fact that no man is self-made. Even the infant has a store of wealth in its brain and it is ever aided by hereditary influences which always help it to a higher development. No man is selfmade. Society makes him what he is. The individual is completely overshadowed by the state, yet we are taught that the principle of liberty is individualism. The Single Tax is individualistic. It provides nothing which shall subordinate the individual to the power of the state. It proposes to give the government less power, not more. It recognizes the fact that a large proportion of everything the individual possesses he has only obtained through the opportunity offered by society.

Suppose a man goes west and purchases a tract of land where he thinks a town may be laid out some day. The town comes in course of time and while this man actually produces no value he pockets the difference, or what we term "the unearned increment." We hold that this unearned increment should go to the persons who made it and not to the individual.

When the North defeated the South in the late war it did only half what it should have done. It simply liberated the " slaves but provided them nothing wherewith to maintain themselves. Finally the negroes were forced to go to their former masters and make terms with them to work for their board. This state of affairs is still in existence in many places and it has been like the blight of the South and of the negroes. A few of the more progressive land holders seeing the cause of the stagnation wanted to give one-half their land for foreign immigrants to come and settle upon but most of the holders refused to do this, so while the North and West have been growing the South has languished.

Now are these social conditions of to-day what they should be? I do not blame those who are growing rich under our present laws for they are simply taking advantage of existing conditions. But this is a serious condition. The question is not whether labor is being starved but are all our classes getting their just dues? Until this is so we never will be satisfied. Consider this question deeply: Is a form of taxation

based on a necessity of existence not equitable and just?

MR. JOHNSON's remarks were somewhat abbreviated as he had to catch a train. The subject was continued however by G. H. STEPHENS, of Philadelphia.

If there are any here this afternoon who will oppose the Single Tax, and I hope for the sake of argument that there may be, I wish to say that in taking their positions they will first of all deny the principle that we are all God's children; also they must show that one man has a better right to the earth than any other man.

those who will have

I think the moral side of a question is always the best side. While we may not always know what is expedient under certain circumstances yet we always do know what is right. We advocates of the Single Tax believe that the land belongs to all of us, but we don't propose to divide it up giving a portion to each one. We propose to do as a number of persons would do if they jointly owned a race horse, that is put it to the best use and divide the results. We propose to abolish the traffic. Surely no farmer here believes in the exploded fallacies of the tariff. We propose to abolish the internal revenue. We will have no tax on rum. By this step we hope to give rum a far purer drink than they have today. We propose to abolish tax on houses, stock, improvements and in fact on everything produced by labor. Farmers will pay a tax on their land according to its value without considering the improvements. This system will abolish all speculation in land. The man who has unimproved land will pay the same tax as the man who owns equally valuable improved land. The result of this will be that land speculators will soon find it unprofitable to hold their land and will commence to improve it. This will make work for mechanics and this state of affairs being in existence all over the country, two jobs will be looking for one man instead of at present when two men are looking for one job. The consequence of this will naturally be increased wages, a like opportunity for which never before existed.

I built a house on land near Philadelphia and now pay

$66 tax where I formerly paid $6. My next neighbor who owns a lot similar to mine but who did not build a house still pays $6. His lot goes up in price about $1000 every time a new house is built in the vicinity. This is not as it should be for it is putting a premium on idleness and a tax on industry.

We believe that underlying the single tax is a great moral principle. It is this, that every child who comes into the world has just as much right to the land as any other child. We should not ask "how will it effect me?" but "is it right and just." The best evidence on these points is to look around and see the proofs for yourselves. One hundred years ago there were no tramps and no millionaires. There is something constantly separating these classes. As long as there is one man looking for work in America there is something socially wrong. Just as long as the system of landlordism continues, so long will the rich continue to grow richer at the expense of the poor growing poorer.

HENRY S. KENT: Suppose the tax levied on the land should prove insufficient. What would you do in this case?

"The government would have no right to spend more than it earned," replied the speaker. This question reminds me of a young man who told me that while his salary was sufficient for his expenses it was not as much as he should like to spend. "That is all you earn?" "Yes" "And you can't get more?" "No," "Then that is all that you have a right to spend." But as a matter of fact this tax would prove more than sufficient for government expenses.

We tax land only, not improvements, all values are divided into land and labor values and the highest principle of morals is that a man has a right to the products of his own labor. The value of a railroad is the value of the land and of the labor and material placed upon it. Railroads would pay just the same as any other land owner. This is the reason they so

bitterly oppose the single tax idea.

Now while the Single Tax might not be beneficial to some it would be to the majority, and we hold that what is best for all of us is best for each particular one.

The hour for adjournment had more than passed but a motion of SAMUEL PENNOCK extending the time until 5 o'clock was carried.

CARROL HAYES, West Chester: The Single Tax idea as explained is that a man must give to the community all increase in the value of his land resulting through that community. Now how would it be if a community moved away from a place and the land consequently decreased in value? Should the owner be remunerated for this loss? You might say, that what was lost there would be gained in another place, but suppose the community scattered and the value was permanently lost. What then would be the result?

AS MR. STEPHENS had gone to catch a train the question could not be answered.

J. WILLIAMS THORNE: I cannot separate the land and labor values. The results of labor on land must determine its value. Suppose I have a piece of land covered with rocks and expend $100 in removing those rocks. Am I then to be taxed for that extra $100, the increased value of my land? Labor does increase the value of the earth and we cannot separate the two values.

HENRY S. KENT moved that this question be also laid over for consideration at the next annual meeting. The motion was unanimously carried.

The meeting then adjourned until 10.30 o'clock, First-day morning.

FIRST-DAY, Morning Session.

The morning proved to be a beautiful one and there was a large attendance. Services were conducted by MR. HINCKLEY, the theme of his discourse being, "The Cost of the Divine Spark."

The noon intermission was as usual spent most pleasantly in lunching under the cool trees adjacent to the meeting house, and afterwards in conversation and walking through the cemetery.

FIRST-DAY,-Afternoon Session.

After a song by the audience, MISS MARY F. EASTMAN, delivered the following address on Immortality.

IMMORTALITY.

For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality.

So when this corruptible shall have put on incorruption, and this mortal shall have put on immortality, then shall be brought to pass the saying that is written, Death is swallowed up in victory.-1 Cor. xv., 53, 54.

On the Roman coins of the time of the consuls, their god Janus, from whom we name the opening month of our year, is represented with a staff in his hand, as if walking, and with two faces, one looking forward, the other back.

If we sought a symbol of our interior selves, we should find it here. Mentally, we are all Janus-faced; for while we seize our staff, or hammer, or chisel, or needle, and ply the work of the hour, we turn our eyes backward, surrendering reluctantly the moment that is passing, and forward questioningly, eagerly asking what the future has in store.

I have in my life known one person of spiritual mind, and one only, who seemed to have buried the conscious past, and living in the present, striving to do as best he might a work for humanity, asked nothing of the future. But with most of us it is otherwise. Yesterday, with its blunders, its failures, its shortcomings, drags at our skirts, rides on our shoulders like an old man of the sea, and will not be shaken off, and too often winds its black veil of regret, perchance of remorse, around our eyes, dimming the glories of earth and sky; while to-morrow, a veiled enchantress, beckons us beguilingly forward with the promise of gifts of which we dream, but do not know.

We never ride so fast or so far as on the wings of imagination, for only so can we reach back to solve the question "whence," or forward to the problem "whither." Only so do we strive to grasp the mysteries of origin and destiny.

Yet, mighty as these problems are, we cannot go far