The True Basis of Economics...

Joshua H. Stallard

[... Or the Law of Independent and Collective Human Life. A correspondence between David Starr Jordan (President of the Leland Stanford Jr. University) and Dr. J. H. Stallard (of Menlo Park, California) on the merits of the doctrine of Henry George. Published by Doubleday & McClure Co., 1899]

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. McGlynn, 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 encyclical 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 McGlynn's case, with the result that he was restored to his duties in New York, the order of silence was withdrawn, and he was fully restored to the bosom of the Church.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. Stallard [Note: The appendix referred to is not reproduced here; see the original online]

Letter to Dr. J. H. Stallard from David Starr Jordan

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, reappears in his conclusions, which are thus regarded 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 experimentally 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 sacredness 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 agreement, and the relation best for society is "right" 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 metaphor, cut out all this stuff from the French dreamers 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 fitness is a mere quibble of words.

Response by J.H. Stallard to David Starr Jordan

I have to thank you for your prompt reply to my request for your opinion of Henry George's address 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 institution which I trust under your leadership shall become the home of all freedom, and whose professors 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 expression 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 active combination is technically called "labor." 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 unanswerable 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 control 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 possible by "access to land," which is, therefore, no "were 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 foundation upon which his freedom rests. It is his to consume, to hoard or dispose of at his will, and how one has either legal or moral right to take it from him without his consent and adequate compensation.

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 conditions 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 "egual" access is neither possible nor necessary either to trees or man. Equal opportunity 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 "bare subsistence" and he possesses 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 "line of action" is inexorable, unalterable, and universal in its application. There is no other "line of action" which secures 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 movements 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, morality and justice. In action they are just, equal, unchangeable 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 difl8cult, nay, impossible, to find out. Social agreement cannot be a substitute for a general law, for no statesman is wise enough, no government strong enough, to improve on such a law. Social agreement can only meddle with Intellectual, 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 examples of its baneful interference. In the reign of Henry VII, when in England "every rood maintained 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 industrious 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 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 result was "slavery.

And to-day social agreement continues the practice 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 landlord to live in ease and luxury on the labor of other people, and make serfs and paupers of the industrial class.

The conclusion is unanswerable, social agreement 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 collective life. The law of individual life is simply fortified and extended by collective action. Thus whilst individual industrial freedom secures for "all men" individually little more than a [unreadable] collective industrial freedom is able to satisfy the millions of intellectual and physical desires of "all men" living in civilized communities; and if this result is not reached, the failure cannot be charged upon the law but on its violation and neglect. As access to land is an essential 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 hoarded, consumed or disposed of by the collective will. The collective operators cannot appropriate and use the products of individual industry nor can individuals appropriate and use the products of collective industry. Either violates the general law of human life, which makes for more and better life among men. From this it follows that wherever 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 individual 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 appropriates 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 governments 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, because 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 awarding to each individual that portion of the collective product which represents his individual exertion (technically called his wages) there is invariably 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 collective 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 paribus" increases directly in proportion to the population. It is the collective industry of the population which alone produces it. It is the population who are co-partners and who are authorized by the general law of human life to hoard, consume or dispose of as they please, and as it cannot be equitably divided amongst the individual producers, it can only be applicable to the provision of their common wants, of which the current expenses of government is a fair example. Hence it is the only source of taxation provided by the general law of human life. It is the "Single Tax."

