisite for each family; all wearing apparel in actual use, and all food provided for the family." Also farming utensils of farmers teams, wagon and harness of teamsters and draymen, and tools of mechanics, to the value of $300. Also homesteads of the value of $800 of disabled Union soldiers or of the widows of Union soldiers or sailors. Title VII, Chapter 1. The bill of rights pro- vides that private property shall not be taken for public use with- out just compensation being made to the owner. 134 THE LAND QUESTION. KANSAS. "The legislature shall provide for a uniform and equal rate of assessment and taxation; but all property used exclusively for state, county, municipal, literary, educational, scientific, religious, benev- olent and charitable purposes, and personal property to the amount of at least two hundred dollars for each family, shall be exempted from taxation." Section 1, Article II. Section 2 provides that all notes, bills, moneys loaned and other property of banks shall be taxed, "so that all property employed in banking shall always bear a burden of taxation equal to that im- posed upon the property of individuals." Section 9 exempts homesteads from sale on execution, and also saj-s, "but no property shall be exem.pt from sale for taxes." KENTUCKY. Section 170 provides for the usual exemptions of property used for piiljlic, religious, educational, etc., purposes, and also, "house- hold goods and other personal property of a person with a family, not exceeding two hundred and fifty dollars in value; crops grown in the year in which the assessment is made, and in the hands of the producer; and all laws exempting or commuting property from taxation other than the property above mentioned shall be void." Cities may be authorized to exempt manufacturing establishments from municipal taxes for a period not exceeding five years. Section 173 provides that, "All property, not exempted from taxation by this constitution, shall be assessed for taxation at its fair cash value, estimated at the price it would bring at a fair voluntary sale." Officers not so assessing property may be im- peached and punished. "All property, whether owned by natural persons or corpora^ tions, shall be taxed in proportion to Its value, unless exempted by this constitution." Section 174. Taxes on incomes, licenses and franchises are permitted. Section 157 limits the tax rate in towns, cities, comities, and taxing districts to from fifty cents to one dollar and fifty cents per hundred, according to population. LOUISIANA. Article 225 of the constitution of 1898 provides that, "Taxation shall be equal and uniform throughout the territorial limits of the authority levying the tax, and all property shall be taxed in pro- portion to its value." Article 230 provides: "The following shall be exempt from taxa^ tion and no other," here follows the usual exemptions of property used for public, charitable, religious, etc., purposes, and also "house- hold property to the value of five hundred dollars;" and also for a period of ten years from January 1, 1900, the property of certain manufacturing enterprises, and also for ten years the property of CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS. 135 new railroads constructed from 1898 to 1904. The assessment of state taxes is limited to six mills on the dollar, and of municipal taxes to ten mills on the dollar. Occupation licenses and taxes on inheritances, legacies and donations are permitted. MAKYLAND. Article 15 of the bill of rights among other things provides: "Every person in the state, or person holding property therein, ought to contribute his proportion of public taxes for the support of the government, according to his actualvworth in real or personal property." Section 51 of Article III of the constitution says that: "The personal property of residents of this state, shall be subject to taxa- tion in the county, or city, where the resident resides," etc. The legislature has made very liberal tax exemptions, which are quite similar to those of Connecticut as above enumerated. MAINE. "While the public expenses shall be assessed on polls and estates, a general valuation shall be taken at least once in ten years." "All taxes upon real and personal estates, shall be apportioned and assessed equally, according to the just value thereof." Sections 7 and 8, Article IX. The constitution says nothing about tax ex- emptions. The exemptions from taxes created by the legislature are very liberal, including family household furniture to the amount of $200, and also wearing apparel, farming utensils and the tools of mechanics; and also domestic animals under six months old and farm products in the possession of the producer. MASSACHUSETTS. The General Assembly is granted full power and authority, "to impose and levy proportional and reasonable assessments, rates and taxes, upon all the inhabitants of, and persons resident, and estates lying, within said commonwealth; and also to impose and levy reasonable duties and excises upon any produce, goods, wares, mer- chandise, and commodities, whatsoever, brought into, produced, manufactured, or being within the same." It is further provided that such assessments shall "be made with equality." Section 4, Chapter 1. The legislature makes numerous tax exemptions, in favor of literary, benevolent, charitable and scientific institutions, temperance societies, grand army and veteran associations, dis- abled soldiers and sailors, etc. The bill of rights declares that every citizen should contribute his just share for the expense of government and that private property should not be taken for public use without just compensation. 136 THE LAND QUESTION. MICHIGAN. "The legislature shall provide a uniform rule of taxation, except on property paying- specific taxes, and taxes shall be levied on such property as shall be prescribed by law." Section 11, Article XIV. The legislature has created the usual tax exemptions, including' household furniture to amount of $200; spinning' and weaving looms to the value of $50, wearing' apparel; library and school books to the amount of $150; all family pictures; to each householder 15 sheep with their fleeces, and the yam and cloth manufactured from the same; two cows, five swine, provisions and fuel for six months, and musical instruments not to exceed $100. And also "the per- sonal and real property of persons, who by reason of age, infirmity or poverty, may, in the opinion of the supervisor, be unable to con- tribute towards the public charges." MINNESOTA. "Laws shall be passed taxing all m.oneys, credits, investments in bonds, stocks, joint stock companies or otherwise, and also all real and personal property, according to its true value in money." Section 3, Article IX. The latter part of the section creates the usual tax exemptions, including "personal property to an amount not exceeding in value two hundred dollars for each individual." The legislature has enacted the usual tax exemptions as to prop- erty used for public, religious, etc., purposes, and also personal property to each individual to amount of $100: MISSISSIPPI. Section 112 provides that taxation shall be uniform and equal throughout the state and that property shall be taxed in propor- tion to its value and under general laws. Local tax laws are pro- hibited. The state courts have held that under the constitution the legislature can exempt such property from taxation as it pleases. The legislative tax exemptions are very liberal, exempting property used for church, school, charitable, etc., purposes, and also household furniture to the value of $250, and also all private libraries and pictures, wearing apparel, family provisions, farm products in hands of the producer, poultry, farming implements, two cows, ten sheep or goats, ten hogs, and the tools of any me- chanic. Towns and cities may exempt factories for not longer than ten years. illSSOUEI. Section 6, Article X, of the constitution limits exemptions to public property and property used for cemeteries, and for religious, charitable and school purposes, and also of agricultural and horti- cultural societies. Section 7 is as follows: "All laws exempting property from CONSTITUTIONAL PEOVISIO^'S. 137 taxation, other than the property above enumeratecl, shall be void." The rate for state purposes is limited to 20 cents on the $100, and low rates are fixed for counties, towns and cities. MONTANA. "The necessary revenue for the support and maintenance of the state shall be provided by the legislative assembly, which shall levy a uniform rate of assessment and taxation, and shall prescribe such regulations as shall secure a just valuation for taxation of all property, except that specially provided for in this article.'' Sec- tion 1, Article XII. Section 2 exempts from taxation all property used exclusively for public, educational, religious and charitable purposes, and also hospitals, burial places and the property of agricultural and horti- cultural societies. Section 17 defines the word property as including moneys, credits, stocks, bonds, franchises, and all matters and things (real, personal and mixed) capable of private ownership. The courts have held that no property can be exempt from taxation except such as is embraced within the excepted classes mentioned in Section 2. The levy for state purposes is limited to three mills on each hundred dollars of valuation. NEBRASKA. Section 1, Article IX, provides that "every person and corpora- tion shall pay a tax in proportion to the value of his, her or its property and franchises," in such manner as may be provided by general law. Section 2 makes exemptions similar to those of Mon- tana above set forth; with the addition that "The legislature may provide that the increased value of lands by reason of live fences, fruit and forest trees, grown and cultivated thereon, shall not be taken into account, .in the assessment thereof." County assess- ments are limited to $1.50 per $100. NEVADA. "The legislature shall iDrovide by law for a uniform and equal rate of assessment and taxation, and shall prescribe such regula- tions as shall secure a just valuation for taxation of all property, real, personal and possessory, except mines and mining claims, the proceeds of "which alone shall be taxed, and excepting such prop- erty as may be exempted by law for municipal, educational, literary, scientific, religious, or charitable purposes." Section 1, Article X. Local laws in regard to state, county and township taxes are pro- hibited. NEW ha:\ipshiee. The bill of rights. Section 12, provides that every member of the community is bound to contribute his share towards the expense of the state government. 138 THE LAND QUESTION. Article 5 of the constitution requires the legislature "to impose and levy proportional and reasonable assessments, rates and taxes upon all the inhabitants of, and residents within, the said state, and upon all estates within the same." The legislature has exempted from taxation, property used for public, religious and educational purposes, and reclaimed swamp or swale lands for ten years from the time of reclamation, all domestic animals under certain speci- fied ages, fowls to the amount of fifty dollars, and two hogs to each family. NEW JERSEY. Paragraph 12, Section 7, Article IV, is as follows: "Property shall be assessed for taxes under general laws, and by uniform rules, according to its true value." In addition' to the usual exemp- tions as to the property of religious and charitable societies, etc., tax exemptions are allowed as to church parsonages to the amount of $5,000. Also the property both real and personal of soldiers of the rebellion or of their widows, and of firemen and members of salvage corps. NEW YOEK. The new constitution of New York makes no provisions as to what property shall be taxed or exempted from taxation. Cities of over one hundred thousand inhabitants, or counties containing any such city are prohibited from levying in any one year taxes of ovei* two per centum of the assessed value of the real and per- sonal estate of such city or county for current expenses, excluding debts and interest. Section 10, Article 8. The exemptions from taxation are quite numerous and very similar to those of the state of Michigan above given. NORTH CAROLINA. "Laws shall be passed taxing, by a uniform rule, all moneys, credits, investments in bonds, stocks, joint stock companies, or otherwise; and, also all real and personal property, according to its true value in money. Section 3, Article V. Section 5 provides for the exemption of property held for religious, public, etc., pur- poses; and also that personal property to the value of $300 belong- ing to individuals may be exempt; but the legislature limited the last to $25. NORTH DAKOTA. Section 174 restricts state taxes to four mills on the dollar. Section 176 provides that "Laws shall be passed taxing by uniform rule all property according to its true value in money." It also provides that the legislature may make the usual exemptions, and also personal property to each individual not exceeding $200. Under the last head the legislature simply exempted family pictures and certain domestic animals, and also trees, shrubs and vines set out on land. CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS. 139 OHIO. "Laws shall be passed, taxing by Tiniform rule, all moneys, credits, investments in bonds, stocks, joint stock companies, or otherwise; and also all real and personal property, according- to its true value in money." Section 2, Article XII. The legislature is authorized to grant the usual exemptions including personal prop- erty to each individual not exceeding $200. The legislature limited the latter to $50. OEEGON. The passage of local or special tax laws is prohibited by the bill of rights. "The legislative assembly shall provide by law for uniform and equal rate of assessment and taxation; and shall prescribe such regTilations as shall secure a just valuation for taxation of all prop- erty, both real and personal, excepting such only for municipal, educational, literary, scientiiic or charitable piirposes, as may be specially exempted by law." Section 1, Article IX. PENNSYLVANIA. Article III prohibits the passage of any local law "Exempting property from taxation." "All taxes shall be uniform upon the same class of subjects, within the territorial limits of the authority levying the tax, and shall be levied and collected under general laws; but the General Assembly may, by general laws, exempt from taxation public prop- erty used for public purposes, actual places of religious worship, places of burial not used or held for private or corporate profit, and institutions of purely public charity." "All laws exempting property from taxation, other than the property above enumerated, shall be void." Sections 153-4, Article IX. EHODE ISLAND. Section 1, Article I, affirms the right of the people to alter their constitution and quotes the following from the writings of George Washington: "The basis of our political systems is the right of the people to make and alter their constitutions." Section 2 declares that "the burdens of the state ought to be fairly distributed among its citizens." There is nothing in the constitution as to exemptions or what kind of property shall be taxed. In addition to the usual exemp- tions of public, religious, etc., property, the legislature has ex- empted the property of each of the acting professors of Brown University to the amount of $10,000, and also artificial forests of not less than 2,000 trees, for a period of 15 years from the time of planting. The bill of rights declares that "Private property shall not be taken for public uses, without just compensation." 140 THE LAND QUESTION. SOUTH CAROLINA. Section 3 of the declaration of rights provides that each indi- vidual should "contribute his share to the expense" of the govern- ment; and also that private propertj^ shall not be taken for public use without just compensation. "The General Assembly shall provide by law for a. uniform and equal rate of assessment and taxation, and shall prescribe such regulations as shall secure a just valuation for taxation of all prop- erty, real, personal and possessory, except mines and mining claims, the proceeds of which alone shall be taxed; and also excepting such property as may be exempted by law for municipal, religious or charitable purposes." Section 1, Article IX. SOUTH DAKOTA. Section 17 of the bill of rights provides that "all taxation shall be equal and uniform. ' "All taxes to be raised in this state shall be uniform on all real and personal property, according to its value in money, to be ascertained by such rules ol appraisement and assessment as may be prescribed by the legislature by general law, so that every per- son and corporation shall pay a tax in proportion to the value of his, her or its property." Section 2, Article XI. Under Section 4 personal property includes all moneys, stocks, bonds, credits, etc. Section 6 authorizes the legislature to exempt property used for public, religious, etc., purposes, and also personal property not ex- ceeding $200 to each individual. "All laws exempting property from taxation, other than that enumerated in sections 5 and 6 of this article, shall be void." Section 7. The legislature limited tue individual exemption to $25 in house- hold goods. TENNESSEE. "All property, real, personal or mixed, shall be taxed, but the legislature may except such as may be held by the state, by coun- ties, cities or towns, and used exclusively for public or corporation purposes, and such as may be held and used for purposes purely religious, charitable, scientific, literary or educational, and shall except one thousand dollars worth of personal property in the hands of each taxpayer, and the direct product of the soil in the hands of the producer, and his immediate vendee." Section 28, Article II. The state courts have held that laws making other exemptions are void, and that the exemption of $1,000 personal property applies to all persons, including married women, and also that the exemption applies to state, county and municipal taxation. Section 30 provides that "No article manufactured of the product of this state, shall be taxed otherwise than to pay inspection fees." This only applies when the article is in the possession of the manufacturer. CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS. TEXAS. Section 1, Article XIII, provides that taxation shall be uniform and equal, and that "all property" shall be taxed. Exemptions as to property held for public, religious, etc., purposes, and also "that two hundred and fifty dollars worth of household and kitchen fur- niture, belonging to each person in this state, shall be exempt from taxation;" also, "Farm products in the hands of the producer, and family supplies for home and farm use are exempt from all taxa- tion." The state tax is limited to 35 cents per $100, exclusive of public debt and school pxirposes, and county, city or town levies are limited to 25 cents per $100, except that 15 cents more mav be levied for roads and bridges. UTAH. Section 22 of the Bill of Eights provides that: "Private prop- erty shall not be taken or damaged for public use without" just compensation.'' The legislature is prohibited from enacting local laws regarding the assessment and collecting of taxes. Section 26, Article VI. Section 2, Article XIII, provides that: "All property in the state, not exempt under the laws of the United States, or under this con- stitution shall be taxed in proportion to its value. The word prop- erty, as used in this article, is hereby declared to include moneys, credits, bonds, stocks, franchises and all matters and things (real, personal and mixed) capable of private ownership." Section 3 ex- empts property used for public, religious, charitable, and burial purposes, and also all ditches, canals and flumes used for irrigating purposes. The tax rate for state purposes is limited to eight mills on the dollar. VEEilONT. The constitution makes no provision as to what propertj' shall be taxed or exempt from taxation, except this general provision in Article 9, Chapter 1: "That every member of society hath a right to be protected in the enjoyment of life, liberty and property, and therefore is bound to contribute his proportion towards the expense of that protection." The bill of rights provides that private prop- erty- shall not be taken for public use without compensation. The legislature has enacted an exceedingly liberal tax exemiption law, exempting all property used for public, "pious," or charitable, etc., purposes; and also household furniture to the amount of $500 to every person, and also all tools, implements, libraries, family pro- visions, live fowls to value of $20, all young domestic animals under four months old, hay and feed sufficient to winter the stock, etc. Also where a person builds a residence on unoccupied, neglected or pasture land, such improvements and buildings are exempt from taxation for five years. 142 THE LAND QUESTION. WASHINGTON. Section 16, Article I, provides that private property shall not be taken for public use without just compensation. Local laws for the assessment or collection of taxes are forbidden. "All property in this state not exempt under the laws of the United States, or under this constitution, shall be taxed in proportion to its value.'' Section 1, Article VII. Section 2 provides that this shall be done by general laws and "so that every person and corporation shall pay a, tax in proportion to the value of his, her or its property: Provided further, that the property of the United States, and of the state, counties, school districts, and other municipal corpora- tions, and such other property as the legislature may by general laws provide, shall be exempt from taxation." In addition to the usual exemptions, the legislature has exempted from taxation per- sonal property to each person to the amount of $500, and improve- ments on the land of each person to the amount of $500. All such property shall be listed for taxation and the exemption allowed by the proper ofBoer. The word person is declared to include firms, companies, associations and corporations. WEST VIRGINIA. The bill of rights provides that private property shall not be taken for public use without just compensation. "Taxation shall be equal and uniform throughout the state, and all property, both real and personal, shall be taxed in proportion to its value. * * * But property used for educational, literary, scientific, religious or charitable purposes; all cemeteries and public property may, by law, be exempted from taxation." Section 1, Article X. Section 48, Article VI, provides that homesteads of the value of $1,000, and personal property to the amount of $300 may be "exempt from forced sale." Provided, "that no property shall be exempt from sale for taxes due thereon.'' VIRGINIA. "Taxation, * * * shall be equal and uniform, and all prop- erty, both real and personal, shall be taxed in proportion to its value." Section 1, Article X. "The legislature may exempt all property used exclusively for state, county, municipal, benevolent, oharita.ble, educational and religious purposes." Section 3. WISCONSIN. "The property of no person shall be taken for public use with- out just compensation therefor." Section 13 of Bill of Eights. "The rule of taxation shall be uniform, and taxes shall be levied upon such property as the legislature shall prescribe." Sec- tion 1, Article VIII. The exemption from taxation prescribed by the legislature include wearing apparel, portraits and libraries not to exceed $200, and household furniture to extent of $200, family CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS. J 43 provisioDS for six montlis, and also growing crops; and also many exemptions to corporations too numerous to enumerate here. WYOMING. "No person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law. Private property shall not be taken or dam- aged for public or private use without just compensation." Bill of Eights. "All property, except as in this constitution otherwise provided, shall be uniformly assessed for taxation, and the legislature shall prescribe such regulations as shall secure a just valuation for taxa- tion of all property real and personal." Section 11, Article XV. Lands and improvements are required to be assessed separately. The legislature is authorized to make tax exemptions. The levy for state purposes is limited to four mills on the dollar, for county purposes to twelve mills, and town and city assessments are limited to eight mills, except for payment of debts. The legislature has made the usual exemptions of property used for public and re- ligious, etc., purposes, and also household furniture and family sup- plies to the value of $100. The territories have no constitutions, and exemtions are made by local territorial laws until they become states, at which time tax emptions are made in the new state constitutions and statutes. CoJtMBNTS ON THE CONSTITUTIONS. The Federal Constitution. — Tlie object in making the above quotations from our federal and state constitutions is to enable those who are interested in any kind of land reform to ascertain at a glance what constitutional restrictions there may be, if any, in the way of the proposed reform. There are at least three general plans or systems of land reform now being proposed, viz: pirst — The single^ tax system, by which all taxes are levied on land alone, and all personal property and improvements on real estate are to be entirely exempted from taxation. Second — The system of exempting from taxation family homesteads, and of imposing heavy stamp duties on all con- veyances of real estate not used or intended to be used as family homesteads, and also restricting the amount of real estate exclusive of improvements that may be owned by any one person, firm or corporation, and establishing government agricultural villages for the very poor. 144 THE LAND QUESTIOJf. Third — The system of progressive taxation, by which the rate of taxation shall be increast as individual estates exceed a certain fixed limit of value. Let us first consider these three systems in the light of the constitution of the United States. As to the single tax, it is manifest that Congress would have no authority to enact such a law for the reason that no power is given it to establish any system for the assessment of taxes for the purpose of paying state, county or municipal purposes, or to exempt any prop- erty from- state, county or municipal taxation, and for the further reason that it can only levy a tax on land for the ex- penses of the general government by an apportionment of the same among the states. Again, the avowed object of the single tax is to abolish private ownership of land, and its advocates expressly aver that no compensation is tO' be made to the present owners of the land. It is evident that the single tax system is pro- hibited by that clause in the federal constitution that pro- hibits the taking of private property for public use without just coanpensation ; and also probably by the further clause prohibiting the taking of property without due process of law. As to the second system above mentioned it is evident that Congress has no authority to exempt homesteads from state, county or municipal taxation. Local governments must be supported by local taxation by the local governments and they must make such special exemptions as they deem wise and just. But as to the second part of the system it is clear that Congress has the power to levy stamp duties on conveyances of land. Such laAvs are now in force, and they have frequently been enacted hy Congress in the past, and the stamp duties are graded by the value of the land conveyed. It is therefore evident that it can pass a general stamp law on conveyances of real estate levying a stamp duty of a certain fixt per cent, of the value of the real estate conveyed for speculation or investment purposes, and exempt from such stamp duties all conveyances of land that is to be used as a family homestead up to a certain value of the land conveyed. As to the third part of said system it is not clear th.at the COK"STITUTIOSAL PEO VISIONS. 145 general government has authority to hmit estates. But as to tlie fourth part of said system, there seems to be nothing in the federal constitution prohibiting the federal government from establishing and maintaining national agricultural vil- lages for the benefit of poor families. It has j)urchas6d land and establisht home* all over the nation for our ex-soldiers and sailors, and if it can lawfully do so for the benefit of one class of our citizens, it can do so for any other class. As to the third system of taxation above mentioned, it is evident that Congress has no authority to require the local authorities to levy a progi^essive tax. It cannot itself levy a direct tax on land, but if it desires to levy such tax it must apportion the tax among the states and they levy such tax according to their local tax laws. But the general govern- ment can do much to restrain the creation of large estates thruout the countiy; first, by heavy stamp duties on coaivey- ances of lands purchast for sj^eculative purposes; and second, by progTessive inheritance taxes; and thirdly by a graded in- come tax. In this way the general government can largely, if not entirely, relieve the people of the entire nation of the heavy load of government taxation that is now throvm upon them by our tariff and internal revenue laws, and also greatly encourage the poor and middle classes to purchase homes in both town and country. This being done, the states can be depended on to prohibit homes from being mortgaged or taken on execution, and also to relieve them from taxation tO' a rea- sonable extent, altho many of them would have to amend their state co'iistitutions as to tax exemption. All this will multiply our homesteads ten-fold and break up the most of our large landed estates. It is therefore evident that there is nothing in the federal constitution to prevent Congress from enacting the above out- lined system of laws that will greatly restrain or entirely stop the rapid gro^wth of land monopoly that is now going on in this country as clearly shown by our government land statis- tics, gradually dissipate our present large estates, greatly mul- tiply small homesteads in town, city and country, and furnish a home in government agricultural villages for all indigent 146 THE l^AND QUESTION. families who- may desire to make an independent living by tilling the soil. The remedy is clear and the way is open whenever the people and their servants in Congress desire to take action on the great question of restraining land monopoly and promoting homesteads. The State Constitutions. — Keeping in view the above mentioned three proposed systems of land reform, let us now see what obstructions there are to them in O'Ur state constitu- tions. It will be noticed that in the most of them there are one or more of the follo'wing provisions that stand in the way of a reform by the various states of onr land laws: First. Provisions that all taxation shall be equal and uni- form, or that theire shall be a uniform and equal rate of tax- ation. These clauses would doubtless render nugatory pro- gressive tax legislation, and they might also be construed so as to render void such wholesale exemptio'ns as are co'iutem- plated by the single tax and homestead exemption plans. Second. All those provisions requiring that both re'al and pereoual property shall be taxt. These provisioins a.re fatal to the single tax plan for the exemption from taxation of all personal property and improvements on real estate, and they might be construed as prohibiting the exemption of such a large part of the real estate as would be exempt under the plan to exempt homesteads from taxation. Third. All those provisions declaring that no exemptions shall be made by the legislature except those expressly made in the constitutions or such as may be authorized by the con- stitutions for the purposes therein named. All these pro- visions are fatal to both single tax exemptions and homestead exemptions. Fourth. All those provisions limiting the tax assessment to a certain rate. These provisions are fatal to the single tax system, for if all personalty and improvements should be ex- empted, the rate on the land ^vO'uld have to be very much higher than any of the limits fixt in our state constitutions in order to furnish sufficient funds to pay the public expenses. Fifth. All those provisions requiring that aU property shall be taxt, and that it shall be taxt according to its true value. CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS. 147 Of ■course the pikrase "all property" precludes tine exemptian of personal propearty and improvements under tlie single tax system, and it "would probably prevent homestead -exempitions. The ckiise, "according to its true value," wonld pTobably pre^ ■^lemt progressdve taxation, altho this is not clear, as pro- gressive taxation may have reference to increasing the rate or per cent, on all property above a certain amount owned by any one person. But there are a few of the constitutions that require that the rate shall be unifomi and equal, and these would prevent progressive taxation. Sixth. There are a few of the oonstitutiiams that provide that every person shall contribute his proper portion towards the expenses of government according tO' his' aetual worth. They would probably prohibit the single tax and possibly homestead exemptions, and it is quite certain that they would prohibit progressive taxation. Seventh. Many of the state constitutions provide that pri- vate property shall not be taken for public use ^^'ithout just compensation to the owner. As we have seen, this is fatal to the single tax. This clause in the federal constitution will prevent the adoption of single' tax even in states that do not have this clause in their state constitutions, for all suits con- cerning the validity of a single tax law would on this point involve a federal question under said clause of the federal constitution, and if the state courts sustained the law all such cases could be appealed tO' the Supreme Court of the United States, where the federal constitution would be applied. Therefore a single tax law, even in the state of Connecticut, where the way seems to be entirely open so far as the state constitution is concerned, would probably be declared void under the above clause of the federal constitution. Eighth. Many of the state constitutions prohibit local or special laws for the assessment of taxes, and provide that all taxation must be made thru general laws. These provis- ions prevent the legislature from gTanting to towns, cities or counties the right to experiment on neiw systems of taxation, as was attempted by the legislature of Maryland when it granted to the town of Hyattsville the privilege of adopting 148 THE LAND QUESTION. a system of taxation similar in some respects to the single tax, but which law was declared unconstitutional. The constitu- tion of Maryland provides that every person "ought to con- tribute his proportion of public taxes for the support of the government according to his actual worth in real or personal property." The legislature passed a law authorizing the com- missioners of the town of Hyattsville to exempt the personal property of the town from taxation. The commissioners con- strued the law to mean that they could also exempt improve- ments from taxation, and they thereupon exempted both per- sonal property and improvements. The Supreme Court held that under the above clause of the constitution the legislature had no power to enact a law exempting or authorizing the town to exempt from taxation either personal property or im- provements. RELIGION OF THE LAXD QUESTION. 