Henry George

Thomas E. Lyons

[An address delivered 13 December, 1915 by Mr. Lyons as representative of the Wisconsin Tax Commission, before the Madison Literary Club. Reprinted from the Single Tax Review, September-October and November-December 1916]

We print Mr. Lyons' address because it is of interest as coming from a man of breadth and culture who is yet not a Single Taxer. - EDITOR SINGLE TAX REVIEW.

An effort to choose a subject combining some degree of public interest with substantial achievement, from a limited acquaintance in that company, has led me to undertake a review of the life and labors of Henry George. While his theories run counter to general opinion and he is persona non grata to the economists, his teachings exerted a considerable influence on the thought of his time and he still has an ardent and numerous following. His life and labors, therefore, may not be unworthy of an hour's consideration.

There is nothing of special interest or significance in the early life or antecedents of Henry George. He was born in Philadelphia in 1839 of a middle-class American family derived from English stock with an admixture of Scotch and Welsh. His father, Richard Samuel Henry George, was a man of ordinary intelligence and limited means, whose business alternated between holding a clerical position in the Philadelphia custom house and conducting a printing establishment devoted to the publication of religious magazines and treatises. The mother was a "Mary Vallance," daughter of John Vallance, a Scotch engraver of some prominence, a woman of domestic habits and rather narrow range of vision, but of deep religious nature. The conditions of the home were wholesome but commonplace; the atmosphere calculated to repress rather than develop independence of mind or spontaneity of feeling; the soil uncongenial for virile and expanding boyhood.

While the family income was sufficient to maintain the parents and ten children in modest circumstances, the practice of economy was necessary and constant. Thrift was a cardinal virtue in the George household - a kind of Ninth Beatitude. The children had the usual educational facilities of the period, but developed no special aptitude or interest in study. Young George received his first training at a private school for children and later attended the Mount Vernon Grammar School and Episcopal Academy. There is nothing in his brief school career to distinguish him from the average schoolboy unless it be his particularly bad spelling. Undoubtedly the greatest influence in his formal education was the opportunity, secured .through a family friend, of attending the lectures and reading the magazines in the Franklin Institute. Here we find the first manifestation of interest in intellectual work.

Even at this early period the problem of self-support was present in the boy's mind with the full approval of his parents. At the age of fourteen he sought and secured employment as general helper in a crockery store at the munificent salary of two dollars a week. With this employment his school-days came to an end. High school or college had he none. Even this employment was intermittent, and the boy was constantly on the lookout for a more remunerative position. A great-uncle, Richard George, had been a prosperous ship-owner and the traditions of his achievements were common property in the George household. This circumstance did not fail to excite the interest of the younger members, and one of young George's early ambitions was to emulate the example of his ancestor and seek his fortune on the sea. Through the interest of a friend of the family he finally secured service on the vessel "Hindoo," then about to sail for East India and Australia, and was signed as a seaman under the label A. B. (able-bodied), the only degree he ever received. Thus at the early age of sixteen Henry George took his place among the toilers, to whom he was later to dedicate the service of his life. The "Hindoo" sailed from Philadelphia in April, 1855, rounded the Cape of Good Hope, touched at East Indian and Australian ports and returned to Philadelphia in June, 1856. The voyage was slow and the hardships great, but the interest to the young sailor absorbing.

After returning to Philadelphia and a brief respite at the family home, young George again sought employment in that city, but with limited success. He learned to set type and acquired some degree of proficiency in that work, which stood him in good stead later during the trying years in California. The employment was irregular and the wages small, and his nature craved a wider field and less restricted environment. The slavery agitation had now become acute, and so great a human crisis could not fail to arouse his sympathies. The elder George was a Democrat, and while not ipso facto in favor of slavery, supported the Buchanan administration. Even the religious mother, who abhorred cruelty in every form, found authority in her family Bible to support the institution. This led to frequent discussions, accentuated differences in the family circle, and tended to make the growing boy restive under the rigid conventions and rather cold morality of his surroundings.

The Pacific Coast had already begun to attract attention. Tales of the wonderful wealth it contained and the opportunities it offered, appealed to his youthful imagination. To be sure, it could only be reached by doubling Cape Horn, but this was no deterrent to our young hero, for the only real freedom he had ever known was while on board the "Hindoo." He accordingly sought and secured employment as steward on the schooner "Schubrick," which set sail for California in 1857. The trip presented the usual hardships and vicissitudes of a long voyage with the means of navigation then in vogue, but it finally came to an end; on the 27th day of May, 1858, the "Schubrick" crossed the horn of the Golden Gate and anchored in the harbor of San Francisco.

The wonder and charm and breezy freedom of the new country profoundly impressed young George. He dreamed of a time when the new State would contain a population greater than that of New England, and when San Francisco would rival New York in magnificence and power. He even vaguely beheld himself as an important factor in the life of this growing section and, in some mysterious way, serving its people. The means by which this miracle was to be wrought was yet unknown. But sunshine and dreams were not coin current at restaurant and lodging house; even at this early day the stern realities of life asserted themselves on the Pacific Coast-soon to be intensified by a bitter struggle between wealth and power on one hand and labor and poverty on the other. The discovery of gold ten years before and the more recent discovery of the greater wealth of fertile soil and virgin forest had attracted the youth and energy of the older States to California, believing it to be a veritable El Dorado. Many of these were disappointed, and instead of gathering gold on the sands or shoveling it from the mines, were compelled to earn their livelihood as best they might. The competition was sharp and the struggle for existence acute.

