Class JiS \X Book .^4.12^ CopightN" COPYRIGHT DEPOSrr THE TRUE BASIS ECONOMICS THE LAW OF INDEPENDENT AND COLLECTIVE HUMAN LIFE BEING A CORRESPONDENCE DAVID STARR JORDAN President of the Leland Stanford Jr. University , r AND DR. J. H. STALLARD Of Menio Park, California ON THE MERITS OF THE DOCTRINE OF HENRY GEORGE NEW YORK DOUBLEDAY & McCLURE CO. ^-2.7 ;'2G1889 -"■^rv oi 42208 Copyright, 1899 BY J. H. STAL.L.ARD Entered at Stationers' Hall, London Copyright, 1899 BY J. H. STALLARD jPTo COjgJ^S'BSQElVED. \ ZZt A'lu iQ^O PREFACE. This correspondence ensued on my request to Dr. David Starr Jordan, the President of Stanford University, that he would give me his opinion and comments on Henry George's letter to the Pope on the condition of labor. It may be remembered that when the Rev. Dr. McOlynn, of New York, became a convert to the Single Tax, he was silenced by order of the Pope, and eventually excommunicated for contempt of his authority. The Pope then addressed an en- cyclical letter to his clergy, setting forth the principles involved in the labor problem as he saw them. To this Henry George replied in an open letter which was placed in the hands of the Pope himself. His Holiness apparently perceived that injustice had been done, and he ordered the re- opening of Dr. McGlynn's case, with the result that he was restored to his duties in New York, the order of silence was withdrawn, and he was fully restored to the bosom of the Church. Dr. Jordan promptly complied with my request, and in sending him my arguments in opposition to his views, I requested his permission to publish the correspondence, with such further comments as he might choose to make. Dr. Jordan's answer is characteristic of the wise and open-minded man he is: "I have made many notes. Publish what seems to you not trifling or irrelevant and sign them (J), and add as many more as you please and sign them (S). The whole will be instructive and set folks thinking. That is all we college men are for." That, too, is all that Single Taxers are for, and it is for the public to determine what is right. For convenience the notes have been put in an appendix. J. H. STALLAKD, M. B., London, Etc., Etc. The Bungalow, Menlo Park, San Mateo Co., Cal., May, 1899. LETTER FROM Dr. DAVID STARR JORDAN, President Leland Stanford, Jr., University. Dpw. J. H. Stallard: — There are many brilliant and many true things in Mr. George's book, and on the basis of His Holiness' assumption Mr. George gives him a very complete as well as a very courteous answer. But as a whole, neither this nor any other of George's writings appeals to me. His whole basis seems faulty. He assumes that certain forms of property relation have a divine or sacred right. This assumption entering into his premises, re- appears in his conclusions, which are thus re- garded as proved, according to his logic. I deny every word of such premises, because I regard them as based on mere figures of speech. There is no such thing as a "right," except as we find ex- perimentally that a certain line of action makes for more and better life among men. As regards the "law of equal access to land" among men, such a law is a mere figment, a mere metaphor. The trees have not equal access. While the present way of paying running expenses of government is very crude and faulty, and while a single tax would have several advantages, it has also its drawbacks, and a land tax is no more God-given than a beer tax. Mr. George was a devoted man, had full faith in the saeredness of his mission, and he uses divine metaphors just as preachers do. The methods of science seem wholly unknown to him, and he falls back on his imaginary ethics whenever any one asks him how he would go to work to make land public property — whether, for example, by buying it or by seizing it, or by alone taxing ownership out of existence, and as to how any of these methods could be made to work. Property is not a divine right. It is a creation of social agree- ment, and the relation best for society is '^righf' if we can find it out. If, as Dr. Warner says, "putting air in private hands would yield a better supply on juster terms, there is no divine reason why we should not turn the atmosphere over to an air company." Take George^s work, squeeze out every meta- phor, cut out all this stuff from the French dream- ers of the last century about the rights of man to one thing or another, and put it all into straight English. You would have considerable practical sense about various men and things drawn from his own extensive observations; but the argument from divine right and the purposes of nature has not a straw's weight, namely: that men have a natural right to access to land; therefore, all taxes must by divine authority be laid on land rentals. I am not objecting to the idea of the public use of land rentals, but to the divine or metaphysical argument in its favor. The only true argument must be this: It has been tried, it works, and its results on individual and social development are better than those obtained through other forms of land tenure and of taxation. I do not believe this, either, but I am reasonably open to conviction. Argument from purpose, intention or divine fit- ness is a mere quibble of words. DAVID STARR JORDAN. ANSWER OF Dr. J. H. STALLARD, The Bungalow, Menlo Park, Cal. Dear Dr. Jordan: — I have to thank you for your prompt reply to my request for your opinion of Henry George's ad- dress to the Pope on the condition of labor. You are a prince among educators, the head of the most liberal university in the world — an insti- tution which I trust under your leadership shall become the home of all freedom, and w^hose pro- fessors and students shall determine the lines of action which shall hereafter make for more and better life among men, for which there is more than ample room. I therefore regard the expres- sion of your views on this, as on all intellectual, social, and political questions on which you choose to speak, as the truest representation of modern thought of the highest type, and I shall endeavor to discuss the subject in hand in all seriousness and with due respect. You say, "That the whole basis of Mr. George's argument is faulty; that he assumes that certain forms of property relation have a divine or sacred right, and that his premises are based upon mere figures of speech. Take George's work, squeeze out every metaphor, cut out all the 'stuff' of the French dreamers of the last century about the rights of man to one thing or another, and put it all into straight English, the argument would not have a straw's weight. In his logic he takes out nothing at the end not assumed at the beginning." In the following observations I propose to squeeze out every metaphor, every suggestion of divine authority and the purposes of nature, all the "stuff" of the French dreamers of the last cen- tury, to confine myself to the most strictly scien- tific methods, and, in straight English, to base my argument on facts established by human observa- tion and experience about which there is abso- lutely no room for doubt. Before doing so I desire to thank you for your good and terse definition of what is "right," and I agree "that there is no such thing as 'right' ex- cept as we find experimentally that a certain line of action makes for more and better life among men." I promise faithfully to apply this definition to every conclusion I may draw. THE LAW OF INDEPENDENT HUMAN LIFE. In the first place, man is an animal endowed with "intelligence" and "strength,"^ which, in active combination is technically called '4abor.'^ Labor exerted upon earth, air, water and sunshine, technically called ^^land," yields the product "food," on which "all men" live. The application of labor to land is technically called "industry"^ in the following argument. These simple indisputable facts form the whole foundation of Mr. George's argument. There is in these premises no metaphor, no mere figures of speech, no "if," no assumption of divine right or purposes of nature, but a simple, truthful and un- answerable statement of man's dependence on the voluntary exercise of his own powers upon "land," on the result of which he lives and maintains existence. Here then we have a statement of bare, undoubted facts, involving a simple line of action, which not only makes for more and better life among men but is the only possible foundation for the continuance of human life. In the next place, that which is true of the whole is true of the several parts upon which this line of action operates. Man finds experimentally that he must have under his own individual con- trol intelligence, strength and land, none of which can be taken from him without the destruction of his life. There is no experimental evidence that human life can be continuously maintained in any 10 other way.^ Man cannot live on intelligence, nor on strength, and ^'food'' will not drop into his open mouth.^ This line of action being open, man^s in- dependent life depends solely on his own volun- tary exertion. If a man will not work, neither shall he eat, and the penalty of idleness is death. Happily ''industry" is as natural as "sleep" to healthy, well-fed men, and the gate of inde- pendence is thus made open. You have lately taught us wisely that the main- tenance and development of manhood is the most important matter which any nation in the world has now on hand, and that each man must help to solve his own problems. The independent main- tenance of his own life is for each man the first and most important problem. The manhood of a nation depends on the manhood of its units. The conditions of the problem are embodied in the line of action evolved from the facts detailed. A man has only to be free to think, free to act, and free to take maintenance by his own labor from the land, and the problem for the individual is solved. His life, therefore, depends on the active combination of intellectual, personal, and industrial freedom. There is no other way. No man is free who under any condition whatever is compelled to beg of an* other either food or work.^ Absolute individual freedom depends on "self employment," only made u possible by "access to land/^ which is, therefore, no ''7n€r€ figment/^ but an essential condition in the maintenance of independent human life.^ Lastly, justice between man and man declares the equal right of every man to the products of his own labor. It constitutes his wealth and is the founda- tion upon which his freedom rests. It is his to consume, to hoard or dispose of at his will, and no one has either legal or moral right to take it from him without his consent and adequate compensa- tion. Your argument that the trees have not "equal access'' to land seems to me without force.^ The life of trees is not dependent on the same condi- tions as the life of man. Trees are not endowed either with intellect or active strength.^ They have no power of choice or locomotion, both of which are absolute conditions of individual human life. Besides "equaV^ access is neither possible nor necessary either to trees or man. Equal oppor- tunity is all that is required. Once armed with the independent opportunity of maintaining life by the employment of his own "labor" upon "land'^ a man however destitute is really "free."^ He is no longer at the mercy of employers.^^ He is no longer subject to the law of Lasalle. Henceforth he is provided with an alternative which enables him to refuse "Mre subsistence icageSy^ and he pos- 12 sesses an independent remedy against starvation, misery and death. He is provided with a line of action which experimentally makes for more and better life among men.^^ In the next place, this ^aine of action" is in- exorable, unalterable, and universal in its applica- tion. There is no other "line of action" which se- cures the independent existence of human beings. It rises, therefore, to the conditions of "a general law.-' This law of independent life controls the maintenance of human life and movements just as the law of gravitation controls the life and move- ments of the planetary bodies. Starvation, misery and death result from the violation of the one, as surely as planetary destruction would from the violation of the other.^^ Now, general laws are laws of necessity, moral- ity and justice. In action they are just, equal, un- changeable and permanent. There is, therefore, no room for that fickle, unstable, undefined and mythical force called "Social Agreement," which is wholly unable to determine what is "right," and it is no wonder that "rights" so artificially created are diflScult, nay, impossible, to find out. Social agreement cannot be a substitute for a general law, for no statesman is wise enought, no govern- ment strong enough, to improve on such a law. Social agreement can only meddle with intel- 13 lectual, personal and industrial freedom, to spoil their just and equal action. Social agreement is impotent to provide either food or employment for all mankind.