.

The Rev. Dr. McGlynn, of St. Stephen's Church, took the stand after Mr. Swinton. Dr. McGlynn addressed the throng as "Ladies and Gentlemen," adding that he presumed that there must be working-women among them. He was glad to join in bidding Godspeed to Michael Davitt. He would make no apologies for being there, in spite of the length of his coat and his sacerdotal countenance. If anybody asked what the priest was doing there, anyhow, he would say that, being a priest, he did not lose his character as a man. [Applause.] A good priest ought to be a good man, and a great man. [Applause.] No cause could be worthy of the applause and sacrifices of men unless it was the cause of universal man. He was not ashamed to say he did not set up for a bloated aristocrat; and he would say, as there were enough there to keep the secret, that he was not much of a lover of bloated aristocrats. The fact that he was a priest was an additional reason why he should be there. The cause of suffering, martyred poor in Ireland was the cause of true religion. If there seemed to be a divorce between the Church and the masses, it was not the fault of the masses. Perhaps it would be better for the clergy to come a little oftener out of their pulpits and come a little nearer to the people to discover the cause of their complaint, and, if possible, to apply the remedy. [Applause long continued.] Christ himself was but an evicted peasant. He had complained that, though the foxes had holes, and the birds of the air nests, the Son of Man had not where to lay His head. Christ had come to teach the poorest man that He was all of a man, and the taskmaker that he, too, was only a man, bound to the duties of common humanity.

As to the land question, he would say, first, that the commandment that bore upon that question was, "Thou shalt not steal." But who was it doing the stealing? The landlords would say: "Do not dare to touch the pig that pays the rent." It would be a calamity if anything should befall the gentleman that pays the rent. [Laughter.] The poor people of Ireland had got to believe that they must pay the rent, even if, after they had paid the rent, they had to lie down and starve. But they had now come to believe that they might eat the pig themselves and throw the feet to the landlords. [Laughter.] The teachings of Davitt and Parnell were rapidly bringing the people to a knowledge of their rights. Was it possible that God could see without displeasure the state of affairs in Ireland? Such was not God's will, and men were not forbidden to curse such a system of iniquity. He claimed the right of human beings on this earth to so live that they might prepare themselves for a life hereafter. He asked the blessing of God on Michael Davitt and such as he who were fighting the battle of the people. He would not have Mr. Davitt explain his gospel, but to preach it. We might have the same problem to solve in this country, and the sooner we solve it the better. He stood on the same platform as Henry George and Bishop Nulty, of Meath. [Applause.] If he did not feel that he was standing on the eternal platform of eternal truth, liberty, and justice, he would not stand on that platform. As a Christian minister, he invoked the blessing of God upon Michael Davitt. The truth needed martyrs like him.

The Rev. Dr. McGlynn said that the more Irishmen the British Government put in jail the more effectual would the Irish movement become. Ireland would never gain anything from a sense of justice in the British Parliament. The only way was to excite British fears. The Englishman's heart was in his pocket, and if you attacked his pocket you attacked him in his most vital point. Dr. McGlynn had cordially approved of the "no-rent" manifesto from the beginning. The landlords never owned the lands, and, therefore, no rent could be due them. The non-payment of rent was justifiable on military principles. When a country was in a state of war or siege it was right to refuse supplies to the enemy. Ireland had been petitioning for centuries for the eighth of a loaf to eat, and had been turned away by the British Parliament. He advised Ireland to take the half loaf that was now offered by Parliament, and after that had been digested to sing out for the other half.

While there are some things contained in the above synopsis of Rev. Dr. McGlynn's remarks which will challenge the approval of every friend of poor, down-trodden, and long-suffering Ireland, there are, at the same time, other things which we cannot read without alarm, especially when we remember that they come as the utterances of a talented, eloquent, and influential priest of the Roman Catholic Church. Among other things, the reverend speaker is represented as declaring that "he stood on the same platform as Henry George and Bishop Nulty, of Meath."