The important problem for young George was self-support; but with the utmost willingness to work he could not find employment. He had burned his bridges in the East, and his pride would not permit him to return. To abandon California for the sea meant years of isolation and practical servitude before the mast. He, therefore, resolved to hold out, but the problem was not easy nor the prospect encouraging. Employment as a journeyman printer was neither regular nor remunerative, and at times he was reduced to the direst poverty, scarcely knowing where the next meal was to come from. His associates were few and these mostly former acquaintances from the East, who were as helpless and needy as himself.

In this unpromising situation he assumed another responsibility. In 1860 he formed the acquaintance of Annie C. Fox, a young lady of seventeen, fresh from the convent school at Los Angeles. This acquaintance proved mutually congenial and resulted in frequent meetings. The thought of marriage, however, could not be entertained, for George could scarcely support himself, much less a wife and family; but a crisis in the fortunes of the young lady brought matters to a climax. She was the orphan daughter of an English Protestant father and Irish Catholic mother, who had separated on account of religious differences. The father disappeared and the mother soon after died of grief, and the daughter was informally adopted by an aunt and her irascible husband. The latter disapproved of George's attentions and finally requested him to discontinue his visits, at the same time rudely reproving the girl. Smarting under the sting of this humiliation she decided to leave San Francisco to seek self-support elsewhere. When she communicated this decision to Henry George, he impulsively drew a coin from his pocket, declared it was the only thing he had in the world, but if with knowledge of this fact she would consent to marriage, she should never leave San Francisco. The contract was closed, a minister employed and the ceremony performed that very day. The alliance thus hastily formed stood the test of privation and hardship for more than a third of a century with unbroken harmony and increasing loyalty to the end.

This added responsibility intensified both his efforts and his needs. The succeeding years were ones of extreme poverty for the young household. Irregular employment as a printer furnished only the barest necessities, and occasional ventures in the mining field to better his condition successively exhausted the few dollars in reserve. George's natural dignity and rigid loyalty to principle were ill-suited to the California of the adventurer and the miner. He lacked the comradarie necessary for mingling in the Bohemian life immortalized by Mark Twain and Bret Harte. But the isolation and hardship which would have disheartened others made George more thoughtful and reflective. Realizing his responsibilities and defects he resolved to make more systematic use of his resources and to adopt a more rigid discipline for himself. He accordingly wrote out a programme pledging himself to study each day the problems of the next; to do whatever fell to his lot with promptness and dispatch, and in the meantime to begin a systematic course of reading. Hitherto, while he had reflected much, his reading had been desultory and ill-directed. There was thus far no indication of the intellectual concentration and mental resourcefulness which characterized his later years. Indeed his whole career up to his time, tested by the modern standard of efficiency, must be rated a failure.

For closer identification with the life of the community about him, he now joined a fraternal organization, attended labor meetings and took part in a local debating club. A feature of his contributions to these gatherings was his independence of judgment and the clearness with which he presented his views. For the support of himself and family he still relied upon the printer's case, and occasionally wrote an article for the paper on which he was employed without disclosing his identity.

Throughout the Civil War George's sympathies were strongly antislavery. He followed its varying fortunes with deepest interest and was greatly rejoiced at its close. Then came the news of the assassination of Lincoln, which impressed him profoundly. Impelled by the necessity of expressing his convictions in some way, he wrote an article descriptive of the scene in Ford's Theatre as the assassin entered the President's box, fired the fatal shot and leaped to the stage in full view of the audience. The unsigned article was sent to the Alia California and published by that paper the next day. When inquiry disclosed that it was written by Henry George, the editor invited him to write an account of the memorial exercises then about to be held at San Francisco. Instead he wrote an appreciation of Lincoln's character, which appeared as the leading editorial in the next issue. These Lincoln letters practically transferred him from the printer's case to the contributor's desk and editor's sanctum. They attracted the notice of the newspaper fraternity, and George was frequently requested to write occasional articles on a variety of subjects after that time.

During the succeeding ten years he was successively connected as reporter, editor or part owner, with numerous California newspapers, all of the struggling type organized in opposition to the existing press, which was dominated by capitalistic interests. Most of these ventures were short-lived and failed either through lack of support or absorption by older journals, but George's connection with several of them was even shorter than their lives, his retirement in every case resulting from difference of opinion as to management. He had definite notions of the mission of a newspaper and the duty of a journalist, which he refused to modify from considerations of policy. Throughout his life he seemed utterly incapable of compromise on a question of principle, however great the cost to himself. During his connection with these newspapers he wrote several leading articles on current issues, such as the effect of the new transcontinental railroad then in process of construction, California land policy, the tariff and the Chinese question. The latter was printed in pamphlet form and won commendation from John Stuart Mill. About this time an effort was made to organize an independent paper in San Francisco of State-wide circulation, but the established press had control of the news service to the Pacific Coast and the new enterprise could not secure it. George's thorough knowledge of conditions in California, coupled with his skill in argument, led to his selection as the proper person to negotiate for the service required. He was accordingly sent to New York, where he met the representative of the Associated Press and successfully refuted every objection raised to furnishing the service, but nevertheless failed to secure it. The trip proved advantageous, as it resulted in an invitation to write a series of articles on conditions in California for the New York Tribune, and other experiences which profoundly influenced his after life. One of these was referred to in a speech during his campaign for the candidacy of Mayor of New York seventeen years later in the following words:

"Years ago I came to this State from the West unknown and knowing nobody. I saw and realized for the first time the shocking contrast between monstrous wealth and deepest want; and here I made a vow from which I have never faltered - to seek out and remedy if I could the cause that condemned little children to live such a life as you know them to live in the squalid districts."