^^ History provides us with many ex- amples of its baneful interference. In the reign of Henry VII, when in England ''every rood main- tained its man/' the English yeoman occupied his rood in comfort and happiness on definite and easy terms." But when Henry VIII made land a commodity to be bought, sold, and controlled by individuals (called Steplords by Latimer), the masses of the people were evicted from their homesteads by the exaction of rent they could not pay. In a few years the whole island swarmed with the destitute, who became vagabonds and thieves in order to sustain existence. The nation was threatened with anarchy, and in the reign of Elizabeth social agreement, as represented by the English Poor Law, endeavored to remedy the evil, by giving to the destitute a legal right to food, clothing and shelter, making this a first charge upon the land. The result was pauperism; the greatest curse ever inflicted upon a thrifty and in- dustrious people.^^ After 300 years the sermons of Latimer are re- echoed by Mr. Henry George, and happily their doctrines will never again be stifled at the stake. In Spain, social agreement attempted to control 14 the intellects of men, and the result was the miseries, tortures and murders of the Inquisition. In America and elsewhere social agreement sought to control personal freedom, and the re- sult was "slavery/^ And to-day social agreement continues the prac- tice of that tyrant, Henry. Still treats land as a commodity of sale and purchase. Still gives the landlord power to exact a steadily increasing rent. Still gives him power to evict those who refuse or are unable to pay him toll. Still enables the land- lord to live in ease and luxury on the labor of other people, and make serfs and paupers of the indus- trial class. The conclusion is unanswerable, social agree- ment cannot successfully control the conditions of independent human life, the only fixed law which makes experimentally for more and better life among men.^^ THE LAW OF COLLECTIVE HUMAN LIFE. Now, the law of independent human life is also the law of human life in general. That which is true of "all men'' in the individual sense must also be true of "all men" in the collective sense. All men collectively must have intellectual, personal, and industrial freedom, which are, therefore, the essential elements of both individual and collec- U tive life. The law of individual life is simply for- tified and extended by collective action. Thus whilst individual industrial freedom secures for "all men'' individually little more than a ^'hare suhsistencCy^^ collective industrial freedom is able to satisfy the millions of intellectual and physical desires of "all men'' living in civilized communi- ties; and if this result is not reached, the failure cannot be charged upon the law but on its viola- tion and neglect. As access to land is an essen- tial element of individual life and freedom, so it must be an essential element of collective life and freedom, for without land no community can live or find material on which to operate." It is this inseparable relation of land to labor which gives the land such paramount importance, for unless "land" be equally free to all mankind, industrial freedom becomes impossible both to individuals and to mankind in general. Again, as the law of independent life secures to every individual the products of his own industry, to consume, to hoard, or dispose of at his will, so the law of collective life demands co-partnership in the products of collective industry, to be hoard- ed, consumed or disposed of by the collective will. The collective operators cannot appropriate and use the products of individual industry nor can in- dividuals appropriate and use the products of col- 16 lective industry. Either violates the general law of human life, which makes for more and better life among men. From this it follows that wher- ever there is co-operation in production, there must also in justice be co-partnership in result, and both become equally essential elements of the general law of human life. The nation, state, city or community which takes the products of indi- vidual labor without his consent and adequate compensation destroys individual freedom, and acts like a thief who robs him of the same, and as this is done by modern governments, they fail to make for more and better life among men. On the other hand, every individual who appro- priates the products of collective labor, and thus denies co-partnership in the collective result, is equally guilty of robbing the collective units. As this also is sanctioned and upheld by modern gov- ernments they fail on both accounts to make for more and better life among men. Now, it is not difficult to discover the source of collective products, nor where they go. They spring from the fact that in collective industry no individual can work for himself exclusively, be- cause the combined industry of two or more men is necessarily stronger and more efficient than that of the same two or more men acting separately each in his own behalf. Therefore, after award- 17 ing to each individual that portion of the collec- tive product which represents his individual exer- tion (technically called his wages) there is invari- ably a surplus produced by the co-operators in their corporate capacity, in which, nevertheless, the individuals have a co-partnership interest.^^ In the millions of complicated conditions of col- lective life and labor it is impossible to segregate the share of each producer in the collective result, but it is universally admitted that the larger part is faithfully conserved and concentrated in land value, and that it constitutes that increment of value which attaches to land in consequence of the increase of population, and is technically called ^^rent."^^ Without collective industry land has no value and there is no "rent" — which "coeteris pari- bus" increases directly in proportion to the popula- tion. It is the collective industry of the popula- tion which alone produces it. It is the popula- tion who are co-partners and who are authorized by the general law of human life to hoard, con- sume or dispose of as they please, and as it cannot be equitably divided amongst the individual pro- ducers, it can only be applicable to the provision of their common wants, of which the current ex- penses of government is a fair example. Hence it is the only source of taxation provided by the gen- eral law of human life. It is the "Single Tax." 18 The result of this analysis of Mr. Henry George's premises justifies the conclusion that it is only by absolute obedience to the general law of inde- pendent and collective human life that we can hope to realize the inalienable right of all men equally to life, liberty and the pursuit of happi- ness (Jefferson), the satisfaction of human, intel- lectual and physical desires (H. George), or the making for more and better life among men (Jor- dan). LAND APPROPRIATION. Having thus established the general law of in- dependent and collective human life which "all men" must obey in order to live and prosper, it is permitted by the accepted canon of scientific procedure to substitute the "deductive'' for the "inductive" method, and to employ the general law as to the test of existing conditions and as a means of pointing out other lines of action which make for more and better life among men. And first with regard to "land." In order to state these conditions clearly I will relate a recent history of land appropriation. Within a few weeks of fifty years ago, a few hundred citizens of the United States landed on the western shore of San Francisco Bay. They found a nest of sterile sand-hills of no more value than the summits of the Sierra Nevada Mountains. 19 They were free to take, and did take, all the sur- face they required for use. But not content with this, and under the paramount power and au- thority of the Government of the United States, the most perfect organization of social agreement in the world, they proceeded to appropriate to themselves and their heirs and assigns forever the exclusive ownership of ^^all the earth in sight." Had these citizens raised the peninsula from the depths of the Pacific Ocean by their own asso- ciated labor, the land would have been their own, and this appropriation would have been fully jus- tified; but as they found the sand-hills ready to their hands, it seems difficult to understand how any authority whatever or any deed or paper could confer upon any set of individuals the exclusive ownership of one of the essential conditions of human life, and of a portion of the earth specially adapted to the conditions of collective life. But in accordance with the law, they divided up the land into blocks, and the public official who conducted the appropriation still lives in San Francisco, and testifies that many hundreds of these blocks were given away to individuals with- out the payment of a cent, without even any guar- antee to use them, and at the sole cost of pens, ink and paper necessary for the completion of this strictly ^Hegal,^^ and according to jurists, states- 20 ^ men and political economists, strictly ''rigMeous'^ action.'*^ That the land was valueless does not in any way alter the nature of the case. These citizens were legally created^'landlords/'and given absolute con- trol of what was already a necessity of associated life. They were endowed with the power of making serfs of ^'all men'' who should hereafter desire to occupy "tJieir land:' In straight English they were simply ^'landgrabbers/' legalized thieves of land which they did not make, and to the use of which they had no better title than any other set of men. They took advantage of the unrighteous law and practice of the United States to forestall the advent of an industrious population, already known to be on the way to San Francisco from every quarter of the globe; and to make all future immigrants pay toll for the privilege of occupy- ing these easily acquired "blocks," or to pay pur- chase money for the transfer of the right to collect this toll. These robbers are still at large, and still enjoy the protection of the "law" ! ! They, their heirs and assigns, still continue to exact a steadily increasing toll for the privilege of occupa- tion; still have the right to sell at a continually advancing price. Many of these landgrabbers withhold their blocks from use, because they are certain that with increasing population their 21 value will increase, and will ensure more rent. Nor is this practice confined to city "blocks.'^ Mil- lions of acres in the State of California are held by "landgrabbers" on the same title, not so much for present use and profit as for the prospective cer- tainty that an increase of population will give them higher rent or more purchase money for the privilege of taking it. But the "cinch" of these "landgrabbers'' was not exclusively confined to land considered as a place of residence. For he who controls the land controls the laborer who lives on it. From the moment of this appropriation, fifty years ago, un- til to-day, these landgrabbers have exacted toll from every laborer. Every coming ship brought more grist to the grabbing mill. Every man who did an hour's work, built a shanty, opened a store, or made a workshop ; every importer who brought in food and clothing, increased the value of their unoccupied, sterile blocks. And now every im- provement, whether made by individuals, corpora- tions, or the city government, brings gain to the grabbers of the rent. If a street is well paved, well lighted, and well cleansed by the public ser- vants, the rent of the houses will be higher than that of similar houses in a dirty, dark and ill paved street. A park created at the public cost raises the rental of the surrounding land. Car 22 lines have recently been constructed on two streets of San Francisco, and the abutting land assessment has been raised fifty per cent., all of which is, or will be, made the source of increased rent. The necessities of commerce have raised the value of land on the water front; the require- ments of retail business have done the same on Market street. Residential value is continually growing in the suburbs; and to-day a square foot of land in San Francisco is worth more than a hun- dred square miles upon the mountain tops. That which was valueless fifty years ago is now worth many hundred millions.