Now, while there seems to be some differences of opinion as to the precise position occupied on the land question by the Bishop of Meath, there can be no doubt as to that of Mr. Henry George, unless he has changed ground quite recently. In his work entitled "Progress and Poverty," published about two years ago, he most clearly, explicitly, and with great force and ability announced his sentiments on the land question. And if the views and sentiments of Mr. Henry George, as set forth in this work, constitute his platform, and the same platform is endorsed by Rev. Dr. McGlynn, then we have only to read Mr. George's said work in order to learn Rev. Dr. McGlynn's position. Mr. George, in the volume referred to, boldly proclaims the doctrine that private property in land is unjust, and the five chapters of the seventh book of his work, as above entitled, are devoted to the task of maintaining this proposition. As a sample of the ultra-communistic doctrines set forth in Mr. George's platform, as expressed in his work, we here quote from page 305, where he says, "Though the sovereign people of the State of New York consent to the landed possessions of the Astors, the puniest infant that comes wailing into the world in the squalidest room of the most miserable tenement house becomes at that moment seized of an equal right with the millionaires. And it is robbed if that right is denied." In a footnote on the same page Mr. George calls this "a natural and inalienable right to the equal use and enjoyment of land." By way of supporting so startling a theory the author asks what it is that "constitutes the rightful basis of property? What is it that enables a man to justly say of a thing, 'It is mine?' From what springs the sentiment which acknowledges his exclusive right as against all the world? Is it not, primarily, the right of a man to himself, to the use of his own powers, to the enjoyment of the fruits of his own exertions? Is it not this individual right which springs from, and is testified to by, the natural facts of individual organization--the fact that each particular pair of hands obey a particular brain and are related to a particular stomach; the fact that each man is a definite, coherent, independent whole--which alone justifies individual ownership? As a man belongs to himself, so his labor, when put in a concrete form, belongs to him." For this reason, says Mr. George, "That which a man makes or produces is his own, as against all the world, to enjoy or to destroy, to use, to exchange, or to give. * * * * The pen with which I am writing is justly mine. No other being can rightfully lay claim to it, for in me is the title of the producers who made it. It has become mine, because transferred to me by the importer, who obtained the exclusive right to it by transfer from the manufacturer, in whom, by the same process of purchase, vested the rights of those who dug the material from the ground and shaped it into a pen. Thus my exclusive right of ownership in the pen springs from the natural right of the individual to the use of his own faculties."

We propose now to examine briefly the foundation whereon Mr. George rests his theory that there cannot justly be any private property in land; and we shall undertake the task of showing that in order to be logical, and to maintain a position in harmony with the fundamental proposition whereon rests his whole theory, it will be necessary to go still farther and deny that there is or can be any such thing as a title to private property vested in man, whether such property be land or anything else.

As we have just seen, Mr. George, as the basis of all property rights in man, asserts the proposition that "man belongs to himself," and that "therefore what he makes or produces," and only what he makes or produces, "is his own, as against all the world, to enjoy or destroy, to use, to exchange, or to give."

Now, it seems to us scarcely possible for any other writer to crowd so great a number of such gigantic fallacies into the same space as are contained in the foregoing propositions. In the first place we deny that "man belongs to himself," and that in order to make good our denial it is only necessary to invoke another proposition advanced by the same learned author. For example: On the very page where this self-ownership of man is so triumphantly asserted, it is further maintained that, because of man's ownership of himself, whatever he "makes or produces is his own." If, then, it is true that the making of a thing gives the maker title to the thing made, man unquestionably belongs, not to himself--unless it can be shown that he made himself--but to God, his creator. And upon this palpably false proposition rests Mr. George's whole theory. But even if this false proposition were true, and if it were admitted that man really owns himself, still, according to Mr. George's idea as to the mode, and the only mode, of acquiring title to property, such acquisition would be utterly impossible, for, as we have just seen, the only original mode of acquiring title to property, according to Mr. George, is to make or produce it. Now to make a thing, in its true and proper sense, means to create it. But man can create nothing. Not so much as one grain of sand. No, nor even so much as the very smallest invisible mote or atom of matter. But our author would say: "When I used the word 'make' I did not exactly mean to create, hence I coupled it with the word 'produce,' meaning, thereby, simply changing the form of some material substance. Such a change, for example, as the farmer brings about when he is instrumental in converting the earth's rich soil into corn, beans, and potatoes, or the lumberman and the mechanic when they fell the forest trees and convert them into houses, or the brick manufacturer when he works sand and clay into mortar and moulds them into brick. This, we presume, is the sense in which Mr. George intends to be understood when he uses the words "make or produce."

