and their discussions go on from this point to arouse every philanthropist to a condemnation of existing society. If this is so, if the poor are growing poorer and the rich richer, if society is separating itself into upper and lower grades which are growing gradually apart, and we are becoming a people made up of two classes, on the one hand the oppressors holding all the property, and on the other hand the slaves, who are ground down and do all the work, it is certainly a matter of sufficient gravity to deserve careful investigation and should not be brought forward and asserted without abundant proof.

There is no time for me on this occasion to enter into a discussion of this question, but it seems to me that any man of ordinary common sense traveling through our country, or even exploring the streets of Chicago, will find abundant evidence that the wealth of the country, the comforts and means of enjoying life are possessed by the people; and that the great majority of the people are rising constantly in their ability to command these comforts and means of enjoyment. The square miles covered with small homesteads which make up our city ought to be a sufficient answer to any wild assertion that the poor are growing poorer.

And the lives of our rich men-that is, our men of large means-if carefully scrutinized, ought to assure any fair-minded man that riches, in this country at least, are accumulated mainly by men who started poor, and are the reward of dilligence and conspicuous ability.

Now, as to the theory of Land Taxation, leaving Mr. George out of the account. The collecting of revenue for the purpose of State and local government by a Single Tax on land, was thought of, discussed and advocated before Mr. George was born.

Quesnay proposed the Single Land Tax more than one hundred years ago, and supported it by arguments which were fallacious, but not in the same way that George's arguments are. Quesnay argued that all wealth is derived from land, therefore levy all taxes on land. George says all wealth is created by labor, therefore tax land. Quesnay's argument is the better of the two.

But besides this, there are strong arguments which have been ably presented in favor of collecting the revenue necessary for the operation of government from land and its improvements alone, and there are weighty reasons why this is the most economical and fairest method for the collection of such funds as are needed for this purpose. I may briefly outline these:

"I think it will be recognized as a reasonable and just statement that economy in assessment and collection of taxes can be best served by avoiding, so far as possible, arbitrary action on the part of the officers of government entrusted with that duty. Injustice arises in the levying of taxes when officers are permitted to exercise favoritism, and when opportunity is afforded to the citizen to conceal his property subject to taxation. It is desirable therefore that the property subject to taxation should be of that simple nature that it may be easily found, and that all men may be able to estimate its value. There is no property which answers these conditions as well as real estate. If it can be proved that taxes levied on real estate alone will be equitably adjusted through the community, I think

it may be said that the fairness of this form of levying taxes will be established."

Alexander Hamilton said in the Constitutionalist: "The genius of liberty reprobates everything arbitrary or discretionary in taxation. It exacts that every man, by a definite and general rule, should know what proportion of his property the State demands. Whatever liberty we may boast in theory, it cannot exist in fact while (arbitrary) assessments continue." The tax on real estate conforms to these conditions. It is the fairest in its application and most economical in collection of any of our taxes.

The American people have never been fairly aroused to investigate and formulate a theory of taxation. Taxes in this country have generally been so light that they have been paid without their burden being felt, and the system of taxation has often been crude and wasteful, simply for the reason that the people have been so much occupied in making money that they could not afford to give time for the correction of small abuses. The period following the war was that in which taxation was most heavy, but the relief came from these burdens so rapidly in growing prosperity that correct theories were not formulated as to taxation, and many abuses still disfigure this branch of our government. It may be worth while for us to note that in Illinois the machinery of government is largely supported by the tax on real estate. Nearly three times more is contributed by its citizens for the support of State and local government, from taxation of real estate than is derived from taxation of personal property. In the city of Chicago the revenue derived from taxes on real estate is more than four times that derived from taxes on personal property. In the State of Pennsylvania the proportion of State and local revenue derived from real estate is still larger. Owners of Illinois real estate now bear the greater part of the expenses of local and State government, and there is no general complaint that too little is spent in this way, or that our officials are too economical or too honest. The Illinois land owner has now something left by way of income. Suppose that this large sum, the residue of income from real estate after paying taxes, was turned into the public treasury, all other taxes might be abolished and still there would be an enormous surplus. Does any wise or practical man think this sum would be prudently and profitably expended, or that the poor would be any better off for it?

