Land Value Taxation will solve many of the 21st century's most serious social, economic and environmental problems, and promote justice, fairness and sustainability. We CAN have a world in which all can prosper.
Progress and Poverty, by Henry George Here are links to online editions of George's landmark book, Progress & Poverty, including audio and a number of abridgments -- the shortest is 30 words! I commend this book to your attention, if you are concerned about economic justice, poverty, sprawl, energy use, pollution, wages, housing affordability. Its observations will change how you approach all these problems. A mind-opening experience!
Henry George: Progress and Poverty: An inquiry into the cause of industrial depressions and of increase of want with increase of wealth ... The Remedy This is perhaps the most important book ever written on the subjects of poverty, political economy, how we might live together in a society dedicated to the ideals Americans claim to believe are self-evident. It will provide you new lenses through which to view many of our most serious problems and how we might go about solving them: poverty, sprawl, long commutes, despoilation of the environment, housing affordability, wealth concentration, income concentration, concentration of power, low wages, etc. Read it online, or in hardcopy.
Bob Drake's abridgement of Henry George's original: Progress and Poverty: Why There Are Recessions and Poverty Amid Plenty -- And What To Do About It! This is a very readable thought-by-thought updating of Henry George's longer book, written in the language of a newsweekly. A fine way to get to know Henry George's ideas. Available online at progressandpoverty.org and http://www.henrygeorge.org/pcontents.htm
Where Else Might You Look?
Wealth and Want The URL comes from the subtitle to Progress & Poverty -- and the goal is widely shared prosperity in the 21st century. How do we get there from here? A roadmap and a reference source.
Reforming the Property Tax for the Common Good I'm a tax reform activist who seeks to promote fairness and reduce poverty. Let's start with the enabling legislation and state requirements for the property tax. There are opportunities for great good!
But if Egyptian civilization had its victims, it had also its
favorites. . . . There stood . . . that upper class . .
. owners of a large portion of the soil, and so possessed of
hereditary wealth, one which seemed born to enjoy existence and
"consume the fruits" of other men's toil and industry.
— GEORGE RAWLINSON, History of
Ancient Egypt, Vol. I., Chap. II., p. 533.
Equity, therefore, does not permit property in land. For if
one portion of the earth's surface may justly become the
possession of an individual and may be held by him for his sole use
and benefit as a thing to which he has an exclusive right, then
other portions of the earth's surface may be so held; and eventually
the whole of the earth's surface may be so held; and our planet may
thus lapse into private hands.
— HERBERT SPENCER, in 1850, Social
Statics, Chap. IX.
That any human being should dare to apply to another the epithet
"pauper" is, to me, the greatest, the vilest, the most unpardonable
crime that could be committed. Each human being by mere birth
has a birthright in this earth and all its productions; and if they
do not receive it, then it is they who are injured, and it is not
the "pauper," oh, inexpressibly wicked word! — it is the well-to-do
who are the criminal classes.
— RICHARD JEFFERIES, The Story of
My Heart, Chap. X., p. 122.
Land is not, and cannot be, property in the sense in which movable
things are property. Every human being born into this planet
must live upon the land if he lives at all. He did not ask to
be born, and, being born, room must be found for him. The land in
any country is really the property of the nation which occupies it.
— J. A. FROUDE, Ireland,
Nineteenth Century, September, 1880, p. 362.
We occupy an island, on which we live by the fruits of our labor; a shipwrecked sailor is cast up on it; what is his right? May he say: "I, too, am a man; I, too, have a natural right to cultivate the soil. I may, therefore, on the same title as you, occupy a corner of the land to support myself by my labor?"
— EMILE DE LAVELEYE, Primitive Property, Chap. XXVII., p. 351
Let it be observed that when land is taxed, no man is taxed; for the land produces, according to the law of the Creator, more than the value of the labor expended on it, and on this account men are willing to pay a rent for land.
— PATRICK EDWARD DOVE, Theory of Human Progression (1850), Chap. I., Sec. 2, p. 44
Another article from the author of the "Property Rights" article below. It is in the same (1902) volume of The Railroad Trainman.