149 RELIGION OF THE LAND QUESTION. By Ernest H. Crosby, Xew York. The religions of all primitive peoples have given a large place to the worship of the earth, which is represented as a goddess, vfhile the sky is usually personified as a god, and from their union are descended gods and men. Hence comes the ' almost universal idea of "Mother Earth." This conception seems to be natural to human beings living in close proximity to the forces and phenomena of plain and forest, and in our artificial world it is not easy to reproduce it. The earth is indeed our mother, and from her bosom we draw our nourish- ment; and this is scarcely a poetical hyperbole or fig-ure of speech. Plutarch tells us that Isis was the earth itself, and Diodorus says that the Egyptians considered the earth as the parent of all things, and called her "mother" as the Greeks called her Demeter, which name suggests motherhood. Under the name Gaea, or Ge, the Hellenic peoples adored the earth as the mother of the gods and of the hiunan race, and the all-powerful protectress and creator as well as destroyer of all things. (jSTosselt's Greek and Roman Mythol- ogy, Part I, Chap. 3.) The goddesses Cybele, Rhea, Ops and Ceres are other representatives of the same radical idea. The legend of Antaeus embodies an allegorical picture of the relation of man to the earth which is still instructive. He was the son of Ge, the earth, and he compelled all strangers who past thru his country, Libya, to -wi'estle with him. Every time he was thro^vn the contact with his mother gave him fresh strength, and this fact enabled him tO' vanquish all com- ers. At last, however, Hercules discovered his secret, and holding him up in the air where he could not touch the ground, he crashed him to death. If men are shut out from the earth and its bounties they must indeed necessarily perish. In the Teutonic and Scandinavian tribes of the JSTorth the same in- 150 THE LAND QUESTION. stincts produced the same religious beliefs. Tacitus says of the Germans (Germ. 40), "Terram matrem colunt, eamque inter- veuire rebus hominum arbitrantur/' and he gives a beautiful description of the way in which they worshipt her. With the thought once well establisht that men are all chil- dren in common of Mother Earth, it is quite natural to sup- pose that these early religions should have discountenanced discrimination in favor of some of the children and against the rest. Certainly it would be a most unnatural mother who should, with ample nourishment for all, take one babei to her breast and starve another. And so we find in the earliest records of history that the ideal of equal rights in the land is always upheld by the leading thinkers and reformers, and the early custo^ms of ancient nations conform in a great degree to this ideal. All civilized peoples seem to^ have past thru a period of communal ownership of the soil. In Russia this sys- tem has survived to the present day, and until recently Slavo- phils were fond of pointing to the fact as proof of the peculiar aptitude of their race for co-operative action, but recent re- searches show that similar laws once obtained thruout Europe and elsewhere. We find village communities holding land in common in the historj^ of India, China, Peru and Germany as well as in the Slavic countries. (Laveleye, Primitive Prop- erty, Chap. I.) The Latin poets, Seneca, Ovid, Virgil and the rest, refer frequently to the Golden Age when land was free to all, and at the present time the Indians of Xorth America and the negroes of South Africa cannot grasp the idea of pri- vate property in land. The assertions of the old chroniclers in all lands that the founders of their respective commonwealths divided the soil equally among the citizens, appear so regu- larly, and in such similar terms as to suggest that they copied from each other; but that, of course, was impossible. Thus Herodotus declares that "Sesostris divided the soil of Egypt among the inhabitants, giving each a portion of land of equal extent, and deriving his principal revenue from the rent which the occupiers had to pay every year." (II, 109.) Lycurgus is said in like manner to have allotted the land in equal shares to the Spartans, and long after him Agis and Cleomenes at- RELIGION or THE LAND QUESTION. 151 tempted with more or less success to revive liis land-laws. Both Plato and Aristotle recommend the equal division of the sur- face of the earth, and in their philosophies, so different in other respects, they unite to nerpetuate this early religious conception of their ancestors. ISTor is Rome an exception to the rule; Romulus is also depicted as a divider of the land among his followers, and in the Roman Republic the tradi- tion survived as a thing of power, and the Gracchi may well have appealed to it in their noble and disinterested efforts to recover the lost rights of the plebeians in the land. The elo- quent words which Plutarch puts into the mouth of Tiberius Gracchus are still capable of stirring the blood of those who read them: "The savage beasts in Italy have their particular dens; they have their place of repose and refuge; but the men who bore arms and exposed their lives for the safety of their countiy enjoyed in the meantime nothing more in it but the fresh air and sunshine; and having no houses or settlements of their 0"WQ, were constrained to wander from place to place with their wives and children. The commanders were guilty of a ridiculous error, when, at the head of their armies, they ex- horted the common soldiers to fight for their sepulchres and altars, when not any amongst so many Romans is possessed of either altar or monument, neither have they any houses of their own, or seats of their ancestors to defend. They fought indeed and were slain, but it was to maintain the luxury and the wealth of other men. They were likewise styled the lords of the universe, but in the meantime had not one foot of ground which they could call their o-\vn." It is quite possible that the tradition which ascribes to the founders of commonwealths the division of the land had its origin in the actual adoption of such a course in the case of conquered countries, for the lands of a vanquished foe were commonly assigned to the soldiery in ancient times; but we may also surmise that this tradition points back to the days of communal ownership, and perhaps to the first and equal allot- ment of the soil when such oiwnership is at last abandoned. One thing stands out, however, in all these early legends, and 152 THE LAND QUESTION. that is the connection between these equable land laws and the religion of the people. Lyeurgns and the other founders of states are represented as religions teachers as well as law- givers; and they assume to give to every citizen a stake in the soil of his conntrv with the divine sanction. This is notabh' the case with the founder of the ancient re- ligion from Avhich oau- o"wn is sprung, iloses, the great man whose name emerges from the obscurity of tradition at the very beginning of authentic Hebrew history, founded a re- ligion as well as a nation, and he and his followers always de- voted special attention to the laws relating to the ownership of land, ^^'e need not go back to the Israelitish account of the Fall, wherein we are told that the Creator directed man to replenish the earth and subdue it, and gave him the herbs and trees to produce his nourishment, nor to the picture of the free, wandering pastoral people who, in the time of Abraham and Jacob, past at will over the face of the Eastern lands, except to remark that when Abraham sciiarated himself from Lot and called his attention to the fact that there was plenty of land for all, he was asserting a truth which is as well-founded now as it was then. We miss altogether the distinguishing feature of the origin of the Jewish Church if we fail to note its economic character. The great jiopular upheaval in which the forces were engendered that took final shape in the new state and cult was nothing more nor less than a gigantic strike of the oppressed brick-makers of Egypt — the first strike in fact on record — and Closes, the law-giver, general and ruler, and his brother Aaron, the high-priest, began their notable careers by exercising the functions of walking-delegates before Pharaoh. Tt was a contest between capital and labor of the ordinary kind which brought forth the Jewish Church, and thru it the Christian Church as well. "And the Egyptians made the children of Israel to serve with rigor, and they made their lives bitter with hard bondage, in mortar and in brick, and in all manner of service in the field." (Exodus, 1, 1:3-1-1:.) It was the desire for easier work and shorter hours, for in- dustrial justice, which drove the Hebrews out into the desert, and the religion whieli ]\Ioses taught them connected itself EELIGION OF THE LAND QUESTION. 153 with the eL-ononiic condition of the people, and almost exclu- sively treated of their duties to each other in this life. In their fundamental law, the Ten Commandments, we find the longest statute of all (the Fourth Commandment) devoted to the establishment of a day of rest. This is a labor statute, pure and simple. AVe sometimes imagine that the Sabbath was de- signed for the honor of God, and we designate our substitute for it as the "Lord's Day," but this is a gTeat mistake. Christ tells us that the Sabbath was made for man; and if we ac- cepted his view of it we should call it "ilan's Day." Fancy the position of the Israelitish fugitives. They had just es- caped a terrible industrial tyranny, and in their first law they give the largest place to a |d:atute providing that no man should work more than six days in the week. In Egypt they had worked seven days in the week (there is no day of rest now in the Xineteenth Century for the fellaheen of the Delta), and what a natural thing it was for them to raise to a position of distinction in their Constitution the idea of repose from labor! This restriction of the days of work to six is an ex- cellent precedent for an eight hour day. The principle is the same. If idleness may be prescribed for certain days, so may it with equal reason for certain hours. And yet the Supreme (^ourt of Illinois has declared a law unconstitutional which limited the hours of work for women in factories, on the ground that it infringed their right to life, liberty, and prop- ert}'! The women of Illinois can thank the Constitution for the inestimable privilege of working twenty-four hours a day! Is it not a parody on justice to decide a case in faA-or of a cor- poration and against its employees, and then pretend, in the language of the opinion of the Court, that the decision is in favor of the latter? A few years ago an enterprising member introduced the Ten Commandments as a bill in the legislature of Kansas. I have never heard what its fate was, but if it past, the Foiirth Commandment prescribing a six days week would have to be held unconstitutional according to the ruling in Illinois! Already at the' time of the promulgation of the Ten Com- mandments we see taking form and substance the ruHng 154 THE LAND QUESTlOIf. .thought of the Hebrew race, the thought of the "Promised Land." All their religious visions centred in the picture of a rich and abundant soil, "flowing with milk and honey," equally shared by every descendant of Jacob. We must re- member that at that early day justice was not extended to foreigners. The laws of Lycurgus, for example, were abso- lutely impartial to the Spartans, but they left the slaves, the Helots, unprotected and unprovided for. We can not well criticise this^ — we who', while we pronounced the' most elo- quent sentiments of brotherhood and equality in our Decla- ration of Independence, held a nation of slaves in subjection, and who still at the i>resent time deny all rights worth speak- ing of to Indians and Filipinos. It is no wonder then that Moses restricted in part his grand ideas of justice tO' his own race, altho in the books which bear his name there are some noble passages which show that at their best the ancient Hebrews could attain to the conception of universal brother- hood; such for instance as the following: "Love ye there- fore the stranger, for ye wea-e strangers in the land of Egypt." (Denteronomy, 10, 19). This dream of the "Promised Land," I say, which so dominated the soul of the race, this paradise of justice on earth which the chosen people were to enjoy, reveals itself in the Ten Commandments. In the Fifth Commandment we read: "Honor thy father and thy mother that thy days may be long upon the land which the Lord thy God giveth Thee." "The land which the Lord thy God giveth thee" — ^what pregTiant words these are! !N"ote the singular number. Each individual is entitled to his part in that land. AVe often speak of "our country," just as the fool- ish Roman soldiers did, when we have no right to a square foot of it. Is it not absurd for a landless mail to sing, "Ml/ country, 't is of thee?" We repeat the Ten Commandments in onr Sunday Schools. Suppose some bright child, after reciting the Fifth Command- ment, should ask his teacher where the land was that God had given him; what would the teacher answer? He would have to tell him that others have taken his land away; that wlien we say such things we do not mean them, and that our EELIGIOIir OF THE LAUD QUESTION. 155 religio'n when it coines down to tbe things, of this earth is a farce and a sham. Moses meant what he said; we don't; that is the difference between a live religion and a dead one. And with what wisdom Moses and his successors carried out the principle of equal rights in land implied by this com- mandment ! They developt the idea of tbe Fourth Command- ment, which as we have seen, was- a labor statute, into a com- plete system of industrial and agrarian justice, and made the Sabbath the basis of that system. Each seventh year was to be a sabbatical year, and field and vineyard were to remain unsown and unpruned; "it is a year of rest unto the land." (Leviticus, Chap. 25.) After seven such weeks of years came the year of jubilee, and in that fiftieth year every piece of land returned to its original possessor. It was to be a year of freedom! "And ye shall hallow the fiftieth year, and pro- claim liberty thruout all the land imto all the inhabitants thereof; it shall be a jubilee unto you, and ye shall return every man unto his possession, and ye shall return every man unto his family." All sales of land were made upon this understanding and no Israelite could permanently disinherit himself from the soil. "The land shall not be sold forever, for tbe land is mine; for ye are strangers and sojourners with me." ]^o Hebrew was to hold another as a slave; he might bind him over to serve him as a hired servant, but even then he was to go free in the year of jubilee. Thus tbe Sabbath stood for the ancient Jew as the symbol of social justice and mercy, while in our .day it has become a mere fetish, entirely divorced from all considerations of the kind, and diverted from its original objects in the world in which we live to the formal recognition of a future life which makes no uncom- fortable demands upon our present economic relations. That these wise laws of the Mosaic code were ever, or for any long period, carried out according to their intent, is ex- tremely doubtful. The "Promised Land" was never such a Utopia as its projectors had dreamed, and it never is; but the grand ideal of a free people in a free land was always before the loftiest minds of Israel. The Psalmist often raises up his voice on behalf of the poor and opprest: "The wicked - , -J 156 THE LAND QUESTION. in his pride doth persecute the poor ; let them be taken in the devices that they have imagined. . . Arise, Lord; God, lift up thy hand; forget not the humble." (Psalms, 10, 2 and 12.) In another place he tells us that "the heaven, even the heavens, are the Lord's, but the earth hath he given to the children of men." (Psalms, 115, 16.) The prophets are not unmindful of the lost rights of the people in the land. When King Ahab and his wicked wife, Jezebel, coveted the vineyard of Xaboth to make a garden of herbs of it as it adjoined his palace, the owner answered with all the pride of an Israelite who knew the privileges to which he was entitled under the law, "The Lord forbid it me, that I should give the inheritance of my fathers unto thee." And when they had compast his death and had seized the estate, the prophet Elijah came and denounced the King to his face. The main function of the prophets was that of social reformers; of rep- resentatives of the opprest people; of leaders in the protest against tyranny of all kinds. The spirit of revolt and rebel- lion against despotism and injustice breathes thruout their utterances, and the popular idea that they spent most of their time in making obscure guesses at particular future events is altogether beside the mark. They held u}) the ideal of a perfect commonwealth when the whole world "shall beat their swords into plough-shai-es and their spears into pruning- hooks; nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more." (Isaiah, 2, 4.) The king- dom of David should be establisht "with judgTQent and with justice from henceforth even forever." (lb. 9, 7.) Isaiah, whom we have just quoted, was the grandest of this noble line of men, and he was especially awake- to the evils of in- equality in land-holding. "Wo imto them," he cries, "that join house to house, that lay field to field, till there be no place, that they may be placed alone in the midst of the earth." (Isaiah, 5, 8.) "Ye have eaten up the vineyard; the spoil of the poor is in your houses. AYhat mean ye that ye grind my people to pieces, and grind the faces of the poor? saith the Lord God of hosts." (lb. 3, 14-15.) And in the 65th chapter of Isaiah (whose author may indeed have been EELIGION OF THE LA:S^D QUESTION. 157 a second Isaiah, as great as the fii'st) we read, "They shall build houses and inhabit them, and they shall plant vineyards and eat the fn;it of them. They shall not build and another in- habit; they shall not plant and another eat." (vv. 21-2.) Amos is equally emphatic in his arraignment O'f those "who store up violence and robbery in their palaces." "And I will smite the winter house with the^ summer house, and the houses of ivory shall perish, and the great houses shall have an end, saith the Lord." (Amos, 3, 10 and 15.) Under the teaching of the proi>hets the people gradually formed the hope and exiiectation of the coming of a great king who should make justice to reign on earth and usher in a state of universal peace. This was the "AEessiah," the "Anointed One," who thiii Israel was to reform the world. These prophecies Jesus took tO' himself and the word "Christ" is the Greek translation of "Messiah" or "anointed." The Messiah was to be a great reformer on earth, and Jesus in taking that name assiuned the same rOle. His kingdom, the "kingdom of heaven," or "kingdom of God," was to be es- tablisht in this world; it was "within you;" his disciples were to pray that it might "come on earth as it is in heaven;" it was "at hand." It had to do with this present life just as clearly as the laws of Moses and the ]\Iessiah of the prophets. The very word "Gospel" is taken from Christ's sermon at Nazareth, where, quoting from Isaiah, he announces that he has been "anointed to preach good tidings to the poor." (Luke, 4, 18.) "Gospel" is old English for "good tidings;" "anointed" as we have seen, means ""Messiah" and "Christ;" and thus in this one sentence taken from the greatest prophet we behold Jesus accepting the mission of the anointed jMessiah and expi-essly addressing it to "the poor." If we turn back to the passage in Isaiah (61, 1) and the verses immediately preceding and following it, we shall see that it has exclusive reference to a golden age on earth. "Thy people also shall be righteous; they shall inherit the land forever." Justice, justice on earth, is the burden of the Golden Eule and the natural fruit of loving your neighliov as vourself. Jesus gives us these general principles and leaves 158 THE LAND QUESTION. US often to apply ttein, but it is evident that if we did unto others as we. would have them do to us and loved them, as ourselves, the resulting justice could not very well overlook OUT relations to the land upon which we live. He felt keenly the treatment which he suffered at the hands of those who owned the soil of his native country, and points out that the birds and foxes were accorded greater rights in the land than he was, and one of the features of his perfected kingdom will be, as he tells us, that the meek shall "inherit the earth." (Matt., 5, 5.) For a time the equal fraternal rights of each member of their community were recognized by the early Christians. They lived at first at Jerusalem in a state of communism, and the great Christian feast, the "Communion," or "koinonia," means "communism." St. Barnabas in his epistle (undoubt- edly an authentic work) says: "Thou shalt communicate to thy neighbor of all thou hast; thou shalt not call anything thine own; for if ye partake in such things as are incor- ruptible, how much more should ye do it in things that are corruptible?" (Barnabas, 14, 16.) And the early fathers of the church repeatedly u.rged that the brotherhood of men implied by the fatherhood of Grod was not to be confined to the world to come, but ought to show itself in the distribution of the products of nature and labor in this. Clement of Alex- andria, Ambrose, and Chrysostom were especially insistent upon this view of Christian "communion." Lactantius in his "Divine Institutes" (Circ. 300 A. D.), says: "God has given the earth in common to all that they might pass their life in common, not that mad and raging avarice might claim all things for itself; and that that which was produced for all might not be wanting to any." (Lactantius, Divine Insti- tutes, Book V, Chap. 5, Ante-:N'icene Fathers, Vol. YII, 140-1.) But unfortunately this preaching had little perma- nent effect, and Christianity made the serious mistake of post- poning the "promised land" to a future existence and confin- ing its practice of Christian "communion" in this life to a brief ecclesiastical ceremony. And even here real brother- hood was often denied, for until recently it was the custom in EELIGION OF THE LAND QUESTION. ] 59 English country parishes for the lord of the manor — the land- lord who had succeeded in supplanting the other inhabitants of the neighborhood and in exacting rent from them — it was customary for him and his family to take the communion separately and before the rest of the congregation. But, as has so often been said, man is a land animal and he has never quite forgotten it, and whenever the cry for true fraternal relations has gone forth from his heart, the sin of monopolising the land has become evident again. It wo'uld be interesting to make a thoro examination of the history of popular religious uprisings thruout Europe during the so- called Dark and Middle Ages, and record all that relates to the rights of man to the soil, but that is impossible in the present paper. We may recall, however, the case of the good priest, John Ball, who' was executed in 1381 in the presence of King Richard II for his leading share in the revolt of tlio people under Wat Tyler. He preacht a new order of society founded on complete social equality, which would involve equal rights in land. For centuries historians have blackened his character, and it was left for the poet, Southey, in his drama, "Wat Tyler," and for William Morris in his "A Dream of John Ball," tO' represent him as he really was, a noble champion of genuine Christianity. A curious proof of the fact that the upper classes were not always quite satisfied with their title to the gifts of nature is offered by a prayer "for them that be in Poverty" in Queen Elizabeth's "Private Prayer Book." It reads as follows: "Thou, O Lord, providest enuf for all men with Thy most liberal and bounteous hand, but whereas Thy gifts are, in respect of Thy goodness and free favor, made conrmon to all men, we (thru our naughtiness, niggardship and distrust), do make them private and peculiar. Con-ect Thou the thing which our inequity hath put out of order, and let Thy good- ness supply that which our niggardliness hath plucked away." And to turn back, a few years, we find that noble and pious Catholic statesman. Sir Thomas More, who became a martyr to his faith, taking up the cause of the landless in his "Utopia." "There is a great number of noblemen among 160 THE LAKD QUESTION. 3'on that are themselves as idle as drones, that subsist on other men's labor, on the labor o£ their tenants, whom, to raise their revenues, they pare to the quick." (ilore's Utopia, Book I.) In the Puritan days of the English Commonwealth there were other reformers who went much further in asserting the rights of man than the successful party of Cromwell. The true history of these "levellers" (like so much of the history of the people) has still to be written. One of their leaders, Jerrard Winstanley, wrote a book called "The Law of Free- dom in a Platform, or True Magistracy Restored," and from it we quote the foUomng passage which will show how they based their claim to the earth upon religious principles: "Hear, O Thou Righteous Spirit of the whole creation, and judge who is the thief; he M'ho takes away the freedom of the common earth from me, which is my creation-rights, . . or I, who take the common earth to plant upon for my free live- lihood, endeavoring to live as a free commoner in a free com- monwealth, in righteoiisness and peace?" The same author addresses Lord Fairfax in a letter in these words: "Wc de- mand, 5^ea or no, whether the earth, with her fruits, was made to be bought and sold from one to another? And whether one part of mankind was made lord of the land, and another part a servant, by the Law of Creation before the Fall?" On another occasion he writes to the Protector: "That whicli is yet wanting on your part to be done is this: to see that the oppressor's power be cast out with his person, and to see that the free possession of the land and liberties be put into the hands of the opprest commoners of England." But Cromwell turned a deaf ear to all such appeals, and so liave the authorities in Church and State, as a rule, when- ever the question of the right of the people to land has been brought before them. There have indeed been exceptions, but the ecclesiastics who have uttered this fundamental truth have usually suffered for it. Archdeacon Paley, who in the last century spoke plainly on the subject, and was warned that if he included such a sentiment in his publisht lectures, he would never get a bishoprick, answered: "Bishop or no bishop, it shall go in;'' and in it wemt; but he thereby forfeited RELIGTOy OF THE LAND QUESTION. 