In discussing the feasibility of taxing real estate exclusively for the support of government, it is not necessary happily to consider Mr. George's theories at all. It may be found best, most economical and most fair that we should collect our government revenue from our land and improvements thereon, but this will not imply any assertion as to the correctness of Mr. George's visionary propositions, or any admission that property in real estate is not as justly held by individuals as that in any form of personal possessions, and that its tenure is not as just and as unassailable as that which the laborer claims in the commodity which he controls, namely his own labor,

SUBSIDIES AND THE TARIFF.

BY EDW. S. TAYLOR.

Subsidies and Tariff is the bewitching topic for the evening's talk; it is a theme theorists ever delight to dwell upon, political economists have for generations founded arguments thereon adapted to all sides of every question, affecting either our domestic or foreign relations; it is a subject which for more than half a century has paved the pathway to the political graveyard, wherein lies buried the hopes and the ambitions of unnumbered eminent statesmen, both of the past and present. It is my purpose in our interview to speak of the tariff as a business proposition, considering its relation to the country, its prosperity and its toil. In its practical application it has been demonstrated that a tariff on importations is the easiest, perhaps the least burdensome mode of raising a revenue for the ordinary expenses of government, thus rival alien industries are made to contribute to the national support, and the very act which exacts such tribute mantles home industry with protection, stimulates production, and augments the prosperity of the people. A tariff is essential for the maintenance of the government—all parties recognize the necessity. The question is, shall a tariff be imposed for revenue only, or as well for the encouragement of enterprise and the protection of toil. A tariff for revenue only seeks to impose the lowest duty which will secure the largest revenue, hence increased importations are a necessity, and the impost is laid not upon articles which come in competition with our product, but mainly upon noncompeting articles, thus opening our home markets to the ruinous rivalry of foreign cheap products which represent the poorly paid toil of the Old World. The history of this country, the wealth of its resources, its wonderful development and progress under a protective tariff, coupled with the inventive spirit and enterprise of its people, prompts me to favor protection. I believe in the freedom of exchanges between our own people, and so far as necessary to secure such freedom would deny unrestrained exchange with the people of other countries. I would suffer no meritorous American industry to languish which could be promoted by a reasonable protection, either by bounty, subsidy or impost. To-day the voice of lamentation is heard throughout the land, almost universal is the warning at the decline of American shipping, and the absence of our flag in foreign ports;