The increasing recognition of George's ability as a writer brought him compensation sufficient to support his family in frugal comfort, but little beyond. His one additional luxury was a mustang pony which he rode about the streets and suburbs of San Francisco. The practice benefitted his none too rugged health, and afforded the aloofness and opportunity for thoughtful reflection which had become his settled habit. On one of these rides an incident occurred on the outskirts of San Francisco to which he ascribed great significance. Inquiring of a passing teamster as to the price of land in that vicinity he was informed that there was no land for sale in that neighborhood, but that land on a distant hillside, where cattle were grazing, could be obtained for 81,000 an acre. Referring to this incident later Mr. George said:

"I well recall the day when, checking my horse on a rise that overlooked San Francisco Bay, the commonplace reply of a passing teamster to a commonplace question crystallized as by a lightning flash my brooding thoughts into coherence. I there and then recognized the natural order. One of those experiences that make those who have had them feel thereafter that they can vaguely appreciate what mystics and poets have called the ecstatic vision."

The constant presence of want and suffering in the midst of plenty and the contrast between enormous wealth and distressing poverty had weighed upon George's mind for many years. That such a condition could exist in a land of unlimited resources, and in the presence of increased production, excited his wonder and amazement, and he could not accept it as the natural order. He therefore, set himself the task of finding out what that natural order was. The tragedy of life in the slums of New York, and the reply of the passing teamster in the suburbs of San Francisco, epitomized the condition and suggested the cause. The remedy was yet to seek.

In 1871, at the age of thirty-two, Henry George first undertook the solution of this problem in a pamphlet entitled "Our Land and Land Policy - State and National." The pamphlet briefly outlined the doctrine more fully set forth in "Progress and Poverty" later, but lacked the exhaustive and orderly development of that work. The article drew favorable mention from Horace White, of the Chicago Tribune, David A. Wells of New York, and the chief of the National Bureau of Statistics, but otherwise attracted little attention outside of California. His writings on the Chinese question, the new transcontinental railroad and the pamphlet on the land question brought him some recognition as an economist and led to an invitation to deliver a special lecture on political economy before the California University in 1877. His name was also frequently mentioned for a position in the faculty, but the scant respect for recognized authority, and the unorthodox views expressed in his lecture defeated his chance for the proposed chair. His editorial work won him political recognition in the State, and ultimately secured him the appointment of inspector of gas meters, a position ill-suited to his taste, but welcomed because it supplemented an always meager income. He was twice nominated for the legislature on the Democratic and Labor tickets, but failed of election each time. A speech in support of the Democratic candidate in 1876 was distributed as a campaign document. In 1877 he delivered the Fourth of July oration at San Francisco, making a clear and orderly argument on vital questions then pending, and closing with a noble apostrophe to liberty.

These incidents indicate his growing popularity and widening influence, but his great work was yet before him. The riddle of the sphinx remained unanswered. An entry on his journal on the 18th day of September, 1877, informs us when Progress and Poverty was begun.

The problem which Henry George undertook to solve in writing Progress and Poverty was formulated as an "Inquiry into the cause of industrial depression and of increase of want with increase of wealth and the remedy." A momentous inquiry this, involving the whole problem of the distribution of wealth and well worth the life service of any man; a problem which had troubled the great and good of all the ages and baffled the efforts of statesmen and economists to solve. Even in favored California, a country of unlimited resources, and sparsest population, the specters of want and suffering had already raised their heads. Wherever man had gone in all his weary pilgrimages these specters had pursued to harass and torment; "Nor poppy nor mandragora, nor all the drowsy spirits of the economic world had this far served to medicine them to sleep." How then could this unknown printer hope "to appease them?" He could at least make an honest effort, and his determination to do so is thus expressed in the introduction to the first edition of his book.

"I propose to beg no question; to shrink from no conclusion, but to follow truth wherever it may lead. In the very heart of our civilization today women faint and little children moan. Upon us is the responsibility of seeking the law, but what that law may prove to be is not our affair. If the conclusions which we reach run counter to our prejudices, let us not flinch. If they challenge institutions that have long been deemed wise and natural, let us not turn back."

However mistaken his diagnosis, or defective his remedy may be, the succeeding years furnish ample proof that he scrupulously adhered to this programme.

In the face of many interruptions the book, begun in 1877, was completed in March 1879. It was written under great difficulties at the cost of many sacrifices. George had never accumulated any reserves, and the problem of support for himself and family was constant and pressing. Indeed, it was largely due to the kindness of friends and the forbearance of creditors that he was able to write the book at all. But the end was not yet, for a publisher and readers had to be found. When the manuscript was completed it was submitted to eastern publishers and, like many of its great prototypes, declined by each of them in succession. Harper thought it revolutionary; Scribner was polite but sceptical; Appleton wrote:

"The manuscript has the merit of having been written with great clearness and force, but is very aggressive. There is little to encourage the publication of such a work at this time, and we must, therefore, decline it."

