VOL. XXVIII.
INDIANAPOLIS, IND.  SEPT. SO, 1893.
NO. 39.
The Approaching Meeting- ofthe Indiana
Horticultural Society.
Editobs Indiana Farmer:
For the Information of your readers, I
would say that at the last regular meeting
of this society a change in the constitution
waa provided for as regards the time of
meeting. Heretofore the Society has met in
annual session in December. Since the
Indiana Society of Florists has recently
been holding very successful exhibitions
of chrysanthemums and other flowers in
November, it has now been decided by
this Society to hold its annual meetings
hereafter at a time coincident with the
Chrysanthemum Show. The coming annual meeting will therefore be held on
"Wednesday, Thursday and Friday, the 8th
9th and 10th of November. It has also
been provided for pomological exhibit to
be made under the auspices of the Society,
and by mutual arrangement, thia exhibit
will be held in connection with the Chrys-'
anthemum show. I hand herewith a
premium list, rules and regulations, etc.,
of said promologlcal exhibit. Trust that
your readers may feel interested in knowing of the arrangement above referred to.
W. H. Ragan, Secretary.
MEETING OF   THE EXECUTIVE  COMMITTEE.
The Executive Committee of the Indiana
Horticultural Society met in the Department of Horticulture in the State Capitol
_ at Indianapolis, on Tuesday, August 8,
- 1893, the following members being present: C. M. Hobbs, president; Isham Sedgwick, L. B. Custer and Prof. J. Troop. E.
Y. Teas, first vice-president, was also
present by invitation.
The subject of an exhibit by the society
at the World's Fair was taken up, and
after duo consideration it was the unanimous opinion of the members that, owing
to the scarcity of fruit in general throughout the State, it would not be advisable
for the society to attempt any display.
The following premium list for tbe next
annual meeting of the society was made
out: ...     _       .
RULES.
1. Five of a variety constitute a plate
■ (except grapes).
2. Size, condition, color and quality to
be considered in awarding premiums.
3. The exhibitor must be the producer
in all cases.
4. Premiums awarded only in case of
merit. • -
5. All fruit must be in place by 12
o'clock, noon, on the first day of the meeting.
6. Not less than three bunches of grapes
shall constitute a plate.
For best plate of apples, first prize Jl 00;
second prize 50 cents. Maiden Blush,
Smith Cider, Ben Davis, Rome Beauty-
Winesap, Rambo, Yellow Bellflower, Tulpehocken, Fall Pippin, Clayton, "White
Pippin, Baldwin, Northern Spy, Grimes
Golden, Chenango Strawberry, Belmont,
Jonathan, Tall man Sweet, Vandever Pippin, Twenty Ounce, Glori Mundi, Wealthy,
Indiana Favorite, Willow Twig, Winter
Red, Stark, Pewaukee, Crabs, any kind,
New Seedlings not exhibited before.
■ Best general display of apples not less
than 10 varieties, 1st prize J10; 2d prize §5.
For best plate of pears, 1st prize J 1; 2d
prize 50 cents. Vicar of Winkfield, Winter
Nellis, Burre Easter, Duchess, Keifler,
Garber's Hybrid, Arnold, Lawrence; best
collection of peara, not less than five varieties, $5.
For best plate of quinces, 1st prize Jl; 2d
prize 50 cents. Orange, Missouri Mammoth, Meechea Prolific, Champion, Rhea's
Mammoth; best collection of quinces, not
less than five varieties, fo.
Best collection of peaches, not less than
fire varieties, Jo.
For best plate of grapes, 1st prize Jl; 2d
prizo 50 cents. Concord, Niagara, Pocklington, Duchess, Catawba, Vergennes,
Salem, Faith, El.Ira, F. B. Hajes, Dala
ware, Jeff_rson, Diamond; beat collection
of grapes of not less than five varieties, fo.
The Single Tax Theory.
Editobs Indiana Fabmeb:
Your editorial in No. 37 of the Farmer
relative to the "Single Tax Theory" seems
to me to be misleading and does not do
the theory justice. I do not wish to appear as an advocate of the theory, but I do
believe that information for a large circle
of readers ought to leave a fair impression
of the subject treated.
