another form, have proposed to make land common property. They have supported the demand by arguments based on both expediency and equity, but the great utility of private possession of land has been sufficiently powerful to resist their efforts. Henry George has been widely charged with the desire and intention to make land common property, in spite of his statement in Progress and Poverty, Book VIII., that, “I do not propose either to purchase or to confiscate private property in land." necessary work ought to receive the reward. If there be other equitable basis for the institution of private property, it has not been promulgated; and yet newspapers have credited Carnegie with saying that the greatest surprise of his life was when he "realized that the man who did the work was not the man who got rich." Mr. Carnegie perceived the certain effect of the private appropriation of rent, though very likely without apprehending the nature of the thing perceived. If work is the rightful basis of private property, or, in more sounding phrase, if tenure be the prerogative of toil, and our Scotch friend found that to become rich he must do something other than work, may we not fairly claim that existing property relations are in a degree defective? It would appear, then, that common property in land is ideal, but impracticable; that private appropriation of ground rent is wholly lacking in ideality, but seems at first to be unavoidable, as it apparently is a consequence of private property in land. Here is the paradox. The difficulty with the proposal to make land common property is that while it conforms to justice is ideal and satisfies the emotions, whether of wrath at present conditions or of joy at prospective ones, it does not meet the need of practicability. If the public owns and rents all land possessing value, we are immediately confronted with contractual relations between public officials and private parties the condition precedent to all graft." This arrangement might be very much better than that now obtaining, but would undoubtedly be "patchwork," and soon necessitate another remodelling. Taxing land values alone secures permanent possession and involves no contracts between officials and citizens. It will occasion no change of existing forms. Single-Tax men call attention to the fact that ownership of land is not important, save as it leads to ownership of prod--whether in common or in severalty— ucts. The owner of land is able to secure products as rent. May it not be possible to recover these products without destroying private property in land? This inquiry raises the question of the right to property. On what does the right to property justly rest? What ought to be the basis of possession? What is "ideal"? The irksomeness of toil must be endured in order that any thing be made. Who ought to receive the benefit, or become the owner of the product? Surely one may be forgiven if he is inclined to assert that the individual, or group of individuals, who do the It is, nevertheless, easy of solution. Any large group of people—as the United States-living in a civilized condition, must maintain government. They must keep the peace, that is, exercise police power. They must maintain some form of land tenure. Whatever be decided upon as the better mode of holding land only government (i. e., the majority of Public or governmental functions are carried into execution only by men, and these must be compensated by those who receive the benefit. To secure the wherewithal to make such payment, a public revenue is necessary. In short, taxation (that is, the collecting of a public fund) is an inevitable condition of civilized life. As indicated, all wealth is distributed as rent or wages. It follows that all payments must come from one of these funds. Taxes, therefore, must be paid out of one or the other; or, of course, be derived partly from each. The proposal of Single-Tax men is that public revenue be taken wholly from the rent fund. This plan is believed to be ideal, forceful and practical. It is ideal in that it secures each one in the ownership of the wealth his labor may produce, with no burden or tribute in any form, save the one subtraction of ground-rent (and this only when he occupies land possessing value). And this is true whether he toils alone or in voluntary association with others. If, then, rent be recovered by taxation and used for the common benefit, it would seem that none would be able to possess wealth not equitably acquired. It is ideal in that it strictly conforms to the only concept ever put forward as the rightful basis of the institution of private property. The question arises: Does each contribute equally to the rent fund, and thereby become equally entitled to share in public benefits? As before stated, land tenure is one of the functions of government. It is an unavoidable expression of sovereignty. Each man in a community is bound to support its sovereignty even though he does not agree with the majority. It is only by virtue of this assertion of sovereignty that any one in a community can enjoy peace and security of property. Nature compels us thus to associate. We hold, then, that the benefits of that common association, which nature compels, should be shared in common. The Single-Tax will secure to each that which is his individual product, whether his effort be made alone or in voluntary coöperation and it will secure to the public that to which no individual or voluntary association can establish just claim. It is ideal. The Single-Tax appeals to the emotions because it reveals a beneficent order in society. It confirms belief in a divine order. It points the way whereby tyranny may be dissipated from among men. It destroys the fear of want, and thereby allows men to be free in fact. Thus it makes the field of natural opportunity a reality to each and all. When we realize that just as we have more air than we can by any possibility use, so have we more land than many times the present population of the earth could utilize, we may form some concept of the mighty possibilities the Single-Tax would open to the race. Are not the glories of the modern world wholly due to the overthrow of old forms. whereby the native impulses of humanity were suppressed? Have we not freedom of conscience as a result of the overthrow of feudal power? Is not equal participation in government a like result? Is not freedom of the person from serfdom and chattel bondage a like achievement ? Is not all of which we may fairly boast in the modern day due to the breaking of the feudal lord's grip? That grip still holds the land. The Single-Tax will break this, his last hold. With its inauguration will vanish the curse that has blighted the earth-the power of some men to control the lives of others. With the advent