161 the promotion which he deserved. These lectures form his work on "Moral and Political Philosophy," in which he says: "We now speak of Property in land, and there is a difficult}' in explaining the origin of this property con- sistently with the law of Nature, for the land was once, no doubt, common, and the question is, how any particular part of it could justly be taken out of the common and so appro- priated to the first owner as to give him a better right to it than others; and what is more, a right to exclude others from it. ^loralists have given many different, accounts of this mat- ter, which diversity alone, perhaps, is a proof that none of them is satisfactory." (Paley's Moral and Political Philos- ophy, Book III, Part 1, Chap. 4.) But a more famous pas- sage in the same work is the following, which won for the author the name of "Pigeon Paley:" "If you should see a flock of pigeons in a iield of corn, and if (instead of each pick- ing where and what it liked, taking just as much as it wanted and no more) you should see ninety-nine of them gathering all they got into a heap and reserving nothing for themselves but the chaff and refuse, keeping this heap for one, and that the weakest, perhaps worst, pigeon of the flock, sitting round and looking on all the winter whilst this one was devouring, throwing 'about and wasting it; and if a pigeon more hardy or hungry than the rest touched a grain of the hoard, all the others instantly flying upon it and tearing it to i^ieces — if you should see this, you wotdd sec nothing more than what is every day jiractist and cstablisht among men." What rea- sonable man would not rather be- the author of this brave truth than a subservient hypocritical archbishop of Canter- bury '{ In France, early in this century, one distinguished son of the church declared himself on the side of the people. The Abbe Lamennais was for many years the favorite of the Vati- can and the idol of the Catholic Church, but his democratic ideas brought him into disfavor and he finally broke alto- gether with the hierarchy. His later works breathe the mes- sage of a pro]fliet, and his writings can well be compared with those of Isaiah. They are now recognised as classics. "You 162 THE LAND QUESTIONS'. are in this world as strangers," he cries. "Go north or south or east or west, and wherever you stop you will find a man to chase you away crying 'This is mine.' And after you have gone thru all the countries of the world, you will come back knowing that there is nowhere a poor bit of land where, as a matter of right, yoair wife can bring forth her first born, where you can rest after tilling the soil, or where at last your children can bury your bones." (Paroles d'un Croyant, Chap. IX.) The land question in Ireland has called the attention of the Catholic Church to popular rights in the soil, and some of the highest prelates have declared themselves unreservedly in favor of those rights. Cardinal Manning, for one, asserted in a letter to Earl Grey that "there is a natural and divine law anterior and superior to all human and civil law, by which every people has a right to live of the fruits of the soil on which they are born and in which they are buried." (^liscel- lanies, Vol. I, p. 239.) The Bishop of Meath is even more imeqiiivocal : "The land, therefore, of every country is the common property of the people of that country," are his words. (Letter to Clergy and Laity of Diocese of Meath, Apl. 2d, 1881.) Father IMcGlynn, the distinguisht associate' of Henry- George, in his attack on private property in land, is the last priest of the Catholic Church who has distinguisht himself in this cause. Excommunicated by the Archbishop of !N^ew York, he never wavered, but. defended himself so ably before the Pope at Pome, that he was re-instated in the priesthood, and to-day he is as outspoken in his support of the Single Tax as he ever was. In his popular lectiire on the "Eather- hood of God and Brotherhood of Man," he says: "The Crea- tor has made ample provision for all men in the store-house of nature and in the faculties and powers of man. To do God's will, we must make room at the Father's table for all his chil- dren." It would be idle to enumerate the clergy of other denominations who believe in freeing the land; there are not a few, and their number is increasing. But Avhy has the church as a whole, the official represents- EELIGIOTf OF THE LAND QUESTION. 163 tive of religion, done so little in spreading a self-evident truth, the denial of which in our society is thecauseofsomTichniiseTy? The error lies, as we have hinted, in the postponement of the "promised land" to a period beyond the grave. The Church has forgotten the "Kingdom of heaven" which Christ sought to establish on earth. Our church is like the ancient church of Egypt in the bosom of which Moses was educated. The Egyptians were the most religious of people, and they thought of nothing but the world to come. The valley of the Nile is full to-day of the most wonderful monuments, and they all relate to the preservation of the bodies of the dead, which was considered necessary for their resurrection. All the ener- gies of Egyptian business, art and craftsmanship seeon to have been absorbed in undertaking. Artists painted their most beautiful pictures for the dead and sealed them up forever. The richest gems, the finest fabrics and furniture were buried in the tomb. ISTot -a palace remains, not a city can be traced, but the cemeteries are still almost perfect. All the best masonry and sculpture were consecrated to those who had passed away. ISTo skill was left to be wasted on the living. And how did these devout people treat their neighbors? No race was ever more cruel : we may read in the book of Exodus of their inhumanity to the Hebrews, and we learn that their religion was exhausted in their sacrifices and processions and in their preoccupation with the next world. Moses saw all this, and how he revolted against it! In all the books of Moses there is not a word said of any future life. There is no reason for supposing that he doubted it, for he knew the Egyptian belief and if he had Abashed to question it he would probably have said so clearly; but he knew that true religion concentrates itself on the present, and that if a man does right now, he will be most likely to do right and go right forever; and in the Ten Commandments the Israelites were taught to think of the present moment. Nor does the teach- ing of the Sermon on the Mount differ essentially from that of iloses in this respect. To love now and to act lo.\dngly now, this it is which mil bring the kingdom of heaven to earth. The Lord's prayer is entirely in the present tense; 164 THE LAND QUESTION. there is not a word in it of "going to heaven when I die," or any sign of solicitude for the future. If we enter the King- dom of Heaven now we shall stay there forever, and to be delivered from evil now is to be so delivered for ever. The "promised land" is no distant spiritual state, but the land in which we are living, and we cannot be good Christians and keep it to ourselves while others lack food and employment. The church has failed to see these truths; it has substituted church-going for economic brotherhood, and ehairity for justice. But as churches become fossilised, there are never wanting prophets to call the race back to its true course. We have seen a French Isaiah in Lamennais, and by his side we may name others who are as tnily prophets of religion as any whose writings are included in the sacred canon. Ruskin, Carlyle, Tolstoi, Edward Carpenter, Emerson, Herron, have all pro- claimed the rights of every man to the earth, and they have done it in the language of religion. But the prophet of all others whose name will ever be inseparably connected with this great subject is ITeniy George. He is indeed a super^ ficial reader who does not feel in his works the undercurrent of deep religious feeling. It is that feature which distin- guishes him from other economists. It is that which has given such vitality to his work. He did not found an eco- nomic school, but he infected his disciples with an enthu- siasm which has made them receive imprisonment and abiTse with joy. He has succeeded in awakening in them something like the ardor and energy of the early Christians. Under his guidance the land-agitation has become essentially a religious movement, and Dr. McGlynn gave true expression to the thought when at the funeral of the great tribune of the people he thrilled the immense audience with these simple words: "There A^'as a man sent from God whose name was Henry George!" BOLTON HALL. 165 TWO PARABLES. "give us this day oue daily" work. The Dog-in-the-Manger (having become highly civilized) said to the Ox: "If you want some of my hay, carvy me on your back; and if your family is to live, I will give them employment feeding me on their milk. The Ox carried him, and the Dog-in the^ Mangeir grew very fat and raised a large family. One day, however, the Ox strayed out into thci field, and having- foiind pasture theo-e, hei sti'uck for shorter houra; "for," said he, "I can get grass in the field nearly as easily as from the manger." The Dog said: "You are ungTateful, for I have kept yO'U from want during all the hard times;" but he had to yield. The Dog-in-the-Manger having made a further advance, said to himself: "It is hard work guarding this hay from dis- honest cattle; besides, the liungTy bulls will toss me. I must take another way. Accordingly, he granted the field to his eldest Pup. When the Ox went out to graze, the Pup commenced an action against him, and the Dogs bit his heels for Trespass. After the Ox had been ejected, he learned to thank the beneficent Dog-in-the-Manger for employing the family at all. Said the Dog: "You lazy beast! ]\rnscle must be ever the slave of brains." Bolton Hall, author of "Even as You and I." THE SYSTEMS AND THE CUSTOMS OF THE ANTS. Professor Halb AVitz has just publisht some interesting observations upon ants, showing their extraordinary organi- zation, which might be called civilization. It appears that among the large white ants some individuals act as "feeders;" the "feeders" do not make food, but simply 166 THE LAITD QUESTION. allow the working ants to feed themselves; and for doing this they are given the largest part of the food. These "feeders". are distinct from the captains or organizers, which have other duties. The Professor believes that the ants that may be seen running about ceaselessly, apparently doing nothing, are feeders, and that they are really giving the rest permis- sion to produce. Herr Dummkopf, however, maintains that these are ants looking for a "feeder" to give them employ- ment feeding themselves. To other ants are assigned the duty of "holding" the spaces where ant hills are or might be made. These leisure-class ants form a sort of upper four hundred and grow very fat, being fed upon the bodies of the common ants, in return for the privilege that they ^extend to the com- munity of living on the sand. They seem also to transfer this privilege in a manner which is curiously acquiesced in by the masses of ants. Consequently large numbers of the working ants die of in- anition; this is regarded as a natural check upon over popu- lation, and it is believed by the Professor, that, were it not for those "feeders," the ant societies would go to pieces. Herr. Dummkopf says he wishes they would. Bolton Hall, author of "Even as You and I." FOEESTBY. 167 FORESTRY. Effects of Forests on the Surroundiog Country and the Results of Their Destruction. First. — Tlie native forests, with their thick undergi-O'Wth, keep the soil shaded and damp. This damp and shaded soil readily absorbs the rain and creates constantly flowing springs and gradual subsoil drainage and feeds and keeps alive the small sterams the year around. "When the forestiS are re- moved the result is that the rain runs off rapidly and forms deep gullies or gulches, the small streams and springs are dry the most of the year and the fa.rms in adjoining valleys are deprived of the beautiful moisture distributing small streams dtiring the hot, dry seasons of the year, and live! stock must be yatered from "wells. One of the difficult and expensive things connected with thei restoration of forests, is the filling up, or damming tip at in- ten'als, the deep gullies that are fonned^ by the rapid flow of the water after the forests were re'moved. This must be done or the water will continue to flow off rapidly even after the forests have been restoTed. The sudden and quick rushing of water from themountains, slopes and hillsides, due tO' rem'oval of the foi^ests, also proi- duee most disastrous overflows of the streams in the valleys during the rainy seasons, which were, wholly unknown befoi© the destruction of the forests; and during the dry seasons the small streams dry up, and the large streams arei much more shallow than they formerly wei'e. The destimction of the forests on the plateaus and mountain sides tributarj' to the Hudson river has lessened its average depth nearly five feet. Second. — Forests are a protection to the farms aiid all forms of vegetable and animal life upon them, against the cold winds of winter and the fierce wind storms and drying winds of summer. The strong and almost constant winds in. 168 THE LAND QUESTION. prairie countries are not only very annoying to. the in.habitants, but they are also very injurio'us in many wiays to crops and live stock. These winds are greatly modified by planting- for- ests at frequent intervals. Third. — Forests modify the temperature of the country sun-ounding them. Their gTeen, leaves, cooling shade and moist soil have a marked effect in lowering the temperature in suinmer time. Their cool atmosphere rises, and this causes slight breezes to blow almost constantly in their neighborhood. Fourth. — Perhaps from both a sanitary as well as a ma- terial point of view, the moist-ure that is given off by forests thru their green leaves to the atiruosphere of surrounding country is of greater importance than anything else. This moisture or humidity is supplied by forests with great reg- idarity, even in times of drouth. This modsturei not. only regulates the humidity of the air of the surrounding coun- try, but it also regulates and produces a uniformity of tem- perature. It is estimated that a forest, ^vith its millions of green leaves and its moist soil, will give off more moisturei to the surrounding country than will a lake or river of like area. A square f oiot of leaf surface will exhale aqueo'UB vapor at the rate of one and a quarter ounces per day. From these, facts it is evident that forests have a great deal to do with the at- mospheric condition and more particularly the humidity of tlie atmosphere of a country. Another important feature: is that the amount of humidity given off by forests does not depemd upon the temperature of the atmosphere, as is tine case with evaporation from bodies r streams of water. Leaves give off their moisture regard- less of temperature, thus giving a uniformity of atmobpheric humidity, even in coiol wea.ther, that cannot be secured in any other way. The dryer the atmosphere the more moisture they give off. They thus automatically regulate the humidity of the atmosjihere and supply moisture when it is most needed. Fiftli. — From the foregoing facts it is evident that forests have a considerable effect upon the rainfall of a country. Es- pecially is the humid a.tniosphere of a forest country produc- tive of those frequent a.nd gentle showers that are so be.ne- FOEESTEY. J 69 ficial to growing crops, grass, fruit trees, vines, etc., and which are so useful in laying the dust and purifying and cooling the atmosphere. The currents of cool air arising from forests intercept and redxice th© temperature of the rain clouds, and the resultant condensation produces rain in the adjoining dis- tricts. Si-rtli. — From an agricultural point of view, the power of forests to supply the adjoining soil with underground mois- ture, is alsOi most important. The soft, moist and leaf cov- ered soil of forests rapidly absorbs the rain, and being pro- tected from the sun by the forests and coating of fallen leaves, and also by the aid of the. roots, it holds this water for a long time and gradually diffuses it thru the ground to the adjoininig fields anid supplies their crops with moisture. In all soils there is a level of subsoil or ground moisture which feeds the roots of the grass or plants growing in them. In countries where" the fonests have been destroyed, this level of subsoil moisture has fallen as much as ten inches, and the soil became almost barren. This 'gradual and constant sup- ply of underground moisture to grass and grO'mng crops by adjoining forests is a matter of the greatest importance to the agricultural interests of a c.ountry. ISi'uenth. — From a chemical and sanitary point of view forests are very important toi all animal life, for the reason that they absorb the poisonous carbonic acid gas that is thrown off from the lungs of animals and human beings. They also give off oxygen, ozone, and resinous and balsamic vajDors which are soi necessary and beneticial to animal life. Tliere- fore, trees are useful and almost in-\'aliiable agents in purify- ing the air in populous to^vns and cities. Ttees should be planted in the yards and along the streets of towns and cities, and there should also be numerous open squares with trees planted in them, and the forests adjoining large cities should be preserved as far as possible. Eighth. — Forests supply us with all the vast quantity of wood and timber that are necessary for manufacturing, build- ing and fuel pnrposes. There is already a scarcity of timber in many parts of the United States for these purposes, be- cause of the wasteful destruction of our native forests. 170 THE LAND QUESTION. Ninth. — Forests are also desirable from an esthetic point of view. Tliey add greatly to the beauty of a country. The destruction of forests b}' nations -whicli were igmorant of the foregoing facts hao frequently resultedinlcon verting fer- tile countries into treeless, sandy, gullied, uninhabitable des- erts. Assyria and Persia have especially suffered in this re- gard, and vast scopes of territoi'y in oithecr countries of Asia have been converted into deserts by the destruction of forests. The terrible famines in India and China are the result of drouth caused by the destruction of their forests. Shall we profit by their experience? In Europe, Italy has suffered most from^ this cause. Many portions of that country have bieen almost ruined by the wan- ton destruction of forests. Early in this century, France was fast approaching the danger hme, but by active and vig- orous measures she has partially repaired the damagei done. All of Eiu'ope and Asia is aroused toi the necessity of forest preservation and restoration. While the countries in Europe and Asia have been takimg vigorous measures toi j)reserve and restore their forests, we in the United States, until quite recently, have been doing our utmost to destroy our forests. It is estimated that from 1860 to 1878 we destroyed twelve millions of acres of f arrests in order to bring the land under cultivation', and this is but a sample of our wanton destruction of forests for many pre- vious decades, as well as since then. Until late years we have also carelessly and criminally allowed our forests to be bumled at the rate of millions of acres eveiy year by hunters and campers. The injurious effect of this policy has been seriously ex- perienced in our Eastern statesi, in the change of climate, barrenness of soil and diminution of streams that always re- sult from a destruction of the forests of a country. Many of the former ever-living small streams are now dry during a part of the year. Streams that were formerly navigable are now unnavigable. As already sta,ted, even the water line of the majestic Hudson has been lowered nearly five feet. In the Mississippi valley the tremendous and formerly un- FOEESTEY. J 7 1 known overflows of the streamis of that section, anntially de^ stroying millions of dollars worth of property and many lives, are the direct result of the destruction of the forests of that region and the regions at th© source of those streams. But as we shall see further on, our nation is at last awaken- ing to our danger, and our national govei-nment and many states are taking vigorous measures to restore the damage done and to prevent its repetition. FoEESTEY IN EuEOPE. ISTot only do the govemniients of Europe own immense tracts of forest lands, but they assume general supervisionj over the forests owned by private individuals. A man can- not make a clearing on his land without the consent of the goveimment, and he must replant trees in such portion of his cleared ground as the government officials direct. These matters are determined by the government from, the stand- point of the general good of the whole nation. AVhen it is thought best, the governments buy stich lands as are thought desirable for the purpe&e, and convert them into permanent goveitmient forest lands, such treesbeing planted as are thought to be best suited to the locality, climate and altitude. The governments usually biiy and convert into peiinanent forests the mountain ridges amd slopes and the. lanid surrounding the sources of the rivers. They usually furnish their citizens young trees without cost, and alsiO' ini many ways they e;n- couirage them to plant trees on their farms. The governments have authority to condemn and buy all private lands that should thus be converted into government forests. The vast barren sand dunes along the coasts are also frequently set in trees by the government. Some of these forestry laws begau back in the 13th century, and no country in continental Europe is without a system of stringent forestry laws. In France these laws were not enacted and enforced until the close of the last century, at which time the necessity of such laws were made apparent by the fact that from 1750 to 1791 the forestry area of that country was reduced from 27 per cent, to 10.9 per cent, of the entire area of that cO'Un- 172 THE LAND QUESTION. try. By reason of the e'liactment of forestry laws the forest area was increased to 15.1 per cent, up to- 1881. The destruc- tion of forests was most rapid just after the French' Kevohv tion, when much of the timber land was subdivided into: small parcels among the peasantry. Tbey cut down and sold the timber and began to cultivate the soil. Tine government is now buying muclh of this land and is replanting the forests, where it is deemied necessary and best for the good of the whole country. Proportionate forestry areas in 1876 in the other European nations was as follows: Eussia 40 per cent. Sweden 34 Norway 29^ " Germany 26 Turkey" 22 Switzerland 18 " Greece 14 " Spain 7 Belgium 7 Holland 7 Portugal 5 British Isles 4 " Denmark 3^ " The profits of forestry by governments as well as indi- viduals may be shown by the accounts for 1887 of the for- estry department of the duchy of Saxe-Meiningen in Ger- many. The duchy 0l^\^^s 103,668 acres of forest land, and for that year the receipts from the land on account of the sale of timber, tanbark, nuts, game and from hunting permits, etc., amounted to $411,274.00 While the expenses for salaries, labor, horses, tools, imple- ments, replanting trees, etc., only amounted to. .$165,608.00 Showing a net profit of $248,141.00 or about $2.38 per acre. And the beneficial influence of the forest upon the suiTounding country was incalculable. In most European nations there are schools of forestry. FORESTEY. 173 from which are chosen the forest guards, and these are grad- ually promoted to superintendents, inspectors, etc. In these schools are taught surveying, botany, physics, zoology, mineralogy, chemistry, agriculture, climatology, for- est culture, forest laws, natural history, drainage, etc. A three years course of study is required in addition to the or- dinary common school education. In most countries the tu- ition is free, and some coamtries pay all of the li\dng eixpenses of the students in foirestry. The object is not to' furnish po- litical jobs and sinecures, but to get thoroly drilled and edu- cated foresters. The pay of the foresters is not sufficient for them to save much money, and therefore they are pensioned when they become disabled or too old for active service. FOEESTEY IS AmEEICA. In America we become so accustomed to destroying forests for the purpose of tilling the soil upon which they stood, that for a, long period we took no thought as to the needs of future generatio'ns in this counti-y for forests. Finally so large a part of our country became so denudied of forests, because of the greed of our citizens for tillable soil, and the resnlting climatic changes became so disastrous that oau- citizens and government became imprest with the importance of staying the ruthless hand of the woodman, and of, in part at least, repairing the damage already done. On Xovember 30th, 1886, our State Department sent out the following circular to each consular officer of our govern- ment in foreign countries: DEPARTMENT OP STATE. Washingiioii, November 30, 1886. To the Consular Officers of the United States. Gentlemen: — Yon are instructed to prepare a report covering the following- questions on Forest Culture and Forest Preservation. I would ask you to devote especial attention to the practical phases of the question, that your replies may sene as a basis for framing forestry legislation in this country, where the subject is of great and increasing importance: 1. Areas under forests, dstinguishing, where possible, between state and private areas. 174 THE LAND QUESTION. 2. Common forests, if any, and privileges of the popialation in them. If pasture is permitted, how are the trees, etc., protected? 3. Org'anization and functions of government forest bureaus. 4. Revenues from government forests, cost of maintaining or managing forests; profits of forest cultivation. 5. Forest planting and culture; methods; bounties, if any; schools, their organization and courses of study. 6. Destruction of forests; causes and results. 7. Reclamation of sand dunes or vs^aste places by tree planting. 8. Souirces of lumber supply; trade in lumjber; bounties on im- portation, if any, and custom duties. 9. Give the namee of three reliable sellers of seeds and shoots in your district. 10. Transmit to the Department copies and translations of the Forest Laws of the district in which you reside. The general laws should be for^varded by the Consul-General; the local laws by the Consul. I am. Gentlemen, your obedient servant, JAMES D. PORTER, Assistant Secretary. The Teports of our coinsuls in respo'iise to this circular were very valuable; they -were bound in a separate volumie for dis- tribution by the goveTninent, and much good has resulted therefrom. The Govemment of the United States still o^vns about fifty millions of acres of forest land, the most of which is in the mountainous regions of the Western and l^orth- western States. This comprises alaout 10. 8 Y per cent, of the entire area of the United States, exclusive of Alaska. There being a strong public sentiment for the preservation of these foroets and their permanent ovaiership by the gov- ernment, on March 3, 1891, Congress passed a law gTajiting the President authority to set aside forest lands owned by the government, as permanent government forest reservatio'ns. AVithin the following two^and-a-half years President Harri- son established seventeen forest reserv'ations, aggregating in all over 17,000,000 acres. Feb. 22, 1897, President Clever land issued a proclamation establishing thirteen additional for- est reser^^ations, containing an aggregate area of 21,379,840 acres, located mostly in the ISTorthwestem states, but there was such local opposition to some of these that Congress sus- pended the proclamation temporarily, until extensive surveys FOEESTHT. 175 an'd additional inTestigatioms can be made by the Govern- ment. The law also provided that "the Secretary of the In- terior shall make provision for protection against destruction by fire and depredations upon the public forests and forest reservations, and that he may make such rules and regula- tions, and establish such service as will insure the objects of such reservations, namely, tO' regiilate their occupancy and use, and to preserve the forests thereon from destniction." The government fonest reserves thus far established are as follows: IN COLORADO. The South. Platte Reserve 683,520 acres. The Plum Creek Reserve 179,200 The White River Reserve 1,198,080 The Battlement Jlesa Reserve 858,240 The Pike's Peak Reserve 184,320 Total for Colorado 3,103,360 ' IN CALIEORNIA. The Sieirra Reserve 4,096,000 acres. The San Gabriel Reserve 555,520 " The San Bernardino Reserve 18,560 " The Tarbuco Canoo Reserve 49,920 Total for California 4,720,000 " IN OREGON. The Cascade Res©r\'e 4,492,800 acres. The Bull Run Reserve 742,080 " ' Total foT Oregon 5,234,880 " IX WASHINGTON. The Pacific Reserve 967,680 IN WYOSnNG. The Yellowstone Park Reserve 1,239,040 " IN ARIZONA. The Grand Canon Reserve 1,851,520 IN NEW ilEXICO. The Pecos River Reserve 311,040 IN ALASKA. The AfO'gnac Reserve — Area unknown. Grand Total 17,429,520 " 176 THE LAND QUESTION. The general government lias establislit a division of forestry as one of the subdivisions of the Department of Agriculture. In the di-^dsion of forestry' there is a corps of thoroly trained and educated foresters, whose duty it is toi take charge of all government forests, vhether in reservations or not. They also make careful and scientific investigations of all branches of forestry in this country, and prepare and distribute to our citizens literature instructing them how to best care for their forests, what kind of trees can be profitably grown in each section of the country, etc. The follo'wing is a synopsis of the laws relating to timber on public lands and government forest resei-vations, as pre- pared by the General Land Ofiice. SectiOiii 2461, U. S. E. S., provides a. flue of not less than triple the value of the timber and imprisonment not exceeding' twelve months in instances in which timber is cut or removed from public lands reserved or purchased for the use of the Navy or from any other public lands for use other than for the Navy of the United States. (See sec. 472, U. S. E. S.) See also the following: Act of March 1, 1817, 3 Stat., 347 (sees. 2458 and 2459, U. S. R. S.) ; and act of February 23, 1823, 3 Stat., 651 (sec. 2460, U. S. B. S.) . Section 2462, U. S. R. S., provides for the forfeiture to the United States of any vessel having on board, with knowledge of the master, owner, or consignee, timber taken from Naval Reserve or other public lands with intent to transport' the same to any port or place within the United States or for export to any foredgn country, and further provides that the captain or master of such vessel shall pay to the United States a sum not exceeding $1,000 (See aec. 4751, U. S. E. S.) Section 2463, U. S. R. S., provides that collectors of customs in .Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana and I'^lorida, before allowing clear- ance to any ves.sel having on board live-oali timber, must ascertain that the same was cut from private lands, or if from public lands, by consent of the Navy Department; and also provides that timely prosecution be instituted against parties guilty of depredations on lire oak in those States. (See sees. 4205 and 4751, U. S. R. S.) Section 4205, U. S. R. S., reads as follows: "Collectors of the col- lection districts within the States of Florida, Alabama, Mississippi, and Louisiana, before allowing a. clearance to any vessel laden in whole or in part with live-oak timber, shall ascertain satisfac- torily that such timber ^-s-as cut from private lands, or if from public lands, by consent of the Department of the Navy." (See sec. 2463.) .Section 4751, U. S. R. S., provides that all penalties ajid forfeitures under sections 2461, 2462 and 2463 shall be recovered, etc., under the direction of the Secretary of the Navy — one-half to be paid to the informers or captors and the other half to the Secretary, of the Navj-; and also authorizes the Secretary to mitigate any fine, pemalty or forfeiture so incurred. Section 5388, U. S. E. S., provides a fine of not more than $500 and imprisonment not more than twelve months in every instance in which timber is unlawfully cut or injured on lands reserved or purchast for military or other purposes. (See sees. 2460 and FOEESTEY. 