The  single tax  theory refers to a tax
on land alone, but the term land includes
everything as it  came  from  the hand of
the Creator.   Air -and water are aa much
land as the soil.   The  theory  recognizes
but two  productive  forces,  naturo  and
man.   It proposes to tax the former, not
the latter.   The central thought of the system is that land is absolutely necessary to
human life, progress and happiness, and
that the absolufe control of it of necessity
becomes  a  monopoly.   The value of this
monopoly depends mainly on the density
of population.   The source of income of
most  people  is  their  labor, but human
labor can only be applied to some product
of nature.    Life    itself    can   ""be   sustained only on the products of labor applied to land.   Whoever controls the land
controls the labor  of  those accessible to
that land, and also  controls   the  sources
from which  their  sustenance  is  drawn.
This is a comparatively new country with
a republican form of government, yet tbe
term "king" is strangely familiar to us—
the bonanza kings, who control the mining properties of the West; cattle kings,
who control the  grazing  grounds on the
plains; the oil kings, who own the Standard Company; coal barons, railroad magnates—all terms  which  imply sovereign
power.   In fact, no new force in nature ia
discovered that some  company does not
try  to   monopolize.    Behind   all  these
"kings" and "magnates," and the source
of their kingly power, will be found the
absolute control  of some force of nature
which we term land, and upon which life,
progress and happiness of the people depend.   This absolute dependence is shown
much more clearly on the great estates of
Europe,  among the  mines of our own
country, or in   the  great lumbering districts, than on the farms of Indiana.
The single tax theory makes this monopoly the sole source of revenues for the
State by taxing any and all privileges to
their full rental capacity; that ia, by letting out the privilege to man of applying
his labor to nature's products to the highest bidder.
It is a well-known fact that the value of
any franchise depends largely upon the
exclusive privileges it gives to its owner.
The Citizens' Street Car Franchise at Indianapolis is worth millions only because
no other company can use the streets of
Indianapolis for like purposes. Another
company Is offering the city a handsome
rental for the privilege which the present
company gets free. The single tax theory
would let this monopoly to the highest
bidder, and the proceeds would be a tax
for the benefit of the whole people. Manifestly under the present system, these
giant companies pay the people a very
small return in taxes compared to the
worth of their monopoly.
We are told on every hand, and even the
article referred to states, that many farm-
era are making no money, but are paying
an undue proportion of taxes. The single
tax theory would tax only those privileges which are remunerative in net returns above the current rate of wages,
since no one would bid for a privilege to
labor that would not pay as well as wage
earning. If farming pays no money over
wages the privilege would be worth nothing, and farmers would escape all taxa
tion. From this conclusion there Is no
escape and the editor took fright at a creature of his own fancy.
Of the great  mining  properties of the
West, the Homestake  mine  paid in net
profits during the past year ?5,O0O,000; the
Comstock mines since '59 have paid more
than J50,000,000 in net profits.   These are
only examples; others have been quite as
profitable.    It  is  well  known  that  the
monopoly of terminal  facilities for railroads in large cities becomes immensely
valuable.   Who can estimate the value of
the Illinois Central's terminus in Chicago
to-day; and what will it  be worth in 50
years from now?   The Union railway at
Indianapolis has  been  known to pay 80
per cent dividends per annum.   Who can
estimate the profits of  the Standard Oil
Company for the past 25  years?   Under
the present system these dividends go to
the fortunate owners while under the one
proposed by Henry  George  they would
accrue to the whole poople to whom they
rightfully belong.   It is this class of monopolists—those recognized everywhere  as
being extremely  profitable  and as being
the rankest tax dodgers under our present
system—that would suffer from a largely
increased taxation under the single tax.
This class of capitalists do not own agricultural properties because of the low rate
of profit.    The greatest inducement  to
capital to invest in  agricultural lands is
the safety of the investment, the monopoly
at present being absolute and perpetual.
Takeaway that security, by putting the
privilege np t.   public  competition and
thousands of acres, would lose their present rental value; for where  there are no
net profits above prevailing wage standard, no tax could be collected.   Men would
not risk life  to  secure  a  portion of the
Cherokee strip, for freo lands would everywhere become plentiful, or its equivalent,
the rate of profits would become, all things
considered, equal and everyone have equal
facilities.   It  would end tax dodging for
all natural privileges (and there is no way
to amass fortune  except  by  monopoly,
usury or gambling) would be open to competition to all alike.   No "Chicago Cable
King" could ever spend Jl,500,000 to build
a "lordly mansion."   If the editor can imagine anyone who could avoid his share of
taxation  aud remain  in  the productive
pursuits, he would have to imagine someone who could conceal his profits or who
could bo gain the affections of his fellow
men that no one would bid for his privilege.   .