George did not have the means to go East to treat with the publishers in person and was compelled to rely upon the kindness of friends; but they were persistent and finally secured a proposal from the Appleton Company to publish the book if the author would furnish the plates. This was a difficult condition to comply with for a man without means and in debt, but there was no other alternative. Arrangements were finally made with a former associate who had a printing office, that the plates should be made at his shop. George did much of the typesetting himself, revising the text as the work progressed. Friends in San Francisco assisted in securing subscriptions for the author's edition at 83.00 per copy, and through these means five hundred copies were printed. His feeling of gratitude at this time and his confidence in the ultimate success of the book are indicated in a letter transmitting a copy to his father, then eighty years of age. He writes:

"It is with a deep feeling of gratitude to our Father in Heaven that I send you a printed copy of this book. I am grateful that I have been permitted to live to write it and that you have been permitted to live to see it. It represents a great deal of work and a good deal of sacrifice, but it is now done. It will not be recognized at first, maybe not for some time; but it will ultimately be considered a great book and will be published in both hemispheres and translated into different languages. This I know, though neither of us may ever see it here."

The confidence here expressed was to be further tested by months of anxious waiting, but the prediction was fulfilled earlier than he ventured to hope.

Soon after the book was published the Home Rule agitation in Ireland reached an acute stage. Eviction, coercion and imprisonment were the order of the day. George was invited to write a series of articles for the Irish World, the leading organ of the Land League in America, and was later sent to Ireland as a correspondent. These articles were afterwards elaborated and embodied in a pamphlet, entitled "The Irish Land Question," which was widely distributed among the tenants. The denial of the right of private ownership of land found ready acceptance in a country largely controlled by alien landlords, and exploited for their use. George also lectured in many of the leading cities of Ireland, and his teachings were hailed in that country as gospel, and soon spread to Scotland and England. The agitation created a great demand for his book, which was soon after published in a six penny edition and later run as a serial in English and American newspapers. Within two years after the publication of the author's edition the book had found its way into all parts of the world, and had become the subject of almost universal discussion in Great Britain.

Yes, Henry George had written a great book. A book purporting to attack the citadel of privilege in its strongest hold, a book grounded on common experience, dedicated to the service of common humanity and expressed in language which it could understand. A book destined to exert a worldwide influence on the thought of his time. The importance of the subject considered, the mastery of principles involved, power of analysis, and range of information displayed, would have done credit to any author; but coming from a man trained in the school of adversity, without titles or degree, hitherto unknown in the field of economics, it was a great achievement. The treatment of the subject was orderly, the argument clear and convincing, and the style elevated and sustained. But it was not so much confidence in the soundness of its doctrines or effectiveness of its remedy that appealed to the general reader as the evident sincerity of purpose and loftiness of motive which pervaded its pages. It was an eloquent book, pleading for equality and justice the world over, instinct with human sympathy, aflame with the ardor of conviction and abounding in passages which throbbed and palpitated with life. It stirred the brain and aroused the emotions of common men, and let the light of hope into the gloom of the hitherto dismal science. The author was hailed as an apostle of a new dispensation, and his teachings as the gospel of a better day to come.

The discussion of the merits of Henry George's theories from an economic standpoint is beyond the scope and purpose of this paper. But Progress and Poverty is so clearly his magnum opus and constitutes so central and important an achievement of his life as to justify, if not require, a somewhat extended statement of its fundamental doctrines without any attempt to appraise their value.

The basic theory of Henry George's philosophy is that as land, like air and light, is essential to human existence, is limited in quantity and location, cannot be decreased or increased, and is not the product of human labor, but the gift of God to all his children, it was intended to be and is the common property of all mankind; that every human being born into the world has an equal right to its use, and that the appropriation of all or any part of the earth's surface by one person, class or generation to the exclusion of others, is a violation of this common right, and contrary to the natural order; that private property in land, being inconsistent with this common right, is morally, historically and economically wrong, and the source of all our economic ills. As he graphically puts it:

"Let the parchments be ever so many, the possession ever so long natural justice can recognize no right in one man to the possession and enjoyment of land that is not equally the right of all his fellows. Though his titles have been acquiesced in by generation after generation, the poorest child that is born in London today has as much right to the landed estates of the Duke of Westminster as his eldest son."

He further argues that, as all increase in value of land results from increase in population or community enterprise, and not from individual exertion, such increase in value also belongs to the community. If, as he contends, the land belongs to the community in its collective capacity, it follows as a necessary corollary that the income derived therefrom or its economic rent also belongs to the community and should be devoted to its use. The denial of private ownership is not inconsistent with private use and occupancy. That must be not only permitted, but encouraged and protected. The best use of land requires permanent, secure and undisturbed possession. But the person granted such exclusive right should pay an equivalent to the community. The measure of this equivalent in the case of any given description of land is the rent which it would ordinarily yield, and this rent George stoutly maintains belongs to the community as much as the land itself.

Observe that the right of private ownership is denied on the ground that it is not the product of human labor. This implied that converse proposition that whatever is produced by human labor rightfully belongs to him who produced it, and such is George's doctrine. The common right of all to the free gifts of nature, such as land, air, light and water, and the exclusive right of each to the product of his own labor, are the corner stones to the George philosophy. Both of these positions he maintains without restriction or qualification.