Who Are the Anarchists? Florence A. Burleigh 1902 The Railroad Trainman
According to the popular idea and the ordinary daily paper, an anarchist is a person who goes about the world with a bomb hidden in each pocket and a pistol in his hand, seeking whom he may devour. By the same warrant anarchism is a synonym for murder or assassination. Especially during these last few months has the subject of anarchism been discussed more or less hysterically by all kinds of people and in all kinds of periodicals. It is well, therefore, to look at the subject calmly, and without prejudice, in order that we may fully understand what real anarchism is, what its upholders hope, or wish to do, and also ask, incidentally, if the real anarchists are in the anarchist camp.
Let me state at the outset that I do not believe that any school of anarchism will ever be possible, even if it were just. No anarchist has ever, to my knowledge, talked for any length of time without admitting the necessity among citizens of some kind of a settlement of questions relating to public policy, even though they don't call it government. No anarchist has ever, to my knowledge, proposed any solution of the land question that did not involve injustice. I, therefore, am not writing from the standpoint of a supporter of the much-maligned anarchism, but from the standpoint of one who likes fair play and a clear understanding of a proposed system of social life which must be reckoned with. Let me say, also, that I number among my acquaintances and friends several avowed anarchists who are conscientious, kind, peace-loving and' thoroughly good citizens — men and women who would, and do, sacrifice much of their own comfort and convenience to help their fellowmen, who deprecate as much as any one possibly can such a deed as the killing of any human being.
That there are anarchists who have used this cowardly, as well as useless way of attempting to abolish government, is true, but that all the advice to murder or all the deeds of murder are done by anarchists is not true.
Many people who are not anarchists advocate the killing of certain classes of people, and to class all anarchists as assassins or instigators of assassination, is as unjust as it is untrue. The unpopular anarchists are usually poor and of a "lower class" of society, and are therefore under the ban whatever they do. The popular anarchists sit in high places and are respected citizens, using the word anarchist in its popular meaning as one who acts contrary to existing laws and not in its strictly correct sense, meaning one who believes in no government. For an anarchist is really one who holds that when all barriers are removed and every one is free to do what seems to him right he will not wish to do harm to any human being; that absolute freedom brings with it the possibility for every one to be kind and just to his fellowmen and that as government to a greater or less degree limits the freedom of the individual it must be unjust in the nature of the case and that it is also unnecessary, as human nature is ever good when let alone.
There are doubtless anarchists who say — as they believe — that a social revolution is coming in this country; a revolution which may or may not be bloody; that it will be brought on by the continued injustice of those in power, and that force will be used by the plutocrats — a belief that is not dissipated by the building and enlarging of armories and militia and such affairs as that at Latimer — and, therefore, the oppressed must be ready to use force in return. But even those who say this advise force only for self-defence. But the belief in a coming revolution is not confined to anarchists, but is shared by men and women of other economic schools, and does not necessarily imply in either case that the revolution will come in any other way than as a natural result of causes. Society is indeed on a wrong basis, and it seems as though nothing but a miracle could save it from a revolution which we pray may be a peaceful one. Men and women of a despised or down-trodden race, or class, are sometimes arrested and punished for acts which are entirely harmless, while those in high places may act entirely in opposition to both statute and moral law and still be looked up to.
A few months ago a poor, deluded, ignorant fellow took the most sacred thing in the world — a human life. What might have been his motive, or whose life it was, is for the moment not essential. Suffice it to say he killed a brother man and gave as an excuse that the deed was done because of a speech he had recently heard from a noted anarchist, which speech had been also heard by a vigilant police and not considered "inflammatory." But immediately after the deed was done there were cries from all classes of people, including followers of the Great Teacher, not only demanding that he be lynched on the spot, and in other ways trying to "stamp out anarchy by anarchy," but calling for dire punishment to be meted out to the woman who had delivered the lecture in question and who was hunted out and imprisoned for a time. The man had committed a crime and was punished according to law, but the woman had committed no crime, yet was threatened with violence from those who professed the highest respect for law. Both of these people belonged to an unpopular class. I am not excusing murder, or even apologizing for it; murder in all its forms, whether done by an ignorant, crazy man, or any one else, whether the murdered be one man or a thousand men, whether done in passion or in battle, Is a terrible crime. I only wish to call attention to the fact that all the defying of law and morals is not confined to the class called anarchists.
At the same time that this tragedy was enacting, Judges were issuing illegal injunctions; negroes were being burned at the stake for crimes which there was no proof they had committed — but their lynchers were "respectable" men — trust companies were evading the laws, and city, state and national officials were breaking laws with impunity.