^^ Here then is a huge fund, not created by these so-called owners, but by the co-operate activities and necessities of the en- tire community. A fund which under the general law of associated human life belongs to the co- partners who produced it, to be administered by social agreement for public purposes and in the interest of all the people. A fund which has been diverted from it lawful owners to the pockets of men whose individual in- dustry scarcely contributed a mite to the result. A fund which has enabled thousands to live in idleness and luxury at the expense of the poverty, misery and starvation of their fellow citizens. Consider for a moment what this co-partnership fund would have done for its real owners. The 23 current expenses of the municipal, state and fed- eral governments would have been a mere baga- telle. The municipal government might have erected gas works, water works, electrical v/orks, and street car lines. Light, electricity, w^ater and public transportation might have been free to all, whereas, these works have been erected by capital furnished by the rent belonging to the citizens and for the use of which the citizens now must pay. Public buildings not dreamed of in the palmy days of Greece and Rome could have been erected at the public cost; also, free schools, universities, libraries, theatres, museums, art galleries, parks and observatories; and a score of public utilities by which the co-partner profits might have been indefinitely increased. And at our public festi- vals we could have emulated the citizens of Potosi, by paving our streets with silver and adorning our public processions with gold and precious stones. And all this without taking one cent of taxation from individual industry. It is impos- sible to conceive the effect of the Single Tax on the morals and intellectual progress of the peo- ple, but it may be safely stated that the fear of poverty being gone the need of policemen, judges, jails, and poorhouses would have been reduced to a minimum.^^ Tested experimentally the existing relation be- 24 tween land and population is a grievous violation of the general law of human life. The vast fund created by co-operative industry, the administra- tion of which belongs to the population as co- partners, has been diverted by social agreement to individuals who have no claim. It is the object of the "Single Tax" to restore this fund to the control of its original producers, and thus relieve industry of the millstone of rent hung about its neck by landlords. Thus giving individual and collective workers the full enjoyment of the wealth they re- spectively produce. The fulfillment of the general law of human life is the only line of action which makes for more and better life among men. CONFUSION AS TO PROPERTY IN LAND. And here I have to note your stfitement '^that Mr. George falls back on his imaginary ethics whenever anyone asks him how he would make *land- public property, whether by buying it or seizing it, or taxing ownership out of existence, or how any of these methods could be made to work.^' I am indeed grieved to notice so complete a misapprehension of Mr. George^s doctrine. There is throughout Mr. George^s writings no proposal whatever to make land public property by buying it or seizing it, and, consequently, no attempt at explanation as to how either method could be 25 made to work. On the contrary, he states that a redivision of land is not possible, and if possible could not be permanent. That possession for use is necessary for the sower to reap his crop, or the builder to recoup the cost of the improvements he may make. He nowhere proposes to disturb the present occupiers of land; and insists that any such disturbance would amount to revolution. You seem to confound property in use with prop- erty in so-called ownership; and to suppose that ownership is necessary for land improvement and development. But this is not even a general ex- perience. Half London, including many hundreds of its finest palaces, half New York, and of many other cities have been constructed on land not owned by the builders.^^ The landlords of London and New York are not such fools as to alienate their perpetual right to constantly increasing rent. It remains only to governments like that of the United States to give away the national heritage for the price of pens, ink and paper, and enable landlords forever to collect a continually increas- ing toll on labor. It is quite true that Mr. George rests most of his arguments on the foundation of moral right, as when he states that a laborer is entitled morally to the products of his own in- dustry. And there are thousands who believe that this is the stronger ground, but a close analy- 1 sis distinctly proves that his ethics are not imagi- nary, and that his metaphors are supported by substantial facts, namely, those laid down at the beginning of this letter. Instead of demanding an accounting such as would be ordered by the Courts in the case of in- dividuals wrongfully^^ possessed of land, Mr. George proposes to let by-gones be by-gones, and the landlord having had his turn it is now more than time that the people, who have been so long defrauded of the product of their collective labor, and have suffered so deeply for the want of the "rent^^ which they have earned, should be restored to their collective heritage. Mr. George's proposal is just, clear and practi- cal. He desires that ^^all men" in their collective capacity should assume their undoubted right to the ownership of land, and that all men indi- vidually shall have equal opportunity to its use and occupation on the payment of rent represent- ing its value to the entire community. This rent to be collected as a single tax, and used to provide for common necessities and the satisfaction of common desires. The result, no doubt, will be the ultimate destruction of the landlord — a consum- mation devoutly to be wished. But Mr. George did not expect that the "rent'' could be taken from the landlords all at once. 27 They are much too powerful, and the masses of producers much too ignorant and venal. But the time is coming, and it is not far distant, when the producers of wealth shall have learned their "rights'^ under the general law of human life, and with the aid of universal suffrage and the ballot will not fail to take them. It is the duty of uni- versities to conduct the necessary change with wisdom and moderation. THE PBESENT CONDITION OF LABOR. Mr. George, in Progress and Poverty, described the present condition of the laborer in the lowest ranks of civilized society, whose life is spent in common labor, or in producing one thing or an in- finitesimal part of one thing, out of the multi- plicity of things that constitute the wealth of so- ciety. How he is a mere link in the enormous chain of producers and consumers; helpless to separate himself, and helpless to move except as they move. The worse his position in society the more he is dependent on society, the more utterly unable does he become to help himself. The very power of exerting his labor for the satisfaction of his most reasonable wants passes from his own control, and may be taken away or restored by the action of others, or by general causes, over which he has no more influence than 28 he has over the motions of the solar system. That under such circumstances he loses the essential quality of manhood. He becomes a slave, a ma- chine, a commodity, a thing in some respects lower than the animal, for he looks to crime and drunkenness as the only hopeful sources of relief. In the days of cannibalism, says Ingersoll, the strong devoured the weak, actually ate their flesh. In spite of all the laws that man has made, in spite of all the advances of science, the strong still live upon the weak,^^ the unfortunate, the foolish. True, they do not eat their flesh and drink their blood, but they live on their labor. The man who deforms himself by toil, who labors for his wife and children through all his barren wasted life, and goes to his grave without having tasted a sin- gle luxury, has been the food of others. The poor woman living in her lonely room, cheerless and fireless, sewing night and day to keep starvation from her child, is slowly being eaten alive by her fellow men.^^ When I take into consideration the agony of civilized life, the failures and anxieties, the tears and withered hopes, the bitter realities, the hunger," crime, drunkenness, ignorance and humiliation, I am almost forced to say that canni- balism, after all, is the most merciful form in which man has lived upon his fellow men. 29 In this connection Markham's great poem re- cently written, after seeing Millet's famous picture of The Man With the Hoe, deserves quotation ; Bowed by tlie weiglat of centuries tie leans Upon his hoe and gazes on the ground, The emptiness of ages in his face, And on his back the burden of the world. Who made him dead to rapture and despair, A thing that grieves not and that never hopes, Stolid and stunned, a brother to the ox? Who loosened and let down this brutal jaw? Whose was the hand that slanted back this brow? Whose breath blew out the light within this brain? Is this the thing the Lord G-od made and gave To have dominion over all the land; To trace the stars and search the heavens for power; To fell the passion of Eternity? Is this the Dream He dreamed who shaped the suns And pillared the blue firmament with light? Down all the stretch of Hell to its last gulf There is no shape more terrible than this — More tongued with censure of the world's blind greed — More filled with signs and portents for the soul — More fraught with menace to the universe. What gulfs between him and the seraphim! Slave of the wheel of labor, what to him Are Plato and the swing of Pleiades? What the long reaches of the peaks of song, The rift of dawn, the reddening of the rose? Through this dread shape the suffering ages look; Time's tragedy is in that aching stoop; Through this dead shape humanity betrayed, Plundered, profaned and disinherited, Cries protest to the Judges of the world, A protest that is also prophecy. 30 O, masters, lords and rulers in all lands, Is this the handiwork you give to God, This monstrous thing distorted and soul-quenched? How will you ever straighten up this shape; Give back the upward looking and the light; Rebuild it in the music and the dream; Touch it again with immortality; Make right the immemorial infamies Perfidious wrongs, immediable woes? O, masters, lords and rulers in all lands. How will the future reckon with this man? How answer this brute question in that hour When whirlwinds of rebellion shake the world? How will it be with kingdoms and with Kings — With those who shaped him to the thing he is — When this dumb error shall reply to God, After the silence of the centuries? This the truest and most forcible accusation ever launched by genius against the existing con- ditions of society. It is a fitting climax to Hood's "Song of the Shirt/' Burns' "O'er Labored Wight" and Mrs. Browning's impassioned cry to "Hear the Children Weeping." These only describe the pitiable facts, but the great merit of Markham's poem consists in his pointing out the cause, and its inestimable value lies in the fact that when the cause of any great evil becomes known and recognized by the masses of the people it is sure to be removed. Oh, landlords, masters, and rulers of the soil, is this the handiwork you give to God? It is by you humanity has been betrayed, plundered, profaned and disinherited. It is you who have shaped him 31 to be the thing he is. How shall it be with you when this dumb terror shall reply to God after the silence of the centuries? The man with the hoe is not a remnant of prehistoric times. The know- ledge of good and evil w^as man's first acquire- ment, a knowledge which the man with the hoe has lost. Barbarism never made a human being like him. No such creature is to be found among savage races. He is not a simple improvement on the monkey taught to use the hoe. His an- cestors were men, not monkeys. He is the natural brother of the honored among men, La Place, Des Cartes, Pasteur and a thousand others. He is not exclusively of French production. In many countries he is found in the garb of woman. He is found abundantly in Eastern Germany, where landlords are strong and powerful. Throughout England he is found in the very midst of civilization, and he is known in every village. His name is Hodge, and he is recognized by the ingenious deliberation of all his movements, for he has learned by dire experience to accurately adapt his expenditure of force to the measure of his bare subsistence diet. In the presence of his master he puts forth a little deceptive energy, but behind his back he rests upon his hoe and looks upon the ground. Moreover, he is here the last to escape from military service. He is the easy prey of the 32 recruiting sergeant. He takes the Queen's shilling in prospect of a mild debauch. He struts like a peacock in his scarlet uniform. Set up and drilled he becomes the sturdy backbone of the great mili- tary machine. In the ranks he is the ignorant but faithful comrade of the intelligent but more weak- ly soldiers drawn from the factories and slums. Endowed with the hereditary courage of the bull dog he attacks the enemy in front, and does not know when he is whipped. He is too big a fool to run away, and after he is prepared as food for powder he dies upon the battlefield without a mur- mur. Hodge was not created by the removal of the strong but by the pressure of the crafty on the weak. He is the victim of generations of ill usage and unceasing labor. Heredity has stamp- ed ignorance upon his mind and brutal degenera- tion on his body. He is the production of retro- gressive evolution. This type is found in various forms, and more or less developed in every rent ridden country upon earth, wherever landlords are privileged by law to suck out the brains and life blood of the people, and make them slaves of rent. The masters of the soil have fed upon his labor without shame or mercy, and have left him noth- ing but the hoe and bare subsistence. He was created man, and has been made a brute by un- controllable social forces. Worse housed than the 33 ox — stalled like the ox — goaded like the ox, he toils from early dawn till late at night. Like the ox he feeds and sleeps only to be able to renew his labors. Stolid and stunned he becomes dead to rapture and despair, a thing that grieves not, and that never hopes. From all the stretch of hell to its last gulf, there is no shape more terrible, more tongued with censure of the world's blind greed, more fraught with menace to the peace of all na- tions and the universe. These then are faithful descriptions of indus- trial bondage.