But here again the learned author's logic murders itself. On page 302 he maintains that "no one can be rightfully entitled to the ownership of anything which is not the produce of his labor, or the labor of some one else from whom the right has passed to him." And upon this ground he over and over again insists that there cannot justly be any such thing as private property in land, because no man can make or produce land. Now, who does not know that every tree and herb, every grain of corn, and every blade of grass that grows; every beast, every bird, and every insect is formed from, and, in fact, constitutes a part of the very substance and cream of the land? Now, if a man cannot make land, neither can he make that particular and most valuable ingredient in the land, which enters into the growth and forms, as we have just said, the very substance both of animal and vegetable matter. And if man does not and cannot own the land, of which these things are made, how is it possible for him to own the things themselves? Should a thief take a bar of silver to which he had no title, but which belonged to another, and melt and run it into coin or silver spoons, no honest judge in the world would say that the mere fact of his having expended his skill and labor upon this piece of stolen metal could possibly give him a title either to the coin or the spoons into which he had manufactured it. Neither does it seem any more possible to change the rightful ownership of the soil by converting it into porridge than it does to change the ownership of a silver bar by converting it into spoons with which to eat porridge. According to Mr. George's theory, if we understand it aright, the man who, with his hard and honestly earned money, purchases a field from one who holds a title, recognized as genuine by the solemn sanctions of his country's laws and the general consent of mankind, is, nevertheless, a robber if he denies that "the puniest infant that comes wailing into the world in the squalidest room of the most miserable tenement house becomes at that moment seized of an equal right" with himself. Nor do the monstrous conclusions of this strange logic even stop here. For, according to Mr. George, while the man who, under the solemn sanctions of law and with the general consent of mankind, invests his money in the purchase of land is a robber if he claims anything by virtue of his purchase, his neighbor, on the other hand, who neither invested a cent in said land nor inherited it from any one who has, and who, against the protest of the purchaser, in violation of the statutes of his country, and in defiance of the common judgment of mankind, would, by intrusion, take joint possession with such purchaser, and without consideration appropriate to his own use the soil which had been so purchased and enriched by another, would for so doing be worthy of all commendation as an honest and upright man! Truly, if this is not the robber's gospel we know not what is.

It seems to us that Mr. George's false conclusions as to what he calls the "injustice of private property in land" are at least partly due to his erroneous idea as to what really constitutes the highest human title to property and the exact nature and extent of such title. The kind or degree of title of which he seems to be speaking rests, as we have seen, upon the false assumption that man is the absolute owner of himself, and, consequently, that he is the absolute owner of whatever he makes or produces, (although he make it out of God Almighty's material), and that the character of this ownership is such as gives him the right, not only to use and enjoy as he pleases, but even to utterly destroy the thing owned. Such a title as this we hold none but God alone possesses, because it is not man, as claimed by Mr. George, but only God who owns himself; and, consequently, it is only God who can rightfully claim the absolute and ultimate title to himself and to the things he has made, no difference whether those things be in the shape of lands, or cattle, or of fruits, flowers, and fields of waving grain. Neither do we see how it is possible for either Mr. George or his reverend follower to escape these conclusions without either denying the existence of God, who made all things, or else repudiating his own premises wherein it is asserted as a fundamental proposition that he, and only he, who owns himself own also that which he has made.

If a man belongs absolutely to himself, then he is responsible only to himself for his dealings with himself; and whether, on the one hand, he live the life of a lazy, worthless sot, and die the horrible death of the suicide, or whether, on the other, he lead a sober, industrious, virtuous life, and then die a natural and honorable death--in either case he will have but exercised what Mr. George would call his inalienable right to do as he pleases with that which belongs to himself.

This brings us to a point where it will be in order to define what we understand to be the nature and extent of man's ownership in property, whether it be in the nature of lands or of goods and chattels.

In order to have a clear idea of the nature and limits of man's title to property we must constantly bear in mind the fact, as already suggested, that man did not make himself, but that he was made by another, and consequently, that he does not belong to himself, but that he belongs to another. That his entire physical, mental, and moral self; his body, with its flesh and blood, and bone and marrow; its very muscle, fibre, and atom of matter, from the very tip of his hair to the end of his little toe-nail; his soul, with its will, memory, and understanding; and, in fact, every faculty which it is possible for him to use, either in the acquisition of knowledge or the accumulation of worldly wealth, are all the absolute property of his Creator. That the earth, the air, and the ocean, with all their teeming wealth of animate and inanimate things, are also the property of Him who created them. Therefore whatever title man has acquired, or can acquire, to any species of property, whether it be land or personal chattels, must of necessity be from God, the only true owner, and subject at all times to His supreme will and control. That man has a genuine but subordinate title to the earth and the ocean, with all their varies productions, is manifest not only from the testimony of natural reason, but also from the words of holy writ, for in the first chapter of Genesis it is written that God said: "Let us make man to our own image and likeness; and let him have dominion over the fishes of the sea, and the fowls of the air, and the beasts, and the whole earth, and every creeping creature that moveth upon the earth." Here, then, is the source of man's title, not only to his personal goods and chattels, but to his landed estates as well. For it will be observed from the language just quoted that man's "dominion" was not to be limited to the "fishes of the sea, and the fowls of the air, and the beasts," but was to be extended to "the whole earth," as well as to "every creeping thing that moveth upon the earth." Here, then, is man's title-deed, through which he traces back to his Lord and Maker his right to property, both real and personal.