177 2403, U. S. E. S. See aJso act of June 4, 1888; 25 Stat., 166, amend- ing this section.) Act of .March 3, 1875 (18 Stat., 481), section 1 provides a, fine of not exceeding $500 or imprisonment not exceeding twelve months in instances in vs'hich oirnamental or other trees on surveyed public lands •s\hich have been reserved have been cut or injured. Section 2 provides a fine not exceeding $200 or imprisonment not exceeding six months for the breaking open or destroying of any gate, fence, hedg-e, or ^\•all inclosing anj' lands reserved or purchased by the United States. Section 3 provides a penalty of not exceeding $500 or imprisonment not exceeding twelve months for the breaking in of any inclosure around lands reserved or purchased by the United States, and permitting cattle, horses and hogs to enter therein when they may or can destroy the grass, trees, or other property of the United States. Act of Jlarch 3, 1875 (18 Stat.. 483), grants the right of wav through the public lands of the United States to any railroad com- pany which has filed with the Secretary of the Interior due proof of its organization, etc., and also the right to take from lands adjacent to the line of the road timber necessary for the construc- tion of the road. The several land grants to railroads also authorize them to cut timber from public lands for construction purposes. This author- ity, howeve, is confined strictly to timber for constmction purposes in every grant except that to the Denver and Rio Grande Railroad, which authorizes said road to take timber for repairs also on the part of the line constructed thereunder. Act of September 39, 1890 (36 Stat., 496) forfeited the grants to all uncompleted railroads to the extent of the grants for the un- constructed portions of such roads. Act of April 30, 1878 (20 Stat., 46), section 2, provides that if any timber cut on the public lands shall be exported from the Terri- tories of the United States it shall be liable to seizure by United States authority wherever found. Act of June 3, 1878 (30 Stat., 88), authorizes citizens and bona fide residents of Colorado, Nevada, Kew Mexico, Arizona, Utah, Wyoming, Dakota, Idaho and Montana and all other mineral dis- tricts, to use for building, agricultural, mining or other domestic purposes, timber on public lands therein, said lands being mineral and not subject to entry under existing laws of the United States except for mineral entry. Act of June 3, 1878 (20 Stat., 89), section 1, provides for the sale of unreserved, unofEered surveyed public timber lands in California, Oregon, Xevada and Washing'ton, in quantities not exceeding 160 acies. to any one person or association of persons, at $2.50 per acre. Section 4 prohibits the cutting-, removing or destroying- of any timber on public lands in the States named ^^•ith intent to exjiort or dispose of the same, under penalty to the trespasser and the owner or consignee of any vessel or railroad on which the timber is transported, of a fine of not less than $100 nor more than $1,000; and provides "that nothing herein contained shall prevent any miner or agriculturist from clearing his land in the ordinari,' working of his mining claim, or preparing his farm for tillage, "or from taking the timber necessary to support his im- provements." Section 5 provides that any person who is prosecuted in the States named fo-r trespass under section 3461, U. S. E. S., if not for export from the United States, may be relieved from prosecution by paying- a sum equal to $3.50 per acre for the land on which the timber was cut. This act is made applicable to all the public-land States by act •of August 4, 1889 (27 Stat., 348). 178 TI-O; LAND QUESTION. Act of J-ojie 15, 1880 (21 Stat., 237), provides that where timber was unlawfully cut from public timber lands prior to Maj-ch 1, 1879, and the lands have subsequeaatly been entered and the Gov- ernment price paid then-efor in full, no criminal proceedings for trespass shall be further maintained; and no civil suit shall be maintained for timber taken in clearing- the land for cultivation, or working a mining ol&,im, or for agricultural or domestic pur- poses, or for maintaining the improvements of a settler, etc., or for timber talieaa or used without fraud or collusion by any person who in good faith paid the officers or agents of the United States for same, or for any alleged conspiracy in relation thereto. Act of June 4, 1888 (25 Stat., 166), provides as follows: "That section fifty-three hundred and eighty-eight of the Revised Statutes of tlie United States be amended so as to read as follows: 'Every person who unlaivfuUy cuts, or aids or is enaployed in unlawfully ciilting, or wantonly destroys or procures to be wantonly de- strived, any timber standing upon the land of the United States which, in pursuance of law, may be reserved or purohast for military or other purposes, or upon any Indian reservation, or lands belonging to or occupied by any tribe of Indians under authority of the United States, shall pay a fine of not more than fi'S'e hundred dollars or be imprisoned not more than twelve months, or both, in the discretion of the court.' " Act of February 16, 1889 (25 Stat., 673), provides that the Presi- dent may authorize the Indians residing on reservations or allot- mecnts, the fee to which remains in the United States, to fell, re- move and dispose of the dead or down timber thereon, for the sole benefit of the Indians. It is further provided that whenever there is cause to believe that the timber has been killed or othenvise injured for the pur- po;;e of securing its sale under this act, such authority shall not be granted. Act of ifarch 3, 1891 (26 Stat., 1093), entitled "An act to amend, section eight of an act approved March third, eighteen hundred and ninety-one," etc., provides that "in the states of Colorado, Mon- tana, Idaho, ^'orth Dakota, and South Dakota, Wyoming, and the Dislrict of Alaska and the gold and silver regions of Nevada and the Territory of Utah in any criminal prosecution or civil action by the United States for a trespass on such public timber lands or 'to recover timber or lumber cut thereon it shall be a defense if the defendant shall show that the said timber was so cut or removed from the timber lands for use in such State or Territory by a resident thereof for agricultural mining, manufacturing, or domestic purposes under rules and regulations made and prescribed by the Secretary of the Interior and has not been transported out of the same, but nothing herein contained shall operate to enlarge the rights of any railway company to cut timber on the public domain, provided that the Secretary of the Interior may make suitable rules and regulations to carry out the provisions of this act, and he may designate the sections or tracts of land where timber may be cut, and it shall not be lawful to cut or remove any timber except as may be prescribed by such rules and regulations, but this act shall not operate to repeal the act of June third, eigh- teen hundred and sevemty-eight, providing for the cutting of timber on mineral lands." (See below act of February 13, 1893 (27 Stat., 444), extending this act to New ISrexico and Arizona.) Section 24 of the act of March 3, 1891 (26 Stat., 1095), provides for the establishment of forest reservations in any State, or Terri- tory having p'Ublic lands bearing forests. i l'"OEESTEY. 179 Act of AugTist 4, 1893 (27 Stat.,. 348), extends the provisions of tahe act of June 3, 1878 (20 Stat., 89), to all the public-land States. Act of February 13, 1893 (27 Stat., 444), extends the provisions of the act of March 3, 1891 (26 Stat., 1093), to include the Terri- tories of New Mexico and Arizona. Act of January 19, 1895 (28 Stat., 634), provides for the utilization of burned timber on certain unperf ected homestead entries in Wis- consin, Minnesota and Michig-an. Section 2 of the act of February 20, 1896 (29 Stat., 11), to open cer- tain forest reservation in the State of Colorado for the location of mining- claims, authorizes the owners of such claims to fell and remove therefro'm for actual mining purposes in connection with the particular claim from which the timber is felled or removed, but prohibits the felling or removing of timber from any other portions of said reservations by private parties for any purpose whatever. Act of February 24, 1897 (29 Stat., 594), entitled "An act tO' pre- vent forest fires on public domain," provides, "that any person who shall wilfully or maliciously set on fire, or cause to be set on fire, any timber, underbrush, or grass upon the public' domain, or shall carelessly or negligently leave or sufEer fire to bum unat- tended near any timber or other inflammable material, shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and, upon conviction thereof in any district court of the United States having jurisdiction of the same, shall be fined in a sum not more than five thousand dollars or be imprisoned for a term of not more than two years, or bo-tK. "Sec. 2. That any person who shall build a camp fire, in or nea. any forest, timber, or other infiammable material upon the public domain, shall, before breaking camp or leaving said fire, totally extinguish the same. Any person failing to do so shall be deemed guilty of a misdenaeanor, and, upon conviction thereof in any 'dis- trict court of the United States having jurisdiction of the same, shall be fined in a sum not more than one thousand dollars, or be imprisoned for a term of not more than one year, or both. "Sec. 3. That in all cases arising under this act the fines collected shall be paid into the public-school fund of the county in which the lands where the oifense was committed are situate." Act of February 26, 1897 (29 Stat., 599), entitled "An act concern- ing certain homestead lands in Florida," provides, "that all per- sons actually occupying homesteads in good faith in any of the following named counties in said State of Florida, to -vN'it, Alachua, Lafayette, Levy, Suwannee, Bradford, Baker, and Columbia, at the time of the storm on or about September twenty-ninth, eighteen hundred and ninety-six, are hereby- grantefl the right to sell or otherwise dispose of the fallen timber on their homestead entries felled by said storm, and to devote the proceeds of such sale or bar- ter to the improvement of their homesteads or support of them- selves or their families." KECAFITULATIOX. ACTS FOE THE PBOTECTION AND PBESBKVATION OF PUBLIC TIMBEK. Section 2460, U. S. R. S. Authorizing use of Army and Navy to prevent timber depredations in Florida. Section 2461, U. S. E. S. Prohibiting the cutting of timber from any public lands for any purpose whatever, except for the use of the Navy of the United States. Section 2462, U. S. E. S. Providing penalties for transporting or exporting any timber cut from any public lands not reserved or purchased for furnishing timber for the Navy. 180 THE LAND QUESTION". Sections 2463 and 4205, U. S. E. S. Providing that collectors of customs in Alabama, Florida, Louisiana and Mississippi must see to it that no live-oak timber is transported or exported out of said States. Section 4751, U. S. R. S. Providing relatlAe to recovery and dis- position of penalties and forfeitures under sections 2461, 2462 and 2463. Section 5388, U. S. E. S. Prohibiting the cutting or destroying of timber on reserved lands. (Amended by Act of June 4, 1888; 25 Stat., 166.) Act of March 3, 1875 (18 Stat., 481). Prohibiting the cutting, destroying or injuring of any trees on reserved lands. Act of April 30, 1878, section 2 (20 Stat., 46). Providing that if any timber cut on the public lands shall be exported from the Territories of the United States, it shall be liable to seizure by United States authority wherever found. Act of June 3, 1878, section 4 (20 Stat., 89). Prohibiting the out- ting of timber in California, Oregon, Nevada or Washington, for export, disposal or transportation. This act is made applicable to all the public-land States by the act of August 4, 1892 (27 Stat., 348). Act of June 4, 1888 (25 Stat., 166). Prohibiting the cutting of timber on lands reserved for military or other purposes, or on Indian reservations, etc. Act of March 3, 1891 (26 Stat., 1095). Authorizing the President of the United States to make forest reservations. Act of August 4, 1892 (27 Stat., 348). Extending the provisions of the act of June 3, 1878 (20 Stat., 89), to all the public-land States. Act of February 20, 1896 (29 Stat., 11). Opening certain forest reservations in the State of Colorado for the location of mining claims. Act of February 24, 1897 (29 Stat., 594). To prevent forest fires on the public domain. ACTS AUTHOKIZIXG THE USB OF PUBLIC TIMBER. Act of March 3, 1875 (18 Stat., 482). Authorizing right-of-way railroads to procure timber from public lands for construction purposes. The se\eral acts making land grants to railroad companies. Act of June 3, 1878 (20 Stat., 88). Authorizing the cutting of timber from public mineral lands in Colorado, Nevada, New Mex- ico, Arizona, Utah, Wyoming, Dakota, Idaho, and Montana for domestic purposes. Act of June 3, 1878 (20 Stat., 89). Authorizing the sale of public timber lands in California, Oregon, Nevada and Washington, and > the cutting of timber by miners and agriculturists for use on their claims, and the taking of timber for the use of the United States. This act, by the act of August 4, -1892 (27 Stat., 348), is extended to all the public-land States. Act of February 16, 1889 (25 Stat., 673). Authorizing Indians on reservations to cut, remove and dispose of dead and down timber. Act of March 3, 1891 (26 Stat., 1093). xVuthorizing the cutting of timber in Colorado, ilontana, Idaho, North Dakota, South Dakota, Wyoming, Alaska, Nevada and Utah for all domestic purposes. The act of February 13, 1893 (27 Stat., 444), extends the operation of this act to New Mexico and Arizona. FOEESTEY. IBl Act of August 4, 1892 (37 Stat., 348). Extending- the provisions of the act of June 3, 1878 (20 Stat., 89), to all the public-land States. Act of February 13, 1893 (27 Stat., 444). Extending the provisions of the act of March 3, 1891 (26 Stat., 1093), to include the Terri- tories of New Mexico and Arizona. Act of January 19, 1895 (28 Stat., 634). Providing for the utili- zation of burned timber on certain unperfected homestead entries in Wisconsin, Minnesota and Michigan. Act of February 20, 1896 (29 Stat., 11). Opening certain forest reservations in the State of Colorado for the location of mining claims. Act of February 26, 1897 (29 Stat., 599). Providing for the util- ization of certain felled tiraber on unperfected homestead entries in certain counties in Florida. In addition to the above specific legislation in respect to timber on public lands the inceptive rights acquired by a homestead claim- ant are held to extend to the use of so much timber as it may be necessary to fell or remove in clearing the land for cultivation, or for buildings, fences, or other improvements on the land. See United States v. Levi W. Nelson (5 Sawyer, 68), cited on page 83; also Shiver v. United States (159 U. S., 491), cited on page 89. SUMMARY. The foregoing synopsis shows that section 2461, U. S. K. S. (act of March 2, 1831; 4 Stat., 473), constitutes the original policy re- specting public timber and the extent to which certain of the sub- sequent acts operate as modifications of same. Our f o.rests contain a greater variety of trees than do those of any other eoimtry on the glohe. An English naturalist, after examining the forests near St. Louis, ilo., says: "In little more than a half an hour, and less than a mile's walk, I saw forty kinds of timber trees, including eleven of oak, two of maple, two of elm, three' of ash, two of walnut, six of hickory, three of willow, and one each of plane, lime, horn- beam, hop-hoa-nbeam, laurus, . diospyroe, poplar, bu*ch, mul- berry, and horse-chestnut, together with about half that num- ber of shrubs." It is a sad commentary upon our intelligemce that so many of our grand forests have been destroyed. They can never be reproduced in their original grandeur, beauty and useful- ness. But it is cause of congratulation that our nation- is at last aroused to the danger, and that our government is taking hold of the matter in such an earnest and intelligent manner. Millions of dollars should be spent ungrudgingly every year, and an army of men should be employed in this great work until our forests shall be re-establisht at eveiry needful place, 182 THE LAUD QUESTION. and until our government forestry system shall b© tlie finest' in the world. State Foeestey Legislation. In 1887 the State of Pennsylvania past laws prO'viding for the payment of yearly bounties for the period of 30 years for every acre of land planted in forest trees and maintained as such ; and also enacted strict penal laws against the starting of forest fires. Ill 1897 Pennsylvania past a much broader forestry act, providing for the purchase by the state as pecrmanent forest reservations one hundred and twenty tbousand acres of land in that State which drains in the Delaware, Susquehanna and Ohio rivers — forty thousand acres for each of said rivers. The act also makes the constables of the state fire wardens, and makes it their duty to extinguish forest fires and to call on all citizens necessary to assist them in soi doing, and pro^ viding suitable compensation to such constables and assistants while so employed. The constables are also required to re- port to the court any persons who violate any of the laws past for the prevention of forest fires; and the County Commis- sioners are authorized to employ detectives to ferret out and prosecute persons that start forest fires. Tbe act also pro- vides for the payment of yearly bounties tO' persons who main- tain forests, even tho they were not planted by such persons, or tho the forests are native forests in their original condition. These bounties practically amount to a remission of the taxes on all lands planted or maintained in forests. Several other states have past similar laws, and all of our states should do so at once. In Minnesota a state fire warden is appointed at a salary of $1,200 a year, and he appoints deputy fire wardens where he thinks they may be needed, and they are authorized to call on all able bodied citizens to assist in extinguishing for- est fires. The constitution of the State of ISTew York provides that the forest lands of the state theretofore or that may be there^ after acquired by the state shall be forever kept by the state FOEESTEY. 183 as wild forest lands. The state has piirchased a large tract of forest lands in the Adirondack Mountains, which are trib- utary to the Hudson river, as a forest reserve, which is known as the Adirondack Park. It is carefully kept and guarded by competent foresters. A corps of state officers has been created at liberal salaries whose duty it is to protect the for- ests, fish and game of the state. These state laws have resulted in great good. Prior to 1897 it is estimated that tlie loss by forest fires in the State of Pennsylvania amounted to $1,000,000 per year. The year the law went into effect the loss was reduced tO' $394,327, while in 1898 it was only $53,345. This is poedtive proof of the great utility of such laws, and that they should be at once enacted in every state and temtory in the Union. The interest in forestry has becorae so^ great in this country that some of our states have created a holiday in the spring season known as Arbor Day, which is devoted by the citizens of those states to tree planting. Other states make it a school holiday upon which each pupil shall plant a tree. All should be made to understand that devoting land to forestry is not "holding land out of use," as miany persons seem to think. The constitution of the State of J^ebraska contains the fol- lomng provision for the encouragement of husbandry: "The legislature may provide that the increast value of lands by reason of live fences, fruit and forest to-eee, grown and cul- tivated thereon, shall not be taken into account, in the assess- ment thereof." — Sec. 2, Art. IX. The constitution of Ehode Island exempts from taxation artificial forests if not less than 2,000 trees, for a period of fifteen years from the time of planting. The statutes of several of our states provide that in assess- ing land for taxation, the fruit, shade, and forest trees on the land shall not be taken into account, thus exempting all trees from taxation. Nebraska has always been foremost in the promotion of forestry. Arbor day had its origin in that state. In addition to liberal forestry legislation, her governors have frequently offered large premiums to the families setting out the most 184 THE LAND QUESTION. trees each year. As many as twelve million trees have been planted in a single year in that state. Altho it was a praii'ie state when it was first settled, yet under the impetus of ad- vanced forestry legislation, that state is now bettea* timbered than are some of our Eastern states that were at one time covered with heavy natural forests. GovERN.A[ENT ^Vgrh'ultubal and Foeestby Villages. It has been sho^^^] that much is now being done in this country in the interest of forestry by both our state and gen- eral g(jvernnients. It is evident that all permanent forests must be owned and. controlled by those govenmiients. Indi- viduals cannot be depended on in this regard. It would hardly do for onr govemment to attempt to ex^ercise the an* tooratic power OA-er private forests that is exercised by foreign governments. The trees that would be set out by one man would veTj likedy be cut down by his heirs or grantees. Be- sides, individuals Avill not ha^'6 the necessary capital Avith which to buy and reforest sufficiently large areas. State governments will be very slow to buy land and start and main- tain permanent forests. It neoe'ssarily follows that the gen- eral goA'ernnient shonld take up the work of establishing and maintaining forests thruout the nation. It should havereserved forest land in every state in the Union on the ridges and near the heads of local streams. It can now repurchase such lands and reforest them. It can do this in comnectio'U with the government villages advocated in another chapter of this book. It can thereby furnish employment to the inhabitants (if such villages in winter as well as in summer, and in fact, in all seasons of the year. "Wlien the crops in the fields have been grown and harvested, there will be plenty of work to do in the adjoining govemment forests. CRITICISM. 185 A CRITICISM OF THE SINGLE-TAX. By ISTewtox M. Tayloe, of the Indiana Bar. Mr. Henry George in his book entitled "Progress and Poverty," describes in a most eloquent and powerful manner the ruinous effect on society of the monopoly of the land of a country by a co'mparatively small number of its citizens, and as a remedy he proposed, "To abolish all taxation save that upon land values." I freety endorse all that he has so elo- quently said concerning the evils of land monopoly, but I am firmly convinced that he has wholly misconceived the true remedy. Before showing some of the unjust and disastrous effects that would result from the enforcement of this system of taxation, I desire to briefly notice a few of the peculiar catch words and phrazes by means of which the Single Taxers greatly deceive themselves. Indictment No. 1. — They have a great deal to say about "land values," and say that they propose to tax "land valines." But that is nothing new, for we have always taxed land values. We tax the fertile land in our valleys from two. to ten times as much as we do the land in broken, hilly, rocky and mountainous regions, for the simple reason that it is Avorth more — it has more value. For the same reason we now tax an eighth of an acre of land in a town or city as much as we do a hundred. — or two hundred or five hundred acres of good land in the adjoining country districts. We tax every- thing according to its value. We tax one horse at forty dollars and another at one or two hundred dollars or even much more than that, because they posses different amounts of value. We always tax value — horse value, cow value and land value. Yet the Single Taxer rolls the phraze "land value" under his tongue as a sweet morsel and imagines that it is a wholly new idea. When we tax land we necessarily tax land value. To say that there is any difference in taxing "land" and taxing 186 THE LAND QUESTION. "land values" is absurd. It is simply a play on words. "When the Single Taxer proposes to throw all of the burden of taxation upon "land value" he simply means upon "land" alone. Of course the word land includes lots, mines, etc. Indictment No. 2. — ^The Single Taxer talks a great deal about the "unearned incremeoit," by which he means the in- crease in the value or price of land as the demand for it in- creases by the increase in popnlation. He says that the un- earned increment should be taxed. But we are now doing that, and always have done sO'. As land increases in value we increase the tax assessment on it. Farm lands and city lots in the state of Illinois and city of Chicago are assessed at many times as much now as they were fifty years ago. Then when the Single Taxer says that he proposes to tax unearned in- crement he means nothing new. We have always done that. It is simply one of his plays upon words. Indictment No. 3. — ^The Single Tax advocate greatly over- draws the fact of the unearned increment. There is very little prairie land in the Eastern and Southern states — as well as in many of the Western states. In their natural condition they were covered wth dense forests and almost impenetrable growths of underbrush. Large areas were swampy low lands, and miich of the land was covei-ed with rocks and stones as a legacy of the glacial period. Our city Single Tax Agitators (and they are mostly found in cities) do not seem to have the slightest idea of the amount of labor it took tO' make beautiful farms out of those heavily timbered, rocky and swampy lands, to say nothing of the hardships and privations that were en- dured by our forefathers. If we only rate that labor at fifty cents a day for each day spent in clearing of those forests, digging O'Ut the roots and stumps, ditching and draining the swamps and gathering up the rocks and stones, these lands would not now sell for enough to pay for the work. As to these vast areas there is absolutely no unearned increment. Yet, as we will see further on, the Single Taxer wants to throw much of the burden of taxation on these lands! In our towns and cities and in prairie countries there has been a large unearned increment. I say "has been" advisedly, CRITICISM. 187 because for tlie most part tlie uneamed increment lias been harvested and scattered to' tbe four quarters of the globe, and the property is for the most part in the hands of innocent pur- chasers. As to O'ur farm lands, the unearned increment reached its high water mark twenty-five years ago and since that time they have declined in price nearly if not quite fifty per cent. And the O'Wners of real estate in the most of our towns and cities have during that period suffered in the same way, only the decrease has not been so great. But the pro- cess is still going on and it will* continue for many years, because the most of our towns and smaller cities have attained their normal sizei, and many of them have outgrown the country surrounding them. Many of them are not gaining at all in population and in most of them the future gro^wth will be exceedingly slow. Besides all this, town and city lots must go down to the gold basis if we maintan the gold standard. Farm lands and commodities have gone down in price to cor- respond with the rise in gold, and town and city property must do the same. Nothing can resist the fall of prices consequent upon a rising monetary unit. Everything must sooner or later go down to the commomi level of general prices. An old citizen of Philadelphia says that back as far as 1820 farm lands in the vicinity of that city were as high as they are now. And we all know of the hundreds of farms thruout New England that have been abandoned in the last 25 years. Therefore it is important to remember that as to a large part of our co'untry there is not now and there never has been any unearned increment, and that if there is to be any con- fiscation done it should not apply to any of these lands. And we should also remember that as to those parts of the country where there was any unearned increment as to lands and lots, the most of the persons who got the benefit of it are in their graves, and that the most of these lands and lots are now owned by persons who paid full value for them, and who in many instances have already lost money on them. There has either been no rise in price — unearned increment — or the in- terest on the money invested and taxes have more than counter balanced it. It will be very difficult for the ordinary person 188 THE LAiS'D QUESTION. • to see wliy the public should confiscate these- last named lands and lots. So I respectfully submit that when our Single Taxers talk about the unearned increment they are for the most part talking about a back number — ancient history. Indictment No. 4- — ^There is another word about which our Single Tax advocate has very confused ideas. I have refer- ence to the word rent. It simply means the consideration paid to the owner of the land for the temporary use and occupa- tion of the land by another. But the census of 1890 showed that 3,142,746 of our farn*s are occupied by the men who own them, and that there are only 1,624,433 rented farms in this country. The 3,142,746 farmers pay no rent. And the census reports show that 2,928,671 of our homes in our towns, villages and cities are owned by the families occupying them, and therefore these persons pay no* rent. In heaven's name are the homes, farms and residences of all of these six millions of families to be confiscated simply to enable us to punish the landlords of the country? In his inscrutable reasoning and elastic conscience the Single Taxer says yes. He has tO' do so for he makes no distinction between the property occupied by its owner and rented property. The Single Taxers actually want the Government to forci- bly appropriate these millions of homes and farms without compensation and force all of these people to go tO' paying rent — ^that is a tax that is to be equal to and as burdensome as the rient that is now paid by our tenants to our landlords. They want to return to feudalism and change everybody into tenants and make the reign^ of rent universal. I protest against this ruinous scheimei. Instead of destroying our millions of happy homesteads in our villages, towns, cities and country districts, we should foster, protect and multiply them. Instead of increasing the burden of taxation on them we should relieve them from taxation, and throw all of that burden on our large estates, on our landlords, and wealthy owners of both real and personal propeirty. Our homesteads are the very last thing that should be taxed. But Mr. George in his book says that this theory will not result in the confiscation of land, but only of the rent, and by CEITICISM. 18? confiscation of rent lie means tlie imposition of an annual tax that shall be equal to the annual rental value of the real estate. Here is another instance of that play upon words in the art of which he was a consummate master, and which he handed down to his disciples. Yet in the same paragraph he admits that by taking the "rent" he is taking the "kernel" and only leaving the lando-wner the "shell." (See Chap. 2, Book viii.) A simple illustration will prove that it would be the actual confiscation of the real estate itself. Let us suppose that Mr. A. rents a farm at a yearly rental of $300, which was about six per cent, of the value of the property. He pays the rent for several years, and finally to avoid the further payment of rent he concludes to buy the land. He manages to make the first payment and gives his note for the balance payable in installments and secured by a mortgage on the land. He finally succeeds in paying for the property. But about that time a single tax law is passed and he is at once forced to pay a tax of $300 a year. How much better off is he than he was before he bought the land. ISFone at all. He has lost the money and value he paid for the property. And he would still be liable for the unpaid purchase money notes. He could no* sell the property because no sane man would buy property upon which he would have to pay the Government a tax equal to a full rental for the privilege of occupying it. No sane man would pay much for the mere "shell." In Chap. Ill, Book ix, Mr. Greorge admits that the land could not be sold, and that his scheme would result in public ownership of land, and lie says that the former private land owners should not receive any compensation for this loss. But he says that the holders of vacant lands and lots would be compelled to sell them. How could they sell that which has been appropriated by the public? In Chap. 1 of the same book he says that his scheme "would be in effect putting up the land at auction to whoever would pay the highest rent to the state." Is not this confiscation? It is confiscation of both the land in the rural districts and the lots in towns and cities. Indict inent No. 5.