[A section that followed was unreadable and is not reproduced here]

They were free to take, and did take, all the surface they required for use. But not content with this, and under the paramount power and authority 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 associated labor, the land would have been their own, and this appropriation would have been fully justified; 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 without the payment of a cent, without even any guarantee to use them, and at the sole cost of pens, ink and paper necessary for the completion of this strictly "legal," and according to jurists, statesmen and political economists, strictly "righteous 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 control 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 their lands. 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 occupying these easily acquired "blocks," or to pay purchase 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 occupation; 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 value will increase, and will ensure more rent. Nor is this practice confined to city "blocks." Millions 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 certainty 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, until 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 improvement, whether made by individuals, corporations, 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 servants, 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 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 requirements 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 hundred 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 entire 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 industry 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 current expenses of the municipal, state and federal governments would have been a mere bagatelle. The municipal government might have erected gas works, water works, electrical works, and street car lines. Light, electricity, water 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 balmy 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 festivals 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 impossible to conceive the effect of the Single Tax on the morals and intellectual progress of the people, 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 between land and population is a grievous violation of the general law of human life. The vast fund created by co-operative industry, the administration 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 respectively 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 PBOPERTY IN LAND

And here I have to note your statement "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 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 power 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 property in so-called ownership; and to suppose that ownership is necessary for land improvement and development. But this is not even a general experience. 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 increasing 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 industry. And there are thousands who believe that this is the stronger ground, but a close analysis distinctly proves that his ethics are not imaginary 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 individuals 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 practical. He desires that "all men" in their collective capacity should assume their undoubted right to the ownership of land, and that all men individually shall have equal opportunity to its use and occupation on the payment of rent representing 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 consummation devoutly to be wished.

But Mr. George did not expect that the "rent" could be taken from the landlords all at once. 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 universities to conduct the necessary change with wisdom and moderation.

THE PRESENT CONDITION OF LABOB

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 infinitesimal part of one thing, out of the multiplicity of things that constitute the wealth of society. 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 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 machine, 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 single 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,27 crime, drunkenness, ignorance and humiliation, I am almost forced to say that cannibalism, after all, is the most merciful form in which man has lived upon his fellow men.

[A poem by Markham that appears in the original is not reproduced here]

This the truest and most forcible accusation ever launched by genius against the existing conditions 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 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 knowledge of good and evil was man's first acquirement, 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 ancestors 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 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 military machine. In the ranks he is the ignorant but faithful comrade of the intelligent but more weakly 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 murmur. 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 stamped ignorance upon his mind and brutal degeneration on his body. He is the production of retrogressive 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 nothing but the hoe and bare subsistence. He was created man, and has been made a brute by uncontrollable social forces. Worse housed than the 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 nations and the universe.

These then are faithful descriptions of industrial 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 indorsement of the very highest names amongst professors 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 condemnation of the so-called law. And who are the cannibals who slowly eat up the lives and labor of the laboring classes? Who takes the wealth they individually and collectively produce? Are they not governments, landlords, millionaires, trusts and corporations? Controlled by these selfish cormorants, social agreement, by obstructing "access to land," has knocked the bottom out of industrial freedom, and is able to drive wages down^ down, down, until the "bare subsistence" point is reached, and only stops there because death puts an end to further robbery, and casts upon the cannibals 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 working 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 persistent industry and thrift, not one in ten thousand 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 improve their condition by education, industry and thrift. There is no possible escape from such bondage. Go where they will the "bare subsistence" wage will follow them. The landlord will deny them the use of land without the payment of his rent. The capitalist, whilst giving the "bare subsistence" wages, robs them of their collective industry, and in proportion as population and civilization grow in new countries so does industrial 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-partnership 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 material prosperity and comfort as the outcome of obedience to the same great law.

The prophet of California has forged the hammer 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 modern 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 workers, the pick of the industrial community, are followers of Henry George. For years past the great convention of English laborers, the most numerous, most intellectual and most powerful 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 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 English 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 Premier, says that all future legislation must be carried forward on the line of the "Single Tax."

And now curiously Germany, the most conservative 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 dictated solely by politic-economical considerations." 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 the abolition of all taxes and the substitution for the same of taxes on land values.

Even in America men like Mr. Thomas G. Sherman 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 governments. This is a pretty good showing for a theory founded on "mere figures of speech'' and an argument not worth "a straw's weight."