^^ A bondage fastened down by the so-called law of wages tending to bare subsistence point. The law of wages described by Mill as "natural,''^^ the "iron law'' which bears the in- dorsement of the very highest names amongst pro- fessors of political economy. A law taught in text books, schools, and universities throughout the world; and yet, for all this, a law which has falsehood and damnation written on its very face. For it cannot be denied that every known general law of nature makes for more and better life among men,^° whilst this, the creation of social agreement, makes for starvation, misery and death. The facts afford the strongest condemna- tion of the so-called law. And who are the can- nibals who slowly eat up the lives and labor of the laboring classes? Who takes the wealth they S4 individually and collectiyely produce? Are they not governments, landlords, millionaires, trusts and corporations?^^ Controlled by these selfish cormorants, social agreement, by obstructing ^'ac- cess to land," has knocked the bottom out of in- dustrial freedom, and is able to drive wages down, down, down, until the ^^bare subsistence" point is reached,and onlystops there becau.«e death putsan end to further robbery, and casts upon the canni- bals the cost of burial. And notice the result. In England one and a half per cent, of the adult population own eighty per cent, of the wealth, while eighty-seven and a half per cent, of the adult v/orking poor own only two per cent. In America nine per cent, of the adult population own seventy-one per cent, of the wealth, and sixty- three per cent, of the adult working poor own no more than nine per cent. The American cannibals have made good time in a hundred years and bid fair soon to overtake their English cousins.^^ Now, the industrial bondage of civilized human life is worse than that of chattel slavery. The slave was, at least, well cared for. He had the possibility of escape. There were lands in which he would be free. But the industrial slaves of modern life are made responsible for their own existence on a ^^bare subsistence" scale. In spite of education, in spite of individual skill and per- 35 sistent industry and thrift, not one in ten thou- sand can escape. Hundreds of thousands lose their health and lives in the hopeless struggle, and leave to their children the heritage of weakened constitutions.^^ In cities like London and New York whole streets are inhabited by adults with children's powers, children's ignorance, children's constitutions, earning children's wages, living on children's food, with children's ambitions, and yet without children's prospects of becoming men. The cannibals have eaten out the hearts of such communities, and left the husk to wither still on ^'bare subsistence" law. What a mockery to tell these people, taxed to death, that they can im- prove their condition by education, industry and thrift. There is no possible escape from such bondage. Go where they will the "bare sub- sistence" wage will follow them. The landlord will deny them the use of land without the pay ment of his rent. The capitalist, whilst giving the "bare subsistence" wages, robs them of their col- lective industry, and in proportion as population and civilization grow in new countries so does in- dustrial bondage fasten on the people. But, as in the East, nineteen centuries ago, the morning star of love heralded the coming of the Great Prophet of universal brotherhood, that bond of co-partner- ship which is an essential element of the law of human life, so to-day has the western evening star of industrial freedom heralded the prophet of ma- terial prosperity and comfort as the outcome of obedience to the same great law. The prophet of California has forged the ham- mer which shall remove the fetters of industrial bondage and given the world the key which shall open the door to industrial freedom. Ridiculed by professors of political economy, despised by mod- ern Scribes and Pharisees, rejected by the Priests of Christian churches, and denounced by ignorant politicians, he spent a noble life, and suffered death in the cause of humanity.^^ But he brought glad tidings of great joy to suffering millions and the people heard him gladly. Already, after less than twenty years, the gospel of ^'Single Tax'' has been preached in every civilized community, and his disciples number millions.^"^ In England seven millions of co-operative and co-partner w orkers, the pick of the industrial com- munity, are followers of Henry George. For years past the great convention of English laborers, the most numerous, most intellectual and most power- ful labor organization in the world, has passed resolutions in favor of the taxation of land value (the Single Tax). And already the leading liberal statesmen are following suit. John Morley has declared that the taxation of land value will be . 37 an issue at the next election. He is supported by Lord Roseberry, Sir Wm. Vernon Harcourt, Earl Carrington, Professor James Bryce and the Hon. Henry Asquith. Among the members of the Eng- lish House of Commons are Billson of Halifax, Pirie of Aberdeen, Sinclair of Forfar, Cameron of Glasgow, McGhee of South Meath, and Michael Davitt of Ireland, all of whom have been elected on the platform of the Single Tax. In Canada the workmen's conventions have annually adopted "Single Tax," and Sir Wilfred Laurier, the Pre- mier, says that all future legislation must be car- ried forward on the line of the "Single Tax." And now curiously Germany, the most conserva- tive power in Europe, has established the Single Tax as the only source of revenue in the most backward country in the world. In the new colony of Kiautchou, in China, the Minister of Marine made the following statement, "no colony has ever enjoyed such absolute freedom of production and trade as we have secured to Kiautchou. Not one single duty or tax will be imposed, except the taxes on land values. This measure has been dic- tated solely by politic-economical considera- tions." That the measure is popular is proved by the petiton presented to the British Government by the merchants, who are also land owners of Hong Kong, who, led by Mr. Mathieson, proposed 38 the abolition of all taxes and the substitution for the same of taxes on land values. Even in America men like Mr. Thomas G. Sher- man of New York, and the Hon. Tom L. Johnson vie with that old veteran of freedom — Wm. Lloyd Garrison — in advocating the Single Tax, whilst in New Zealand and New South Wales the principle is acknowledged and acted upon by both govern- ments. This is a pretty good showing for a theory founded on "mere figures of speech'^ and an argu- ment not worth "a straw's weight.''^^ THE LAND TAX AND BEER TAX. We are now prepared to discuss the question of paying the running expenses of government of which you say, "While the present way of paying the running expenses of government is very crude and faulty, and while the ^Single Tax' would have several advantages, it has also its drawbacks, and a land tax is no more God-given than a beer tax." But we have agreed that it is not a question whether God favors a land tax or a beer tax, al- though many would affirm that a beer tax would probably have the preference. There is, at least, one substantial difference between them. Land is not a product of human industry, whilst beer is, and this fact alone may determine which of the two is the better subject of taxation. The real 39 question is which will most equitably distribute the burden of taxation among all the tax payers, which will interfere least with industrial freedom and most favor the same in the larger field of col- lective industry? Which, in fact, is in most com- plete accord with the general law^^ of human life, the only law which makes for more and better life among men?^^ As "all men" derive their independent and col- lective lives, comforts, necessities and luxuries from land it follows that a tax on land value reaches every living being in proportion to the use he makes of it. The individual living and acting by himself and for himself alone, contributes nothing to land value, and is not called upon to pay running ex- penses of a collective government in which he has no place, and of which he has no need.^° But as soon as a government is needed by a growing poi)ulation rent is created, and the law of co- partnership, a most just and equitable law, steps in to determine that the collective product shall be set apart for collective use, of which current ex- penses of government are a part, and just as the needs of the population increase with increased poyjulation the fund expands^^ to meet their in- creased common wants. This seems to me a most wise and equitable arrangement, whereby the 40 1 back is fitted to the burden, and the industry of individuals is set free to secure for themselves the full products of their individual exertion, and to pursue happiness by the gratification of their in- tellectual and physical desires. Surely this is an arrangement which makes for more and better life among men.^^ On the other hand, beer is a product of indi- vidual and collective industry. It requires the co- operation of farmers, malsters, brewers, coopers, wagoners and a thousand other people to produce and distribute a single glass. Rent is the surplus of their collective industry from which the single tax is paid. Thus beer pays its proportion of taxa- tion, leaving individual exertion free. But to pay a tax on beer directly is a violation of the law of individual freedom which secures for every laborer the absolute possession and disposal of the pro- duct of his own exertion;''^ that is, without licenses, taxation or other interference by social agreement with the gratification of individual de- sires. Nor is there any moral reason for a beer tax. Beer has been adopted by all civilized nations as a drink well suited to satisfy thirst and their civiliz- ed desires. It has been selected under the law of evolution, just as wheat, rice, meat and other arti- cles of diet. It is not in use by the stagnant and 41 effete nations of the earth — Turks, Arabs, Hin- doos and Chinese. For centuries it has formed the principal drink of the Anglo-Saxon race. Less than a hundred years ago, when tea and coffee were but little known, and less used, our ancestors drank beer for breakfast, beer for dinner, beer at supper, and beer at all their festivals. It was in universal use by all who could afford to brew or buy it. And with this habit the race has colonized the earth and become the leaders of civilization. But there are fanatics who prefer and advocate Turkish and Chinese abstinence. They say that there is "death in the pot," and that taxation is calculated to repress its use and reduce intoxica- tion. But if a "beer tax" was able to destroy drunkenness and secure universal sobriety, it still would not be true "that that which is best admin- istered is best" (Jordan), you would say that this is the maxim of tyrants and prohibitionists. That the making of manhood is more than the making of total abstainers. That temperance, which is self-government and suitable adjustment, makes men strong to use all the products of human in- dustry without abusing them, and it may be added that there are millions of human beings who are intemperate in water drinking; millions more in sugar eating, and that there is no "pot" on earth in which "death" may not be found by fools. 42 The conclusion is inevitable. The "land tax" conforms in all its details with the general law of human life, which makes for more and better life among men. And the tax on beer is robbery.** INDUSTRIAL BUCCANEERS AND INDUSTRIAL FEUDALISM. Now, we have seen that co-operation in produc- tion and distribution and co-partnership in the product and surplus created by co-operation are essentially complementary elements of the law of collective human life, and that in consequence of the intimate connection between land and labor the larger part of this surplus is taken by land- lords in the form of rent. But a little considera- tion will show that only the larger part goes in that direction. With a few honorable exceptions where the employers of collective labor, besides paying wages, divide the profits with their work- men, all such employers take the collective sur- plus to themselves;''^ thus, in making a contract for building a house, the contractor makes an estimate of the cost. He estimates all kinds of labor at the market price, including his own services and risks, the costs of materials, the interest on the capital required to provide the tools, transportation, etc. ; and, when every necessity has been estimated, he adds a percentage to the wages of every work- 43 man, which, in fact, is the surplus value of their collective industry. It is in this way that gigantic fortunes have been made in building railroads, public buildings, and public and private works of all kinds. Thus the law of co-partnership is evaded, and the surplus of collective industry seized by capital- ists and employers, who are the buccaneers of in- dustry.''