— The Single Taxers exaggerate at least 190 THE LAND QUESTION. one ttiousand-fold the amiount of land and number of lots tliat are being held out of use for speculative purposes, or in other words to procure an unearned increment. As to our town and city lots, the taxes and interest on the money invested in them prohibit their being held out of use for any great length of time. When the seven tO' nine per cent, of interest and taxes exceeds the annual increase of the market value of the lots, as is the case at present in the vast majority of our towns and cities, the lote vdll be improved as rapidly as there is any demand for houses. In fact the zeal of the o■^vners of lots to make them bring in a yearly income usually results in an excess of houses. The large surplus of unemployed capital in this country is anxiously seeking profitable investment in houses. That these causes lead to a supply far in excess of the demand for ho-uses is demonstrated by the 23,000 vacant houses said to be in Philadelphia and the vacant houses on every street in Chicago, and the same condition exists in our towns and cities all over the country. Then why should these lots be built upon? Yacant houses are not a credit to any town nor a source of profit to their owners. And certainly no person wants to in any way entice our rural population to move to our towns and cities in order to occupy these vacant lots. The tide should be turned in the other direction — aWay from the cities to quiet country homesteads. There are too many people in our towns and cities now. AYhenever there is a labor strike there are always, in good times as well as in bad times, thousands of unemployed who are eager to take the places of the strikers. Houses and lots can be rented at a low rental that hardly pays six per cent, interest on the ia- vestment. This ought to be free enough to suit the most fastidious. As to our farm lands the facts are clearly against the claims of the Single T'axers. The world's demand for grains, veget- ables, fruits and meats is so great that no man can afford to deliberately hold good farming lands out of use. If the O'Wner does not desire to live upon them and farm them himself, he can rent them to others for a fair annual rental, and of course he will do so. A man can rent his land out for what it will CRITICISM. 191 bring and still hold it for an increase in price so he may be able to sell at a profit. Why should he not do so? Will a duck swim? The simple fact is that land owners do not to any material extent withhold their land from use. They have to pay taxes on it every year and it is but natural that they should make it yield enough to pay the taxes and also pay as much as possible on the money invested in it. And especially is this true at a time when the price of the land is de- clining, as it has been in this country for the last 25 years. Their lands are being used either for cropping or grazing pur- poses. Surely no one wants any more of our forests cut art of his debt, for in most instances mort- gage farm loans are made principally on the value of the real estate irrespective of the improvements. It must be clear to all that the uncompensated appropriation of the land of the nation by the general public wonld result in ruin to our mortgage debtors and repudiation and rain tO' many of our mortgage creditors. Indictment Xo. 7'. — But this is not all of the case against the Single Tax by a great deal. There is probably more money loaned out on personal security — on notes with sure- ties — than there is on maiigage security. In reckoning the solvency of the makers of these notes and their sureties the creditor looks principally to the amount of unincumbered real CEITICISM. 1P3 estate thev own. If the Government by the Single Tax ap- propriate? all of this land it sO' far destroys the security of tho?e notes and also so far destroys the ability of the debtora to pay the notes. Hence suits will be brought on the notes, the debtors will be stripped of their improvements and per- sonal property and even then the creditors will probably lose a part of their claims. When we consider the fact that the last census report shows that the people of this country owed over twenty billions of dollars on tbose classes of debts that could be readily ascertained and tabulated by our census takers, and that the other debts amount to nearly as much more, we can form some faint conception of the disastrous and far-reaching effects of the adoption of the single tax system. Is it not perfectly plain that it would result in the creditors absorbing tlie greater part of the personal property of the nation and also the greater part of the improvements on our real estate, and all this property they would hold free from taxation? Yet the Single Taxers pose as the friends of the common people! As we have seen, after exhausting the improvements and personal property of the debtors, in most cases the debt would still be unpaid and there would be a loss to the creditor. The rich creditor could stand this loss as he would have plenty left to satisfy not only his necessities but every conceivable luxury. But not so ^vith the poor creditors who have their savings or small patrimony loianed out. Tbis loss would be heavy and ruinous to them. The deposits in our savings banks amount to $2,065,631,298. Tbey are mostly loaned on real estate security. Tiie single tax would ruin every savings bank in the country and their depositors would lose their savings. Our people have deposited in our national banks $2,106,600,000, and also fully as much more in our private banks, trust companies, building and loan associations, etc. Much of this money is loaned out either directly or indirectly on real estate security. It is certain that these depositors would lose enormously by tbe appropriation by the Govern- ment of the lands and securing these loans. Therefore it is perfectly clear that the single tax would 194 THE LAND QUESTION. rob over six millions of our citizens of their homes and per- sonal property, and rob the' poorer class of our creditors of their savings, and bankrupt tens of thousands of our business men and produce thei woret panic ever kno'wn in the history of the world. And yet Mr. George says in Chapter 4 of Book IX that "this measure would make no one poorer but such as could be made a great deal poorer without being really hurt," and that "it would impoverish no one." And his followers try to believe it. But they dare not attempt to enter upon any proof in regard tO' the matter. The facts are against them. It should also be remembered that our business men are heavy creditors and a loss of a material portion of their bills receiv- able would bankrupt them. Yet this would be the inevitable result if the debtors of business misn were tO' be robbed of their lands and lots and they would all have tO' gO' to paying rent. They would not be able to pay their debts to business men. Surely our single tax friends "know not what they do." Indictment No. 8. — But let us go a little deeper into this question. It will b© necessary to make a few calculations. In his fine flights of oratory Mr. G-eorge did not stop to bother "with figures, and his disciples have inherited his weakness in the science of mathematics. Thei reports of the census and statistical departments of our Government have no charm for them. "We will therefore have to do the calculating for them. Their proposition is to throw all taxes on land alone. And when the Single Taxer iises the word "all" he means just what he says. Therefore Henry George was a free trader, and in chapter 3 of book ix of "Progress and Poverty" he makes a strong argument against tariff duties; and of course he was opposed tO' our inte^mal revenue laws because tobaccos . and liquors are personal property. And his followers are free traders almost to a man. Then let us see how much of a burden this theory of taxation would throw on land alone. Let us first see what would be the annual tax rate or rental under this system for state and local governments alone with- out interfering with our present tariff and internal revenue laws. The total property assessed for taxation in this country in 1890 was as foUo'Ws: CEITICISM. 195 Eeal estate and improvements $18,956,556,675 Personal property 6,516,616,743 Total $25,473,173,418 The total taxes collected oai this property in 1890 by state and local gOYernments amounted to $470,651,927. This makes the avecrage tax rate a very small frac- tion lees than two per cent. It -will be noticed that the land and improvements are given together. Therefore -we must next get at the probable value of the land alone. • In the state of Massachusetts the land and the improvements are assessed separately, and in 1880 the land and lots of the state were assessed at $587,824,672, while the improvements were assessed at $752,669,001. The im- provements amounted tO' 56 per cent, and the lands and lote 44 per cent. In states having large cities like Chicago, New York or Philadelphia the per cent, of improvements would be considerably larger, while in some of the sparsely settled Western states the value of the lands would exceed that of the improvements. In England the imiprovements are valued at £2,280,000,000, while the lands and lots are only valued at £1,880,000,000. Therefore it would seem that taking our cO'Untry over the value of the lands and of the improvements are about equal. And this was the estimate of the census department in 1880, showing that at that time thei real estate of the country was assessed at $6,592,000,000, while the im- provements were assessed at $6,437,000,000. By counting them of equal value in 1890 this gives us the assessed value of the land alone at $9,478,278,337. Throwing upon this land the total expenses of the state and local governments for that year — $470,651,927 — ^would give iis an average tax rate of about five per cent. That is to say, that the farmer who owns a farm of 100 acres worth $50 per acre without improvements would have to pay taxes to the amount of $250 per year on his five thousand dollars worth of land. Under our present system, if w© count his buildings and personal property at $2,000 (whioh is a liberal estimate for the average farm) his taxes would only amount to two per cent, on $7,000 — $140. 3 96 THE LAND QUESTION. But as a rule the citizens in towns and cities have more value in their improvements and personal property than they have in their lots. Let us take the typical shoe or dry goods mer- clmnt in the ordinary' cO'Unty seat of from three to ten thou- sand inhabitants, who owns his crwn home and whose com- bined property is assessed at $7,000, the same as our farmer a.bove mentioned. Under our present system of taxing all wealth alike, his taxable wealth would be something like this: Residence lot $1,000 00 House, bam, fences, etc 2,000 00 Furniture, carpets, piano, etc 500 00 Stock of goods in store '3,500 00 Total $7,000 00 Under our present system with an average tax rate' of about two per cent, his taxes will be $140. But imder the single tax five per cent, rate on the lot alone his tax would only be $50, while under the same system the farmer of the same wealth would have to pay $250 on his land. Is not this an unjust discrimination against the farmer and in favor of the merchant? But let us consider the' tho'Usands of men in towns and cities who have an abundance of personal property and no real estate. They would escape taxation entirely under the single tax. T'ake the store keeper who has say $7,000 worth of goods in his stO're, and furniture' in his house, etc., or take the money lender who has $7,000 loaned out on in- terest. Is it right to relieve them from taxation entirely and make the farmer owning a like amount of property pay an annual tax of $250? Tliat is precisely what the Single Taxer proposes to do ! The stores, the factories, the hotels and office buildings and the notes', etc., are means of production, and why sho'uld not they be taxed the same as the farmer's means of prO'duction? The' land is the farmer's means of productio'n and it is absolutely criminal to relieve the' means of produc- tio-n of all other classes of citizens from taxation and thereby greatly increase the burden of taxation on the farmer's means of production. And when we remember that under the single CRITICISM. 197 ]and tax, the wealtky owners of the billions worth of property in the form of stores, factories, money, notes, mortgages, stocks, bonds, street cars, railroad cars and engines, etc., would escape taxation, the enormity of the proposition is more ap- parent. These things are all means of production and they are piling u.p millions of wealth for their owners every year, and they should not be relieved of taxes and the additional burden thrown upon the farmers means of production. From the land the farmers produce the food we eat and the raw materials for the clothing we wear. "Why should all the burden of taxation be thrown ui>on our primary means of production? The taxes must be raised and it is an undeniable proposition that if we relieve one class of citizens from taxa- tion the taxes of the other classes ■will be increased. If we relieve all personal propierty and improvements from taxation we thereby of necessity increase the tax on land. Surely no man can bc' found to deny these propositions. That we have a large class of extremely wealthy citizens in this country (mostly in cities) who own hundreds of mil- lions of dollai-s worth of personal pi'operty and verylittle or no real estate, is true. Twenty millions of our citizens live in our 448 cities of ten tho-usand inliabitants and over. These people own nine-tenths of the pevsmial property and improve- ments of the nation. AVhy should they be relieved from tax- ation? The conclusion cannot be avoided that if we relieve them from taxation, the O'W'ners of land and lots must bear the additional burden, and that their taxes will be increased and they as a rule are least able to bear it. Let us take a niucli older country than oui-s for an illus- tration. In Belgium in 1S72 the total amount of taxes raised was 213,;352,689 francs. Of this amoimt only 20,258,083 francs were raised on land and improvements, and only 13,230,057 francs on personal property. The remainder was raised by means of trade licenses, stamp duties, custom and excise duties, income and inheritance taxes, etc. Is it not (dear that if all this tax slniuld be put upon the land alone the burden would be enormous and u.tterly unbearable \ Of course in a new and thinly settled countiy where there are but few 1J^8 THE LAND QUESTION. valuable improvements and wliere there is but little personal property, and wbiere the public expenses are light and they are already of necessity mostly raised on real estate, the adoption of the single tax would not throw much extra burden on real estate. This has been proven in some of the new countries in Australia, where the single tax has been adopted in a modified form. But conditions are altogether different in older coun- tries where the public expensies are heavy and are mostly raised on things other than real estate. The state of Pennsylvania levies no tax for state purposes on real estate at all, but only on personalty, corporations, inheritances, etc. But let us consider the question solely as to the owners of real estatei and improvements. Here again we must simply open our eyes to the facts and see that there are classes of real estate owners whose per cent of improvements^ on their real estate i.s much larger than is that of other classes of real estate owners. By the exemption of improvements from taxation the former would be greatly benefitted at the expense of the latter. Tlaat this would again be a discrimination in favor of the rich and against the poorer and middle classes is evident, because it is the rich only that can own palatial residences, ten and twenty story hotels and ofiice buildings, and enormous store buildings and factories covering whole squares. Their excess of improvements over land is very large. Who are the poorer classes of real estate owners who would be hurt by this system? Let us first look tO' our to-wus and cities. The vast majority of our town and city lots are occu- pied for residence purposes. The lots in any one portion of our towns and smaller cities are of about the same value. Yet the improvements upon thean generally differ very widely in extent and value. One lot owned by a rich man may have on it a house worth ten, twenty or fifty thousand dollars, and which would be filled with fine furniture, carpets, tapestry, paintings and musical instruments of the value of many thousr ands of dollars, while another lot in the same square and on the same street and of the same m,arket value, but belonging to a poor man, may have on it a residence worth only a thous- and dollars, and have in it furniture, eto., not to exceed $500 CRITICISM. 199 in value. Is it not as clear as the open light of day that if we reKeve the impro'veimeiits and personal property of the former from all taxation w© are favoring the rich man much more than the poor man? And it must be j>lain that the taxes now paid by the rich man on his fine house and contents or his hotel, business block or factory, will not be shifted to his lot alone, but tliat a great part will be shifted to the lots of his poorer neighbors, and also' to the small farmers whose lands are worth more than their improvements and personal prop- erty. ' In a town or oity there will be a thousand houses on 100 acres of land, while in the country there will only be one house on that amount of land. If we relieve the 1,000 town houses from taxation a large part of that burden will of neces- sity fall upon the farms where tlie per cent of improvements to a given amount of land is small. But let us for a moment consider the question solely from the farm owners- standpoint, as among the^mselves. The first fact to observe is that they too are divided into the rich and the poor, as determined by the amount of land they own. The last census shows that the farms of 100 acres and under in size were 2,4-10,006 in numher, covering an area of 122,000,- 300 acres, 'and their owiiers may be considered as the poorer class of farm owners. There were also at that date 3,246,128 farms of over 100 acres in extent, covering an area of 973,- 836,000 acres, and their owners may justly be classed among the 'rich class of land owners. ISTow, the question is, which class has the greatest per cent of improvements and personal property as compared with the value of the land alone. When this is detei-mined we can then easily tell which class is bene- fitted and which class is injured by exempting personality and improvements from taxation and throwing the whole burden of taxes on land alone. Those who have any knowledge of farmers and farm life know that it is on the large farms that we find the fine resi- dences and large barns, and also the latest and costliest farm- ing implements and machinery, and also the large flocks of sheep, droves of horses and hogs, and herds of cattle, running 200 THE LAND QUESTION. up in value to tens or even hundreds of thousands of dollars in value. The small farmer lives in a cottage, and as he is forced to mate the most out of his land he cultivates the most of it and sells the grain and vegetables. This leaves him J>ut little land for grazing purposes, and therefore he cannot have much live stock about him. He must be content with a milk cow or two, a team of horses and a few pigs. And he cannot afford expensive implements and' machinery. He does his work in the old methods as far as possible. Therefore it must be clear that the owners of large farms will be benefitted by the single tax, and that the owners of small farms will be damaged by it. In the last analysis of the whole matter it is evident tliat the general effect of the whole scheme will be favorable to all classes of rich people and unfavorable to the holders of small farms and the poorer classes of lot O'wners in our towns and cities, and that the greater part of the taxes now paid by the rich will be shifted on the classes last named. The little that the latter would gain by relieving their per- sonal property and improvements would be small indeed as compiared with the increase' in the taxes on their lands and lots. The fact is that in many of our states they are now relieved of taxation on much of their personal property. In these states the single tax would bear heaviest on them. And yet these are the very classes that most need assistance' and encourage- ment. Instead of increasing the taxes O'U them we ought to exempt them from taxatiO'U altogether. We cannot have too many small homesteads in town, city and countr}'. We ought to so legislate as to multiply them a thousand-fold; and we can do so if we only will. The experience of other nations as well as our o^vn points to an easy and certain way. There is no need of trying any wild experiments. The farms in France only average 12-^ acres in size. Every one of them supports a family. AVe need to sO' legislate as to^ subdivide our land into small family homesteads that shall be cherished and loved and handed down in the same family for generations. But let us consider the effect of a tive per cent, tax on our six millions of home owners in town, city and country. This is about what Air. Tleorge thouglit the tax would be, for in CEITICISM. 201 -Chapter 19, Book IX, he says that his system would "very nearly consume the value of the land," and five per cent, is about the average per cent, of profit on the money invested m real estate. So far as people in towns and cities are con- cerned the five per cent on the value of their lots only would not be oppressive because they own so much in improvements and personal property which would be exempted from taxa- tion. Taking- our merchant who awns $6,000 in improve- ments and personal property and only $1,000 worth of land as an example^, if he is exempted from all tax on the $6,000, he can afford to pay fifty dollars a year tax on his $1,000 lot, as that would be: much less than he now pays on all of his property. But the burden that' is shifted from him must fall upon somebody else. As we have seen it would fall mostly upon the O'Vmers of small farms and homes in towns and eitie? who have but little personal property and whose farms and lots are worth more than the improvements upon them, as is so frequently the case. If a mechanic owns a lot worth $1,000 and a cottage on it worth $800, the five per cent on his lot would amount to considerably more than his taxes under ouv present system. But still he might be able to pay it if he ihn'S not get sick or lose his employment. But how will it be with the farmer whose tax has been raised from $140 to $250 on one hundred acres of laud? Those who know anything about the profits of small farms for the last 25 years know that such a large additional burden as that would be absolutely unbearable. Their very narrow margin of profits was clearly sho^\Ti by tlie elaborate investi- gation of the matter by the Labor C'onunissioner of Connec- ticut in 1888. The accounts covered 69-3 farms of that state averaging 110 acres each, and showing a total capital em- ployed of $3,810,712. The total receipts, including products consumed by family, were $7(»7,15;5, and the total expendi- tures, including products consumed in family su^jport, but not counting labor done by the O'wner and his family, were $690 990, thus showing a net profit of only $16,163. It is safe to say that the farms of Connecticut could not stand a tax of five per cent on their farm land. And what is true of 202 THE LAND QUESTIOS'. them is true of a majority of small farmers all over the. country. Many of them have not been able to make ends meet and have been forced to mortgage their farms in the last few years, and many have lost their farms entirely. And here is another very serious matter that must be con- sidered. The census of 1890 shoiwed that 886,957 of our im- proved farms, aggregating 273,352,109 acres, were encum- bered by mortgages. Then we must squarely face the question as to whether or not the owners of these encumbered farms could pay their mortgage debts and the increased taxes? The above statistics from Connecticut and the experience of small farmers all over the country unitei in saying that they could not. The mortgages would be'foreclosed by the wholesale and the creditors would get the impro^iements and possession of the farms and the debtors would be turned adrift. It ins safe to say that the farmers of the country will never favor the single tax, and that they will have a very poor opinion of those per- sons who are trying tO' take their farms from them in this way. Indictment No. 9. — But tte half has not yet been told in regard to the deadly effects of the single tax. We have seen that if the expenses of O'ur state and local governments were thrown upon land alone, the tax rate would be five per cent. But in addition to this the Single Taxers propose to abolish our tariff and internal revenue laws and throw upon our land the enormous expenses of our general government! ! Now of course tliey have never calculated the effects of this. The government statistical and census reports have been open to them. They have even been published in pamphlet form for free distribution by the government. And abstracts of them have been published in cheap form in our newspaper almanacs. But our friends do not want to be bothered with facte. Their minds are too full of theories. I have already quoted freely from those reports and I will be obliged to do so once more to find out what this additional burden will be. In determining this question I have tho^ught best to take the expenses of the government for 1896, as that was before our very honorable war with Spain was begun, and also before our very dishonorable war with the Phillipines was begun, CRITICISM. 203 and the expenses for that year were about normal. The re- ports of the Secretary of the Treasury show that the expenses of the Government for 1896 amounted to $748,369,469. If to this we add the $470,651,927 annual expenses of our state and local governments we have a total annual tax of $1,219,- 021,396 that our single tax friends propose to saddle on our land and lots every year. As we have seen the land and lots are now assessed at $9,478,278,337. This would give us an annual tax rate on our real estate alone of nearly 13 per cent. ! Still carrying the illustration of the mechanic in the city who owns a lot worth $1,000 and the farmer who has a farm worth $5,000, this would make the annual tax of the mechanic $130 and of the farmer $650. And yet we are gravely told that the single tax would give us "free land." The mechanic might possibly stand this, but it is absolutely certain that the farmer could not. He could not protect himself by raising the prices of his farm products because under free trade any material increase here of the price over the average world price, would bring farm products to us from all over the world. And even if the farmer could raise the price of his products to correspond to the increased taxes on his land, this would be shifting the tax tO' the consumers in our towns and cities and the objects of the city single taxers would be defeated. They do not want to pay any tax either directly or indirectly. Other points might be made against the single tax, but I have already exceeded the space allowed for this article. I think the nine indictments with the facts and statistics given are sufficient to demonstrate the utter folly and injustice of the system. There are plenty of ways of preventing land monopoly that would not have the unjust, demoralizing and disastrous effects of the single tax. PrO'gressive taxation wo-uld be a good remedy ^rith no disastrous effects. The samei is true of a system of graduated income and inheritance taxation. A sys- tem embracing the exemption of homesteads from taxation, heavy stamp duties on sales of real estate not to be used as homesteads, the exemption of homesteads' from mortgages, and the establishment of Government agricultural villages for the 20 i THE LAND QUESTION. very poor, would be a more complete remedy, with, no bad effects whatever. And to these conld be' added the income and inheritance tax. There is no possible excnse for so vision- ary, revolutionary and disastrous a scheme as the single tax. THE SOUTH AUSTEALIA SYSTEM. We should realize that the establishment of homes is the best way to build a nation. Every man must be given an opportunity to establish a home, which should be permanent. We all know how, under the system of unlimited owner- ship of land, the land of a country gradually accumulates into the hands of a few. South Australia has adopted the lease system, by which the government leases land to settlers, the lease being permanent, or for a long term of years. In this way the purchase moiiey remains in the hands of the settler as his working cap- ital, with which to buy horses, cattle, tools, etc. How much better this is than, for a settler to spend his all for his land, and then perhaps have to mortgage his land in order to get the stock and tools necessary to farm the land. His title is equally as good as tho he had purchased the land, and the yearly rental is hut little more than taxes would be. The State is the landlord, and this fact makes the farmer a more intensely interested citizen than he would be under our indi- vidualistic system, and the State cares more for him and his prosperity than is the case under our system. He can't sell or mortgage his land, as he could if ha owned it outright, but he has the perpetual use of it, hence he stays on it, and the ownership of the land does not gravitate into the hands of the few. Sagacious statesmanship seeks to make it easy for every citizen to establish and occupy a home, and to secure that home to him and to his family perpetually. The South Australian System seems to do that very suocessfally. Out of a total of 57.'!, 192,- 000 acres, only 19,508,178 acres have been "alienated," or sold. Under our sys- tem practically all of our vast domain has become " alienated," and the number of tenants (with private parties or corporations, not the State, as landlords) is in- creasing every year. The home is the foundation of a nation ; the land is the foundation of homes. Few landlords (generally non-resident) and many tenants make a poor and discontented nation. With the land so controlled that it may be occupied in small tracts as permanent homes for actual settlers, under perpetual or long term lease from the State, prosperity is sure to result if it can possibly be dug out of the gi-ound — and that is where all prosperity must originate. — C. F. T. A EEPLY. 205 REPLY TO ^'A CRITICISM OF THE SINGLE TAX." By Edwaed D. Burleigh, of G ermantown, Philadelphia, Pa. [As Boon as "A Criticism of the Singie Tax" was in type, I sent proofs ■of it to several single taxers to give ample opportunity for reply, t sug- gested that the Single Tax Society of Philadelphia discuss it at one or sev- eral of their meetings, and appoint one of the members, or a committee, to write a reply. It seems that the Society did not take any formal action In regard to the matter, but by common consent Mr. Burleigh, a prominent and able member of the Society, took the matter up, and the following is his reply.