It may be that Mr. George denies the genuineness of our title-deed, but we presume the reverend New York convert to Mr. George's platform, with whom we are partly dealing, will not join in that denial.

We have said that man's title to property, both real and personal, is but a subordinate and qualified one, subject at all times to the superior and ultimate title of the Creator, and of this fact we must not lose sight. In order that we may the more certainly keep this fact steadily in view, let us inquire a little more closely into the reason for this limitation upon man's title to property. No intelligent being has ever yet knowingly and designedly put into shape anything without a purpose. And the Almighty, being infinitely wise, has neither made nor done anything without an infinitely wise purpose. And being infinitely good, He has neither made nor done anything without an infinitely good purpose. Hence we are led to conclude that when He made the earth, the air, and the ocean, with all their elements of material wealth, He must have made them for an infinitely wise and an infinitely good purpose. Consequently, when He gave to man dominion over all these things it must have been His will that he use them in a manner to correspond with the objects for which they were made. But what was the Almighty's object in creating these elements of worldly wealth of which we are speaking? Was it not to promote His own honor and glory, and at the same time to supply man's proper physical, mental, and moral wants, and thereby contribute to his happiness?

The gift by the Almighty to man of dominion over the earthly creation was of course a gift in common, whereby every human being was allowed to draw from this common and abundant heritage, and appropriate to his own use such articles--not previously appropriated--as were suited to his necessities, tastes, and lawful desires. And when men began this process of individual appropriation, then and there began the origin and history of private property, without the necessity of man's having to make an article as for the only test of his rightful ownership. The man who first found a wild turkey's nest, a swarm of bees, or a precious stone upon unclaimed land, did not make either the bees, the turkey eggs, or the precious stone; and yet, if he chose to have it so, they became his property by the mere act of appropriation. If the learned author of "Progress and Poverty" were to go into a wild forest, and cut the timer and saw the lumber with which to build him a house, he would doubtless say that the house, when built, was his, because he made it. But was not the material his even before he built the house? And yet he did not make the material. If, after he had selected his lumber tree, and was on the ground ready for work, clearly indicating his purpose--even before his axe had pierced the outer bark--some later claimant had made his appearance and objected to his cutting the tree, would he not have said, "Sir, this is my tree!" But according to Mr. George's theory, by what right could he have claimed that it was his tree? For surely he had not made the tree, any more than he had made the land whereon the tree had grown. Hence, we claim that Mr. George is in error when he assumes that it is impossible for man justly to have private property in a thing which was not made or produced either by himself or by some other person, vis., some other human being, whose title he holds. And it is upon this erroneous assumption that our author denies the justice of private property in land; that is to say, because man did not make the land. But if it is true that, by the simple act of appropriation, man can become the rightful owner of a nest of turkey eggs, a swarm of bees, a precious stone, or a timber tree, which neither he nor any human being whose title he claims ever made or produced, then upon what principle can it be said that, by a similar act of appropriation, man cannot justly acquire private property in land not previously appropriated?

It must be borne in mind, however, that man's title to property, whether in land or in movables, and whether held in community or in severalty, is a qualified and limited title in the nature of a trust, coupled with an obligation to so use such property as to subserve the end for which it was created, namely: the honor of God and the welfare of man. Therefore, it is not true, as held by Mr. George, that man holds, or can hold, even what he calls his own property, by such an absolute title as to give him ipso facto a right to destroy that property. To show, by a simple illustration, how monstrous is the doctrine here asserted by our author, let us suppose the case of a very wealthy man, who counts his money by the millions of dollars. He neither owns nor claims to own a foot of land, and his money has all come to him through what Mr. George would call just and legitimate channels. To make the matter clear, we will suppose that he has dug every dollar of it with his own pick and shovel out of the rich placers of California. No sooner has he amassed this immense fortune than he learns that a most deadly plague has simultaneously attacked the people of New York, Boston, Philadelphia, Charleston, Savannah, Baltimore, Cincinnati, St. Louis, Chicago, Louisville, New Orleans, and San Francisco, and is rapidly spreading to all the neighboring towns and cities, and even into the homes of the rural districts. He has further learned that one and only one remedy has been found for this dreadful destroyer of his race, and that remedy in quinine. With the quickness of thought a gigantic project is resolved upon, and in the execution of this project he immediately telegraphs to every druggist in the United States, purchasing, at whatever cost, all the quinine in the country. This quinine he causes to be shipped to New York, and there securely stored in an iron warehouse. Owing to this complete monopoly of the only medicine that could cure the plague, death is mowing down men, women, and children by tens and even hundreds of thousands per day. By the use of quinine every patient could be cured; without it not one can live. Our millionaire is besieged with applications for the precious drug. But all to no purpose. First one thousand, then five, then ten thousand dollars per ounce are proffered. And while the wealthy ply him with offers of money, the poor, in the name of God and humanity, beseech and implore, on bended knees and with tearful eyes, for just enough medicine to save a parishing daughter, a stricken son, a dying wife, or an expiring mother. But no! Neither for the love of money nor in the name of sweet charity will he let go so much as one solitary atom of his hoarded medicine, and, finally, in the exercise of what Mr. George claims to be his undoubted right (to either "enjoy or destroy" his own property) he causes this entire stock to be dumped into the ocean, leaving millions of his countrymen to perish who could and would have been saved if such a wretch as he had never been born. Yet, according to the ethics of Mr. Henry George's platform, this diabolical act of wholesale murder would be but the exercise of a man's right to do as he pleases with his own property. As for ourselves, we plead guilty to such a degree of obtuseness in our moral vision that we cannot possibly distinguish the difference between the guilt of the monster who would expend his money in the purchase of poison for the wanton destruction of human life and that other monster who, when the fatal poison of a raging pestilence was doing its work of death, would use his money for the purchase and destruction of the only antidote which could save the lives of the infected.

