Perth Amboy evening news., 1906-12-10

of mere discomfort" MI. Dixon ia
preacher of discomfort whose prem
ises are unfounded, and whose an
thorities are, in large measure, IN
trustworthy. The tendency of sue
teaching Is to array one class q
society against another without ade
quate reason, and without prospec
OF social betterment.
There Is no touch OF vindictive
ness In my protest of November 8
Vindictiveness is personal, and | hav
no personal grievance against Mr.
Dixon. | have no right to attack hin
from my pulpit, or ash minister o
the gospel; but as a citizen, the news
paper forum is properly open to m,
TOT the discussion of matters of gray,
import to the citizen public.
MT. Dixon makes merry owe tn,
TACT that he and / quoted similar
statements from different French
political economists. When ~listenin,
10 MS lecture, | failed to catch tn,
name OF Colbert. Turgot, a NOR,
eminent and honorable man, hat
used a modified form of the same ex.
preston, and in the haste of writins
the next morning | overlooked Col.
bert and attributed his quotation tc
Turgot. Mr.. Dixon's weighty ques.
ZION whether a goose cries OF
"squawks' is too profound for me.
The subject Is so vast and technical.
and his fitness to deal with it is SO
pre-eminent, hat 1 wave the diction-
aries aside and leave him in proud
possession of the field.
Mr.. Dixon's evident ignorance on
the subject of taxation Is pitiable.
he AYERS that, according to the rec
ords, every real estate owner is guilty
or swearing to an differentiation of
IL. Obser chat he says the records
show this, The records show no such
tnlng. He seems to know neither the
law nor the custom of administering
II. In New Jersey, and in most of the
states, the tax valuation of real
estate is not made by the owner, but
by an assessor. The assessor has the
power to require an owner. tosdescribe
his real estate and give his opinion
OF It's value,C under oath, but the own
er's estimate does not fix its taxable
valuationAt Only the assessor can do
that, and he is not bound by the own
er's estimate. The oath is seldom
administered except in cases of COM
plicated title or the manifest DISPOSE
ton to evade taxation. In this city
this year the assessors have not
found, IT necessary to administer the
oath to a single property owner, and
they unite in t~estifying that ninety
per cent. or more of the owners read
lily evinced a disposition to be fair.
To Mr.. Dixon 1t may seem profane to
touch SO sacred a structure, but by
this one little touch of truth I remove
a prominent corner stone of the new
Dixonian edifice. l have the honor to
inform Mr.. Dixon that, on the even
Ing in question, he did not have a
foresworn property wne In his aud
fence. If he has the spirit of honor
able chivalry he will make humble
apology for his s%landerous statement,
as well as for his ignorance of the
laws of taxation. Such ignorance in
a clergyman or an ordinary man
might be readily forgiven, but the
mar who sets himself up as an expert
and oracle ought to know.
In his article Mr.. Dixon por-
tentously loaded with authorities.
Do / dare to mention the list?
Henry George, Jr. Certainly, 1t
was plain that he had drunk deep at
the George trough. But the Georges
are quoted low in the authority mar
ket everywhere except in the George
pit,
Robert Hunter. His Poverty
brings no strength to any mans
position. He is thoroughly discredit-
ed by the best thinkers on economic
and humanitarian questions. His
guesses at the numbers of the poor
are based upon calculations in which
he counts~the same person as many
times as he has received aid in any
form in a given year., and fails to
make proper allowance for reduplica-
ton. John Koren, Special Agent of
the Censussfor Charitable Institutions,
in the Boston Transcript of May 2,
1905, has shown ~conclusively that
Hunters totals for Boston are about
four times too large, and that his
figures for the United States are
equally, or more, at fault. Other en-
inent reviewers have orr his book
to fragments. He himself admits he
is largely guessing" (page ID, and
that 1.-The extent of poverty in the
United States is absolutely unknown"
(page 49,. And Mr.. Dixon has the
astounding temerity to masquerade
before a Perth Amboy audience in
such disreputable garments.
But the worst is yet to come. MI,
Dixon states hat there are five and a
half million families with an average
annual income of only n hundred
and fifty dollars per family. He cites
Charles B. Spahr's book in proof.
There is no such thing in Mr.. Spahr's
book, from t%itle-page to index! 1t
be found in any of Mr.. Spahr's
writings. Mr.. Spahr does say: 1.-THE
labor incomes will generally range
from two hundred dollars, on the
southern farms, to a thousand dollars
among the most skilled workmen of
the northern cities" page 1870.
Observe, the lowest wages he notes
are paid on the southern farms, with
the various prequisites which the
farms afford.
We must not forget that in most
families there is more than one work
er. The Federal Census of 1900
gives an average of one worker and
eight-tenths to a family. This would
make the average income of a work
ing mans family to range from three
b,nJrOI sa,I ciyfu IN oi0hfdnn hmm