strangely, in contrast with the characteristic energy of our people in other fields of development and progress is their indifference to our standing as a nation in the maritime service. It is a matter of regret that American vessels freighted with the wealth of our products should not float the monarchs of the deep. For a generation few vessels flying our flag have borne our exports to the people beyond the sea. Forty years ago we carried ninety per cent. of our foreign trade, to-day less than ten per cent. Many things contribute to this; it is partly due to the changed character of construction from wood to iron, and the lower cost of both material and wages in the ship building yards on the Tyne. Yet the most potent cause of the decline is the withdrawal by our Government of its discrimination as to right of entry, and the refusal of governmental aid to maintain its ocean supremacy. Would you see our merchant marine restored? Our supremacy re-established upon the deep? It can be done, the people of this country have but to speak through their representatives in Congress a single word—that word, subsidy. The magic of that utterance will build an American fleet which flying our flag can command the carrying trade of the sea. The common defence, the general welfare and our country's honor alike, demand the speaking of that word. France pays for the encouragement of foreign commerce-either by subsidy or for transportation of mail-$6,750,000; England, $4,250,000; Spain, Italy, Germany, Brazil and the Argentine Republic from $1,500,000 to $3,500,000 annually. The United States contributes less than $500,000, ninety per cent. of this amount goes to foreign ships for transportation of American mail. Under the provisions of the Tonnage Bill, now before Congress, at a cost to this Government of far less than what France, England, or the Republic of South America pay, American enterprise could put twenty steamers upon the sea, the equal of any which now float, any two of which, as Admiral Porter says, would be more serviceable to the country in time of war than all the crusiers which composed our navy three years ogo. I favor a subsidy for the re-establishment of the merchant marine, that our floating commerce may anchor in the harbors of every nation, our flag float over the waters of every sea. Originally a tariff was a rule or policy prescribed by the Government primarily to regulate trade. It was a commercial toll levied on some specific alien industry which came in competition with a like domestic industry. The revenue derived from such impost was but an incident, the main purpose being to regulate or prevent ruinous competition, thereby aiding enterprises, which, without such protection would perish. The principle of protection is neither illogical or unnatural. We seek by law to preserve the public health, to promote the public morals, to give security to the citizen in his personal and property rights. All acquiesce in the wisdom of such enactments. The development of the diversified industries of any people is as essential to the prosperity and independence of that people, and to the maintenance and stability of their institutions, as is the health, the morals, or the property interest of the citizen. A nation is prosperous in proportion as the energy of its people is utilized; properly encourage and stimulate varied occupations and you best utilize the individual energy. Experience teaches us that under a tariff

encouraging manufactures, such development of diversified pursuit has ever been stimulated, while invariably under a low tariff there have been periods of great depression. Productive industries in existence under a protective tariff have not only vastly multiplied their capacity, but enterprise thus protected has entered into new fields of development, so broadening and increasing its operations that now there is manufactured in this country every article adapted to the comfort or necessities of man. Equally for our comfort in time of prosperity, equally for our defence in time of war. Again, protection produces competition, and has so quickened the inventive genius of our people that economy in production has reduced the cost of all articles in common use, without reducing the wages of the labor which has aided in the production. In the higher remunerated toil of this country we find an incontrovertible argument in favor of protection-scarcely an operative in England owns his home. In busy Leeds with a population of more than three hundred thousand, there is not, as I am advised, a single artisian, or wage worker, owning the house in which he lives. In Philadelphia two hundred thousand wage earners own their homes. In the city of Rockford, that busy hive, there are sixteen different lines of industry, and ninety per cent. of the wage workers there own the dwellings they occupy. The mechanics and operatives in the States of Rhode Island and Connecticut own more property than all the wage workers in the Old World. The toil of this country from forest and field, factory and forge, demand with one voice that the valuable market here made by sixty-five million people shall, through protection, be preserved for the product of home industry. It is doubtless true that in instances a high tariff may work injury to specific interests, or be ill adapted to certain sections, yet, in measuring, the general prosperity, we behold so marvelous a development and progress that we say the greatest good to the greatest number justifies the policy. A people situated as we are, with resources so varied and vast, possessing all that is needed to make ourselves absolutely independent of every other people, equally in peace or peril, have a home market more valuable than any market abroad; protection secures such market to American labor and American enterprise, and under such policy the United States has prospered as has no other nation. One of the greatest of living statesmen, Bismarck, has declared, “it is my deliberate judgment that the prosperity of America is due to its system of protective laws," and urged Germany to imitate the tariff system of the United States. It is often suggested that a tariff for revenue only would cheapen the cost of living. Would it not necessarily cheapen the value of labor, and reduce its purchasing power? Cheap labor everywhere means cheap food and cheap clothing. Contrast the comforts of the wage worker of this country with the cheap labor abroad. In such a contrast neither patriotism or humanity would reduce the conditions and surroundings of our wage earners to the conditions and surroundings of those of England or of continental Europe. We further illustrate the blessings of cheap labor by referring to the Ryots of India, who earned but ten cents a day; they have poor food and scant, if any, clothing, and to the Peons on the Haciendas of Mexico, who earn but a shilling a day, living on Tortilla and

1.