Or, take another illustration: If a man has a right to do as he pleases with the property which Mr. George would call his own, because his labor has earned it, then who can censure the drunken husband and father who, on every Saturday night, squanders his week's wages for whiskey, while the wife of his bosom and the children of his loins are left naked and hungry, to shiver with cold and to die of starvation? And if this theory of Mr. George's which holds that the lawful owners of personal property have a right to do with it as they please, is a true one, it furnishes a complete justification for all the outrages that were ever practiced upon poor suffering humanity by any and every species of monopolists--except land monopolists--from the morning of creation down to the present moment, provided, only, that such monopolists acquired their wealth either by producing it or else by securing to themselves the title of the producers. According to this doctrine, the man of money may buy up all the food within a thousand miles of his plethoric storehouses, and thus force provisions up to starvation prices, spreading famine, starvation, and death amongst the poor, and yet do nothing but what a man may rightfully do with his own property.

The solemn truth is that man does not, never did, and never can own property in the absolute sense in which Mr. George seems to understand the word "ownership." It is only the Almighty, we repeat, who does or can own property in that absolute sense; and when He entrusted man with dominion over His property He never authorized him to use it for any purpose antagonistic to the great object for which He created it. When Dives refused to allow poor Lazarus to eat the crumbs that fell from his table he did exactly what Mr. George claims he had a right to do, because these were the crumbs of Dives, and Mr. George says a man has a right to do as he pleases with his own property. And yet, because Dives, like our New York divine, chose to stand upon Mr. Henry George's platform, the Scripture assures us that when he died he was burned in hell.

No, it is not true that man has a right to use even the productions of his own hands as he pleases, unless he should please to use them in accordance with the great law of justice and charity; in other words, unless he please to use them for the honor and the glory of the Almighty Giver and the good of man--for man simply holds property in trust, and it is only thus that he can execute that trust. It is true that along with this trust comes the right to the personal use of so much of the trust-fund as is proper to gratify the possessor's lawful desires and to contribute to his individual legitimate comfort, as well as the comfort of those depending upon him, but the "crumbs" that fall from his table, namely, wealth not needed for other purposes, should not be withheld from the hungry, the naked, and the homeless. He is the Almighty's almoner, and is, therefore, morally a criminal if he wastes his Master's substance and leaves the poor to perish.

We do not say that the rich man should recklessly distribute all his surplus wealth indiscriminately amongst his needy neighbors, leaving himself no surplus capital with which to accumulate more. Not at all; for this would be like turning a lot of thoughtless, hungry children into the buttery, where they would soon eat themselves sick and waste more than they would eat. But the truly charitable man should not fail to hold the reins of prudence over his liberality. We hold that every man has, primarily, a moral right to the free use and enjoyment of so much property as he can honestly acquire, either by appropriation, by labor, by inheritance, by purchase, or by exchange, whether in lands or personal chattels.

When we speak of honestly acquiring property, we mean acquiring it in such manner as does not interfere with the vested rights of others.