— C. F. T.] Mr. Taylor criticizes the Single Tax upon its fiscal side but says nothing of the fundamental principles upon which the Single Tax is based. If it is founded upon morality, if its premise is correct that all men have an equal right tO' the use of the earth because of their equal right to life and the neces- sity of the use of the earth to life, then the Single Tax is right and expedient in the highest sense, for what is right is always truly expedient. There is no doubt that if the Single Tax should come sud- denly — which, unfortunately, will not be the case — some peo- ple would seem for the time beingto be injured by it. The abo- lition of chattel slavery seemed to injure many slave-holdeirs, and even some of the foirmer slaves found it difficult to get a living. But this was due not to the abolition of that "sum of all villainies," but to slavery itself. Because some men lost their "hard-earned money" which they had invested in human, flesh and blood, should we therefore have continued a system which ■degraded both master and slave^ — ^which trafficked in human beings? "No one can make omelet without breaking eggs;" and in any radical change some people must temporarily lose. Owners of atage-coach lines lost money when the locomotive was invented ; some owners of horses lost money when electric ■cars were introduced. Those who profit by any existing ■arrangemeoits and institutions are always subjected to more or less inconvenience and loss in adjusting themselves to ■clianges in them; and especially will the beneficiaries of any 206 THE LAND QUESTION. unjust privilege seem to be injured when the privilege is abolisht. Must we then never advance in civilization because some may appear to be injured by what benefits the many? I say "appear," because any change for the better, however much it may seem at first to injure some, eventually benefits all. Mr. Taylor says in Indictment No. 1: "To say that there is any difference in taxing 'land' and taxing 'land value' is absurd. It is simply a foolish play on words. When the Single Taxer proposes to throw all of the burden of taxation upon 'land value' he simply means upon 'land' alone." With all due respect to Mr. Taylor, the Single Taxer means exactly what he says, land value; or in other words. Single Taxers would tax land according to its value. Laud which has no value would not be taxed. Eight here it may be well to define the terms used in order that there may be no mistake. Land, in economics, is "ma- terial things other than man and wealth." Laud is neither wealth nor capital. Capital is "wealth used in production." Rent is "wealth or labor received in return for the use of land." Utility is "the quality of satisfying desire." Value is "utility in exchange." Therefore when we speak of valuable land we do not necessarily mean fertile land, or land that is useful in any way except for exchange. We mean land that will exchange for something; that is, land which more than one person wants to use, and for which people will therefore give something for the privilege of using. In order that a thing may have value it ia necessary, first, that it be held in possession by one party ; and, second, that another party desire it sufiiciently to be willing to part- with something to obtain it. If either of these ele^ments is lacking, value cannot exist. Fur clothing among inhabitants of a tropical country would have no value because, while it could be held by anyone, there would be no desire among the people to possess it. Of course where possession was insecure value would be lessened or de- stroyed according to the degree of insecurity. Land has value when it is held in private possession and more than one person wants to use it. It can now and could even more under the A EEPLT. 207 Single Tax be held in guaranteed private possession, but there is much land in our country -which no one now wants to use; thoTCf ore it has no value. To say, then, that there is no "differ- ence in taxing 'land' and taxing 'land values' is absurd." No -one knows better than Single Taxers that there is a tax on the value of land today, and the fact that it is so is one reason for their advocacy of this particular way of getting the value of land to the community. It will not be necessary to introduce a new tax, but simply to increase one already in existence. To quote from "Progress and Poverty," Book YIII, Chapter II: "We already take some rent in taxation. We have only to make som.e changes in our modes of taxation to take it all." The "unearned increment" — which, by the way, is a term seldom used by Single Taxea-s — is the whole of land value, not simply the increase within a year or a few years. In Indictment iSTuniber 3, Mr. Taylor shows that he does not unde^rstand the Single Tax when he says: "The Single Taxer wants tO' tax" "vast areas" where "there is absolutely no unearned increment." If land has no value, or, to use ilr. Taylo'r's phrase, if there is nO' unearned increment, there would be no tax. Here is where' the difference is very clear between land and land value. If all land were taxed, the "large areas" of which Mr. Taylor speaks would of course be included; but if only valuable land were taxed, where there was no' value there would be no tax.- Some land that a few years ago had value now has very little or none; and conversely, land that twenty-five years ago was valueless is now very valuable. Under the Single Tax the tax on the forme^r would either greatly diminish or disappear entirely, while the tax on the latter would be increased. Many farms have been abandoned because the taxes on im- provements, peirsanal property, implements and the like were so great that there was no room for profit on farm produce. In many cases the cost of transportation added to the difficulty of making a living. If, however, these farmers had paid tax on the value of their land alone and not on their implements, live-stock, buildings, furniture, food and clothing, and could 208 THE LAKD QUESTION. have got the transportation at fair competitive rates, they could in most cases have mad© a comfortable living. A farmer is at the same time a land-holder, a capitalist and a laborer. As a land-holder he is entitled to nothing; as a capitalist he is entitled to interest and as a. laborer to wages. Henry George says: "What the farmer who owns his farm would lose would be the selling value of his land, but its use- fulness to him would be as great as before — greater than before. In fact be would get larger returns from his labor upon it; and as the selling value of the other land would be similarly affected, this loss would not make it harder for him to get another farm if he wisht to move, while it would be easier for him to settle his children or to get more land if he could advantageously cultivate more. The loss would be nominal ; the gain real." Mr. Taylor says : "And we should also remember that as to those parts of the country where there was any unearned in- crement as to lands and lots, the most of the persons who got the benefit of it are in their graves, and that most of these lands and lots are now owned by persons who paid full value for them, and whO' in many instances have already lost money on them." If the "owners" of these "lands and lots" — just why "lote" are not land is not quite plain^ — have "already lost money on them," it shows they made a mistake in their investment for which no one but themselves can be held responsible. That they "paid full value" does not necessarily insure a good title. If an innocent purchaser gives "full value" for a stolen watch, the rightful owner has no less claim to the watch on that account. No one can give a better title than he has. Herbert Spencer said in the famous ninth chapter of "Social Statics" (unexpurgated edition) : "At what rate per annum do invalid claims become valid? If a title gets perfect in a tiiousand years, how much more than perfect will it be in two thousand years? — and so forth." If "most of the persons who got the benefit of it are in their graves," we can only let them remain there quietly and for- give them as they probably knew no better. They took the A bepLy. 209 land values of their time, and we have to do, not mth former land value, but with present land value; for land value is a fresh creation every day. If the population of New York city could be moved away from Manhattan Island in a night, " all the land value would disappear at the same time; but it would return as the pojDulation returned, or an equal new population came. Single Taxers would take present land value and let the past go. Henry George says in "Progress and Poverty," Book VII, Chapter III: "Herbert Spencea- says: 'Had we to" deal ^ith the parties who originally robbed the human race of its heritage, we might make short work of the matter.' Why not miake short work of the matter anyhow i For this robbeay is not like the robbery of a horse or sum of money, that ceases with the act. It is a fresh and continuous robbery, that goes on every day and every hour. It is not from the produce of the past that rent is drawn ; it is from the produce of the present. It is a toll levied upon labor con- stantly and continuously." In Indictment Number 4 Mr. Taylor uses "rent" in a very different sense fro'm what all leading economists use it. Kent in political economy is, as was said above, "wealth or labor received in return for the use of land;" and it "is detennined by the excess of its produce over that which the same appli- cation can secux'e from the least productive land in use." This is Ricardo's law of rent. This is niot the idea of Henry George alone, but of all political economists of any repute for over a century. Henry George says in "Progress and Poverty," Book III, Chapter IT: "The term rent, in its economic sense — ^that is, when used as I am going to use it to distinguish that part of the produce which acorues to the ownei-s of land or other natural capabilities by virtue of their ownei-ship— differs in meaning from the word rent as commonly used. In some respects this economic meaning is narrower than the common meaning; in other respects it is wider. It is na-rrower in this: in common speech we apply the word rent to payments for the use of buildings, machinery, fixtures, etc., as well as to pay- ments for the use of land or other natural capabilities; and m 210, 'raE LAND QUJiSilUlN. speaking of the rent of a house or the rent of a farm, we do not separate the price for the -use of the improvements from the price for the use of the bare land. * * It is wider in 'this: In common speech we speak of rent only when owner and user are distinct persons. But in the economic sense there is also rent where the same person is both owner and user. * * * Kent,, in short, is the shasre in the wealth produced which the exclusive right to natural capabilities gives to the owner. AYherever land has an exchange value there is rent in the economic meaning of the term. Wheopever land having a value is used, either by owner or hirer, there is rent actual: wherever it is not used, but still has a value, there is rent potential." Add to this the statement that Single Taxers not only do not want, but would not allow "the Government to forcibly appropriate these millions of homes and farms without com- pensation and force all of these people to go to paying rent," and the criticism falls dead. It is not that Single Taxei-s want to "make the reign of rent universal," but that they can no more destroy rent than they can gravitation; and they would heartily and with one accord agree with Mr. Taylor in his desire to "foster, protect and multiply" "happy homesteads;" also "throw all the burden" of taxation "on land-lords." Mr. Taylor says: "But Mr. George in his book says that this theory will not result in the cO'nfiscation of land, but only of the rent; and by confiscation of rent he means the imposition of an annual tax that shall be equal to the annual rental value of the real estate." With all due respect to Mr. Taylor, Mr. George means nothing of the kind. Mr. Taylor, being a law- yer, of course knows that "real esitate" is not land alone, bxit includes all attached improveanents; while ]\Ir. George ex- pressly states, not once but many times, that the Single Tax would be levied only on the bare land ^\'ithout regard to im- provements on it or in it. In the case cited of Mr. A. who "rents a farm at a yearly rental of $300," Mr. Taylor evidently includes not only the land but the buildings. He seecms to forget that a farm is not land alone, but a combination of land and improvements. And A EEPLY. 21 I usually the value of the improveimeaita is much greater than the value of the land. His sympathy is wasted when he be- moans the fate of Mr. A. under the Single Tax. If Mr. A. pays $300 a year for the use of the farm, it is more than likely that the value of the land alone would be less than half that amount, perhaps not even that. But even supposing that he would have to pay $150 annually, under the Single Tax he would have absolutely no other taxes to pay on improve^ments, implements or personal property of any kind. The working fairmer of today is the worst taxed man in the country, for nearly all his property is in sight and easily assessed. Farmers do not usually own rare pictures, costly bric-a-brac, etc., whose value has to be guessed at by the assessor; his property is mostly things whose value is known by all his neighbors, in- cluding the assessor. Therefore nothing escapes full taxation. Mr. Taylor says: "'So sane man would buy property upon which he would have to pay the G-ovemment a tax equal to the full rental for the privilege of occupying it." He would not "buy" the land, for it would have no selling value; but he would buy the improvements, and he would get the land by paying its annual value, and the land would always be^ worth what he paid annually for it, since the taking of rent by the public would destroy all speculative value in land. If he had been holding land out of use waiting for a rise in price and the Single Tax should be put into operation, he would be compelled to use it or give it up to some one else who would. He would no longer ha-^-e any motive for :^peculating in land, as there would be no proiit in it. Mr. Taylor speaks of "confiscation;" and in answer I can do no better than to quote from "The Perplexed Philosopher," Part III, Chapter XI: "It is not a question whether the state sho^Ud pay for its destruction of property having moral sanction, for the asser- tion of moral sanction involves the right of compensation. Where the right of compensation itself becomes the issue is only where the want of moral sanction in the property m question is conceded. "Thus the belief in the rightfulness of compensation for 212 THE LAND QUESTION. the abolition of slavery bore no determining part in the minds of those who believed in the rightfulness of slavery. * * * It was only in the minds of those who bad come to think that slavery was wi-ong and ought to be abolisht, that the idea that slave-holders must be compensated assumed importance and became the pivotal question. ''So as to land. The idea of compensation is raised and has importance only where it sei-ves as a secondary defence of pri- vate property in land. If a man believes in private property in land it is needless to address to him any argument for the necessity of compensation on its abolition. * * * To compensate for the discontimiance of a Avrong is to give those who profit by the wrong the pecuniary equivalent of its con- tinuance. 'Now the state has nothing that does not belong to the individuals who compose it. What it gives to some it must take from others. Abolition with compensation is therefore not really abolition, but continuance under a different form — on one side of unjust deprivation and on the other side of unjust appropriation." But aside from this, for what should present land-owners be compensated? Single Taxers do not propose to deprive them of anything which is rightfully theirs. If the proposition were for the state to "take away the land" from the present legal owners, a claim for compensation would have plausi- bility, tho it would lack justice. But Single Taxers do not propose this; for tho it would be just, there is a better way of accomplishing the same result — the securing of equality of rights in the use of land. People do not ask or expect com- pensation for taxes paid except public benefits received. The question of compensation would not come up. Mr. Taylor says in Indictment Xuniber .5 : "As to our town and city lots, the taxes and interest on the money invested in them prohibit their being held out of use for any great length of time. * * * In fact, the zeal of the owners of lots to make them bring in a yearly income usiially results in an ex- cess of houses." An "excess of houses" when thousands of families live in crowded tenements! Tliere cannot be an "ex- cess of houses" any more than an excess of food and clothing A EBPLY. 213 until every family has a home and is comfortably fed and clothed. The trouble is ruot "an excess of houses," but in- ability on the part of the masses to pay for decent shelter. I beg to take issue with Mr. Taylor on his statement that "land owners do not to any material extent withhold their land from use." They "pay taxes on it every year," it is true, but unused land is generally assessed at a merely nominal value because it is "unprodiTctive." It is perfectly true that the effect of the present tax on land values as far as it goes is to dis- courage the holding of land out of use and for this very reason Single Taxers advocate the increase of that tax to thefuUrental value of the land that this evil may be entirely prevented. But on account of the smallness of the tax there are ini all of our large cities valuable lots either entirely or partially unused. This partial or entire holding out of use of productive land com- pels resort- to inferior land, and produces the very evils Mr. Taylor bemoans — the cutting do^vn of forests befor'e land already cleared has been fully utilized. One reason w^hy land is held partially or wholly out of use, notwithstanding the na- tural desire of men to make it produce a profit, is that, owing to the taxation of improvements and the habit of asse^ing "un- productive real estate" below its actual value, if land were adequately improved the owner's taxes would be much higher both on the land and the improvements. He therefore often finds it to his advantage to keep the land idle or only partially used and his taxes consequently low. There is no need to "cut down any more of our forests," for there is plenty of valuable land for all to use if they could get at it; and the Single Tax would make it easier, not more difficult, to get at it. Mr. Taylor thinks, according to Indictments ISTumbers 6 and 7, that both mortgage debtors and mortgage creditors would be injured if not ruined by the introduction of the Single Tax. He says: "The total amoimt of our mortgage debts in 1890 was $6,019,679,985. This was an increase of $2,404,839,985 since 1888, and these mortgage debts now probably amount to ten billions of dollars. These mortgages are secured by both the real estate and the improvements thereon. Now let us suppose that the public thru the single 214 THE LAND QTJESTIOlSr. tax system, has appropriated the land. This throws the entire mortgage debt on the improvememts and such personal prop- erty as the debtor may have subject to execution. Of course the debtor will not be able to pay the debt after the real owner- ship of the land has been taken from him, and he will have to pay interest on the debt and also a full rental on the land, if he chooses to remain on it." Mr. Taylor when he says "these mortgages are secured by both the real estate and the improvements thereon," seems to overlook the fact that "real estate" includes the "improve- ments'' on land as well as the land. This is only an eiror in terms, but in such discussions we should be accurate^ in their use. This and the rest of these indictments constitute a terrible showing, if true, and one that should make Single Taxers pause before inflicting such evils on the country. But is it true? In the first place "the public" cannot "appropriate the land" "thru the single tax system" because that "system" does not include the appropriation of the land by "the public." "The single tax system" requires the appropriation by "the public" of "rent" — not of "land;" a very different thing. In the second place, it by no means follows "of course" that "the debtor will not be able to pay the debt after the real ownership of the land has been taken from him." On the contrary, after the Single Tax has been introduced, the pri- vate appropriation of rent thereby prevented, and land specu- lation, the raiser of rent and lo^verer of wages, deetroyed, all men can earn miotne than they do now and will also be able to get what they earn. The "debtor" will thea-efoT'e be in a beitter position to pay both the "interest on the debt" and the "debt" itself than he is now, as far as his own earnings are concerned. If the "ownership of the land" enables him to do either more easily now it is because that "ownership" enables him to ap- propriate some of the earnings of others. Certainly Mr. Taylor would not perpetuate a system that did that, because it was an advantage to those who profited or seemed to profit by the wrongful appropriation. As well defend human chattel slavery on the same ground. A REPLY. 215 Mr. Taylor says further: "This rental would absorb all the profits he could make out of the land by tilling it, and he could not pay the annual interest on the debt — much less the prin- cipal." Are we to suppose from this that Mr. Taylor under- takes to criticize the Single Tax withont understanding that land can be used in other ways than by tilling it? Does he mean his readers to think that the Single Tax would require a man to pay as the "rent" of the lajid he held "all the profits he could make out of the land" by using it? If so, he should investigate further before passing judgment. Rent is not measured by all a man can make by using land, but "by the excess of its product over that which the same application can secure fro^m the least productive land in iise." It cannot, then, ever absorb that part of the product which is due to his labor alone or his capital, but only that p'art which is due to his use of a superior location to which all others have exactly the same right which he has. Mr. Taylor says further: "There is probably more money loaned out on personal security — ^or motes with sureties — than there is on mortgage security. In reckoning the solvency of the makers of these notes and their sureties the creditor looks principally to the amount of uniencumbered real estate they own. If the government by the Single Tajc appropriates all of this land, it so far destroys the security of those notes and also so far destroys the ability of 'thle debtors to pay the notes." That the introduction of the Single Tax would destroy part (even the principal part) of the security for the payment of a debt, is no more an argument against its introduction than it would be against the abolition of chattel slavery because debts were secured (as they used to l>e) by chattel mortgageson slaves. That the Siugfe Tax would dtestroy the "ability of the debtors to pay the notes" has already been shown to be an error. A thing which lowers rent and raises wages cannot make it more difficult for debtors to pay their debts. But it will make the contraction of future debts less necessary; it will make mortgages on land impossible. The terrible dis^ turbance our friend describes so graphically would occur only during the tramsition state. Must we endure the evils resulting 216 THE LAND QUESTION. from a vicious land system because its abolition will result in temporary loss to those who seem to profit by its continuance? Mr. Taylor is much disturbed by the losses the poor people of the country would suffer from the destruction of the system which makes them poor. He says: "The rich creditor could stand this loss. * * * g^t not so mth the poor creditors who have their savings or small patrimony loaned out. This loss would be heavy and ruinous to them. The deposits in our savings banks amount to $2,065,631,298. They are mostly loaned on real estate security. The Single Tax would ruin every savings bank in the country and their depositors would lose their savings." This is pure assumption; but suppose it were true. There are thousands of people who suffer from our present unjust land system and who are too poor to have de- posits in a savings bank, where there is one "poor" person who has a deposit. Better then, far better, that the poor depositors should lose their all th'an lihat the injustice from which they are supposed to profit should be continued. But it is an error to suppose they do profit by it. Their increased earning capacity under the Single Tax would more than compensate them for the loss of the little interest they receive from savings banks. It is also an error to suppose that all the deposits in our savings banks come from "poor" people.* A large part of the deposits come from the rich. As those who have boOTowed money from individuals could, under the Single Tax, more easily pay both interest and prin- cipal because wages would be raised to the full earnings of labor, the same would be true of bon-owers from savings banks, and it therefore cannot be sbo^vn that "the Single Tax would iiiin eveiry savings banl? in the country." But if it could, it would be no reason foa- not adopting the Single Tax. ]\Iiist we hesitate to enact justice because the beneficiaries of injustice would suffer? A "poor man" who is profiting by a A^Tong has no more claim on our consideration than a rich one. The owner of one slave, even if he had invested all his "hard earned cash" in him and depended on him for support, had no more claim on him than the legal owner of hundreds of slaves had on'them. A REPLY. 217 There is no occasion for any confusion in regard to the pay- ment of debts, whether secured by mortgage or not. If a man has borrowed money, or otherwise contracted a just debt, he should pay it, without regard to whether he has given security or not. Giving the security does not make the debt just; the destruction of that security cannot make it unjust. But if the public hias a right to rent, all remit, it should require the holder of land to pay it without regard to whether he has or has not pledged it as security for the payment of some debt. If the holder of land has no right to the rent, the holder of a mort- gage has no more. Mr. Taylor says: "The reports of the census and statistical departments of our G-ovemimeoat have no charm for them" (the Single Taxers) which is veary true in one sense. Single Taxers base their belief not on figures, but on thte' eternial prin- ciples of justice and morality. They are free traders in the literal sense of the word' — ^not "English free traders." They believe in the "sacred right of property," and recognize that the true basis of ownership is production. All forms of wealth (appropriable labor pirod^ucts having utility) are rightfully privaite property, and whein any one cam show a title to^ land direct from the Creator, or when any one is able to produce land, then will Single Taxers believe in private property in land. Single Taxeirs oppose all tariffs, internal rievenue, in- heritance, license, mercantile and othea- such taxes because they hold that every one owns himself, and therefore has an in- alienable, indefeasible and absolute right toi the full product of his labor after paying for the use of the land on which he produces. The land value tax is the only just revenue for government expenses; therefore, the government, like the individual, should confine its expenses to this legitimate income. Mr. Taylor forgets in computing what the present expenses of government are that an army of tax-gatherers and assessors is now necessary, which under the Single Tax would be very materially reduced in size. All the custom-house officers would find themselves obliged to earn their living in some other way than legally and under orders robbing every one 218 THE LAND QUESTION. who comes into the countiy of a part of what rightfully be- longs to him, and a comparatively few men would be able to attend to assessing and collecting the Single Tax. Therefore the long list of figures counts for nothing when discussing the Single Tax from the standpoint of morals. But, as has been shown, the cost, of government would be materially decreased under the Single Tax. It may also be added that as able statisticians as Mr. Taylor have proved equally tO' their satis- faction that the Single Tax would yield such a large revenue that we should not know what to do with it. We will leave these Kilkenjiy argumeints to dispose of each other. Mr. Taylor says: "The stores, the factories, the hotels and office buildings and the noteis, etc., are means of productian, and why should not they be taxed the same as the farmer's means of production? The land is the farmea-'s mjeans of production, and it is absolutely criminal tO' relieve the means of production of all other classes of citizens from taxation, and thereby greatly increiase the burden of taxation on the farmer's meians of production." Land is the opportunity for production for the mardliant, tiite manufacturer or amy other producer exactly as it is for the farmer, not the means; and the capital eanployed, wheither that be buildings, machinery, tools or money, is one of the vieans of production, labor being the other. All wealtih is produced by the application of labor to land, and it can be produced in no other way. Griven these two factors, lamd and labor, and everything can be produced which man meeds to satisfy Ms material desires. Even capital is a product of labor, and can be produced to amy desired extent when labor is free to use land. Mr. Taylor says: "That we have a large class of extremdy wealthy citizens in this countiy (m'ostly in cities), who own hundneds of millions of dollars' worth of personal property and very little or no real estate is true." If this be true it is also true that they have a perfect right to own- all the per- sonal property they can honiestly get; the more the batter. If the -source of the income of these so-called wealthy men be examined it will be found, in most cases, if mot in all, to A EEPLT. 21^ be land m'onopoly or otlieir form of special privilege. If both of these were abolisht we should have few if any millioniaires, and all incomes w^ould be earned by those who received them. Multi-millionaires do not poseeas mamy millions of dollars in mioney, but they have taxing privileges which ar© valued at many millions because they give the ownlers th'e power to ap- propriate wealth equal to tihie interest on so many millions of dollars. Destroy the taxing privileges and thfe "wealth" of thieee multi-millionaires would shiduk to^ the value of the actual wealth wbich they own. Songle Taxers have no quarrel with any amount of honestly earned wealth, but they oppose dishonesty or inequity of all kinds. It is, to say the leasit, a little unusual to see two housies on ffle sarnie street, as described by Mr. Taylor, ome worth m^any thousands of dollars, filled with expensive furniture, etc., ■wn land value is unjust. The Single Tax has been very a.ptly called the "sinless tax," as it would take from no one what is rightfully his, and at the same time leave to every one all that belongs to- him. In his last paragraph Mr. Taylor suggests miasny "ways of preventing land monopoly that would mot h'ave the unjust, demoralizing and disastrous effects of the single tax," as "pro- gressive taxation," "graduated income and inheiritance tax- ation," "a system of exemption of homesteads from taxation," "heavy stamp duties on sales of real estate not to be used as homesteads," "the exemption of homesteads from mofrtgages" and "the establishmient of Grovemniiant agricultural villages foT the very poor." The trouble with all these remediiies is that they involve vio'lation of human rights. They involve the appTiopriation by govecmmeint of what is justly private property, and the leaving in paivate hands of wh^t is justly public property, while they would open the door to deception and corruption. "Proga-essive taxation," "gradua,ted income and inheritance taxation" would take away a part of every man's rightful property, and the same can be said of "stamp duties." Home- steads ai-e composed of land improvemeints. Under the Single Tax it would be impossible to mortgage the land, as there would be no Value left in private hands to mortgage. The owner could mortgage the improvements if he wisht, and why should he not? Should the community prevent his doing A KEPLY. 