^ Considering the vast number and im- portance of establishments of collective labor it is no wonder that contractors, manufacturers and employers become millionaires; and is it any won- der that they seek to extend their control of laborers by the establishment of trusts? Social agreement calls this enterprise, business, superior ability to organize labor; but is it not a taking ad- vantage of the ignorance of the laboring classes, who are taught to believe that wages are all they are entitled to, and that they have no part in the product of their combined exertion ?^^ Is it not, in fact, robbery?''^ Robbery of the same fund which goes to the landlord grabbing mill? The robbery of that wealth which individuals cannot create by their individual exertion, but w^hich is a necessary outcome of their collective industry. Now, experiment proves that co-partnership and co-operation make for more and better life among men.^^ There are to-day in Great Britain seven 44 millions of its population, more or less, engaged in co-operation and co-partnership. A picked seventh of the population doing a business, manufacturing included, of 272 millions of dollars a year, with a bank of their own with deposits of sixteen (16) millions, and turning over two hundred millions (200,000,000) in trade. Many years ago I heard Robert Owen lecture on industrial co-operation and co-partnership; his first attempt was a griev- ous failure, but he was followed by Holyoake, Kingsley, Maurice, Tom Hughes, Vansittart Neal, Kipon, Ludlow, Godin and Leclair, and to-day there is scarcely a town in England without a co- operative store for distribution; and some of the largest and finest factories there and in the world are now owned and managed exclusively by work- ing men, in the interest of the working men em- ployed. For further evidence I would refer you to the recently published account of Labor Co- partnership, by Mr. Henry Demorest Lloyd, who says, ^^that industrial democracy can become a fact whenever the people will it.'^^*^ The desire for property is universal, and the aptitude to manage it like "honor and fame from no conditions rise.^' Property, business and capital will never be prop- erly managed until the entire people have a share in management, ownership and results. From this it is evident that the law which ap- 45 plies to government applies to collective industry, viz., that no individual action can, by any possi- bility, replace the concerted action of the people (Jordan). Nor is the moral effect of co-operation and co-partnership less remarkable. Ralahine was a farm in the midst of one of the most tur- bulent districts in Ireland, where the people were ragged, hungry, lawless, and the lives of landlord and steward were in deadly peril. The owner was compelled to fly, and he left his estate in the hands of Mr. E. T. Craig, who explained to the laborers that henceforth they were to be their own masters ; divide the work amongst themselves, and all share in the produce. The very ringleaders of previous disorder became the best workers. A commercial system of life was adopted; the people went into associated homes. They worked well and success- fully. A co-operative store w^as opened, and labor notes were issued in the place of money. In three years the people became wonderfully changed. They left off drinking; they kept their homes clean; they paid the rent; disorder and violence ceased, intemperance became almost unknown. All had earned more than was paid by neighbor- ing farmers, and the incident which was termi- nated by the bankruptcy of the proprietor remains a splendid illustration of what can be accomplish- 46 ed when the principle of brotherhood is appealed to. THE EVIDENCE OF RESULTS. Although I most strenuously object to the posi- tion that a question of justice is only truly deter- mined by results, I can have no objection to in- quire if the single tax ^^has been tried, if it works, and if its results on individual and social develop- ment are better than those attained through other forms of land tenure or of taxation," and the less because the comparison is with forms which have utterly failed to secure good results, and which no one pretends are founded on the principle of justice between man and man. Now, it must be freely admitted that although the Single Tax was clearly promulgated by the French Physiocrats more than one hundred years ago, it has never yet been adopted in its entirety by any nation. On close examination, however, we shall find much evidence that its principle per- vades many customs and much legislation, and that in so far it has produced the best results. As the cardinal principle of the Single Tax lies in rent and its distribution, it will be desirable to exam- ine the various methods of dealing with rent, con- trasting the effects upon the welfare of individuals and the community at large. First, we have landlords pure and simple, en- 47 dowed with all the privileges of private owner- ship, who take all the rent, choose their tenants, and discharge them when they please. They have power to take all the traffic will bear, leaving the tenant nothing but a bare subsistence, and in special cases not even that. The evil results of this limited rent distribution are seen in Ireland. It is unnecessary to describe the frightful condition to which the Irish people were reduced about fifty years ago. Thousands died of starvation and disease, while millions were evicted from their miserable shanties and forced to emigrate. At length the conditions became so in- tolerable that a parliament of landlords was com- pelled to interfere, and to establish the Inalienable right of the inhabitants to live upon their native soil before anything was paid to landlords. The power to evict was taken from them, and under the operation of the courts rents have been re- duced more than one half, and the re-distribution of rent has greatly improved the condition of the people. The Irish are to-day more prosperous and more contented than for centuries. In the next place, all the privileges of full ownership may be exercised by corporations. These may be even worse than landlords because they are totally devoid of human sympathy. But when corporations are municipal and manage pub- 48 lie property, the rents are applied to provide for city needs. In Freudenstadt, a town of 1500 inhabitants, there is no taxation. The public revenue is de- rived from royalties, rents, and other natural sources of wealth attaching to the town and neigh- borhood. The revenue has always exceeded the expenditure. There are neither paupers in the community nor unemployed. On one occasion re- cently there was divided among the inhabitants men, women and children, a sum amounting to 113.55 per capita. In England many municipal corporations either inherit it or have acquired land in the center of their cities. Old buildings have been torn down, new streets have been con- structed, and the land rented out on lease. In a few years the rents of such properties will relieve the citizens of much taxation. In the next place, the relation between owner and occupier may be determined by custom or by law, as under the feudal system, under w^hich the relation between lord and villein was definitely fixed, if not always faithfully kept. As the lord acknowledged his fealty to the king by personal service or the presentation of a pair of spurs, so the villein secured the protection of his lord by so many days of personal service or so much produce, and, having rendered his dues with punctuality, he 49 was left in peaceful occupation of his holding, and undisturbed possession of any surplus products which he might thereafter raise by his own in- dustry. Thorold Rogers has fully described the comfortable and happy condition of the English peasants before the introduction of landlordism, and the frightful economic pressure which imme- diately ensued. The land then, for the first time in England, was treated as private property, and the occupiers were evicted because they were un- able to pay interest on the purchase money. The Hon. Joseph Leggett has shown that the same causes have produced similar results in California. For the first twenty-five years after the first set- tlement land was open, and, except in cities, was cheap. The pressure of rent was very little felt, land was abundant, and the people few and con- tented. But when all the productive land was taken up, some for profit, more for speculation, rents began to rise and wages fall, for while land- lords exist laborers cannot appropriate both. Then economic pressure began to appear, the rich became richer, and the poor poorer. Then ap- peared armies of tramps and thieves, and the in- dependence of thousands was destroyed. In the next place, the multiplication of indi- vidual owners results in diffusion of the rent, and has chiefly occurred in France, through the opera- 50 tion of the code of Napoleon; but the benefits of rent diffusion are obscured and neutralized by ex- cessive military service and heavy industrial taxa- tion. Nevertheless, one remarkable result has been attained; the food production of France has increased in the last century fifteen times faster than the growth of population, a practical proof that the so-called law of Malthus is not absolute. In the next place, permanent occupiers may also be part owners, portions of rent being assigned to other persons on definite terms fixed by law. This form of land tenure has been in operation in the Channel Islands for a thousand years. The island of Jersey has never been subject to the Roman law, and therefore, there are still no landlords. The escape from landlordism was probably due to the poverty of the soil, which, until lately, was not able to support the inhabitants, much less to yield a surplus for the payment of rent. In the seven- teenth century, as may be seen from the first edi- tion of Falle's Jersey (1694), the island did not pro- duce the quantity of food required by the inhabi- tants, who were supplied from England in time of peace, and from Dantzig in time of war. In the groans of the inhabitants of Jersey we find the same complaint. And Quale, in 1812, stated that the quantity of food was quite inadequate to their sustenance, apart from the English garrison. 61 After making, sayw Ik^ all allowances, tlio truth nmsl be 1<)I<], I he graiu crops Jirc foul, in Home in- stances (execrably so. We learn also from recent writers that the soil is by no means rich. It is a decomposed <;ranitc, without organic matter, be- sides what nijin has i>ut into il. Tln^re are also seventy acres of an Arabian desert of sands and hillocks, wilh very ])ooi* soil on the north and west of it. Nor is the climate as favorable as mi^ht have been expected. '^Fhere is an absence of sun-heat in summer, a remarkable prevalence of Jersey fogs, brinj^inj;- mildew and bli^i^iit in au- tumn, and much dry, cold, east wind, retarding vegetation in spring. Land in J(^rsey has been held f()r centuries in small lots of a few acres. In the whole island there are not more than six farms of more than twenty-live acres, and upon these the celebrated Jersey cows are raised. The owner of t h(^ lot is permitted by law and custom to issue "rents^^ to the extent of three-fourths of the value of the hold- ing. These "rents'^ represent a small pro])ortion of the crop of wheat as raised a thousand years ago, when the soil was even more barren than at the beginning of this century, and the art of agri- culture was much less advancinl. So faithfully has this custom been i)reserved that the money payment equivalent to that small modicum of 62 wheat secures to the occupier permanence of occu- pation. The possession of land is therefore abso- lutely safe to every cultivator, and cannot easily be alienated. To seize land for debt is accom- panied with so many difficulties that it is seldom resorted to. The part owner and occupier cannot be compelled, as in the case of mortgage, to re- fund the principal. The laws of inheritance are also such as to preserve the homestead to the children, notwithstanding all or any debts the father may have incurred before his death. Cus- tom provides also that the purchaser for cultiva- tion undertakes to pay only a capitalized one- fourth of the total rent, and he often pays less; people are thus able to buy land for cultivation with very little capital, and the cost of conveyance is almost nothing. As there are no landlords on the island, there is no one to watch the crops, or raise the rent, no one to fix the terms of lease, no one to dictate the course of cropping:, no