It follows from these premises that both increase in the value of land and the annual rent thereof belong to the community, and George proposes that so far as necessary all this fund be appropriated by the community in the form of a tax and expended for its use. This is the panacea prescribed for all our economic ills; that is what his followers have called the Single Tax. However slow a learned or sordid world may be to acknowledge the efficacy of this remedy, there can be little doubt of George's faith in its curative powers. In his own words:

"It will substitute equality for inequality; plenty for want; justice for injustice; social strength for social weakness; and will open the way to grander and nobler advances of civilization."

That such beneficent consequences could flow from a mere measure of tax reform is difficult to believe, and it is not in this feature of the remedy that George based his hope. To him the overshadowing evil in our economic system was the private ownership of land, and his confidence in the exclusive tax on rental values is based upon the effect which that tax would have in destroying private ownership, and not upon its merits as a fiscal policy.

The George philosophy of the equal right of all men to the free gifts of nature and the individual right of each man to the product of his own labor, is based upon the natural rights and labor theories of property. These theories are closely related; but neither is wholly new. The natural rights theory of property was widely proclaimed and strongly advocated by the economists of the last half of the eighteenth century and acquired such a vogue in both hemispheres, that it found its way into the ordinances of the French Revolution and into the Bill of Rights clauses of our national and State constitutions. It has been the basic principle of the law of light and air and navigable waters for generations, and the recent controversy between our national government and the belligerent powers of Europe is nothing more nor less than an assertion of the natural right of all countries to the free and equal use of the open sea. In a modified and more limited way the same principle is recognized in the law of eminent domain relating to the acquisition of private land for public use.

Again the labor theory of property was formulated by the Roman jurist, Paulus, and elaborated by Locke and Lieber long before George was born, and was recognized by Adam Smith, Herbert Spencer and John Stuart Mill. Similarly his remedy of a Single Tax was advocated in a widespread propaganda by the French economists known as the Physiocrats,* led by Quesney and Turgot, a century before "Progress and Poverty" was written and was only checked by the biting sarcasm of Voltaire in the story of the "Man of Forty Crowns."

The cavalier dismissal of the George theory as a mere hobby by street corner and smoking room critics encounters a more formidable array of opponents than they realize. Indeed, as many great names from the history of economics can be cited in support of George's basic theory of property as can be found in favor of any other single theory; but they are names from the pioneers of the past and not from his contemporaries or successors in the economic field. On the contrary, the natural rights and labor theories of property, on which his philosophy is based, have been generally repudiated by modern economists, and the Single Tax has never appealed to them as adequate to the complex conditions of our modern civilization. Several economists of respectable standing have indeed recognized an element of truth in his theories and given qualified support to his remedy; but so far as I have been able to learn not a single economist of acknowledged reputation in Europe or America has approved of the George doctrine in full. This circumstance, taken in connection with the natural conservatism of the property-owning and governing classes, has prevented any general adoption of his views.

How far then is credit for the theories promulgated in his book to be ascribed to Henry George? In his last work, published after his death, he explicitly states that at the time he wrote the pamphlet on "Our Land and Land Policy," which was the acorn from which the oak of "Progress and Poverty" grew, he had never heard of the Physiocrats and had read very little of the economic classics. There is little reason to doubt the accuracy of this statement or that the philosophy presented in Progress and Poverty was the result of his own independent thinking. Long before he wrote, the teachings of Paulus, Locke and the Physiocrats had been either forgotten or rejected, and the modern agitation for a Single Tax is clearly traceable to his thorough and exhaustive presentation of the subject. [Editor's Note: The Single Tax of the Physiocrats, though they had glimpses of the truth, was not the Single Tax of Henry George.]

How far has his remedy been accepted, and to what extent applied in actual practice? In a partial and limited way, quite widely. In its entirety not at all, and less in the United States, where the idea originated, than elsewhere.

The only attempt to apply the Single Tax in any American State or municipality, except in a few unimportant colonies of the Brook Farm type, is by the partial exemption of buildings and improvements, and these experiments have been so few and faint as to be negligible. A much wider application of his theories has been made in foreign countries, notably in Germany, New Zealand, Australia, Canada and more recently in England. The first actual experiment was made in the German colony of Kiaochau in China in 1898, where an increment tax of one-third of the profit resulting from the sale of real estate was imposed. Frankfort provided for an increment tax in 1904, and this example was rapidly followed by other German municipalities. In 1910 it was estimated that 4500 cities and towns, comprising one-fourth of the entire German population, had adopted an increment land tax. The principle was early accepted in the Australian provinces, primarily to prevent large land holdings, and is in general use for that purpose now. In 1891 New Zealand imposed an increment tax on holdings exceeding 5000 pounds, and exempted all improvements below 3000 pounds. These limits have been extended by subsequent legislation. In 1906 an effort to introduce an increment land tax in Scotland was defeated by the House of Lords, and it was not until the famous Lloyd George Budget of 1909 that provision was made for taxing unearned increment in Great Britain.

Nearly one-half of the cities and towns of western Canada adopted the policy of exempting improvements and gradually abolishing the tax on personal property in greater or less degree, but in no case that I have been able to find has the Single Tax as promulgated by Henry George been adopted in its entirety. The sole extent to which it has been utilized is by the imposition of an unearned increment tax, the gradual exemption of buildings and improvements, and occasional exemption of personal property. In all communities where any application of the principle has been made a large part of the public revenue is still derived from tariff duties, licenses and franchise fees, transfer and occupation taxes. The difference between such a fiscal system and the George Single Tax on the rental value of land as the sole source of public revenue, is too plain to require argument.