These examples are given merely to show that in public opinion what is legal and what is not, or what is "anarchy," or what is not, depends upon the person and not the deed. No wonder justice is represented with blinded eyes — to shut out the crimes committed in her name. I do not wish to excuse wrong-doing of any kind, but only to point out the growth of class feeling in this country; the lapse from the fundamental principles of equality upon which our fore-fathers prided themselves.
Rev. John R. Crosser said recently: "I am not afraid that the anarchy on Carroll avenue will ever destroy our institutions. It is too black and ugly. The anarchy to be found on the boulevards is the most dangerous, the anarchy which buys a legislature. Anarchy cannot be put down with laws. We can learn nothing from European countries in this regard, except what not to do. We must be careful not to go too far In annihilating the class of anarchists found on Carroll avenue, lest we injure many others who really have the best Interests of our country at heart."
It is not anarchy, then, which some people are trying to stamp out, but the claim of the oppressed, even though rudely expressed, and roughly comprehended, for equal rights. The only governments which many people know about are those which oppress certain classes and give special privileges to others. The way to "stamp out anarchy" is not to pass stringent laws against allowing anarchists to come to this country or to suppress meetings at which anarchism may be discussed. It is only by discussion that we learn the truth. The way to "stamp out anarchy" is to repeal all laws granting special privileges and to accord equal justice to all men.
Anarchy, whether it be among the avowed anarchists or those who sit in legislatures, or wear broadcloth bought with the lives and sufferings of their fellowmen, can be abolished only by equal freedom and equal justice. No suppression of free speech or laws against the coming to this country of anarchists will ever avail except to increase the number and zeal of those of whom the government would be rid.
But, it may be said: "'Inflammatory speeches' cannot be allowed because as a result someone with a weak mind may be influenced thereby to commit some crime." Is not the reason deeper than that? The spirit of war — of killing — is rampant all over the country. Even Christian ministers advocate killing — not of one man, but of many, when they counsel war and rejoice when the newspapers announce, the murder by their sons and friends of their fellowmen who live in far away Islands.
Louis F. Post says in The Public: "The gospel of strenuous life has been preached from high places. Its ideal was war. This was welcomed for its own sake, as inspiring robust ambitions and giving strength to character. War was described as making heroes, and peace milksops. Throughout this strenuous life there ran rivulets of human blood, and over it there hung the heavy shadow of wholesale murder. It was to be the middle age tournament come again, but with slaughter enough to have turned the stomach of your middle age knight. And in this sanguinary spirit an imperial destiny was working out. The first republic of Asia had been strangled in infancy by the first republic of America. * * * The American republic, turning its back upon its ideals of liberty and peace, was exchanging the substance of world influence for the reputation of world power. * * * In the common mind a spirit of anarchy was being generated in the name and by the methods of the strenuous life."
The official reports state that 100,000 people go insane annually in Italy from hunger, and many are on the verge of starvation all their lives. Italy is creating anarchists by her unjust laws and nothing but a change of laws giving her people a chance to earn a living and to be free will "stamp out anarchy" there. In our own country over 90% of the people possess about 25% of the wealth, leaving the other 75% of wealth for only 10% of the people. Is it any wonder that anarchy is growing among this 90%? It is unnecessary to say that this 10% will do everything in their power to retain possession of their "property," which means, rather, their privilege to tax the other 90%. They will stop at nothing, for they know the power of the masses should they ever realize how great it is and what is the cause of their condition.
We have, then, three classes of anarchists;
first, the poor, despised ones who are preyed upon and hunted down and imprisoned on the least provocation:
second, the rich, respected ones who would indignantly repel the name anarchist, but who prey upon the first kind and make them what they are; who continually oppress them legally and illegally and who hold over them the whip of starvation;
the third class is composed of intelligent, conscientious, peaceful men and women who believe that in the absence of statute law people will not only not wish to injure their fellowmen but will do all they can to assist them; who are opposed to all kinds of violence and are willing and expect to wait for their "good time coming" a long time. No one deprecates more than these people the killing of any human being, whether he be king, president or one of the plain people. They hold human life to be the most sacred thing in the world, unless it be human freedom.
Every proprietor, therefore, of cultivated land owes to the community a ground rent (for I know of no better term to express the idea) for the land which he holds.