Enough has already been said to show that he who would overturn all human title to land, upon the ground that man did not make the land, need not be long in finding an equally plausible reason for denying likewise all title to personal property. Because, as already remarked, man did not make the material which enters into and constitutes the very substance of all kinds of personal property. And if, as claimed by Mr. George, the man who, with the highest sanction of human law, enters upon and appropriates to himself a piece of hitherto unappropriated land, clears the dense forests, cuts away the roots, plows the ground, plants him an orchard, builds him a house, and digs him a well, acquires no title to the land because he did not make it, then may it not, with at least equal justice, be contended that the man who, under the sanction of the same human law, digs down into the bowels of the earth and draws forth coal or iron, or copper or silver, or gold or precious stones, has no title and can convey no title to any of these things, because, forsooth, he did not make them? And would not the same kind of logic serve equally well to prove an industrious, thrifty farmer to be a heartless robber, who would deny to his indolent neighbors an equal right with himself to take and eat the corn from his crib and the bacon from his meat-house, because these articles of food were drawn from and are, in fact, a part of the substance of the land?

We are fully aware that Mr. George does not yet carry his doctrines to the extent of denying the justice of man's title to personal property, but what we maintain is, that the logic of these doctrines, if followed to its legitimate conclusion, would of necessity lead to that result. Let Mr. George's premises be generally accepted and it will not be long before some more logical communist than he, building upon the foundation which he has laid, will readily reach the climax just indicated.

Mr. George's communistic theories would be far less dangerous in this country were it not for the fact that so much as been and is daily being done by the American people to prepare the public mind for their favorable and logical acceptance. When the doctrine is boldly proclaimed that every child born into the world may demand, not simply as a charity due to the poor, but as a right due to all, that he be educated at the public expense, there can be no logical denial of the fact that the general acceptance of such a doctrine is the practical acceptance of a communism even broader and more sweeping in its grasp than that contended for by the author of "Progress and Poverty."

If, as maintained by Blackstone, and Kent, and Wayland, and every other standard author on either law or morals, it is the natural duty of parents to "feed, to clothe, and to educate" their own children; in other words, if parents are under the very same obligation to supply their own children with a proper education that they are to supply them with proper victuals and clothes, is it not just as communistic to take one man's money with which to educate the children of another, when that other is in duty bound to educate them himself, as it would be to take the same man's money with which to feed and clothe the same children?

"Communism," as defined by Webster, means "the doctrine of a community of property, or the negation of individual rights in property." Now, if the man who has earned, or otherwise lawfully acquired, property has no individual right thereto as against his neighbors who desire to use it for the education of their children, why may not these same neighbors with equal justice declare that he has no individual right to the same property against those who choose to take it for the feeding and clothing of their children? And if they may rightfully communize--so to speak--his property for the feeding and clothing of their children, why may they not with like justice "communize" the same property for the feeding and clothing of themselves? In fact, if it is just and right to force the whole people to put their private property into a common fund in order to supply the educational wants of children which the natural law requires their fathers and mothers to supply at their individual expense, we can see no logical reason why the whole people might not justly and rightfully be forced to put their individual property into a like common fund in order to supply any other want which the natural law requires each member of society to supply for himself. We are not now denying the propriety or the justice of levying a tax to pay, to a certain extent, for the education of children whose parents are unable to educate them. That is undoubtedly justifiable upon the same grounds upon which we would justify the furnishing of both children and parents with victuals and clothes at public expense whenever their necessities were such as to render them objects of public charity. But the levy of a public-school tax for the education of all the children in the State, rich as well as poor, rests upon no such foundation. The levy of this communistic public-school tax for the maintenance of schools instituted for all the children is, by the advocates of the system, sometimes likened to the levy of a public-road tax, or a tax for the support of the Government. But the cases are by no means parallel, as a moment's reflection will show. To construct or to take care of a public road is in no proper sense a private duty. If it were, we could no more rightfully shift that private duty on to the public shoulders than any other private duty. If the road to be built or repaired, instead of being a public road, were a private one with the proprietor's own enclosure, where is there an honest man whose sense of justice would not revolt at the idea of taxing the public to pay for the construction or repair of such a road? As for the man whose domestic relations are of so unsatisfactory a character that he is unable to claim any individual rights in the children which he calls his, other than such as he may properly accord to his neighbors, we can see no injustice in his demanding that those neighbors assist him in supplying such children with the means of an education. But whoever, when looking upon a child of his household with the faith and confidence of one who has never for a moment distrusted the fidelity of its mother, can say with unfaltering faith, "This, indeed, is my child!" ought never, never, to repudiate the high, the holy, and the God-imposed obligation of educating such child. Indeed, according to our humble way of thinking, there is no kind or degree of communism so utterly revolting as that which, for educational purposes, virtually asserts a community of title, not only to the property, but also to the children of the private citizen. Yet, this, unfortunately, is the communism of America; a communism having for its main trunk an educational system the most ruinously expensive and the most demoralizing that the world ever saw. A communism whose poisonous roots have spread far and wide, and struck deep down into the soil of American literature, American politics, and, we may say, American religion.