of "the simple yet sovereign remedy" will come an era of peace, good will, kindliness. No longer will any one be able truthfully to say, as did Robert Burns: "We are placed here amid so much nakedness, and hunger, and poverty, and want, that we are under a cursed necessity of studying selfishness in order that we may exist!” The Single-Tax appeals to the imagination; it excites the emotions, both against wrong and for the right; it is forceful, and it will come. Most men appear not to realize the fact that nearly all fundamental law is now in agreement with Single-Tax ideals. In Providence Bank vs. Billings (4 Peters, 562), Chief Justice Marshall-who surely will not be credited with prejudices favorable to the great plain people said, 66 the power of taxation may be carried so far as to absorb these profits" (referring directly to rent), and then asks, "Does this impair the obligation of contracts? The idea is rejected by all," etc. It is practical because it is in operation now, partly by the public and partly by land-owners. Rent makes its levy with certainty. To say that it is not practical is to decry the acumen of every landowner in the world. It is practical because it is the one plan that conforms to the accepted canons of taxation,-namely, that a tax bear as lightly as possible upon production; that it be easily collected, and fall as directly as may be upon the ultimate payers; that it be certain; that it bear equally. The Single-Tax does not bear upon production at all, for the land-owners collect rent whether or not the public tax them. It is easily collected, for the land lies out of doors, and so cannot be hid, and its value is the only value that can be arrived at with approximate truth. It is the only tax capable of producing sufficient revenue that "falls directly upon the ultimate payers." It cannot be shifted, for rent is a monopoly price. That is the chief reason many have for opposing it. 66 It is related that one Irishman said to another: "The Single-Tax 'ud stop tax dodgin'." The other replied: “Then what's the objection to it?" "It 'ud stop tax dodgin'." "Oi understand, then why not adopt it?" "It 'ud prevint tax dodgin'." "That's three toimes ye 've tould me that. An' Oi understood ye the furst toime, an' Oi understood ye the second toime, an' the third toime. Now, since ye 're so sure it would prevint tax dodgin', what the divil's the raison they don't put the Single-Tax in opera tion?" "Oi big your pardon, but Oi understood ye to ask me why don't they adopt the Single-Tax?" "An' what the divil else did Oi ax ye?" "Well, then, for the fourth time-count 'em-Oi 'll answer ye that the raison they don't adopt the Single-Tax is because it 'ud prevint tax dodgin'." It is certain, because if all other sources of revenue be cut off, public officials cannot neglect this-they need the money. It will bear equally because each man is either land-owner or tenant, and in either capacity pays in rent just what the social advantage he enjoys is worth. It is practical because our forms of government lend themselves to its easy adoption. Any state in the Union may adopt home-rule, or local option, in taxation; that is, enact a law whereby any city or town may levy taxes for its local revenue in such manner as it may choose. This is the measure already adopted in New Zealand with such happy results, and is in reality the only legal measure Single-Taxers ask for. Such act would permit any locality to try in a moderate way the value of our proposal, and its practicability would be demonstrated as is being done in New Zealand. It may be observed that there is here no proposal to force this measure upon any community. There is only provided a methoodwhereby any cummunity may utilize the plan if it so desires. What honest man can say he does not believe in permitting a community to conduct its own affairs in its own way; but on the contrary believes that some communities need the benefit of his superior wisdom? The Single-Tax is practical because nothing else can successfully meet existing monopoly conditions. If we secure relief at any other point in the field of production, rent will increase, and by this means the whole gain will disappear, so far as producers are concerned. When we cheapened transportation by substituting the steam-railway for the canalboat and the ox-cart land values increased. If we make public utilities commou prop THE I. HE CARTOONIST, to be a power, must have some dominant, definite or master-thought instinct with the higher aspirations of humanity or those moral verities upon which the permanency and growth of national life depend. The really great American cartoonists have all consciously or unconsciously yielded to the compulsion of moral idealism. They have instinctively fought the battle of the people to the extent that their environing limitations permitted, and they have left or are leaving the impress of their individuality and idealism on the brain of the nation. They are among the most effective influences for civic righteousness and popular rights and justice in the present battle between the powers of greed and sodden selfishness and the higher aspirations of national life. Here, as in journalism and literature in general, there must be sincerity and high purpose to achieve any real greatness and leave a lasting and beneficent influence on the life of the age. The men who have been real factors for human advance and better government have not been those who merely studied to please the management of their journals, but in addition to filling the requirements of their positions they have thrown into their work the aggressive moral element that has carried conviction to the minds of millions. In not a few instances they have declined lucrative positions because they would not prostitute their high talent in the service of interests they believed to be contrary to the welfare of their country. If we mention any of the workers of the first rank, some well-defined mental picture or pictures will arise before the mind's eye. Thus the name of Thomas Nast suggests unceasing warfare against enthroned municipal greed; those of Davenport and Opper bring before the mind the warfare against the brutal tyranny and oppression of the present-day commercial feudalism. In like manner the name of W. A. Rogers, the famous cartoonist of the New York Herald, suggests the unrelenting foe of the grafters and corruptionists in city, state and national government. We see the blackhorse cavalry invading the temple of legislation, polluting the citadel of popular rule. We see Albany, that should be the throne of just law and the glory of the Empire State, a shame and a by-word, a sink of corruption; Albany with its venal legislature, the creature and tool of corrupt corporations; Albany, with its re |