221 what he would with has own? In so far as they did they would destroy his owoieirship. . But und'er the Siagle Tax he would be far less likely to wish to mortgage his pTOperty than to- day. Homesteads are gemeirally moirtgaged because of the in- ability of the ownieir to get a liomeetead otherwise', but with the raising of wages to the full earnings of labor, this difficulty would be greatly decreased if mot enitirely removed. The in- troduction of the Single Tax is th© best means of preveniting mortgages on homastaads. The Single Tax would exempt from taxation that part of homesteads whicli consists of improvements; but if all the peo- ple have equal rights to all land, there is no reason why land used as a honiestead should be exempt any more than any other land. To specially exempt hply, \\hich it can hardly do for very long. ITor some time past, prices have been so generallj' rising that the mone- tary unit, for the time, at least, would seem actually to be falling rather than rising. ' . A word now as to Indictment No. 4. The single taxer uses the word "rent," not in the popular meaning, "consideration paid to the owner of the land or the temporary use and occupation of the land by another" (corresponding to definition 2, Century Diction- ary), birt in the technical sense in which the word has long been used in political economy (see definition 3, Century Dictionary). In that sense, land which yields rent at all, yields it just the same, whether it is occupied by its owner or by another. In the latter case, the tenant pays "rent," in the popular sense of that word, to the owner, because the land will yield liim (the tenant) the eco- nomic rent. Whether he pays more or less than the economic rent which he obtains from the use of the land and the sale of its pro- ducts depends on how bad or how good a bargain he has made with the landlord. Of course, the rent which he pays to the latter includes what he pays for the use of the improvements, but the economic rent is only the rent of the bare land. No part of the 226 THE LAND QUESTION. rent paid by a tenant for the use of the improvements is included in the term "rent," as used respecting' land in political economy; nor is it at all certain that the rent paid by the tenant for the land itself (supposing that this could be clearly disting-uisht from what he pays for the use of the improvements) will coincide with the eco- nomic rent which the land yields; but it is quite certain that land wihich does not yield rent in the economic sense of the word to the man who has the use of it, whoever he may be, will not in the lon^ run bring the landlord, if let to a tenant, any return over and above a compensation for the use of the improvements. On the whole and in the long run, the larger the economic rent yielded by the laud, the larger the "rent," as used in common parlance, which the land- lord will get over and above a return on the annual value of the improvements. It may fairly be claimed on behalf of the leading Single Tax writers and speakers that they have generally shown a clear understanding of the meaning of the word rent as it is used in political economy. i Under this same indictment the writer asks, "are the homeS-, farms and residences of all these six millions of faniilies to be con- fiscated, simply to enable us to punish the landlords of the coun- try?" So far as regards the land occupied by these families, the single taxer who goes to the leng^ih proposed by Mr. George — that of making the tax equal to the economic rent — does answer, "yes." He contends, however, that holders of small properties including a large part of the farms of the country, would gain more by the exemption of their improvements and personal property from taxation and by their liberation from the burden of indirect taxes, than they would lose by the imposition of a tax taking all the economic rent of the land. Up to a certa.in point this conten- tion is true, tho most Single Taxers are disposed to exaggerate the number of property-holders who would be thus benefited by the single tax. It is certain that a very large number of persons who cannot be "called rich, would lose thru the confiscation of the value of their land, even after allowing for what they would gain by exemption from taxes on improvements, etc. Under the Mill plan, such confiscation would be avoided, except as to future incre- ment of value. Under Indictment No. 4, in the last paragraph but one, we read: "A simple illustration will prove that it would be the actual con- fiscation of the real estate itself." That, of course, is true only as regards the bare land included in the real estate. It is not true of the improvements. As regards the bare land it is true, but it does not follow that sales of real estate would not take place. Properties would be assessed up to the supposed value of the bare land, and when offered for sale, the land and improvements together would bring whatever they might be worth subject to the assessment, which, supposing the assessment to cover exactly the value of the bare land, would be simply the value of the improvements. Indictment No. 5 sets forth that "Single Taxers exag-g-erate at PETERS REPLY. 227 teast one thousand fold the amount of land and number of lots that are being held out of use for speculative purposes." Under this head it is contended that ibown or city lots "will be improved as rapidly as there is amy demand for houses." This may be true, and it may even be true that in our towns and cities there is a ten- dency for houses to be built in excess of the demand for them, tho you will probably admit that the amount of decent and com- fortable house-room in our cities, however far it may exceed the aWlity -of the city populations to pay for its use, is very far from exceeding, or being adequate to the real needs of those populations. The most important claim of the Single Taxers is that the single tax would save the millions of landless people from the payment of that tribute to the landowners to which they are now subject. And if it had this effect, it would to that extent increase their abil- ity to provide themselves with a decent and comfortable livelihood, increased house-room being not the least important of the things in which they would add to their comfort. You have doubtless no- ticed that during periods of depression in business, the number of empty houses in cities is largely increased. This, obviously, is mainly due to the increased necessity of economizing in house- rent felt by the working classes, two or three families that under prosperous conditions would each have a house to itself, being often crowded together in one dwelling. There is, however, another feature of the case which must not be overlookt. It is tme that our city populations are all, or sub- stantially all, housed in one way or another; therefore it may be said that the supply of houses, taking things as they are, is equal to the demand, or even exceeds it. But if we ask ourselves the question where are they housed, we may easily see that land monop- oly has a decided influence in preventing them from being housed as advantageously as, in its absence, they might be. Philadelphia is perhaps more fortunate in this respect than most cities; but if the area within which dwell the people who depend upon city employment for a livelihood be taken into view, it will be seen that thousands of them have to pass innumerable vacant lots in getting to their homes. In most of our cities, streets near the outskirts run thi-u a vast extent of unoccupied land, blocks of houses "being scattered here and there in the midst of these un- occupied spaces. This sho-\\'s that the people whose "zeal" to make their lots "bring in a yearly income" impels them to build houses, are not always the ones owning the land on which, from the point of view of public interest, it would be. most desirable to have the houses built. You can readily see how enormous would be the saving in street and sewer construction, lighting, water-supply, policing, etc., if cities extended their areas compactly instead of doing so in the present straggling fashion. It is true that a pant of the people employed in cities would live from choice outside .of their limits in order to have the advantage of a garden or for other reasons; but it cannot be reasonably doubted that multitudes now live miles away from their places of daily employment, who would 228 THE LA^fD QUESTIOX. gladly live much nearer to them if they could afford to do so. It would not he difficult to show that land monopoly affects the growth of cities in the manner just indicated, causing them, to cover, in a straggling fashion, two or three times the space they would occupy were its influence eliminated. The operation of land monopoly, in connection with farm-lands, is quite closely analogous to its operation in connection with the growth of cities, even tho its effects are less strikingly apparent. Millions of acres of rich land have lain vacant because held for a rise by its o^vners, when emigrants were passing over it and going hundreds of miles further west to take up land of a less desirable quality that could still be had directly from the Government. It may be true that, on the whole, all the land needed to supply the existing demand for produce is in cultivation, but much of the land that is in cultivation is less desirable than other lands, which mo- nopoly practically keeps out of cultivation. Moreover, in so far as land reform might improve the condition of the masses, it would increase their power of consumption; and just as we have seen that it would increase their demand for house- room in cities, it would also increase their demand for agricultural produce and thereby call for the enlargement of the agricultural area. Under Indictment >Co. 6 a strong point is made against uncompen- sated- expropriation of land owners. In all those cases in which the value of an owner's property would be diminisht by the single tax, the security for any debt based upon such property would, of course, be sjmilarl^v diminisht. Single Taxers would probably dis- pose of that objection in the same off-hand way in which they dis- pose of all objections to expropriating the land owners; but to show that not only the land owners, but millions of others would be affected, is highly important, as helping- to give a truer measure of the practical difBculties that would be encountered in attempt' ing to carry out the single tax scheme. No doubt Single Taxers would say that their scheme would go into operation very gradual- ly, and that existing mortgage debts would be, for the most part, collected before any appreciable diminution occurred in the value of landed property. That, however, is far from being certain. The mere existence in any state of a Single Tax party strong enuf to get in an entering wedge for the Single Tax principle, might so impair coniidence in the future of landed property as to produce a fall of prices quite out of proportion to the amount of the initial tax. Indictment No. 7: ^Vithout going quite so far as to admit that the single tax would necessarily "result in the creditors absorbing the greater part of the improvements upon our real estate," or that it would necessarily "rob over six millions of our citizens of their homes and personal property," it may be said that the points made under Indictment No 7, must, on the whole, be regarded as a strong reinforcement to those under Indictment No. 6. As regards the comparative value of land and improvements in PETEES' EEPLY. 229 the city and country respectively, it may be doubted whether the facts will bear out the view taken under indictment No. 8. It is true that, in mere extent, land in the country has an incomparably larger ratio to buildings than it does in the city; but the value of a lot of 18 or 20 feet by 100 (more or less) on which stands an or- dinary city dwelling-house may easily be worth more — often vastly more — than many a one hundred acre farm. A pamphlet on local taxation, as affecting farms, publisht in 1897 by the Department of Agriculture, contains some points of inter- est bearing on the ratio between the values of real and personal property and between that of land and improvements. The. contention under Indictment No. 8, that land as a means of production is no more a, legitimate object for taxation than fac- tories, office buildings, etc., would probably be answered by the Single Taxer by saying- that land is a. means of production which rightfully belongs to the public, and that, therefore, the public should be paid for its use as » means of production. If things were in a state of nature and we were about to establish a land sys- tem, this argument would be perfectly valid. The objection to it, as things are, is that the public has instituted private property in land and has encouraged individuals to invest their means therein. This consideration, however, cannot fairly be used against the as- sertion by the public of its right to all future increase in the value of land arising from causes other than the action of the owners in making improvements in the land, or on it. It may be worth while to point out in this connection, that under the system proposed by the Single Taxers, railway shareholders would not escape tajcation, for, altho their stocks, being personal property, would not, as such, be taxt, the road-beds would be taxt as land, and thus sharehold.ers, instead of paying a tax on their stocks, would have it taken out of their dividends before the latter are paid. It is stated (still under Indictment No. 8) that 20 millions of people living in our cities "own nibe-tenths of the personal property and improvements of the nation" and the question is askt, "why should they be relieved from taxation?" The chief reason for exempting personal property from taxation, held by many who accept no other part of the Sin- gle Tax doctrine, is that so much of it is easily concealed and so escapes taxation even where subject to it by law. On the other hand, a land tax, supposing it would raise tlie necessary amount of revenue, and supposing it were confined to intercepting- the future unearned increase in economic rent as proposed by Mr. Mill, would take nothing from land-owners except the tribute which they ob- tain from others; for economic rent, by its very definition, is such a tribute. So far, howe\er, as the public has encouraged the land-owner to purchase the privilege of taking such a tribute, it ought not to deprive him of it without compensation. It is at least highly probable that any land tax which could be justified, would have to be supplemented by other taxes, or at any rate, by other sources of public revenue; and one such source is indicated in the 230 THE LANB QUESTION. pamphlet, "An Inheritaiice for the Waifs."* In the taxation of personal property, the. farmer decidedly suffers, because his jier- somal property consists mainly of things which cannot be hidden; while the personal property in cities consists largely of things that can be effectually put out of sight. It should be remenabered that under the operation erf the Single Tax principle no tax could be imposed upon land which does not yield economic rent, nor could a tax exceeding the amount of the economic rent be imposed upon any land. The tax proposed by Mr. Mill would, of course, be lighter, since it could take only the future incrcose of economic rent. Mr. Taylor states that the expenses of the Government for 1896 amounted to $748,369,469. On pag'e 25, of the Statistical Abstract of the United States for 1897, the total disbursements of the Gov- ernment are stated at $434,678,654, against which may be set postal revenues, page 30, amounting to $83,499,208, leaving the net expense $358,179,446. It is truly said that the farmer cannot protect himself against the single tax by raising the price of his farm products, but if a, land tax were confined to taking the future increase of economic rent, this would involve no hardship, since, as already pointed out, eco- nomic rent is itseli a tribute which he collects, either directly in the sale of what is produced on his land, or indirectly from a tenant. Washington, D. C. EDWARD T. PETERS. • A copy of this pamphlet will be sent free by the publisher of the book to any who request it, as long as the present supply lasts. It advo- cates a graduated inheritance tax, to be used for the support and education of "waifs." PETEES. 231 JOHN STUART MILL'S PLAN OF LAND REFORM. By Edwaud T. Petees. A plan of dealing with the Land Question which seems en- titled to more attention than it has yet reeeived, was long ago proposed by John Stuart Mill. It has sometimes been said that his adoption of radical views on the subject of land occuiTed in his later years and does not represent the results of his most vigorous thinking, but bis plan of land tenure re- foi-m is, in its essential features, clearly outlined in his Prin- ciples of Political Economy, publisht in 1848, when the author was about forty-two years of age. As a means of show- ing not only what he proposed, but the line of thought along which he advanced to the position as a leader of a land reform movement occupied by him in his later years, it will be of in- terest to quote at so'me length from the work just mentioned.* The first two chaptee got from its cul- ti\-ation or other use are greatly influenced. In the theoreti- cal treatment of this subject it is customary to assume that • To make this proviso safe it would be necessary to assess sueli im- provements at tlieir actual value at the time, without reference to the cost of making them; otherwise losses thru ill directed labor or injudicious expenditure in making improvements on land would in most cases be sad- dled on the State.— E. T. P. 238 THE LAND QUESTION. there is always some land in cnltivation whioli, tho its use be had -without charge, will barely repay the cost of its cultiva- tion, returning to the labor employed, according to its kind, the ciistomary rate of compensation and to the capital used the ordinary rate of interest, maMng good the losses by wear and tear of implements, the deterioration of fences and build- ings, the ageing of farm animals, etc.,aind repaying the various expenses necessarily incuiTed, but affording no surplus. Such, land is designated by economists as "no rent land." In other words, the absence of a surplus under the conditions n.am'ed is the absence of rent; and all land, which in return for a like expenditure of capital and labor yields more than such "no rent land" yields rent, the amount of such excess being the amount of the rent which it yields. If the landowner uses the land himself, this excess or renit comes directly into his own hands in the use or the sale of his produce. If he lets it to a tenant, the rent comes first into the hands of the latter and its approsimate amount is passed on to the landlord in the payment made to him for the use of his property. But if the latter comprises buildings and other improvements, this payment, tho all popularly known as "rent," is not all "rent" in the econo-mic sense of the word. At any rate it is not all rent of land; and it is only rent of land that we are here discussing. Most vmters have regarded that part of the tenant's payment which may be considered as a compensation for the use of the buildings and other im- provements as interest on their capital plus something to cover insiu-anoe, deterioration, etc. ; but it is only necessary for our present purpose to remember that "rent" as we axe here using the word in connection with land, does not include anything which can be considered as compensation for the use of im- provements. Moreover, if a bargain between landlord and. tenant should divide the total sum to be paid by the latter into two parts — so much for the use of the improvements and so much for the use of the laud — it would not follow that the latter part would exactly coincide with the economic rent, or land rent, as above explained. The landlord would most likely not wish to take any less than the amoiunt of the eco- PETERS. 239 iKxmic rent derivable from the land, and tbe tenant would certainly not wish to pay more ; but neither landlord nor ten- ant could determine in advance exactly what that amount would be. The produce would come intO' the hands of the tenant, and thru that he would receive the economic rent. As to his payment to the landlord, it woi^ld simply be the amount stipulated between tlieni, and, taking one year with another, would probably, under a reigime of competition^ differ but slightly fro^m the economic rent received by the tenant; but it would be almost a miracle if in any single year the stipulated land rent and the actual econO'mic rent yielded by the land sho'uld exactly coincide. It has been convenient for the sake of brevity to consider rent in connection with agricultural land only; but just as agricultural land varies in fertility, advantages of situation, etc., so does land applied to manufacturing, commercial and other purposes vary in the degree of its adaptation to the uses required of it, and in the amount of economic rent which differeint portions will yield. If in agriculture, manufac- tures, commerce, or any other branch of industrial acti'^dty, there is land in use which barely p.ays e-xpenses when it can be had without cost, such land is, in the language of the econ- omists, "no rent land," and all land that under like conditions would do better, needs only to be properly used in order to yield rent ; and this, whether it is or is not let to a tenant who pays what is called rent in popular language. It foUo'WS from this that all the land in u=6 except a com- paratively insignificant portion yields rent, and also that broadly speaking, those who own it are receivers and the rest of the community, payers of rent, even tho in a large propor- tion of cases, neither the receivers or payers may be aware of the fact, owing to the circumstance that the payments take place in the purchase of the land's produce. Moreover, enormous as the aggregate amount of rent already is, it is, as Mr. Mill points out, progTessively increasing with the in- crease of population and wealth; and in a country like our own, destined to sustain many times its present population, the rent to come into being thru this increase will be many 240 THE LAXD QUESTION. times larger in amount than tlie rent now existing. Plenoe, inadequate as ]\Ir. Mill's plan will seem to those who wish to treat all economic rent as public property and take it from its present recipients hj means of a tax, the difference be- tween his plan and theirs, in resiject to the magnitude of the acquisition made by the public, would, in the long run, not be -^-ery great. ^Vdvocates of what has been called "the sin- gle tax limited" have proposed to be content with a tax that should take about 60 per cent, of the economic rent of land, leaving the other 40 per cent, to the landholders as a sort of compensation for their service in saving the State the trouble of taking actual possession of the land and managing it thru its own agents. It is probable that if Mr. Mill's plan were ' now put in operation, the amount of economic rent which it would leave in the hands of landholders would' fifty years hence l>e much less than 40 jDer cent, of the total economic rent of that time; because it is reasonable to expect, from what we know of the rate of increase in population and the still more rapid rate of increase of wealth, that the sum added to economic rent by increase within the intervening period will be two or three times as gTCat as the present total of such rent; and of that added sum, all except a margin snffioiently wide to insure the occupiers of the land against possible eur croacliment upon the results of their own industry and en- terprise would belong to the public. - • Possibly there may be S(jme conntries already densely peo- pled in which the value of land is so near the maximum that there would be little, if anything, to gain by putting in op- eration such a plan of taxation as that propoeed by Mr. Mill. Even in countries where land is on t«he whole rising in value, there are often distri<4s in which it is declining; and during peri(jds of industrial depression increase of value is sometimes arrested for years and on a very large scale. In this con- nection the decline in the value of agricultural land, not only in Europe, but in large sections of the United States, mil naturally occur to the reader; but in our own eo'untry, at least, that decline has probably been fully balanced by the increase in its value in those newly settled regions to whose competi- PETEES. 241 tion in agricultural produce the fall in the value of land else- where is chiefly ascribed. Moreover, there is the best reason to Ijelieve that this decline is in most cases merely a, tempo- rary phenomenon due to the rapid extension of cultivation over \'irgin soil, brought ^^dthin reach of the world's market? by the remarkable cheapening of transpoa-tatioii which has occurred within the last few decades and obtained by the cul- tivators at a cost little more than no^minal. AVith the increase in the world's population that is steadily going on, the new countries whose competition has for a ooiisiderable pei-iod been rendering farming comparatively unprofitahle Avill speedily be settled up, and an increasing proportion of their produce will be required for their o^Avn population. Sir William C'rookes has calculated that at the present rate of increase among those people \vith whom In-ead is a staplefood, the demand for wheat will -by the year 1930 have outgrown the possible supply, un- less chemistry shall in the meantime have come to the rescue by pro'viding an economical means of securing a large increase in the yield per acre. 'And while this view seems to under- estinrate the available areas of uncultivated land hereafter to be brought under cultivation, it is prohably much nearer the truth than any forecast which assumes that the present de- pression in the value of agTicultural land is likely to continue indefinitely. It is tolerably safe to say that if the agricul- tural lands of our older states, or even those of Great Britain and Ireland, were assessed at their present depressed value as the initial step in putting in operation the plan of taxation proposed Ijy ^fr. Mill, no very long period would elapse be- fore they would, become a rich source of revenue thru an in- crease of rental value which, in the absence of some such measure will go into the pockets of the individual oAvners. And if this wonld be time even in the case of lands destined to remain agricultural, how much gTeater wo'uld be the gain in the ease of those, now, agTicultural, upon which towns and cities will grow up, as so many have grown up mthin the last half century, or over which existing towns and cities will gTOW and spread, or beneath whose surface mineral treasures now undreamed of will lie discovered? 242 THE LAND QUESTION. It is not, howe/ver, among those to -wlioni sucli a measure as Mr. Mill proposed will se§m inadequate, but among those who will regard it as altogether too drastic, that the vast ma- jority ocf its opponents will, for the present, at least, be found. By what right, it will be askt, can the state intervene to de- prive the o^wners of land of such profits as would accrue to them from the future increase in its value? Is it not their own property? and have they not, therefore, the right 'either to sell or to keep it, as may suit their own pleasure or con- venience ? And if they choose to keep it and reap any p-rofits that may arise from its increase in value, is not that exclu- sively their own business? Those who have read attentively the extracts above pre- sented will probably admit that Mr. Mill has given some good reasons for the view that it is not exclusively their own busi- ness, and that, on the contrary, it is the right and the duty of the state to see that the land is not so held as to subvert the public interests. Attention has already be^n called to his assertion of the right of the state to do with all land what it habitually does with any particular land that may be needed for public uses, namely to take it upon payment of its market value, which, as he elsewhere says, "includes the present value of all future expectations." If land needed for public streets, highways, railroads and various other purposes can rightfully be taken without the owner's consent and at a price fixt, not by him, but in a manner prescribed by law, and if this may be done on the ground that the pxiblic interest requires it, then it would only be necessary to show that public interest re- quires it, to justify the taking of any other, or of all other, privately owned land upon similar conditions. Mr. Mill, however, did not propiose to go so far as to take the land \vith- out the owner's consent. He only proposed to determine its miarket value and then give the O'wner the option between turning it over to the Grovernment at that value', either im- mediately or at any future time, and, on the other hand, re- taining the possession of it subject to the condition that all fu- ture increase in its value should belong to the Government, and that the latter should be entitled to take, by means of a PETERS. 243 tax, the annual income corresponding to sucli increase. If the O'Wner availed himself of his option to turn thei land over to the Government, the latter manifestly would reap the bene- fit of any future rise ia its value-, or bear the loss occasioned by any fall; and the design of Mr. Mill was to leave the Govern- ment in precisely this position ia case the landowners should accept the privilege of keeping possession of the land. In other words, his plan pro'vided that the Government should not suffer by allowing the landowner this option, and that the landowner should not suffer by accepting it; for in case of a rise of value, the Government was to- get the benefit thereof, and in case of a fall it was to bear the loss, just as it would in case it took actiial possession of the land and paid for it outright. This last it could obviously do in the exercise of that right of eminent domain universally recoignized. If it did less, because the landholder chose to have it so, this would afford no ground for complaint on his part. Doubtless, the convenience of both the Govemm-ent and the landholders would be greatly subserved if the latter de- cided to retain their lands upon the conditio-ns laid do'wn; and wisdom would dictate that the Government should avoid pursuing such a course as to make it their interest to decide otherwise. This, Mr. Mill appears to have kept carefully in view, for he proposed not only that the tax should be kept within such limits as not by its own operation to cut down the value of the land below the original valuation, but also that it should be considerably lower than the actual rise of value would call for, in order to give "an assurance of not touching an increase of income which might be the result of capital expended or industry exerted by the proprietor." As long as such a rule was adhered to, the landowners would find some profit in accepting the condition upon which it is proi- posed that the state shall refrain from exercising its acknow- ledged right of eminent domain, namely, the condition that in keeping possession of the land they are tO' hold it subject to a tax sufiiciently high to absorb the bulk of the future un- earned increment of value. One of the most distinguished of our American ^economists, 244 THE LAND QUESTION. 