— THOMAS PAINE, Agrarian Justice, Paine's Writings, Vol. III., p. 329 (1795-6).
If all men were so far tenants to the public that the superfluities of gain and expense were applied to the exigencies thereof, it would put an end to taxes, leave never a beggar and make the greatest bank for national trade in Europe.
— WILLIAM PENN, Reflections and Maxims, Sec. 222, Works V., pp. 190-1.
another excerpt from Dawson (1910 -- see an earlier post, below) -
IT is necessary now to consider more fully than hitherto the question, cannot society with right claim the increased value given to land by distinctly social causes? We have seen the various factors which tend to create what is generally known as "unearned increment." In one sense this term is very inaccurate. The increment is by no means unearned; what is meant, when the phrase is used, is that the landowner has not earned it. Society, however, has; and earned it honestly by heavy toil, by exertion of body and brain, by plodding industry, by bold enterprise, by culture and enlightenment, by progress in numbers, in wealth, and in morality. There is not a yard of land in the country — be it used for the growing of corn, the pasturing of cattle, or the habitations of men — whose value has not been enhanced by these social causes. It was the settlement of men with their various activities upon the land which originally gave it value, and the increase of population has been a constant and potent factor in value-growth since the primitive communities first established the institution of private property in the common soil. And yet, while society has for centuries been growing and labouring to increase the value of the land it required for its food, its industries, and its habitations, it has ever done so to its own detriment. While enriching the landlords it has impoverished itself.
This, indeed, is the greatest anomaly presented by the social increment problem. As a community develops and prospers, owing to its energy, enterprise, and enlightenment, it is all the time preparing a rod, armed with which the landlords will sooner or later turn upon it. A town's residents are punished for their industry and merited success by having to pay the landlords more and more money for the land they use. Did not tradesmen, by dint of perseverance and pluck, succeed and thrive, the demands made upon them would not increase; but simply because they reap in prosperity the reward of exertion, the landlords require growing tribute in the form of higher rents. And so it is in all departments of social life. In the eyes of the owners of the soil, human communities become, in fact, simply value-creators, rent-producers. The landlords reap where they have not sown, they gather where they have not strawed. Little of the value of that land which they lend and sell, at prices which are often so fabulous, has been created by them, yet they appropriate it all.
I've taken some liberties with the formatting, because sometimes bullet points help ... you can find the original in the online library at http://schalkenbach.org/ I was fortunate enoguh to meet Bob
The Earth is the Lord's
by Robert V. Andelson Professor Emeritus of Philosophy, Auburn University, Auburn, Alabama
George Bernard Shaw, in a letter written in 1905 to Hamlin Garland, describes how, more than twenty years earlier, he had attended Henry George's first platform appearance in London. He knew at once, he said, that the speaker must be an American, for four reasons:
"Because he pronounced 'necessarily' . . . with the accent on the third syllable instead of the first;
because he was deliberately and intentionally oratorical, which is not customary among shy people like the English;
because he spoke of Liberty, Justice, Truth, Natural Law, and other strange 18th-century superstitions; and
because he explained with great simplicity and sincerity the views of the Creator, who had gone completely out of fashion in London in the previous decade and had not been heard of there since."
George's magnum opus, Progress and Poverty (the centenary of which occurred in 1979), is characterized by the same moral and religious emphasis remarked by Shaw in its author's London lecture, an emphasis that rises in the final chapter to the noble declaration of a faith revived. It is, I think, therefore entirely appropriate that I focus today on the moral and religious aspects of his basic proposal for economic reform — his proposal to lift the burden of taxation from the fruits of individual labor, while appropriating for public use the socially-engendered value of the land.
For land value taxation is
not just a fiscal measure (although it is a fiscal measure, and a sound one);
not just a method of urban redevelopment (although it is a method of urban redevelopment, and an effective one);
not just a means of stimulating business (although it is a means of stimulating business, and a wholesome one);
not just an answer to unemployment (although it is an answer to unemployment, and a powerful one),
not just a way to better housing (although it is a way to better housing, and a proven one);
not just an approach to rational land use (although it is an approach to rational land use, and a non-bureaucratic one).
It is all of these things, but it is also something infinitely more: it is the affirmation, prosaic though it be, of a fundamental spiritual principle — that "the earth is the Lord's, and the fulness thereof."