THE LAND TAX AND BEEB 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, although 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 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 collective industry? Which, in fact, is in most complete 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 collective 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 expenses 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 population 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 expenses of government are a part, and just as the needs of the population increase with increased population the fund expands*^ to meet their increased common wants. This seems to me a most wise and equitable arrangement, whereby the 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 intellectual 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 individual 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 taxation, 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 product of his own exertion; that is, without licenses, taxation or other interference by social agreement with the gratification of individual desires.

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 civilized desires. It has been selected under the law of evolution, just as wheat, rice, meat and other articles of diet. It is not in use by the stagnant and effete nations of the earth -- Turks, Arabs, Hindoos 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 intoxication. 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 administered 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 industry 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.

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 FEUDALISM

Now, we have seen that co-operation in production 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 landlords in the form of rent. But a little consideration 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 workmen, all such employers take the collective surplus 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 workman, 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 capitalists and employers, who are the buccaneers of industry. Considering the vast number and importance of establishments of collective labor it is no wonder that contractors, manufacturers and employers become millionaires; and is it any wonder 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 advantage 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 which 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 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 grievous failure, but he was followed by Holyoake, Kingsley, Maurice, Tom Hughes, Vansittart Neal, Ripon, 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 working men, in the interest of the working men employed. 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 properly managed until the entire people have a share in management, ownership and results.

From this it is evident that the law which applies to government applies to collective industry, viz., that no individual action can, by any possibility, replace the concerted action of the people (Jordan). Nor is the moral effect of co-operation and co-partnership less remarkable. Ealahine was a farm in the midst of one of the most turbulent 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 successfully. A co-operative store was 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 neighboring farmers, and the incident which was terminated by the bankruptcy of the proprietor remains a splendid illustration of what can be accomplished when the principle of brotherhood is appealed to.

THE EVIDENCE

Although I most strenuously object to the position that a question of justice is only truly determined by results, I can have no objection to inquire if the single tax "has been tried, if it works, and if its results on individual and social development 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 pervades 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 examine the various methods of dealing with rent, contrasting the effects upon the welfare of individuals and the community at large.

First, we have landlords pure and simple, endowed with all the privileges of private ownership, 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 intolerable that a parliament of landlords was compelled 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 reduced 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 public 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 derived from royalties, rents, and other natural sources of wealth attaching to the town and neighborhood. The revenue has always exceeded the expenditure. There are neither paupers in the community nor unemployed. On one occasion recently there was divided among the inhabitants men, women and children, a sum amounting to f 13.55 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 constructed, 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 which 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 was left in peaceful occupation of his holding, and undisturbed possession of any surplus products which he might thereafter raise by his own industry. Thorold Kogers has fully described the comfortable and happy condition of the English peasants before the introduction of landlordism, and the frightful economic pressure which immediately ensued. The land then, for the first time in England, was treated as private property, and the occupiers were evicted because they were unable 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 settlement 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 contented. But when all the productive land was taken up, some for profit, more for speculation, rents began to rise and wages fall, for while landlords exist laborers cannot appropriate both. Then economic pressure began to appear, the rich became richer, and the poor poorer. Then appeared armies of tramps and thieves, and the independence of thousands was destroyed.

In the next place, the multiplication of individual owners results in diffusion of the rent, and has chiefly occurred in France, through the operation of the code of Napoleon; but the benefits of rent diffusion are obscured and neutralized by excessive military service and heavy industrial taxation. 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 seventeenth century, as may be seen from the first edition of Pallets Jersey (1694), the island did not produce the quantity of food required by the inhabitants, 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.

After making, says he, all allowances, the truth must be told, the grain crops are foul, in some instances execrably so. We learn also from recent writers that the soil is by no means rich. It is a decomposed granite, without organic matter, besides what man has put into it. There are also seventy acres of an Arabian desert of sands and hillocks, with very poor soil on the north and west of it. Nor is the climate as favorable as might have been expected. There is an absence of sun-heat in summer, a remarkable prevalence of Jersey fogs, bringing mildew and blight in autumn, and much dry, cold, east wind, retarding vegetation in spring.