Millions of American children, of all creeds, classes, and conditions, daily gather beneath the wide-spreading branches and inhale the poisonous odors of this deadly upas. Tens of thousands of these little ones die annually from diseases contracted in its overcrowded and tainted atmosphere, while hundreds of thousands meet a moral death ten thousand times worse for themselves, their parents, and their country than the physical death which consigns its victims to an untimely grave. These children, as a rule, grow to manhood and womanhood without any proper knowledge of the duties which they owe to their fathers and mothers, to their country or their God. About the only thing which they are taught touching the rights of property is, that every child born into the world is entitled to an education at the expense of the community, which, as we have seen, is the very quintessence of the logic of communism. Under these circumstances, with the whole educating power of the country enlisted in the work of inculcating into the minds of American youth both the doctrines and practices of communism, and the whole political power of both State and Federal Governments backing the movement, how long will it be before the morally depraved and penniless portion of Young America, with the sword in one hand and the torch in the other, will demand of the wealthy an equal share of their worldly goods, and, in the language of Mr. George, will call it "robbery" if their demand be denied?

And when this anti-parental, Godless, and communistic training, which so many millions of American children are now receiving, shall have matured its legitimate fruits of violence and blood and plunder, whither shall the guilty authors and architects of ruin--the uncompromising friends and advocates of this kind of training--find protection, either for their liberty, their lives, or their material wealth? Will they invoke the shield of the law? Alas! they will find, to their bitter sorrow, that those whom they have taught to despise parental authority, and to ignore both God and His commandments, will respect no law but that of their own unbridled appetites. Will they rely for protection upon physical force? Unfortunately for them the physical force will be upon the other side. When, therefore, the evil day shall come, let not the man of means--who now boastfully pours out his money like water in order to indoctrinate the rising generation in the false and dangerous principles of communism--shrink from the logical results of his own blind folly. Today he sows the wind; tomorrow let him prepare to reap the whirlwind.

Mr. Henry George draws a frightful and, undoubtedly in the main, a very truthful picture of the poverty, misery, and degradation which have been, and are being, brought about by the improper use of large fortunes, whereby the poor are daily becoming poorer and the rich richer. This, however, is not the necessary result of accumulated wealth, but arises, first, from the dishonest and even diabolical means resorted to for its procurement; and next, from the mean, sordid, selfish, and criminal uses for which it is employed by those who hold with Mr. George that they have a right to do as they please with their own property.

Great worldly wealth, whether in land or money, just like great worldly learning, like steam, electricity, and the printing-press, is a great power either for good or evil, depending mainly for its good or bad fruits upon the good or bad purposes for which it is used, and the purposes for which it is used depend chiefly upon the good or bad qualities of the man by whom it is used. For the bad use and the consequent evil results to society from each and all of these mighty engines of power, whether they be in the shape of worldly wealth, worldly wisdom, or anything else, we know of but one effectual remedy, and that is to make more just, more charitable, and, in a word, more virtuous those who in future are destined to guide and control them. To this end every lover of his country and his race should arouse himself to a realizing sense of the great and overshadowing importance of properly educating and training up in the paths of virtue those who will soon have it in their power to either lift the nations into a loftier and purer atmosphere of truth, justice, religion, humanity, and fraternal love, or to plunge them into still deeper, darker, and fouler depths of crime, misery , and hopeless ruin. The very first lesson we should teach our children is, that man does not belong to himself but to his Creator; that he is as much the absolute property of his Maker as is the planet upon which he lives; that in the vast economy of God's eternity each individual man is of far more value than the mightiest orb that rolls in space; that his superior value over that of the material universe is not found in the superior quality of the clay of which his body is formed, but in his noble attributes of soul, which distinguish him as an immortal child of God and an heir to everlasting happiness. He should be taught that worldly wealth, like worldly wisdom, is only truly valuable in proportion as it aids us in our journey from this land of misery, sin, sorrow, and death to our true country, and that it can only so aid us when used in the manner which its Great Author had in view in creating it; and that unless properly used it becomes not a help but a positive hindrance to man's happiness both here and hereafter. But how is it possible for our children to learn in what manner their Maker would have them use property unless they first learn what is that Maker's will as regards themselves, and the duties which they owe both to Him and to their fellow-man? In other words, unless they learn, both in theory and in practice, so far as the same may be applicable to themselves, the great law of morality and religion which God has given to man for his government.