It is the affirmation of the same principle to which Moses gave embodiment in the institution of the Jubilee, and in the prohibition against removing ancient landmarks, and in the decree that the land shall not be sold forever. It is the affirmation of the same principle to which the prophets of old gave utterance when they inveighed against those who lay field to field, and who use their neighbor's service without wages. It is the affirmation of the same principle to which Koheleth gave voice when he asserted in the fifth chapter of Ecclesiastes that "the profit of the earth is for all."
The earth is the Lord's! Consider what this means. It means that
our God is not a pale abstraction.
Our God is not a remote being who sits enthroned on some ethereal height, absorbed in the contemplation of his own perfection, oblivious to this grubby realm in which we live.
Our God is concerned with the tangible, with the mundane, with what goes on in the field, in the factory, in the courthouse, in the exchange.
Our God is the maker of a material world — a world of eating and sleeping and working and begetting, a world he loved so much that he himself became flesh and blood for its salvation. In this sense, then,
our God is eminently materialistic, and nowhere is this more clearly recognized than in the Bible, which, for that very reason, has always been a stumbling-block and an offense to those Gnostics, past and present, whose delicacy is embarrassed by the fact that they inhabit bodies, and for whom religion is essentially the effort to escape from or deny that fact.
Our God is not a dainty aesthete who considers politics and economics subjects too crass or sordid for his notice.
Neither is he a capricious tyrant who has enjoined an order of distribution that condemns retirees after a lifetime of toil to subsist on cat food while parasitic sybarites titillate palates jaded by the most refined achievements of the haute cuisine. It is men who have enjoined this order in denial of his sovereignty, in defiance of his righteous will.
The earth is the Lord's! To the biblical writers, this was no mere platitude. They spelled out what it meant in concrete terms. For them, it meant that the material universe which had been provided as a storehouse of natural opportunity for the children of men was not to be monopolized or despoiled or treated as speculative merchandise, but was rather to be used reverently, and conserved dutifully, and, above all, maintained as a source from which every man, by the application of his labor, might sustain himself in decent comfort. It was seen as an inalienable trust, which no individual or class could legitimately appropriate so as to exclude others, and which no generation could legitimately barter away.
The earth is the Lord's! With the recognition of this principle comes the recognition of the right of every man to the produce which the earth has yielded to his efforts. As the Apostle Paul says in his first letter to the Church at Corinth, if the ox has a right to a share in the grain which it treads out, surely a human being must have a right to the fruits of his labor. For the exercise of this right, he is, of course, accountable to God — but against the world, it holds.
To one who takes seriously, as I do, that insight about human nature which is expressed in the doctrine of original sin, there can be nothing self-evident about the rights of man. In the words of my friend, Edmund A. Opitz, "the idea of natural rights is not the kind of concept which has legs of its own to stand on; as a deduction from religious premises it makes sense, otherwise not." The French Revolution and its culmination in the Reign of Terror demonstrated that humanistic assumptions afford no secure foundation for the concept of human rights. That concept, for the believer, can be neither understood nor justified except in terms of what Lord Acton so eloquently speaks of as "the equal claim of every man to be unhindered in the fulfilment by man of duty to God."
This is what it comes down to: How can a person be "unhindered in the fulfilment of duty to God" if he be denied, on the one hand, fair access to nature, the raw material without which there can be no wealth; and on the other, the full and free ownership of his own labor and its earnings?
You who have studied the history of the Peasants' Revolt in sixteenth century Germany know that in calling for the abolition of serfdom and the restoration of the common lands, the peasants were simply voicing demands which were logically implied by Luther's doctrine of the priesthood of all believers — that the service of God to which all the faithful are elected requires, as I have said, access to the land and its resources, and the free disposal of one's person and of the guerdon [editor's note: reward] of one's toil. Despite the excesses that accompanied this uprising, Luther's part in the suppression of a movement which stemmed logically from his own teaching must always be a source of pain to those of us who revere him for his spiritual genius and integrity.