Vancouver is often referred to as a city operating under a Single Tax, but careful analysis of its revenues shows that only 80^ per cent. of its receipts for strictly municipal purposes is derived from land and 193^ per cent. from other sources. These figures are practically identical with the ratio of real estate to personal property in Wisconsin, except that the term real estate as used here includes buildings and improvements. If provincial and dominion taxes be included in the Vancouver budget the result shows that less than 45 per cent. of the total is derived from land and over 55 per cent from other sources. Here again the ratio of taxes derived from land to other taxes is substantially the same as in Wisconsin if the $25,000,000 contributed for the support of the federal government be included and buildings and improvements be excluded.

The cities of Vancouver and Winnipeg and of Edmonton and Calgary furnish a favorable opportunity for comparing the workings of the so-called Single Tax as against the general property tax system. Vancouver and Winnipeg are both commercial distributing centers, comparable in size and relative importance to their respective communities. The same is true of Edmonton and Calgary. Vancouver and Edmonton adopted an increment tax, exempted improvements and provided for the gradual abolition of the tax on personal property several years ago, while Winnipeg and Calgary still retain the old system. Yet there has been no perceptible difference in the development of these two groups of cities in respect to the number of building permits, growth of population, increase of property values, or general prosperity.* The same is true of Calgary and Edmonton. The so-called tax reform did not accelerate the growth or prosperity of the group adopting it, nor did the retention of the old system retard the progress of the other group. Like comparisons might be made between the Canadian towns which have adopted the Single Tax in partial forms and Tacoma, Seattle, Los Angeles and other American cities on the Pacific Coast. The opponents of the Single Tax may well claim, therefore, that so far as the principle has been applied in practice it has not produced the benefits claimed for it. On the other hand, its advocates may well reply that so far as tried it has not produced the disaster predicted, and more significant still, that it has never been tried at all in its entirety.

While the specific remedy prescribed by Henry George has found little acceptance in law, it does not follow that his teachings have been without influence. Undoubtedly his greatest service consisted in focusing attention on the inequalities in the distribution of wealth and in emphasising the paramount right of community as distinguished from private interest. The effect of his writings in this respect has been substantial and worldwide. It is shown in the conservation movement, the increased regulation of public service corporations, the greater interest in public health, old age pensions, workmen's compensation and other sociological reforms. Neither does it follow that the force of his teachings has been spent. The prospect of the adoption of the Single Tax in a settled community like Wisconsin with diversified industries and moderate-size land holdings is indeed extremely remote. But with the growth of public burdens, old methods of raising public revenue are bound to receive more critical attention. Within the last ten years taxes have increased about 100 per cent. throughout the United States and 106 per cent. in the State of Wisconsin. A substantial if not equal increase took place in the budgets of the European countries during the same period, and their expenditures since the war began are simply astounding.

In a recent statement the Chancellor of the English Exchequer informed Parliament that the present expenditure of Great Britain is $25,000,000 a day, or between eight and nine billion dollars a year; that its deadweight debt is now twelve billion dollars as against three billion and six hundred million when the war began; and that at the end of another year the national debt of England would be twenty-one billion dollars, or one-fourth the total wealth of the country. He then added: "I don't think it is within the power of man to estimate what the cost of the war would be if it should last thirty-six months longer." The editor of the North American Review, commenting on this statement, estimated that if the European war should continue for three years more the national debt of Great Britain would equal one-half of the total wealth of the country. The expenditure in Germany, with an aggregate wealth less than that of England, is estimated at §5,000,000,000 for the first year of the war, notwithstanding its enormous expenditures made in preparation. There is no reason to doubt that the expenditures of the other belligerent countries are proportionately large.

Interest and a part of the principle of these vast sums will have to be paid from a diminished economic fund, resulting from wholesale destruction of property and enormous loss in the productive human force. How shall they be met? Taxation of unearned increment is already well established in Germany and has been recently introduced into England, where great landed estates still exist. The income tax has been in force in both countries for many years and constitutes their primary source of public revenue. Can there be any doubt that these stable and fruitful sources of taxation, unearned increment and rental value, will have to bear an increasing share of these mounting obligations ? The sullen feeling among industrial classes that they have heretofore borne more than their proper share of the public burden and the growing sentiment in favor of taxation according to ability to pay strongly point in this direction. To what extent the outcome may be ascribed to the teachings of Henry George cannot be definitely known, but that his voice and pen will have had some part in the result can hardly be gainsaid.

Henry George had just completed his fortieth year when Progress and Poverty was written. The remaining years of his life were full of intense and varied activity, but as they were largely devoted to the propagation of the doctrines enunciated in that book, and your forbearance must have some limit, they should, and perhaps can be, hastily reviewed. The necessity of closer contact with his publishers brought him to New York in 1881, and led to the establishment of a permanent residence in that city on his return from Ireland in 1883. The following year was devoted to propagation of his doctrines at home. He wrote extensively and lectured in the leading cities of eastern Canada and the United States, including a closing address in San Francisco, where he was finally accorded the appreciation so long deferred.