one to raise the rent as population grows, every tiller of the soil is his own master, and occupies his little holding without interference from any one. While every occupier is an independent owner there are hundreds of other citizens who have an interest in rent, but without x)ower to distrain for non-pay- ment of the principal. Here then we have a clear recognition of the principle that rent belongs to 53 the people, and a rough and unscientific method of distributing it among the population. In fact, the Norman custom is an imperfect Single Tax. Other common privileges have also been careful- ly preserved. Every one is at liberty to gather sea- weed for manure at a certain season of the year, and to dig sand at a distance of sixty feet from high water-mark. And now let us notice the result. The island is eight miles long and less than six miles wide; it comprises 28,707 acres, rocks included. There are 1300 inhabitants to the square mile, or two to every acre, and, besides providing their own food, they now annually export |250 worth of produce from every cultivated acre. In 1894 they export- ed 60,605 tons of potatoes, grown on 7,007 acres, and for these they received about |2,300,000. They also exported 1600 head of cattle, chiefly cows, bulls and horses, and many tons of tomatoes, pears, system. The land speculators, however, set up violent opposition, and took the matter into the courts; and, it being declared unconstitutional, 58 the town was compelled to return to the old sys- tem. All building immediately came to an end when the land speculators resumed their sway. These results are all in favor of the Single Tax. THE UNIVERSITIES AND THE LAW OF HUMAN LIFE. It is the special function of universities to ex- amine and illustrate those general laws which con- trol the operations of the universe. To teach their order, correlation, beauty, adaptability to surrounding conditions, their sufficiency and per- fection, their justice and morality, and to show how completely and surely they make for more and better life among men, whilst the least viola- tion or neglect makes of necessity for starvation, misery and death. Are the universities of America fulfilling their duties with respect to the law of human life? They seem ready and willing to acknowledge the value of intellectual and personal freedom, but have they put industrial freedom on an equal footing?^ It would seem not; nay, rather are they not fol- lowing the practices of the European universities of the last century? And just as those universities directed all their efforts to restrain intellectual and scientific freedom, so now those of America are using their great powers to strangle industrial 59 freedom. None of these institutions, whose office is to extend the range of freedom, offer a protest against the artificial privilege of landlords. None are protesting against industrial feudalism, which is industrial tyranny. They have nothing to say on the absolute necessity of co-partnership in the results of collective labor as the only possible pro- tection against the rapacity of governments, mil- lionaires, trusts and corporations. They have failed to demonstrate the wickedness and folly of taxing individual industry as if it were a crime to work and create wealth. They seem to sanction all those methods of taxa- tion which bring lying and dishonesty in their train, and enable the rich to shift the burden on the poor. Common sense should tell them that all such methods make for starvation, misery and death, and that absolute obedience to the law of human life alone makes for more and better life among men.°^ In this, its first duty, the Univer- sity of California, like those of America generally, is a grievous failure, and even Stanford, the most liberal, is by no means innocent. It is significant that you should have so griev- ously misapprehended Mr. George's argument. That you should charge him with scientific igno- rance possibly without having read his last great scientific work. That you should find his premises 60 faulty and founded on figures of speech, when they are based on simple self-evident facts. That you should say that he takes out at the end only that which he puts in at the beginning, while in reality he puts in the beginning the simple facts of human life, and in justice between man and man takes out the Single Tax. That you should regard his argument as not worth a straw's weight, whereas it involves the foundation of all human progress. It is no won- der that his last and greatest work on the ^'Science of Political Economy'^ is not in the Stanford li- brary; and that the law of human life should be utterly ignored in the class-rooms, and is replaced by a study of the dreams of the French physiocrats of the last century; and this not for the purpose of picking out from all their writings those grains of w^heat, the "produit net" and ''impot unique," and of illustrating these grains of truth with the assistance of Mr. George's wisdom, but with the certain result that, without that wisdom, the stu- dents' intellects will be buried in the mass of chaff. And lastly, it seems to me incomprehensible that you should rely upon that inscrutable, uncertain, weak, mythical principle, ''social agreement," as the authority for what is ''right" when you have before you a simple law of nature which makes for more and better life among men, and the small- 61 est neglect of which makes for starvation, misery and death. It is painful to write these facts, but for you "truth'^ has no terrors, no humiliations, and it is necessary to probe to the bottom of the wound in order to effect a cure. But this neglect of Mr. George's doctrine is the more remarkable at Stanford, because here, as always, interest is co-incident with obedience to natural law and duty. The Stanford estates suffer most grievously from the unjust system of taxation now in force, and from which there is but little hope of relief, except by the adoption of the ''Sin- gle Tax,'' under which no rent can be taken from land in public use, of which the most important is the promotion of higher education. Rent taken away from such an institution is the worst form of robbery, and there is no possible excuse for it un- der the operation of the ''Single Tax." It is true that the appropriation of land to public use is only a restoration of what belongs to the people, but this restoration was none the less a royal gift made by the founders of the Stanford University.^^ By it they renounced forever their artificial right as landlords, and gave back to the community that which the community had earned. But they did more, for they carried out the principle of the "Single Tax'' to its uttermost point, and did, by the stroke of the pen, that which elsewhere must take many, many years to accomplish; and verily they shall have their reward, for the arrangement cannot be upset, and as the years roll by, and the population shall increase, the resources of the University are bound to grow in proportion to its need. What glory, what honor shall attach for- ever to such unselfish fulfillment of a general law as yet not recognized? CONCLUSIONS. In the foregoing I have endeavored to keep the main argument clear, short, and to the point. As Mr. George says, ^'We cannot if we would, we should not if we could, eschew the use of meta- phor, but in questions of political economy it is necessary to base all metaphors on facts. "^"^ I have shown that human life, happiness and progress depend upon the complete and faithful observance of the general law of independent and collective life. That this law is violated by the enactments and practices of social agreement, which cannot be accepted as an authority for ^'right."^^ That the violation of the general l^w of human life, even in the least particular, makes for starvation, misery and death. That the crea- tion by social agreement of an artificial landlord class, endowed with power to deny "access to land/' is destructive of industrial freedom, and that the appropriation of the product of collective industry by landlords, millionaires, trusts, cor- porations and individual employers is robbery. That co-operation in production and co-partner- ship in the collective result are essential elements of the law of collective human life. That the la- borer to be really free must attain to self-employ- ment as an individual, and self-government as a member of the collective body, sharing in the pro- fits and management not as a favor but a right, sanctioned by the law of human life. That the taxation of individual industry is a violation of the law of individual freedom, and the final con- clusion is that the ^'Single Tax'' on land value, which is created by the collective activities and necessities of the whole community, is the source provided by the law of human life for the satisfac- tion of the common wants, no one being called upon to suffer loss individually on account of pub- lic need. As under the ^'Single Tax" no one will care to have land except for possession and profitable use, millions of acres will be opened to the people. There will no longer be need to camp out for weeks upon the borders of land open to occupation. No longer need to fight and race and struggle for whereon to live, for "/ree aocess^^ will become a 64 fact, and free materials will everywhere be found at the disposal of collective life. Lastly, the law of independent and collective human life is the only complete and absolute basis of economics. It defines the origin of indi- vidual and collective wealth, and determines the rights of the respective owners in its distribution. It makes impossible the formation of trusts and combinations, which, under the pretense of better organization of capital and labor, and the promise of cheaper production, rob the producers of their individual and collective earnings. It gives the land and its natural resources to the whole people by the operation of the Single Tax, and thus de- stroys monopolies at their very roots; in fine, it makes for more and better life among men, and becomes a safe guide for statesmen, governments and professors of political economy throughout the world. AN INDUSTRIAL UTOPIA. You have wisely told your students that the Utopian element is one which our lives sorely need. That we have fought the devil long enough with fire. That we have attempted good results by evil means (social agreement, expediency, im- perialism, landlords, trusts, bare subsistence wages, industrial taxation, licenses, franchises, 65 and other special privileges, tariff and other inter- ferences with the law of independent human life) ; that unless our souls dwell in Utopia, life is not worth the keeping; that our windows should look toward Heaven, not the gutter. Now, with the help of the general law of human life it does not seem difficult to construct an industrial Utopia, which being the foundation of life is also the foun- dation of all human progress.'^ Let us suppose the creation of a huge industrial corporation to ex- ploit the earth. To become a shareholder it is only necessary to be a human being, endowed with intelligence and strength, who pledges his labor in return for life and the satisfaction of his wants. Every worker getting his w^ages according to the law of supply and demand, and those special con- ditions which determine the value of the service rendered. If but little service, bare subsistence; if more, comfort, leisure and the gratification of desires; if great, and rendered to the corporation, honor, glory, repose and luxury. The charter of this corporation is the law of in- dependent and collective human life, as laid down in the foregoing pages. Every individual must be free to think, to act, and to assist in the business of the corporation, the exploitation of the earth, and be free to consume, hoard and dispose of his wages according to his will, whilst the surplus 66 created by collective labor shall be gathered by the Single Tax, and distributed to tne collective producers, not in personal dividends, but in pro- vision for collective necessities and the gratifica- tion of collective desires. The construction of the government of this cor- poration must be democratic."