The earth is the Lord's! The same God who established the just authority of governments has also in his providence ordained for the major source of revenue. Allow me to quote from Henry George:
In the great social fact that as population increases, and improvements are made, and men progress in civilization, the one thing that rises everywhere in value is land, we may see a proof of the beneficence of the Creator . . . In a rude state of society where there is no need for common expenditure, there is no value attaching to land. The only value which attaches there is to things produced by labor. But as civilization goes on, as a division of labor takes place, as men come into centers, so do the common wants increase and so does the necessity for public revenue arise. And so in that value which attaches to land, not by reason of anything the individual does, but by reason of the growth of the community, is a provision, intended — we may safely say intended — to meet that social want. Just as society grows, so do the common needs grow, and so grows the value attaching to land — the provided fund from which they can be supplied (George 1889).
On another occasion he wrote:
The tax on land values is the most just and equal of all taxes. It falls only upon those who receive from society a peculiar and valuable benefit, and upon them in proportion to the benefit they receive. It is the taking by the community, for the use of the community, of that value which is the creation of the community. It is the application of the common property to common uses (George, P&P, 421).
And yet, my friends, in the topsy-turvy world in which we live, this provided fund goes mainly into the pockets of speculators and monopolists, while the body politic meets its needs by extorting from individual producers the fruits of honest toil. If ever there were any doubt about the perversity of human nature, our present system of taxation is the proof! Everywhere about us, we see the ironic spectacle of the community penalizing the individual for his industry and initiative, and taking away from him a share of that which he produces, yet at the same time lavishing upon the non-producer undeserved windfalls which it — the community — produces. And, as Winston Churchill put it, the unearned increment, the socially-produced value of the land, is reaped by the speculator in exact proportion, not to the service, but to the disservice, done. "The greater the injury to society, the greater the reward."
We hear constantly a vast clamor against the abuse of welfare. I do not for a moment condone such abuse. Yet I ask you, who is the biggest swiller at the public trough?
Is it the sluggard who refuses to seek work when there is work available?
Is it the slattern who generates offspring solely for the sake of the allotment they command?
Or is it the man — perhaps a civic leader and a pillar of his church — who sits back, and, with perfect propriety and respectability, collects thousands and maybe even millions of dollars in unearned increments created by the public, as his reward for withholding land from those who wish to put it to productive use.
Talk about free enterprise! This isn't free enterprise; this is a free ride.
But if that same person were to improve his site — if he were to use it to beautify his neighborhood, or to provide goods for consumers and jobs for workers, or housing for his fellow townsmen — instead of being treated as the public benefactor he had become, he would be fined as if he were a criminal, in the form of heavier taxes. What kind of justice is this, I ask you? How does it comport with the Divine Plan, or with the notion of human rights?
Let me make this clear: Acquisitiveness, or the "profit motive," if you will, is a well-nigh universal fact of human nature, and I have no wish to suggest that the land monopolist or speculator has any corner on it. Even when I speak of him as a parasite, this is not to single him out for personal moral condemnation. He is not necessarily any more greedy than the average run of people. As my late friend, Sidney G. Evans, used to say: "if you have to live under a corrupt system, it's better to be a beneficiary than a victim of it." But the profit motive can be channeled in ways which are socially desirable as well as in ways which are socially destructive. Is it not our duty to do everything we can to build an order without victims one in which the profit motive is put to use in such a way that everybody benefits?
I do not harbor the illusion that the millennium is going to be ushered in by any program of social betterment. My theological orientation does not happen to be one which minimizes the stubbornness of man's depravity. Yet to make the depth of human wickedness an alibi for indifference to the demands of social justice is to ignore the will of him who said:
Take away from me the noise of your songs; to the melody of your harps I will not listen. But let justice roll down like waters, And righteousness like an ever-flowing stream. (Amos 5:23-24)
To some of you, the promotion of specific programs for social justice is seen as part of the responsibility of the institutional church; to others it is not. But all of us, I am sure, can agree that the individual Christian (or Jew or Moslem, Hindu or Buddhist, as the case may be) has a solemn moral obligation to study the issues carefully, and then involve himself strenuously in whatever social and political efforts his informed conscience tells him best advance the cause of right.
O shame to us who rest content While lust and greed for gain In street and shop and tenement Wring gold from human pain, And bitter lips in blind despair Cry, "Christ hath died in vain!" Give us, O God, the strength to build The city that hath stood Too long a dream, whose laws are love, Whose ways are brotherhood, And where the sun that shineth is God's grace for human good.*
The earth is the Lord's!
* From "O Holy City, Seen of John" by Walter Russell Bowie. Copyright, 1910, by A. S. Barnes and Company. Quoted by permission.