Without this knowledge, which is absolutely essential to enable them to make a proper use both of their worldly wisdom and worldly wealth, neither the one nor the other can be anything else than a source of danger and disaster both to themselves and to society.

He who, in the midst of his family, would place in the hands of his little child a Colt's revolver, both loaded and cocked, without first teaching him how to use and how not to use it, could only be regarded as either crazy or criminally foolish; for he would be imperiling not only the life of his child, but that of every one within reach of his pistol. Like unto him is the father who would store the mind of his child with worldly knowledge, or lavish upon him heaps of worldly wealth, without teaching him the law which God has given him for his guidance in the use of that knowledge or that wealth. And yet is not this precisely what the great body of American people, of all parties, creeds, and conditions, are doing today, both as regards their worldly knowledge and their worldly wealth? Is it not a fact that the great body of American people, while engaged, as it were, in a death struggle to grow rich and to leave their children rich, and while expending about $1000,000,000.00 annually in order to cram the minds of these children with worldly knowledge, are at the same time not only taking no pains to instruct these little ones, or to cause them to be instructed, in the use which they ought and are in conscience bound to make both of their learning and their wealth, but are absolutely closing every avenue through which it is possible for them to receive such instruction? To fathers and mothers has the Almighty entrusted the sacred duty of teaching their little ones, or causing them to be taught, the great moral and religious truths which should always constitute their role of action in their dealings both with God and their fellow-men. Then how lamentable is the fact that, instead of discharging this most sacred duty, vast multitudes of parents, of all creeds and classes, seem virtually to have conspired against God, against their children, and against society by denying those children, through the medium of an anti-parental and Godless education, that very knowledge without which they can neither be true to themselves, to their country, nor their God?

We sincerely believe that moral and religious training are necessary for a child in order that it may know the proper use to make of this world's goods and this world's wisdom, but we hold that, amidst conflicting creeds and opinions on religious questions, it is not for the public but for the parental conscience to direct and control, by the aid of the best lights before it, the religious education of the child. And it is not for the public but the parental purse to pay for that education. We hold it to be a violation of religious liberty to force a man to pay for teaching a religion against which his conscience revolts, as well as it is to force him to accept such teachings for his children. But under our existing educational system moral and religious teachings are as utterly impossible, without doing violence to someone's conscience, as they would be in a law-established church. Hence, the language of the 7th proposition of our platform is so framed as to recognize the propriety and the liberty of imparting to children moral and religious education without cost to the public, and upon a basis objectionable to the conscience of none.

While we adhere to the proposition that religious education is essential both for the welfare of the child and the good of the State, yet we would not have the public to force such education on any child against the conscientious objection of its parents, because it is not the public but the parent that is the God-appointed guardian of the child; and hence, it is not the public, but the parental, conscience that must answer for any neglect to discharge the duties of so sacred a trust. Direful as may be the result of allowing multitudes of children to grow up in the community with no knowledge of God or His holy law, yet it would be infinitely worse to allow the political State to domineer over the consciences of its citizens. Moreover, it is undoubtedly true that, while oppressive laws sometimes make hypocrites, they never make men truly religious. While we would allow even the infidel to educate his own children in his own way, for a still stronger reason we would desire that religionists of all creeds should enjoy a like privilege, for we regard almost any sort of religion which is sincerely professed, however erroneous in itself, as furnishing some sort of safeguard to society such as cannot be found in the utter skepticism of the atheist. Moreover, the faint and almost imperceptible glimmerings of religious truth which penetrate the dark caverns of the most erroneous of creeds, if followed faithfully, may serve to lead the honest searches for light into the full blaze of open day. Hence we can see no reason for any division or even for the least discord amongst the friends of educational liberty and reform. Even the confirmed atheist, in standing upon our platform, will find himself at liberty, without molestation from man, to indulge his dark dreams of annihilation and despair, and to pour into the startled ear of his own child the gloomy forebodings which blacken and make desolate the dreary landscape of his own deluded soul. But he must leave to his neighbors at least the poor privilege of believing what he proclaims himself unable to believe, and of pointing out to their little ones the path of duty as the path which leads to a better land, where, free from death, and sin, and sorrow, they may bask in the bright sunshine of an eternal day.

We sincerely believe, in the very depths of our soul, that the only lasting and effective cure for the crying wrongs with which greedy monopolists, heartless tyrants, and unprincipled politicians are scourging our country, and the only preventative against the still more direful disaster with which we are threatened at the hands of communistic demagogues, is to be found in a more widely spread and deeper moral and religious sentiment among the people. And it is our earnest conviction that, in order to implant this sentiment in the minds and hearts of our people, we require more of our Savior's gospel and less of Mr. Henry George's.