^ That is, exactly that of a private business corporation. No indi- vidual action must be permitted to replace the con- certed action of the people. Nor need we forget that Utopia is beyond the reach of human action. That evil and death are as permanent as gravitation, and will forever re- main essential elements of growth and progress. It is not our business if we never reach perfection. All men must be free to choose between good and evil, and we must be content with the rule of the majority. We may be assured, however, that the majority is for the most part right, and that our individual duty is to promote justice between man and man, and thus advance the brotherhood of all mankind. Now, I confidently claim your assist- ance in promoting this Utopian idea. It is exact- ly the form of government to which you were con- verted in relation to municipal affairs. It is the form of government adopted by business corpora- tions and by English cities. I ask your assistance to teach it in your schools, that its operation may 67 be extended to counties, States, and nations. This is ''the ideal arrangement, although, perhaps, im- possible. If it is impossible, it must become pos- sible somehow before we can get on" (Jordan). But nothing is impossible which is founded on truth, justice and natural law. Past experience proves it. One now can scarcely believe that only fifty years ago men were shot down and imprison- ed for advocating vote by ballot and universal suf- frage, and by honorable men, who believed their adoption to be impossible in England! Who could have anticipated the abolition of slavery in the United States fifty years ago? Even thirty years ago who could have dreamed that men would speak to each other a thousand miles apart? So, with or without the aid of universities, Industrial freedom must ultimately prevail, because it is founded on truth and justice and the law of human life. It is obedience to this law which con- stitutes true religion, and I would call upon the clergy of all denominations to adopt it as the basis of their teaching. This law provides the true remedy for ignorance, poverty, and immorality, and is the only safeguard against starvation, misery and death. This law promises the realiza- tion of that glorious document — ^the Declaration of Independence — which states so clearly that all men have equal right to life, liberty and the pur- '68 suit of happiness. This law which alone gives right to all men equally to gratify their physical and intellectual desires (Henry George). This law which is so well expressed in the motto of Eng- lish co-partners "each for all, and all for each." This law which assuredly makes for more and bet- ter life among men (Jordan). This law which de- clares the equality of all men before natural law, and is the foundation of the brotherhood of all mankind. STALLARD. APPENDIX. 2Vo#e /. — Adequate intelligence and adequate strength are not combined in the same man. (J.) Men in general are neither idiots nor invalids. Man has nothing else to depend upon but intelli- gence and strength. (S.) Note 2. — Labor is also exerted on labor or the past results of labor, also a form of industry. (J.) Labor cannot be exerted on labor only. There can be no labor without land or its products. (S.) 'Note 3. — Only by exchange. But one can be ex- changed for another and must be in social co- operation. (J.) But we are now discussing individual, inde- pendent life, and exchange is necessarily excluded from the argument. (S . ) Note J/. — Not in the tropics, nor when incentives are withdrawn by social force. (J.) We are still discussing individual life, but even in the tropics food does not fall into his open mouth. He must also tramp and beg when social incentives are withdrawn. (S.) Note 5. — But lacking intelligence, he begs this article; his slavery is endemic, not the result of force. (J.) Nevertheless, many intelligent and highly edu- cated men may and do become absolutely desti- tute, often the result of uncontrolable forces. Under present conditions they are compelled to beg for food or work. How many thousands have done so? How many masters of arts are cow- boys in Texas? (S.) Note 6. — Your argument that trees have not equal access to land seems to me without force. (S.) It is without force, but so is the statement that men have a divine or any other right to equal ac- cess. Trees, as individuals, are certainly depend- ent on access to land, men are not. (J.) My statement is not that men have a divine or any other right to equal access to land, but a state- ment of simple fact, viz., that access to land is an essential condition in the maintenance of inde- pendent human life. Both men and trees exist on the conditions supplied by land, and would die without them. Equal access is simply an im- possibility, and were it possible could not be main- tained. This is nowhere proposed by Henry George. But the right or title of all men to access 71 to land must be equal in order to secure to all men the possibility of living, and this equality is simple justice between man and man. Nor is it necessary that all men should be farmers, miners, or market gardeners to secure access to land, for it is obvi- ous that access does not depend on the fact of occu- pation. The taking of rent affords an equal guarantee. Landlords have complete access to land by taking rent even when they are absentees. Rent is wealth created by the community at large, and by putting the community into the landlord's shoes every citizen gets access to land and shares both in the creation and expenditure of rent, no matter what his trade or occupation. Thus is sim- ple justice between man and man secured by the operation of the single tax. (S.) 2Vofe 7. — Trees are not endowed with intellect or active strength. (S.) Neither are many men. Men must exchange one for the other. (J.) Animals without intelligence or strength cannot be classed as men. Exchange is a necessity of collective, not of independent human life. Robin- son Crusoe had no opportunity to make exchange until Friday came to him. (S.) Note 8. — If all men depended on themselves for choice the world would be scantily populated. (J.) 72 There is no need for universal independence. Men gain too much from social intercourse and co- operation. (S.) 'Note 9. — Once armed with the independent op- portunity of maintaining life by the employment of his own labor upon land, a man, however desti- tute, is really free. (S.) Not all. Robinson Crusoe could have suffered from almost any of the known forms of misery. (J.) True; but misery is not an essential condition of human life, and although a prisoner on the island, Crusoe exerted his intellect and strength on land and was made free to live. He was his own master. (S.) Note 10. — He is no longer at the mercy of em- ployers. (S.) But he is at the mercy of brains. (J.) While he has the independent opportunity of maintaining his own life by his own labor exerted upon land, he is at the mercy of nothing but su- perior force. Even then he remains master of himself. (S.) Note 11, — If all men could get at the land, and could live when they got there, the earth would be too small to support them. There is much bad 73 land, unproductive land, malarial land. Only the best tillage on good and healthy land, with brains in direction, will make civilized life. (J.) This may or may not be true. But we are dis- cussing the conditions of independent human life, not the progress of civilization or the future of the race. Nevertheless, the limit of production is not yet known. In East Flanders thirty thousand people live on thirty-seven thousand acres, all taken, and besides they manage to support 10,720 head of horned cattle, 3,800 sheep, 1815 horses, 6,550 swine, and to export flax and other agricult- ural produce. In one hundred years the food pro- duction of France has increased fifteen times faster than the growth of population — a practical proof that the so-called law of Malthus is not in- fallible. (S.) LAW AND JUSTICE. 'Note 12. — The law of independent human life provides the only line of action which secures the independent existence of human beings. (S.) There is no such line of action — most of all de- pends on the being, his health and heredity. The law of independent life does not follow from the observed facts. You use nowhere the inductive method except in a few illustrations. Your real argument rests on an invention like ''similia 74 similibus'-; in other words, you are guided by an assumed divine law. never yet tried except in part, and which you have discovered through " a priori" reasoning. There is no law which says, "This ought to be 'thus and so,' but is not. There are many (a priori) schemes of human life. You overlook the fact that the great prob- lems are psychological, physiological and ethical rather than economic. I respect truth, but not the "a priori'' method of reaching for it. That yields truth sometimes, but gives no test by which we can tell truth from moonshine. "Scientific men," says Professor Brooks (and I endorse his statement), "repudiate the opinion that natural laws are 'rulers' and 'governors' over nature, and look with suspicion on all 'necessary' or 'universal' laws." Man has never found out such. Certainly such laws are not rulers. We must rule ourselves within the limits of our environment, which is made up of cause and following effects. I deny that all known natural laws make for more and better life among men. There are laws of decay as well as laws of growth. We have not reached a point where deductive argument can prove anything to be trusted in human conduct. What justice is can only be found out by experi- ment and attained only by the slow growth which 75 is possible under governmental forms. I know of no way of getting at justice through the applica- tion of universal laws, because no such laws can bring credentials. If, as Dr. Warner says, putting air in private hands would yield a better supply on juster terms there is no divine reason why we should not turn the atmosphere over to an air company. (J.) If the skies fall we shall catch larks, but in my premises there is no ^'if." It is simple fact that men are animals endowed with intelligence and strength, and by exerting that intelligence and strength on land they obtain food and maintain existence. These facts form an impregnable basis of inductive argument. But in order to show that ethics, psychology and heredity have nothing whatever to do with the simple maintenance of life I will put the question in a simpler form. Thus: Men are land animals, and fish are water animals. Human and fish life depend, respectively, on the conditions to be found in land and water. Now life, land, and water are here metaphors. They mean more than the simple words express, but they are convenient and necessary and save long descriptions of well known facts; and the facts are that men live on land, and fishes in the water. This is no invention of mine. There is here no 76 baseless hypothesis like "similia similibus," no "a priori" reasoning, no assumed divine law (whatever that may mean), no reference whatever to the pur- poses of nature, and I simply state the self-evident facts that men are born and live on land and fishes in the water. These facts a child can understand and no philosopher can doubt. Now, natural law is the constant relation be- tween definite antecedent facts or conditions (causes) and definite consecutive results (effects). Under this definition, to live on land is a natural law of human life, and to live in w^ater is a natural law of fish life. Exactly the same reasoning ap- plies to material bodies. The mutual attraction between two of them constitutes the natural law of gravitation. No reasoning can get closer to the facts; it is induction pure and simple. If not, I give the question up. But the law of human life as it depends on land, and the law of fish life as it depends on water, is not the whole law of life any more than the mutual attraction of two bodies is the whole law of gravitation; for as in the one case the antecedent conditions and consecutive results are definitely modified by density and distance, so in the others are the laws of human and fish life definitely modified by the million different influ- ences with which they come in contact. But the fundamental law in all three cases remains con- 77 stant and intact. If fishes do not get at water they die; if men do not get at land they starve to death. And two material bodies, if not mutually attract- ed to each other, would remain separate. The maintenance of fish life, like that of human life, is, therefore, purely and simply a question of eco- nomics. The Yv'^ater must be open to the industry of fishes, just as land must be open to the industry of men, and under these natural conditions only life is safe. It is simply nonsense to speak of the psychological, ethical and hereditary problems of fishes as involved in the maintenance of fish life, and it is difficult to define the age when they begin to operate in man, but it is clear that they have no more to do with the simple maintenance of human life than they have with moonshine. In this there is no intention to ignore the import- ance of psychology, ethics and heredity in the the development of individual character and social life, but we are discussing the simple question of maintaining human existence, which, obviously, must be settled on a firm basis before the others can be reached. In the next place, the sequence of events which constitute the law of independent life distinctly points out many things which ought to be "thus and so," but are not. For example, all men ought to have enough to eat and drink, and for this all 78 men ought to have access to land, but landlords have been given the control and ownership of land by an edict of social agreement in direct antago- nism to this ^'ought to be" of human life. And here it becomes necessary to differ from Professor Brooks, and apparently from you also, as to the importance and value of all natural laws. You deny that all such laws make for more and better life among men, and say truly