The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1884-03-30

pusn great ue8i OF ROou. nut Dy rollovlnR In
large degree the viceroys from responsibility
the King deprived them OF the power to carry
out the kindly and judcious plans OF the
Crown. whenever these CHANGED to run. as they
usually did. counter to the interests OF the
resident Spanish landowners represented in
the audiencia. NJ W. H.
Heary George sa Americas Far.ers.
In Social Problems (Belford, Clarke h Coz
Mr.. HENRY GEORGE has collected score or
more OF brief but pregnant papers. In which he
has discussed economical and social questions
OF obvious import and undenable urgency with
the lucdity aud vigor which have made the au-
thor SO successful in exposition and formidable
In controversy. 1t would be great mistake for
any man. whatever his preconceived opinions.
to allow himself to be withheld by the unfavora-
Bile Judgment OF some orthodox economists or
by the captlous and often angry denunciation
OF his doctrines by tho advocates OF vested in
terests. from reading any OF Mr. Georges books.
We have yet to 500 one OF his opponents who.
whatever may be the abstract soundness Of
his objections. can vie with Mr.. George
in cogent presentation and persuasive power:
regarded merely as source OF intellectual
gymnastic and entertainment. his writings
are notable contribution to current litera-
ture. and no one should take for granted
upon the glib assertion OF reviews and news
papers. that his positions have been refuted
TIL he has heard what the expert and accom-
plished author has TO say In their defence. To
those who read only for diversion. wa may say
that there Is not u dull page in this book. nor
is there q paragraph but will compel attention
from those who think for themselves. and who
are able to recognize q sturdy thinker when
they see him.
Among the interesting topics treated we have
been particularly struck with the novel and ef-
fective counter arguments by which Mr.. George
combats n familiar practical objection to the
application OF his theory Of land tenure and
taxation to the United States. He contends. it
will be remembered. that all the present meth
dds of indirect taxation should DO swept away
and replaced by q direct tax OF the nature OF
ground ront lowed on the land by tho State
which. in its corporate capacity. would assert
Its ownership OF the whole national soil. 1t has
often been affirmed by American critics OF this
schome that. whatever may be said for 1t from
theoretical point OF view. all the labor OK
pended by it's advocates on this side Of tho At
lant!c would be thrown away because the pre-
pondorant number and voting power OF small
farmers in the United States render the plan
utterly impracticable. We acknowledge that
We ourselves have supposed that the prose-
cution OF Mr.. Georges project would encounter
a stubborn. II not insurmountable. obstruction
in this weighty factor OF the American popula-
ton. We have followed. therefore. with peculiar
eagerness and attention Mr.. Georges attempt
to show. firstly. that the numerical and polit-
ical importance OF small farmers has been
greatly overrated; and. secondly. that there Is
no clement OF the population that would have
so much to gain by the adoption OF system
which should substitute direct for indirect tax
alton. and concentrate all taxes upon land. OF
each OF these two affirmations 1t may he truly
said that this was some time paradox" and
the reader will doubtless thank US for indicat-
ing as concisoly as We can the ingenious argu-
ments by which the author would sustain the
first and perhaps the most surprising OF these
propositions.
On what grounds does Mr.. George describe
as "misapprehension" the prevalent i'm
preston that the small Independent farmers
constitute. and will continue to constitute the
majority OF the American people? It is not OF
course disputed that the assumption was once
founded upon fact. the only question being
whether 1t has not survived the fact. In the
community contem plated by the trainers Of
the Federal Constitution. the working farmers
possessed. and seemed likely always to re-
tain political ascendancy. Whom the con-
sus was taken in 1890. the urban element
was but 81 per cent. OF the whole popu-
lation. but. In 1880. this had risen
to 22's per cont We must boar In
mind. moreover. that the word urban. 80 far
as any definition may BIO based on the defective
Information furnished by the census reports.
embraces only the population OF cities and
towns containing moro than 5000 inhabitants.
II to figures obtained In this way We should
add the denizens OF towns and villages embrace
ing from 1000 to 5000 inhabitants We could not
fail to greatly swell the proportions OF the non.
farming population. 1t Is true. indeed that
evon now more persons are engaged in agricul-
ture than in any other single occupation, but
they have ceased to constitute majority OF tho
whole people. Out Of 1892. O99 persons lin
Guiding men. women. and chlldren) returned In
1880 as employed in gainful vocations OF all
kinds only ,67O. 493 were credited to agriculture
But Mr.. George is fully alive to the fact that. In
order to graduate the political power OF tho
several industries. the number OF adult males
engaged In them must be determined. and he
has been at pains to ascertain that according to
the returns OF tho last census. 6.49l. 116 males
OF 10 years and over were engaged in agricul-
ture. against .422. $50 engaged In other occupa-
lions. Evidently. therefore. even II we should
assume that every male person thus returned
as employed In agriculture Is the owner OF q
farm. he no longer represents the dominant
political power In the United States.
We need not say that 1t is only the men who
own farms. AMI not the men who merely rent
them or toll Tor wages ON the land OF others,
that are expected to exhibit an invinciblo re-
pugnance to the recognition OF common rights
to land. Mr. George accordingly proceeds to
find out how many Of these Independent
farmers thore are The last census. which paid
no attention. We should remember. to the
frequent instances In which two or more farms
belong to single owner puts the number OF
farms and plantations In tho United States
at 4.00s.9O7 Inasmuch. however. as the
number OF tenant farmers paying money
rents or share rents is given at 1924. COL
this would leave less than three million nom
inal owners OF farms out OF more than seven
and a half million persons employed In agri-
culture. But to offer violent opposition to Mr.
Georges scheme Of land ownership and taxa
ton. man must Ia something more than Q
nominal owner. whose farm may be SO thickly
plastered with mortgages that his equity Of
redemption Is almost worthless. There are not
unfortunately. sufficient data for ascertaining