New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1894-12-02

HE SUPPLIES THE MISSING SOCIETY NAME-ITs
OBJECT WAS TO KEEP DOWN THE
CITY TAX RATE.
To the Editor OF The Tribune
Sir: In his letter printed in The Tribune OF Sun
day. November IS. Mr.. George gives further exhibit
ton of the and his methods.
He Is unhappy because the signers OF the letter
published in The Tribune of the 18th inst. did not
take up his book for discussion They neither pro-
posed nor attempted to do so. Such discussion Is
not In order. either with him. with any
body else. and the real facts of the make it
clear that 1t will be in order in the way Mr.
George desires Our sole purpose was. and my only
purpose Is. to show that there is no foundation
whatever in any acts of Mr.. Spencer in connection
with any association or otherwise. for the charge
made by Mr. George as TO motive. Or, in other
words. the purpose is and has been only show
that Mr. George entirely misstated or msrep-
resented all the alleged facts he offered claiming
that they had bearing on the question of motive.
Mr.. George having asserted that Mr.. Spencer's
appears "as the director of association
formed for the purpose OF defending private prop
erty in land that especially active in the recent
London County Council election" but without Civ
Ing the name OF the association. were left to
guessing only alternative After long and
careful consideration of the language thus used. 1t
supposed that the Liberty and Property De
fence League was the association referred to. since
that association has objects relating somewhat to
property In land. and other association Of that
character known 10 Mr.. Spencer with
which he could be supposed to have any connection
SO understood, Mr.. Georges assertion was COM
pletely met in letter printed in The Tribune
of November IL
Mr. George now says he meant an association
the formal name" Of which he cannot
give with certainty without sending to London"
but 1t was think. the London RatePayers
League or Association" In other words two years
after he writes and publishes his book. Mr.. George
cannot and does not give us with certainty the
name OF the association. membership In the direct
ing body of which constitutes the only proof of the
only act showing the motive OF the recreancy TO
principle vociferously claimed
He excuses himself by saying: The reason did
not give the name was because I had mslad the
circular which had to with lot OF Lib
erty and Property Defence matter" II was hardly
necessary FOR him inform now. as he has
done in his letter OF the 18th, that ne considers
accuracy Of statement "of importance what
ever" That already abundantly evident
Unless Mr. George has conveniently and ef-
fectually nlslaid that circular TO be able 10
spring still another association upon us. can prob
ably give him the full and formal name OF the as
ISOLATION he had vaguely in mind. and could have
done at any time during nearly the whole OF
the last two years. At least. there is a league
snS ON it. its Circular Mr. Herbeft Spencer
cPpSnc of s"' 'mS as .e as possible
the names OF the dukes at the top Of the list TWO
Mr. George os calls these two dukes about all the
! dukes in the Kingdom thereby reminding us of
and classifying his book with the fable of the three
black crows
/ venture to state. Notwithstanding Mr.. Georges
habit of scoiiing at those who make statement :
based documentary evidence at the moment IN
hand and his other habits OF drawing upon his
Imagination or upon treacherOus memory Tor MS
facts that this circular Is nov before me-
From this circular IL appears that Mr.. spencer IL
a director nor a trustee. nor on us tNecutl'e
Committee and that the league Is not formed Tor
he purpose defending private property In land.
but only FOR resisting exOrbitant taxation ana pro
tecilng the interests OF London ratepayers, IRE
spective Of party politics" In other words. the
league appears 10 be permanent association some
for it, object prevention OF the robbery Of tax
o payers" To IL Mr.. Spencer mas gwen IN"
use OF his name doubtless because he fayOrs It's OBJ
jects stated In caption as above quoted ana else
where said TO include opposition 10 reckless ana
excessive expenditure" and economy in the admin
istration OF public funds" To this complexion has
the alleged woodworking offence OF MI spencer
at last.
: Not single word is 10 be found anywhere in this
circular showing that this league was formed fOr
the purpose OF defending private property IN lana
I'm the George sense and | am Informed by the best
possible authority that II was not 'e@peclaIy actlVe
In the recent London County Council election OF
1892 49, =, -, -, --,.
The foregoing statements deal with the only point
raised in Mr. Georges letter that seems worthy
Of attention. The letter. however. affords one more
Illustration OF how little dependence IL TO be placed
upon his statements and yet furnishes a reason ior
thanking him for the service he has az Iast, put
Unwittingy rendered in the interest OF the truth:
have been unable TO consult all the signers OF the
previous letter. But other names do not now seem
10 he REQUIRED. and alone to be held RESPONSE
HE FOR his Ietter JAMES A. SKILTON.
New-York. Nov. a. 1894.