Land in Jersey has been held for centuries in 3mall lots of a few acres. In the whole island there are not more than six farms of more than twenty-five acres, and upon these the celebrated Jersey cows are raised. The owner of the lot is permitted by law and custom to issue "rents" to the extent of three-fourths of the value of the holding. These "rents" represent a small proportion 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 agriculture was much less advanced. So faithfully has this custom been preserved that the money payment equivalent to that small modicum of wheat secures to the occupier permanence of occupation. The possession of land is therefore absolutely safe to every cultivator, and cannot easily be alienated. To seize land for debt is accompanied 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 refund 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. Custom provides also that the purchaser for cultivation 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 power to distrain for non-payment of the principal. Here then we have a clear recognition of the principle that rent belongs to 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 carefully preserved. Every one is at liberty to gather seaweed 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 f250 worth of produce from every cultivated acre. In 1894 they exported 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, salads and other produce. This success is entirely due to the amount of labor which a dense population is putting on the land. The fertility of the soil has been created by the industry of the inhabitants; it has been fertilized not only by sand and seaweed but with refuse of all kinds, inclusive of animal manures, city waste, stable manure, bones shipped from Plevna, and mummies of cats from Egypt. The ground is artificially warmed by the application of fermenting matters, and hot water pipes. An artificial climate has been created by the construction of acres of glass roofing, and the growth of the crops is promoted by the scientific manufacture of soils, the careful selection of seeds, and frequent replanting of the plants. These people realize the fact that it is easier and more profitable to raise ten tons of potatoes from three acres than it is from thirty. As there are no landlords the whole of the profit is distributed among the producers and the large number of persons interested in rent. It would be strange, indeed, if the Jersey islanders, densely crowded as they are, were not among the happiest, most prosperous, and most contented people in the world, which is the conclusion of every one who visits them. There is no poverty, except that which is personally produced; no pauperism; no unemployed; very little dishonesty or crime.

Here then we have positive proof that economic pressure is caused by landlords, and that it will be relieved by the Single Tax.

And now turn to cases where the tax on land values has been recently imposed. In New Zealand, the Legislature of 1891 imposed a graduated tax on land values, the lowest being .04 per cent. For twenty years previously the country passed through a period of fearful commercial depression.

It was overwhelmingly in debt, and the population was decreasing at the rate of twenty thousand a year. After the adoption of this form of taxation prosperity immediately returned, population began to increase, and the annual increase is now greater than the annual decrease before the passage of the act. United States Consul (Connolly says of New Zealand, that it is now the most progressive country upon earth. That the private wealth of the people has increased over forty per cent., which is double the increase of population.

After five years^ experience the New Zealand government extended the method of taxation to those municipalities which should choose it in preference to the older plan. Twenty municipalities have voted in its favor, and it is remarkable that the reform has been carried by the vote of property owners, and not by equal suffrage.

In 1895, the Legislature of New South Wales, having been thoroughly convinced of the successful reforms in New Zealand, passed a law abolishing all taxation on personal property and improvements, and levying four milles on the dollar on land value instead. Prior to the passage of the law the financial condition of the country verged on bankruptcy, and the people suffered great privation. One-half of the land was owned by less than one thousand people. 900,000 souls, men, women, and children, had not land enough in which to dig their graves. Immediately the large land speculators became alarmed. An English syndicate, which had acquired many thousand acres, put them on the market. Many large estates of 100,000 acres were readily disposed of in small lots, and in 1897 the increased area of land under cultivation was already 311,500 acres.