It is accepted that our present system has
produced the millionaire" and the pauper;
that the vast wealth of certain citizens
threatens the perpetuity of our republican
institutions. This confession alone is suf
ficlent to condemn the present policy and
onght to give any reform system a respectful hearing. I recognize in the single tax
many objections, but increased taxation
for the farmer is not among them. The
Farmer, in ita editorial capacity, has stood
for au income tax to be placed on all large
fortunes as a check to their increase. Why
it should so strongly oppose a tax on the
sources of these fortunes is certainly
strange. Why not be willing to prevent,
as well as mitigate, what it has uniformly
regarded as an evil? R. W. M.
Clay Co.
—In the matter of street car aud other
franchises: Years ago they were given
away to boom the growth of towns, but
that period has long ago past in tile older
sections of the world, and these rights and
franchises are now sold. So the "single
tax theory" brings no new principle in
this matter.
The Standard Oil monopoly buys oil
and not land, and has little land to tax.
So after all the "single tax theory" (and it
will never pa«s beyond the theory stage),
has nothing in view but a land tax. The
writer of the foregoing evolves a brand
new idea in his definition of the purposes
of the "sirgle tax theory" in the very re
markable statement that -where "farming
pays no money over wages  the privilege
would  be  worth  nothing,  and  farmers
would escape all taxation."   That proposition is, in so many plain words, to put all
taxes on capability, good managementand
frugality.   Here is an  illustration  which
has its counterpart in every neighborhood
iu the United States, viz:   Mr. M. says
that on his 200 acres of land, at farming,
his net  income  is  above  12J4 per cent.
Across the road, and on a like farm, with
same quality of land, Mr. R. declares that
his income is less than 2 per cent. Mr. M. is
intelligent, a groat reader,  forecasts the
future in his calling, knows when to stock
up with cattle, hogs, Bheep, etc., and when
not to do so with some of them.   Sir. R.
don't keep posted in his affairs, and stocks
up with a class when he ought to drop it.
Mr. M. is an industrious, good manager
otherwise, while Mr. R. is slothful, without energy or capability,- but both have
deeds and pay taxes.   Now it is  proposed
to pay a premium on indolence and incapability by relieving tbe one and putting
the taxes on the other because "farming
pays" him and don't pay the other.   We
repeat that is a brand new idea, as a basis
for raising the revenues.   On such a basis
land would be the merest incident.   The
levy would not be on the land, but upon
the capabilities of the occupants of it.
And under this definition of the ever
varying and evenescent theory of a "single tax,", the same view applies to all
other industries, for in the same paragraph the writer naively says, "tax only
those privileges which are remunerative!"
There it is. The man capable of doing
this, pr that with profit is to be taxed, and
the slothful, and indolent is to be paternally cared for by the government, and
paid a premium for doing nothing; by
such exemption.
Whoever has read the history of the race
with any profit has been able to commend
the wonderful economy* having its source
and.sanction in God. "These are they who
have come through great tribulation," is a
philosophy with its applications touching
every angle of every  man who ever has
lived or ever will.   Whoever shows incapability, whoever falls behind in the race,
whoever has the same facilities, must pay
a share of the common burdens.   He is
not  condemned if  he uses  the talent the
best be can—only he that hides it in the
napkin is.   The  burden  is  for his  own
good.     Millions    upon  millions    have,
through experience and observation, profited by it, and pulled up to tne front. The
adjustments in nature and in government
are made for the masses of men, and are
not exceptional.   If the Allot life, were to
live, it might seem hard and singular, but
since this life isonly a speck in existence
the outcome may  not seem  so—does not.
Suppose we should undertake by human  toggery and  rules to differentiate,
classify men and their callings under this
Henry  George  moonshine:   Mr. A must
not follow   farming   because he cannot
make it "pay." B must not pursue a mer-
chantile calling, for he has  no  fitness to
make anytning out of it.   C is to be ruled
out of railroading,   because  that  "privilege" is not "remunerative" in his hands.
And so after the  wholo list is gone over
we would have   passed scores of must-
nots for millions of people, but would not
have discovered any place for them to live
andbefactors inthe world.   Thelands and
the railroads and the franchises and all
other material  things  would  have been
put in the hands  of the  most capable in
making "net returns.1'  And then unsanc-
tified humanity, with Its greed for power,
and with the influence of wealtbwould.be
able to show the world such a species of
abject slavery as *no civilization ever
looked upon. No legislature ever had the
temerity to offer a bill for a law fqr such a
system, and never will if his community
suspects that one will be, before the election.