Meantime the flame which had been kindled in Ireland had extended to Scotland and England, and he was invited to deliver a course of lectures in Great Britain in 1884. It is doubtful whether any single series of lectures ever attracted more widespread attention. The continued agitation for Home Rule under the slogan of "the land for the people" had aroused the tenant masses throughout the United Kingdom, and brought him qualified support from some of the liberal leaders. The spread of his teachings was so rapid and contagious as to call forth a constant bombardment of criticism from the Tory press, and provoke replies from John Bright, Thomas Huxley, Frederick Harrison, the Duke of Argyle, Arnold Toynbee, and a modification of the views previously expressed by Herbert Spencer in his "Social Statics." George had quoted from Spencer in support of his criticism of private ownership in land, and he could not but regard the later recantation as a surrender to temporary clamor, unworthy of a philosopher. He accordingly prepared and published a reply in pamphlet form, under the title "A Perplexed Philosopher," which is one of the most spirited and sarcastic products of his pen. The Duke of Argyle also attacked his teachings in an article in the Nineteenth Century and in due course George replied in the same magazine. These articles were later combined and published in pamphlet form, under the title of "The Peer and The Prophet." The argument follows the same lines pursued in Progress and Poverty, but with more concrete application to the Duke's criticism. Both articles are exceedingly well written and rank among the best specimens of dialectics. Nevertheless they failed to excite the interest or attract the attention of his former and more exhaustive book.

Henry George had now reached the zenith of his fame. His name was a household word throughout the English-speaking world. His book had been translated into German, Italian and French, and had found its way into Russia, Japan, China and remote Australia. The author was in constant demand for lectures, pamphlet and magazine articles. He wrote successively for the Overland, the Political Science Monthly, the North American Review, the Nineteenth Century, and Scribner's. Clubs and societies were organized, newspapers founded and endowments created to promote his teachings. Within ten year's time the bibliography of Henry George and the Single Tax probably exceeded that relating to any other work on economics, not excepting Adam Smith's famous Wealth of Nations. Like Byron, he awoke one morning to find himself famous.

While the economists still opposed him and the conservatives bitterly attacked, he was idolized by the common people, and it is significant that throughout the heated controversy the purity of his private life and sincerity of purpose were never assailed. Among the great names who deemed his teachings worthy of respectful treatment, in addition to those mentioned, were Allan Thorndyke Rice, Stephen D. Field, Wallace Abbott, John Morley, and Chief Justice Coleridge of England, Count Leo Tolstoi and the eminent Belgian economist, Emil de Lavaleye.

In 1891 Pope Leo the Thirteenth issued an encyclical on the conditions of labor, which was generally regarded as an attack on the Single Tax and George's teachings, although neither was especially referred to. George replied in an open letter to the Pope, reviewing the arguments previously presented in Progress and Poverty and elaborating his theories on the rights of labor. When the article was completed, it was combined with the Pope's letter and both published simultaneously in England and America, under the title "The Condition of Labor." The pamphlet was widely read at the time and was soon after translated into Italian. That it served a useful purpose is indicated by the result of the concrete case which gave rise to the controversy. Dr. Edward McGlynn, a prominent Catholic priest of New York, had previously been suspended from his priestly office by Archbishop Corrigan for endorsement of George's theories. His subsequent reinstatement by order of Pope Leo without requiring a recantation of his views, was accepted as an acknowledgment that the George teachings were not in conflict with the doctrines of the Catholic church.

Progress and Poverty early attracted the widespread attention of Australia and New Zealand, where the acquisition of land in large areas by foreign capitalists was practised on a large scale. In 1891 the author was invited to visit that country and deliver a course of lectures. He made it the occasion of the third visit to England and a trip around the world, reaching Australia in 1892. He had visited Melbourne in 1857, at the age of sixteen, on his first voyage from home, and the marvelous changes which had taken place in the meantime in the development of the country formed a favorable background for reflection and illustration. He made free use of this incident and of the economic changes then in progress. The trip added to his reputation as a platform speaker and demonstrated the world-wide reach of his fame. His course through the provinces was nothing less than a triumphal march.

George's philosophy naturally led to free trade, and he had long contemplated a simple handbook on the subject for the use of workingmen, which he now set out to prepare. Notwithstanding frequent interruptions the book was completed in 1885, under the title of Protection or Free Trade. It was widely referred to during the tariff campaign of 1892, and in the later debates in Congress, and is probably the only book which was ever incorporated into the Congressional Records in full as an argument against the protective system.

Political life had little attraction for Henry George, but he regarded official station as a favorable coign of vantage for the propagation of his ideas. The politicians did not overlook this circumstance, nor his extraordinary influence with the laboring masses, and repeatedly endeavored to secure his cooperation. These proposals always implied a modification of his views, or at least greater moderation in presenting them, but to all such overtures George turned a deaf ear. While this so-called "impracticability" lessened his standing with the bosses it greatly increased his popularity with the masses, a fact which the politicians could not ignore. He was accordingly invited to participate in the tariff campaign of 1884, and true to his habit, made an out and out free trade speech without compromise or apology. The address won the favor of the audience, but created a panic among his companions on the platform. Such plain speaking in a political campaign was contrary to all established precedent, and he was accordingly notified that his services were no longer required.