Landlordism still flourishes in the adjoining colony of Victoria, where the population is about the same, and where there is a high protective tariff. The contrast is convincing. In Victoria there are employed, in various trades, 37,779 males and 12,669 females. But in New South Wales there are employed 50,883 males, and only 6,689 females. For every ten ships docked and repaired in Victoria there are seventy in New South Wales. The deep sea ships in the Victoria harbors number between twenty and thirty, while in New South Wales they number between ninety and one hundred. During a period of years, 5180 more men left Victoria than arrived, while New South Wales attracted 192,184 more than those who left. In New South Wales, both artisan and unskilled laborers are feeling the advantage of better times. The supply of workers is less than the demand, and the employee is the arbiter of his own compensation. In no other period has the value of imports been so great, its manufacturing output so large, and general prices and wages so satisfactory as during the two years just passed. The Premier said, on a recent occasion, small as the change has been, it has secured to the country for all time a good, sound principle of taxation, and it has killed the trade of the land gambler. In 1901 tariff on imports will entirely cease.

A most remarkable experiment with the Single Tax was made at Hyattsville, Md. In 1892 the town commissioners, believing they had power under the town charter, decided to assess land values only, so they abolished all taxation on improvements and personal property. In order to meet the loss of revenue the tax on land value was raised from fifteen to twenty-five cents on the hundred dollars. The effect was to reduce the taxation of householders forty-four per cent., and to raise the balance of sixty per cent, on land held for speculation and not for use. The effect was immediately beneficial; it lightened the burden of those most worthy of consideration. It promoted the improvement of property, the erection of new buildings and the employment of the people. There was no difficulty in the application of the system. The land speculators, however, set up violent opposition, and took the matter into the courts; and, it being declared unconstitutional, the town was compelled to return to the old system. 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 UNIVEBSITIES AND THE LAW OF HUMAN LIFE

It is the special function of universities to examine and illustrate those general laws which control the operations of the universe. To teach their order, correlation, beauty, adaptability to surrounding conditions, their sufficiency and perfection, their justice and morality, and to show how completely and surely they make for more and better life among men, whilst the least violation 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 following 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 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 protection against the rapacity of governments, millionaires, 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 taxation 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 University 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 grievously misapprehended Mr. George's argument. That you should charge him with scientific ignorance possibly without having read his last great scientific work. That you should find his premises 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 wonder that his last and greatest work on the Science of Political Economy is not in the Stanford library; 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 wheat, 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 students' intellects will be buried in the mass of [unreadable]. 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 smallest 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 "Single 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 under 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 forever 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 metaphor, 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 law of human life, even in the least particular, makes for starvation, misery and death. That the creation 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, corporations and individual employers is robbery.

That co-operation in production and co-partnership in the collective result are essential elements of the law of collective human life. That the laborer to be really free must attain to self-employment as an individual, and self-government as a member of the collective body, sharing in the profits 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 conclusion 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 satisfaction of the common wants, no one being called upon to suffer loss individually on account of public 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 "free access" will become a 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 individual 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 destroys 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 INDUSTBIAL 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, imperialism, landlords, trusts, bare subsistence wages, industrial taxation, licenses, franchises, and other special privileges, tariff and other interferences 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 foundation of all human progress. Let us suppose the creation of a huge industrial corporation to exploit 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 wages according to the law of supply and demand, and those special conditions 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 independent 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 created by collective labor shall be gathered by the Single Tax, and distributed to the collective producers, not in personal dividends, but in provision for collective necessities and the gratification of collective desires.

The construction of the government of this corporation must be democratic.^ That is, exactly that of a private business corporation. No individual action must be permitted to replace the concerted 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 remain 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 assistance in promoting this Utopian idea. It is exactly the form of government to which you were converted in relation to municipal affairs. It is the form of government adopted by business corporations and by English cities. I ask your assistance to teach it in your schools, that its operation may be extended to counties, States, and nations. This is "the ideal arrangement, although, perhaps, impossible. If it is impossible, it must become possible 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 imprisoned for advocating vote by ballot and universal suffrage, 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 43peak 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 constitutes 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 realization of that glorious document -- the Declaration of Independence -- which states so clearly that all men have equal right to life, liberty and the pursuit 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 English co-partners "each for all, and all for each." This law which assuredly makes for more and better life among men (Jordan). This law which declares the equality of all men before natural law, and is the foundation of the brotherhood of all mankind.