that there are laws of decay as well as laws of growth. But these laws are complimentary, one to the other. There is no decay without growth, and no growth without decay. Neither is there death without life, nor life without death; and it is therefore need- less to argue that decay and death make for more and better life among men, for both are essential to the law — they constitute no exception. Nor can scientific men afford "to repudiate the opinion that natural laws are ^rulers^ and ^gov- ernors' over nature, or look with suspicion on all 'necessary' and ^universal' laws. Man has never found out such." But what more suitable metaphors or what safer standards can be used? When we say that the sun rules the day and the moon governs the night, no one supposes that they rule by edicts, susceptible to change, but we simply mean that 79 there exists an ascertained sequence of particular events so definite, so sure, and so constant, that we are able to tell the minute of sunrise at any given place, or any given day, in any given year, in any given century. A suspected law is not a natural law — the sequences have not been ascer- tained. It is no law at all. It is a surmise or pre- sumption only. If we cannot depend on natural law (ascertained sequences) for our rule of action, ehaos is still here. And if ^Ve have not reached a point where de- ductive argument can prove anything to be trusted in human conduct," where are we? On what other ground is it possible to stand? How otherwise progress? Every successful action of human life depends on faithful obedience to some natural law that is "ascertained sequences." Men eat and drink to live. They depend upon the earth for food and on the air for the oxygen they breathe. They walk upon their feet; they see with their eyes, hear with their ears, and think with their brains, when they have any. These and a thousand other laws are natural laws of life, the violation of any one of which makes for misery and death. Are not the professors of Stanford searching the earth for truth, that is, for "ascertained sequences," for the benefit of human conduct? Has the law of evolu- «0 tion no lessons for effective human action? Or, to take a concrete example, the widest and closest observation has firmly established the relationship between temperance and health, and there is no difficulty whatever in applying this universal law to influence our lives and happiness. Nor is experiment needed to determine what is justice, for justice is an eternal and unalterable principle of action, the law of which is as well established as the law of gravitation. Justice is simply '^the equality of all men before the law.'' But not equality before all sorts of law; not equal- ity before unequal law; not equality before un- truthful law; not equality before bench law; not equality before military law; not equality before United States law— in fine, not equality before any human made law whatever. But justice is the equality of all men before natural law, which is alone just and equal and the only law which, when free to all men, as it should be, provides a certain guarantee that life, liberty and happiness are with- in the reach of all men. Justice, therefore, simply gives to all men equal title to the benefits of "ascertained sequences," or natural law. It is injustice which denies these benefits to any, and such denial is continually or- dained by human legislation and carried out by force. 81 Justice entitles no man to the exclusive use of any benefits due to natural laws, and neither gov- ernments nor constitutions can confer on some ex- clusive title to natural benefits which belong equally to others. ''I will accept nothing for my- self/' says W. Whitman, 'Vhich all may not have the counterpart of on equal terms/' This alone is absolute fairness between man and man. The credential of jusice is not difficult to find; it is exposed on the very surface of all just laws, and attested by the absence of special privileges. All men are equal before natural law, but the injustice of social agreement, in the form of American law, has conferred special privileges on landlords at the expense of other people. Moreover, justice does not "depend on govern- mental forms, nor is it attained slowly by their aid.'' Government in any form or by any means is incapable of creating justice or even of securing its attainment, for the relation of "all men" to natural law is personal and sacred, and is deter- mined, not by governmental forces, but by the man himself. All that governments can do is to disturb the equality of right, as when it confers on landlords the exclusive privilege of private owner- ship of land, whereby they are enabled to exclude other citizens from the very source of life. Justice as thus defined is the foundation of individual free- «2 dotn, and it is the only safe guide of human con- duct. It applies to "all men," both in the individ- ual and collective sense. It is the cardinal princi- ple of democratic government, and the only rea- sonable hope for peace and good will among indi- viduals and nations. It is thus proved that the Government of the United States is a fortress of injustice, in which the acknowledged right of all men to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness is fettered and con- fined. You declare that the only government you recognize is that which establishes justice, never that which establishes injustice, and I therefore confidently call upon you to assist in the alteration of American law that justice may be permitted to prevail. Human legislation cannot even foster justice. It can only interfere with it; for whenever govern- ments attempt empirically to correct or extermi- nate personal misdoings the freedom of justice is destroyed and the evil is increased. For men cannot be made just to one another, honest, sober, clean, polite or virtuous by any form of human legislation. These are and ever must be personal considerations — to be determined by per- sonal associations and personal education. When I was a boy drunkenness was the test of English hospitality. A gentleman dishonored his host by 83 walking home; he honored him by drinking his three bottles and falling insensible underneath the table. The poor man also measured his happiness by the same standard and got home from the fairs and junketings after lying in the ditch all night. All this time there were laws to punish drunkards, from which, as usual, the rich escaped, and by which the poor and ignorant were scourged. Amongst the rich this test of hospitality has long «ince passed away, without any legal interference; public opinion has declared such conduct a dis- grace to the class, but the poor and ignorant con- tinue their excesses in spite of governmental forces. For natural law is the only real schoolmaster which teaches wisdom and shows up the folly of disobedience to its righteous teachings. It is the master force of progress. Civilization advances as fast as the fools learn wisdom or are killed off by the law of evolution. Nature is kind to her true disciples, but has no mercy for the fools. When a man drinks to excess over night he gets a warning headache in the morning. If he neglects this warning, his liver, brains and family surely suffer, and with further persistence in his evil- doing comes misery and death. But human stu- pidity presumes to improve on natural law. It taxes drink, enacts prohibition, and closes the 84 saloons. It fines and imprisons the drunkard when caught by the police. It fears that the fool will get another headache; that he may ruin his family, or even kill himself with drink. Thus, whilst natural law would utterly destroy the fools, human edicts are issued to protect them from their folly and to preserve the breed. Swaddling clothes and leading strings are only fit for infants, but 771671 must be made to realize the consequences of evil doing, each on his own account. Under the uninterrupted reign of natural law fools will be overwhelmed in their own folly and wise men will increase and multiply. All that justice wants, therefore, is a fair field and no favor. It asks no direct help from govern- ments and human edicts. It grows by its own in- herent force. It is fostered by personal education and by personal association with the just. In all other respects it simply asks to be left religiously alone. But justice demands the destruction of all special privileges and the recognition by govern- ments of the title of all men equally to the benefits of natural laws; individuals and nations may then rest in calm assurance that the power of good must in the end prevail. Now, it is the province of schools and universi- ties to search out truth and justice, which are but 85 different expressions of the same great law, for there is no truth in injustice, no injustice in truth. It is for the professors of political economy to teach all governments that the progress of truth and justice is beyond the scope of human legisla- tion, and that it is for individuals to choose be- tween the happiness of good and the misery of evil. As Moses told the Jew^s, "Behold, I have set before thee this day, life and good, death and evil." Man's whole business upon earth is to search out natural laws, whether of truth and falsehood, jus- tice and injustice, good and evil, life and death. The more we know of these laws, the more accu- rately we trace their action, the more faithfully we follow their teachings for good and their warnings against evil, the longer we shall live and the hap- pier we must be, for all natural laws (ascertained sequences) make for more and better life among men. 'Note IS. — Social agreement is impotent to pro- vide either food or employment for all manknd. (S.) Human action in any form is important. (J.) If humanity is really impotent to provide its own food by its own exertion, it is very badly fixed. But there are pretty good indications that we may struggle on a few more centuries without fear of 8r> starvation. The little State of California could easily provide for another hundred millions if cultivated like the Channel Islands. If only 60 per cent, of the land of California were cultivated on the same scale as those islands, there would be adequate support for one hundred and twenty millions, and she still might export much more produce than she does to-day. (S.) ^oife IJf. — It is not your democracy nor any other ocracy that makes your people contented. It is because you have very much land and very few people. — Carlyle. (J.) Free land makes a free and contented people. California should be the freest and most contented on earth. Yet it is not half as contented as the Channel Islanders, who number thirteen hundred to the square mile, and have neither tramps nor paupers. (S.) l^ote 15. — This is not the whole story. Giving anything pauperizes. England has not land enough to support all her people if all had land and none worked on the results of labor. (J.) The whole story is not necessary. Some pauper- ism is self-induced, but much more is created by the mistakes of social agreement and the injustice established by governments. It is not true that the 87 giving of anything pauperizes. The Jews give freely to their poor, but do not pauperize. The giving or receiving of anything is, in itself, neither dishonorable nor degrading. It is a complete de- lusion to suppose that England has not land enough to support her population. If the culti- vable area of the United Kingdom were cultivated as the soil is cultivated on the average in Belgium there would be food for thirty-seven millions of people, and England might export food without ceasing to manufacture (Krapotkin). If the popu- lation of the United Kingdom came to be doubled, all that would be required for producing food for eighty millions would be to cultivate the soil as it is already cultivated on the best farms in England^ Lombardy, or Flanders, and to utilize meadow lands, which are now almost unproductive, in the same way as in the neighborhood of the big cities of France (Krapotkin). In 1870 I visited the Breton farm at Romford. It cost the owner £40 an acre, and had been cultivated by the former ten- ant and his two sons, with the help of two horses. At the time of my visit thirty men and twenty- five horses were employed, besides a hundred women and children. The annual cost of cultiva- tion was fl75 an acre, and the produce sold for more than double. The irrigation farm at Alder- sTiot cost the English Government twelve cents an acre. It now rents for |100 per acre annually. It is the incubus of rent which strangles English agriculture. The industrial classes of England have to pay their landlords one billion dollars annually for the privilege of standing on English soil; and they have to pay nearly as much again in taxes. The Liberals are now proposing to transfer one-fifth of the rental of England to the public treasury, relieving industry annually to the tune of twenty millions of dollars. Believed of this overwhelming burden, the industrial classes will get higher wages and at the same time be able to compete successfully with any industrial com- munity on earth. SOCIAL AGREEMENT. 2