Similar experiences had frequently occurred before. When he was writing his pamphlet on the land question a convention was held to revise the California State Constitution, and he was nominated by the Democratic and Workingmen's parties, which seemed equivalent to election. This was the era of Dennis Kearney's ascendency in that State, and when George was informed by the party committee that the delegates would be expected to follow Kearney's leadership and vote as he advised, his quiet and firm refusal led to the selection of another candidate. When he was nominated for mayor of New York, he was notified by a representative of Tammany Hall that he could not be elected mayor, and if elected, would not be counted in, but that if he would withdraw from the contest he would be nominated for Congress in a safe congressional district and his election assured without effort on his part. The proposal met with the same fate as the leadership of Dennis Kearney. During the same campaign when an enthusiastic supporter introduced him to a meeting of workingmen as the laboring men's candidate, he sharply replied that he never professed to be the special friend of workingmen, and desired no special privileges for them, but on the contrary, stood for the equality of all men before the law.

Notwithstanding these repeated refusals to compromise his convictions, in 1886 the workingmen of New York forced his nomination for mayor of that great city, although he had been a resident for less than three years. The brilliant and exciting campaign which followed attracted the attention of all parts of the country, and while Henry George was defeated by the Democratic candidate, he received a handsome endorsement and completely outdistanced no less distinguished an opponent than Theodore Roosevelt.

He had long cherished the hope of writing an exhaustive work on political economy, and entered upon this task upon his return from Australia in 1893, but failing health and frequent interruptions delayed its progress and it was left incomplete at his death. Constant and exhausting drafts upon a constitution never over strong proved too great a strain upon his energy and now began to tell upon his health. A winter in Bermuda improved his condition, but he never recovered his former strength. The old-time fire was gone. In 1897 he was again nominated for mayor of New York, and accepted the candidacy, notwithstanding his declining health. It was during the progress of this campaign, and at the close of an exciting meeting, that a sudden stroke of apoplexy interrupted his labors and terminated his career a few days later. The grim reaper found him, like Cyrano de Bergerac, with sword in hand, fighting the evils of injustice and cruelty with his latest breath.

The spectacle of a man of humble origin and limited opportunities rising to place and power is not uncommon in American history. But such rise is generally traceable to influential backing, the espousal of issues temporarily popular, or the effect of a striking personality. None of these wholly explain the career of Henry George. He was of small stature, trim and compact figure, with a refined and intelligent face, but deficient in emotional expression [Editor's Note: It is not easy to understand just what this and the language following imply. As a platform speaker George was singularly magnetic], - an agreeable, but not particularly prepossessing presence. His expression became ennobled by thought and struggle in his later years. In his normal relations with men he was reserved and dignified, but seldom rose above the mediocre in manner or speech, and was wholly devoid of the spell of magnetism which strong personalities exert. He derived no advantages from rank or station. On the contrary, all the influences of wealth and power were arrayed against him. It is true that his teachings offered a ray of hope to the downtrodden and oppressed, but they are seldom able to reward with prominence or fame. By what spell then did this obscure printer, unaided by the learned, the wealthy or the great, attain such prominence in his time and' acquire such hold upon the confidence of his fellowmen? Partly by the magic of his pen, for he wrote with rare and persuasive eloquence, but primarily by the sincerity of his motives and the range of his sympathies. The consecration of his life to the service of his fellowmen was complete. The vow made in the streets of New York, already quoted, was no idle boast. While not demonstrative in the presence of individual suffering and more concerned with abstract principles than with concrete cases, his heart responded to the cry of suffering and distress the world over. To him humanity was greater than individual or class, than creed or country. Man was always more than money. The beachcombers on the wharves of San Francisco, the outcasts in the slums of New York, the hopeless coolies of India and the starving fellahin of Egypt were alike the objects of his thought and care. Like Abou Ben Adhem, he loved his fellowmen, and the passion of his life was to serve and help them. Loyalty to that passion and sincerity in his efforts are the key to his life work. This is the quality which came to be recognized toward the close of his life, and which united the press of three continents in paeans of praise when he died. He was called a tribune of the people, an incorruptible leader, an evangelist, who taught and believed in the fatherhood of God and the brotherhood of man. His life will long be an inspiration to the young and an example for the mature. He was an outstanding figure in the history of his time.

He died on the 27th day of October, 1897, at the age of fifty-eight. His funeral was one of the most remarkable and impressive ever accorded to an American citizen outside of official station. Thousands of the poor and oppressed thronged the city hall, where his body lay in state, to pay their last tribute to his memory. At the funeral services, befitting a potentate, Dr. Heber Newton, his life-time friend, recited the ritual they had repeated together as boys; Lyman Abbot recounted his honesty and matchless courage; Mr. Crosby his civic virtues, and Dr. McGlynn the pulsing and universal sympathy that animated his life. As the body was borne to its final resting place, a countless throng of sympathizers, from all walks of life, wound its way past the Fort Hamilton home, his sole possession at the close of a life of labor and service. He sleeps in Greenwood Cemetery, under a simple stone, erected by admirers in all parts of the world, inscribed with words taken from his first book:

"The truth that I have tried to make clear will not find easy acceptance. If that could be, it would have been accepted long ago. If that could be it never could have been obscured; but it will find friends, those who will toil for it, suffer for it, and if need be, die for it. This is the power of truth."

This also, may we not add, is too often the checkered fate of him who strives for its attainment.