's\'ho cannot be accused of any ^vant of conservatism in his at^ titude on the land question, after stating the views of Mr. Mill at some length, made the following admissio'ns:* "That individual ownership of land is of comparatively recent in- stitution, the soil having- formerly been deemed the common posses- sion of cultivating- commujiities, held togiether by a real or con- structive tie of kinship; that even vyhen the private ownership of land was instituted, rights of property were coupled with political and military duties and fiscal oblig-ations, which constituted no inconsiderable compensation to the community for the loss of its interest in the land; and, finally, that these political and military duties and fiscal oblig-ations have been thrown ofE by the land- owning class, thru the exertion of their superior power and in- fluence in the formation of public policies and in the enactment of laws, without any adequate commutation thereof — these things ap- pear to me too well establisht to admit of question. From the point of view of political equity, I know of no answer which can successfully be made to Mr. Mill's argument. In my judgment, it stands on that side inexpungable." He proceeds, ho^viever, to give, from the side of political expediency, an entirely adversei judgment, and it is on that ground chiefly that Oipposition is to be apprehended. That formidable difficulties would havei to be grappled with and overcome in order to make such a jjlan sucoessful may be freely admitted, and it is worthy of consideratioin whether a modified plan might not lie adopted, by which, on the one hand, we could accomplish substantially Avhat ^Iv. Mill aimed at, in preventing the future increase of rent from enriching a limited class at the expense of the rest of the community, wdiile at the same time a^s-oiding the' gTeater part of these difficulties.* It is thought liy some that they would be avoided under the single tax, but in reality there does not * See Francis A. Walker's "Land and Its Rent." page 128, of an edition publistit by Little, Brown and Company, in 1883." * In a little book on the land question whicli the writer of this article is preparing, he hopes to indicate some features of such a plan. He be- lieves, too, that not only the future unearned increment, but existing land valur-s in excess of a certain exempted minimum, should be subject to taxtition; but, as regards existing values, he -svould malie no discrimination hetween land and other possessions, provided that the latter were of equal value and equally within the reach of the taxing power. Ri. cognizing fully the importance of guarding against the abuse or excessive use of this power he yet believes that existing accumulations of individual wealth should be made to contribute, in judicious and well considered ways, to redressine the economic evils ^ which have grown so largely out of past social injustice or out of unwise legislation due to ignorance of economic lawa ^ When tlie book just referred to is ready lor puWication, the writer will be Wlad to fur nish a prosi eotus of the same to any who may favor him with their names and aj dresses PETERS. 24o ajijiear to be any feature that fan be considered essential to the pilan of Mr. Mill by which it would be materially differ- entiated from that of ]\Ir. George' as regards administrative ditficulties in its practical working. Some e'xpressions used by Mr. Mill would perhaps suggest that he contemplated tlie purchase by the state of the improvements as well as the land, in cases wherein the o^wiiers elected to sell tbci latter at the official valuation rather than retain it subject to the proposed tax. But the purcliase of improvements, miless they were so intimately wr(]ught into the soil as to be inseparable from it, would be noi necessary part of such a plan as Mr. Mill had in view. The only difference lietween a case in which the land was bought outright and one in which it was retained by the owner, is that in the former the state would be entitled to a tax equal to the entire economic rent, as indicated by the latest assessment, whereas in the latter it would be entitled to that sum, less the amount of economic rent indicated by the assess- ment made when the new system went into effect, which would be a matter of permanent record. A simple operation in subtraction, for which all the data would be right at hand, is all that would differentiate the calciilation of the amount of the tax' in the one case from that which would be required in the other. In the former case the calculation would be exactly the same as under the Single Tax; in the latter it wonld differ from that only in the slight particular just in- dicated. Under Mr. Mill's plan and that of Mr. George alike, the im- provements necessary toi the use of the land could remain private property and pass from hand to hand at their market value ; and that value, under the one plan as imder the other, would be affected by the amount of the tax on the land, cor- responding to the true worth of the improvements, as con- sidered by themselves, only when the assessment on the land comesponded to its true economic rent. Under either the one plan ot tbe other, it would therefore be necessary for as- sessors to use the most careful discrimination in attempting to determine what part of the total value of a piece of real estate, consisting of land and improvements, was justly as- sessable on the land itself. 246 THE LAND QUESTION. It was, howeveiP, not the purpose of this article to compare tbe plan Oif Mr. Mill with that of Mr. Greorge, nor is it pos- sible within the time and space available to consider even the former exhaustively. A single rem.ark should, horweiver, be added. This is, that the plan being one for intercepting the future increment in the rent of land, it is chiefly valuable for new countries, where the greater part of the rent has yet to accrue; and if it should be adopted by State governments, rather than by the nation as a whole, it is ia the newer States that it would yield the richest harvest of future revenue. EQUITY SERIES. ^""i oo^pe?'yea?'''''' Single Numbers, 25o. Vol. I.— No. 1. September, 1898. RATIONAL MONEY — Parsons. A NATIONAL CURRENCY INTELLIGENTLY CONTROLLED IN THE INTERESTS OF THE WHOLE PEOPLE, AND CAREFULLY REGULATED IN REFERENCE TO THE TRUE COMMODITY BASIS, THE REAL CONSTANT OF EXCHANGE, BY MEANS OF THE MULTIPLE STANDARD IN SUCH A WAY THAT THE DOLLAR SHALL REMAIN CONSTANT IN ITS PURCHASING POWER FROM MONTH TO MONTH AND YEAR TO YEAR, REPRESENTING ALWAYS THE SAME AVERAGE AMOUNT OF COMMODITIES AND SERVICES AND GIVING TO ITS POSSESSOR AT ALL TIMES THE SAME AVERAGE COMMAND OVER THE WORLD OF PURCHASEABLE THINGS. JVo Copyright. On the contrary, an invitation is extended to all to do their utmost In every way to spread the truth contained in the following pages. Newspapers and magazines are at liberty to quote as freely as they will, due credit only being respectfully asked. PUBLISHED BY C. K. TAYLOR 1520 Chestnut Street, Philadelphia, Pa. SAJiIPLE PAGES OF "EATIONAL MONEY." PREFATORY NOTE. In the early spring of 1897, after tlie subsidence of the remarkable "battle of the standards" of the campaign of 1896, I realized the need of two things: First — A presentation of the historical instances of success with paper money; also the reasons for the failures that are so often cited by the partially informed as final argTiments against paper money. Second — A further development of, and a. strong presentation of the Multiple Standard, which is the only true and rational stand- ard for money — the only thing that will give us a normal dol- lar at all times instead of the abnormal gold standard dollar, or the soraewhat less abnormal bi-metalic dollar. 1 outlined my plan for such a, book and communicated the same to my friend, Prof. Frank Parsons, of Boston University, whose stu- dies had already led him to take advanced views upon the money question in his Arena articles of October and November, 1896. Being myself too busy to undertake the work, I was fortunate (and it was fortunate for the work) in securing the services of so eminent and able a scholar as he, who combines in a phenomenal degree the qualities of investigator, analyst, logician and original thinker. By the ability and thoroness with which Professor Parsons has done the work, he has placed not only myself, but our coufltry and the cause of economics under lasting obligations to him. The idea has here-to-fore been quite prevalent that paper money has been a failure in history. This book conclusively shows that many of the popularly considered failures have been successes in the main, and that paper money has succeeded or failed according as the correct principles have been followed or violated. In this respect it is just like the grocery business, brick making, farming, or any other business undertaking; it will succeed when correctly managed and fail when badly managed. Paper money is the money of civilization. It is here to stay. Its history and principles should be known. Gold and silver money was evolved by a natural process. The first paper money consisted of promises to pay gold and silver. The idea is still prevalent that paper money is only "represent- ative" money, and that it can "represent" only gold and silver. Why can it not "represent" any kind of wealth, or all kinds of wealth, averaged, as well as gold and silver? The purpose of this book is to solve this question. Money has been defined as "an instrument of association." Per- haps a better definition is an instrument of co-operation. As such it should be made as perfect as possible, and not be allowed to degen- erate into an instrument of oppression. An instrument by which all classes exchange products and services with all other classes should be just to all. It is my pleasure to announce that Professor Parsons is preparing a companion work to this on the transportation question. In this day of steam and electricity the transportation question has become of scarcely less importance than the money question. Other works on pressing public questions will follow. Philadelphia, August, 1898. C. F. Taylok. SAMPLE PAGES OP "EATIONAL MONEY." AUTHOR'S PREFACE. 1. The rise and fall of general prices is one of the greatest evils that can afBict a commercial nation. Industry is apt to be unduly- intensified by rising prices, and so obstructed by their fall that depression and panic result. The movement of prices changes the distribution of wealth— alters the shares that go to labor, capital and management, makes hoarded money more or less valuable, and lightens or intensifies the burden of debt. A buys a farm for $4,000 and borrows $2,000 to help pay for it. In a few years ' the fall of prices brings his land down to a value of $3,000. But the debt has not shrunk and the creditor takes the whole farm for a loan that was worth but half the farm at the time it was made. At the same rate the creditor class, loaning throughout the country, would acquire the United States in return for loans amounting to half its value. It is estimated according to a careful writer, the Hon. Henry Winn, that the fall of prices since 1873 has given the creditor classes of the world, at the expense of debtors, an unearned increment of $3,000,000,000 per annum, equal in eight years to the whole assessed valuation of the United States by the last census, and aggregating, in the quarter of a century covered by the estimate, a sum exceeding the full value of all the property in the country; and this vast value has been paid by debtors in addition to the principal and interest they agreed to pay. No wonder that the creditor classes are anxious to con- trol the money system through which the movement of prices may be governed. And no wonder the debtor classes are anxious to try their hand at managing the machinery of finance. In jus- tice, the money system ought not to be controlled in the interest of an'y class, but in the interest of the whole people. The movement of the price average is chiefly influenced by the movements of money-volume, credits, and production. The easiest of these to control is the money-volume, and the control of this confers the power to govern the movement of prices because the influence of any change in credits or production can be overcome by sufilcient increase or diminution of the money volume. The movement of the money volume is the vital monetary fact, the key to the financial situation. Through the control of this move- ment prices may be made to rise or fall or remain substantially steady. This means control of justice or injustice, prosperity or panic, wealth diffusion or congestion. Power to control the money-volume is power to do justice or in- justice between debtor and creditor, laborer and employer, buyer • and seller, landlord and tenant, interest receiver and entrepreneur, power to increase the weight and value of every debt, public or private, power to produce panic or prosperity, power to regulate industry and determine the distribution of wealth, — such power is an attribute of sovereignty and ought to belong to none but SAMPLE PAGES OP "RATIONAL MONEY." the sovereign people. Such a control should only be exercised with judgment and intelligence in the interests of the whole peo- ple, in order that justice and not injustice, fair diffusion and not congestion, prosperity and not panic, may result. At present this vital matter is left almost entirely to chance and private manage- ment. Banks and the vicissitudes of mining and speculations deter- mine the movements of money. It is even possible for foreig-n in- fluences to exert large control over our money and credits, and put new slopes and notches in our price line. This is all wrong. No chance or private monopoly or foreign power should be per- mitted to manage our money or draw^ a price curve for us. The movement of the money-volume is a public affair, and the ma- chinery for controlling it should belong to the public and be oper- ated by and for the public. A matter of such incalculable moment to the nation, and in relation to which private interest is fre- quently antagonistic to public interest, should not be left to pri- vate control, but should be subject to constant, careful, intelligent public regulation. This is the most important lesson that emerges from the fact and philosophy contained in the following pages.' A few related thoughts demand some mention here. 2. Given intelligent public control of the money-volume, with a view to regulating the movement of general prices, what is to be the aim? Shall the price line be made a gradual upward slope to afford a moderate stimulus to industry, till the unemployed are reabsorbed and debtors are eased of the overweight of past obli- gations, or shall the line be level from the start? Much may be said in favor of a temporary upward slope, but on the whole it would seem better to make the line level, and accomplish the other purposes referred to, moderate stimulation of industry, provision for the unemployed, etc., through the establishment of public works, making good roads, planting forests, digging canals, build- ing ships, establishing schools, etc. Meantime providing funds and aiding wealth diffusion by means of progressive income and inheri- tance taxes. The ideal dollar is one that will not mulct either the debtor or creditor, nor encourage speculation, nor depress industry — a dollar of constant purchasing power, commanding the same average amount of commodities and services from year to year and (') (For the method of public control see Chapter III.) The fundamental doctrine of the importance of controlling the movement of the money volume in the public interest, may be accepted by all, whatsoever their views about the demonetization silver, metallic redemption, paper money, intrinsic value and other monetary questions. A couple of concrete In- stances of the utility of even a rough control of the money movement may be of advantage here. First, The way to prevent a speculative disaster or shrinkage of credit, etc., from developing Into the wide-spread distress we call panic, is to expand the money volume by easy loans or otherwise. That expansion is the proper medicine for the prevention and cure of panics is recognized by the Bullion Committee, Bagehot, Wm. G. Sumner, Pres. Walker, and all the other financial doctors so far as I know. But our private banks refuse to administer the prescription, because it IS dangerous to them. For an ordinary bank to increase its loans In the face of panic would be to risk its existence. But the nation is big enough and strong enough to do the work. It can loan money to merchants and business men m times of stringency, with the certainty of averting loss from Itself, Instead of the danger of bringing ruin upon Itself. Second. A moderate Increase of the money volume in the fall of the year when the movement of crops, etc., creates a special pressure on monetary facili- ties, would be a step toward justice to agriculture. SAMPLE PAGES OP "EATIONAL MONEY." age to age — an ethical, impartial, democratic dollar, a dollar that will act as a fly wheel to keep the national engine working smooth- ly all the time, instead of producing or aggrravating industrial dis- aster and explosion. The price line must become a sale horizontal instead of the dangerous zigzag of a bolt of lightning. Price line 1666-1898- Gold Prices Aldrich DATA 1866- 1691 "American" DATA 1891-8. !660 I8T0 1680 1890 1898 , t it 4 J -4 -jj 7 L t H— i -jr t -t i \ -1- -i 4 X ■7\t \ ^ TT I X i X -^ ix J~ A -S^n .... -^ '^ 1 m ^ ■ i- X- V 4 i i . 4 L _1 TML- tOtO LIOhTIIIHC < t tH \i H is 5-Ric K :r( \ I ^ X dui rncuiTRtui^ \ - T-\- l \ S-^ -^ V 5 f "^ J t 3 : f \ -140 130 120 -110 -100 -90 -80 SAMPLE PAGES OP "RATIONAL MONEY." Since 1873 the chain lightning of prices has been golden (see cut on page V), before that time It was bimetallic (as shown In this cut). Neither of these monetary thunderbolts appear to have much affection for the safe and honest horizontal. Price line 1837-1873 Bimitaluc Prices Aldrich DATA 1610-1873.-1857-1840 broao estimate from DATA OF W^ G.Sumner & Mulhall's citations. 1640 1850 I860 1870 1873 -1-^0 . '^ r i x I -+- =t -i -H X -1-34 i - Tt^ -,4 / TH e E If lET/ U t< . 7HIIN )EftE OIT J i ^ - '- lA r WITH ' /T - - f-H 7F.F R. FlC F'A MIC;i , 1 / ~- '- -^^ ± ±'X i \ liieviA^i. / * i '- " i — ' t t - it - t ■ t \ '" 1 • vz n Pi z — V t '-V X " ^ -i\ ^ r \ ^^ 1 / i t T , ■" " " " It d- ^- ] ■" "\ ~ " -1- -i l-i- 1 it 1- A V 7t- " -^ - - 4I- 4 n -,'=' 4 ^^ |I i '^-, ^^ ^ ^ U- ^-.^ IK' a 1 -C 4_it: IT 1 - .-. J u . 130 120 MO -100 90 If the weekly or even the quarterly variations had been noted, the lines in both of these diagrams would have been full of saw teeth. If the maximum and minimum price levels had been marked instead of the yearly average, the extremes would have been far greater than those shown— the drop in a panic being sometimes' more than double that shown by the yearly averages (see p. 57). If actual prices had been taken (instead of metallic prices), we should have found that during the war period of unregulated issue of imperfect legal tender paper, the price line would have soared 76 points above the top of the diagram. Altogether these diagrams, full of ruin and injustice as they are, are yet mild representatives of the pres- ent money system. They tell part of its evils, but by no means all, nor do they give full emphasis to what they do tell. SAMPLE PAGES OF "EATIONAL MONEY." Our prime financial duty is the intelligent public regulation of the money-volume so as to give the dollar a constant purchasing power, yielding the creditor the same average command over com- modities and services that he gave, curtailing reckless speculation, preventing panic, and exercising a beneficent and impartial in- fluence upon wealth production and distribution." 3. In performing this duty, what sort of money may be used, and v?hat sort should be used? The answer seems to be that gold or silver or both may be used' with paper, redeemable or irredeema- ble — monometalism, bimetalism, co-metalism or greenbacks pure and simple. The latter would seem to be the most perfect plan. It Is useless to dig gold to do what regulated paper will do as well or better, and the immediate profit to the government on paper issues to replace the metals (over 1,000 millions), would probably pay for the Spanish War several times over. The best money all round, appears to be, not coin or paper on a metallic base, nor currency on a paper base, but paper money on a com- (-) (See Chapters II and III.) This second doctrine also, that the dollar should be constant in its purchasing power, may he held along with diverse views about gold and silver, paper money, intrinsic value, etc., and Is in fact held by men of such widely different opinions as Pres. Andrews, Professor Marshall, Pres. Will, Wm. J. Bryan, Fonda, Walker, Mill, ai- cardo, Henry Winn, Prof. Bemls, Prof. J. Allen Smith, Prof. Laughlln, etc., etc. (*) The metals could not be used as the standard of course. General prices cannot be kept steady In that way. Only the multiple standard can keep the price line level or the purchasing power of the dollar constant. But gold and silver could be used as money of circulation and redemption provided the whole currency, metallic and all were regulated in accordance with the multiple base. The multiple standard steady money plan outlined in President E. B. Andrews' "Honest Dollar," edition of 1889, p. 36 to 42, contemplates the continuance of gold and silver redemption, but the metals cease to be the real standard or regulating base of the currency. The fact that the notes issued were redeemable in metal even at a fixed weight would not pre- vent the exercise of considerable control over prices by means of injecting notes into the circulation or withdrawing them therefrom. There is a good deal of friction and inertia about metallic redemption in practice. And to a considerable extent the volume of circulation can be changed by the issue or withdrawal of notes. Prices may be Influenced in this way and the value of gold itself altered. One of the plans described by Professor Mar- shall in the Contemporary Review, Vol. 51, also involves metallic redemption by such weight of bullion as Is equal in value to the staudard multiple unit, at the market price of bullion at the time of redemption. Careful consideration, however, has led me to the conclusion that metallic redemp- tion is not needful, service redemption being entirely sufficient. (See note in Professor Marshall's article just referred to, and Chapter II of this book.) Fixed weight-redemption could only be worked within limits. It would be liable to serious disturbance from foreign influence and from speculation, etc., a promise to redeem in a flxed amouut of any commodity puts a premium on cornering that commodity. Variable redemption in bullion at its market value in the standard multiple unit would be free from the dangers of flxed weight redemption, but it does not seem necessary or wise to pick out any one or two commo- dities for redemption purposes under the multiple standard. A bill is redeemed every time it buys any commodity or service or pays any debt or tax. When the government gives a bill the legal tender quality, it promises that the bill shall be redeemed in any desired commodities or services at their market value and that is all the redemption requisite. Such redemption and a regulation of volume to keep the price line steady by the multiple standard will give tis the ideal money. Once estnlilish n system of public money under reasonable regulations, and there is little doubt it will be honestly and efficiently ^nlministcred. The Treasury Departmeut has a reputation for accuracy, hoiu^-ty, and effi- ciency, that is above reproach in respect to nil matters wherein Its duties have beeen clearly and deflnitely prescribed. The maintalnance of a unifdrm price level is a matter so clear and simple and the processes would !>'■ so easily watclied and checked, that there is little likelihood of administiailve difliculty. (See Chapter III.) SAMPLE PAGES OP "RATIONAL MONEY." modity base. Wlile it is true, however, that gold or silver or both, may be used for money and redemption under a steady money plan, yet it must be carefully noted that they cannot be used as standards. The only possible constant in exchange is the com- modity base or multiple standard, and if money is to be kept steady the gold or silver coins or paper bills or whatever else is used as money must be regulated in reference to the multiple standard, and kept in harmony with it. This constant base can- not be represented by any one or two commodities, especially those so prone to irruptions, spasms, heart-failures, and booms as gold and silver appear to be, and subject at bottom to the law of di- minishing return. Men have tied justice and prosperity to a golden kite dreaming it was the solid rock. A change in the value of iron or copper may cause disturbance but does not throw the whole industrial system out of gear. A private monopoly of coal mines or iron or copper mines is bad enough, but a monopoly of the money base is infinitely worse. A change in the value of gold throws the wealth of those who own the products and property of the country into the hands of those who own the dollars, or vice versa; varies the share of production that goes to labor, and alters the value of every debt. Platinum doubled in value recently without producing any commercial disturbance. A true money system would be as little affected by flights of gold as by flights of platinum. The question of a wholesale replacement of metals by irre- deemable paper, important though it is, is nevertheless of minor moment compared to the larger question of regulating the money- volume. Give us public management of the money movement, aim- ing to keep the dollar steady and the price line level, and the main object will be accomplished. Yet it appears quite clear that when gold has lost its importance, as it would under such regu- lation, — when fortunes are no longer to be made by its changes of value, it would lose the support of those who defend it now, and it would be seen that a currency consisting entirely of irre- deemable paper and subsidiary coin is more economical and more secure from disturbance by changes in raining product or foreign monetary policy, or other cause of variance. During the greenback movement years ago, I read a speech by Wendell Phillips, in which he took strong ground in favor of an irredeemable paper money. I had a very high opinion of the famous anti-slavery orator, but this pamphlet considerably injured his reputation so far as I was concerned. I said, "A man who imagines that the government can make something out of noth- ing, or give enormous value to bits of paper by stamping some words on them, is evidently subject to such delusion that it will not do to rely very much on his mental processes." And yet, a few years later, on making a more thorough study of the flnan- cial question, I came to see that this judgment of mine was based upon absence of information. I found that substantially all the standard economists agreed with Phillips that government could Si PAPER MONEY VINDICATED BY HISTOBY. 69 put his saAdngs into farm land years ago, giving a mortgage for the balance of the purchase price, finds to-day that the mortgage has swallowed up the farm. Suppose he had saved five thousand dollars, borrowed five thousand more, and bought a ten thousand dollar farm in Kansas, giving a mortgage for the money he had borrowed. To-day the farm is not worth the face of the mortgage; falling prices have de- voured his five thousand dollars and left only the debt. At the start the farmer and the mortgagee had equal interests in the farm; now the mortgagee's interest covers the whole farm, and the fanner has nothing. This is a fair example of one of the disastrous processes that have been going on all over the country, and especially in the West and South, and no one can wonder that our people should become desperately hostile to a monetary system that causes or permits such evils. The entire product of our farms in 1895 icas worth tests by 6 per cent, than in 1873, altho the increase in the num- ber of hands tvas about 50 per cent., in the number of acres also about one-half, and the product in tons and bushels had grown about 100 per cent. One of the most striking illustrations of the extent and effects of falling prices in the last thirty years is the fact that, after having paid over four billions and a half in interest and principal on the National debt, the people have still to pay more in terms of commodities to settle the remainder of the debt than would have sufficed to cancel the entire debt at its maximum figure just after the rebellion. Upon an average of 25 leading commodities, including land and labor, the debt is bigger now than in 1866, in spite of the hundreds of mill- ions that have been paid on the principal since that date. Presi- dent Andrews says: "Our ISTational debt on September 1, 1865, was about 2f billions. It could then have been paid off with 18 million bales of cotton? When it had been reduced to a billion and a quarter, 30 million bales would have been required to pay it." ("An Honest Dollar," p. 13.) Careful estimates by the eminent historian, John Clark Ridpath, will be found in the Arena for January, 1896, p. 271. The re- sults briefly stated are as follows: Sample Images of " He . 102 PHILOSOPHY OF MONEY. and private debts, to govern the distribution of wealth, to command prosperity or panic. A matter of such moment i ^ ■« should not be left to chance or private manipulation. A .S'2 •«, * o money of elastic volume, carefully regulated in the public in- terest, is essential to prevent oppression and gambling, to maintain a constant average of general prices, keep the value ^ .3 ^ of money steady, and make the dollar a perfect medium of 3 ^ « exchange, a reliable measure and means of storing value, an II ^ .a honest standard of deferred payments doing injustice neither 1 ■a ^ to debtor or creditor, and a safe regulator of indiistry and dis- ■I "5 2 .-s tributor of wealth. "at: ii ^ .5 <-) S WHAT JIONEY SHOULD BE ADOPTED S 1^ ■! tiality of the other metal, and amounting, if long periods are *. 5^ ? 1 There are few if any more important questions before the ^a 2 I ^ I American people to-day. The Gold Standard, the Bimetallic " ia 1 1 S Standard and the Multiple Standard are the systems chiefly "I .3 1 1 !^- spoken of, and the only ones that have sufficient support in ^ I,: 1 1 reason to make it worth while to consider them.^^ The gold standard makes the dollar conform to the value of a given g weight of gold. The bimetallic standard subjects the dollar 'Q to the controlling influence of gold and silver, giving it some- 'S times the value of one metal, and sometimes of the other, such •5 value being always limited however by the monetary poten- .k I ^ a considered, to the average value of the two metals. The mul- » H ^ 1 .a tiple standard requires the dollar to conform itself to the . t; ^ a ■g fti average value of commodities in general, so that its purchasing '^ I! •§ "^ ? power may remain constant. The average value of commo- J! JO a I 2i dities, and the increase or diminution of the money volume .| |- '^ S I necessary to cancel or prevent a rise or fall of the average 3 Jl °| level of prices, are determined by methods that will be de- - s S •« ^ scribed in the next chapter. '■S a S ^ ^ I « I It is clear from the discussion preceding this section that ■2 9" i I, steadiness of value in the monetary unit is of the very highest importance to justice and prosperity, and necessary to the due performance of the functions of money. And it is equally clear that steadiness of value cannot be attained with either (") See above for discnssion of the labor standard. Aft^r reading this book carefully, if you think your neighbors and friends should read it, write names and addresses below, and start the book on a useful mission. If you wish it to return to you, put you/ own name at the end of the list. Those whose names are written below are requested to read ihis book at earliest convenience, and pass it to the next on the list. Names Addresses Date of Passing '"' - \