of the day editor-say five o'clock in the afternoon and the hour of going to press. Photogravure had not yet advanced to that point.

Then, to clinch the matter, and to expose the nonsense palmed off on Mr. White as reliable and spicy reminiscence, I must add that, so far from the publication of the Edison article being a surprise to me, it had been prepared with the full knowledge of Mr. Bennett and myself, and had been duly ordered into print.

I shall certainly thank you for the publication of this correction, which it is probable you may not find an altogether unim-, portant contribution to the history of journalism. Much more shall I appreciate your courtesy if you allow me to add, by way of clearing up another much misunderstood fact, that there never was any other managing editor of the New York" Herald than James Gordon Bennett, father, and James Gordon Bennett, son, during my long connection with that journal. How it may have been anterior to that time, before the Atlantic cable was laid, when the only means of communication between America and the rest of the world was by slow-going steamers, you can yourself surmise quite as well as I. But I am bound to say that during my time the electric cable was fairly loaded with instructions from -to use an expression then much in vogue-" the author of our salaries," and no mere locum tenens had much of a free hand.

New York City.

THOMAS B. CONNERY.

A PROGRESSIVE COUNTRY

I have read with much interest Mr. Paul Kennaday's article on "The Land Without Strikes in The Outlook. I congratulate Mr. Kennaday on the manner in which he has presented his subject and on the evident care he has taken to give a correct statement of the case. It is in pleasing contrast to many of the articles which are published in this country relating to New Zealand and Australia, where so many important political experiments are being made-experiments which, as Mr. Kennaday suggests, are well worth watching by older countries. New Zealand is one of the most progressive countries in the world, and, as Mr. Kennaday remarks, America might learn some lessons from that young country with advantage.

In the same issue of The Outlook the vexed question of compensation to workmen injured in their employment is editorially discussed. This question is causing 'much serious thought in the United States to-day in New Zealand it has been settled by the Workmen's Compensation Act, which provides for the payment of compensation by the employer to a workman injured in the performance of his duties. In many cases the amount of compensation is settled by mutual agreement; where this is not done it is settled by the court.

The life-story of New Zealand as a civilized settlement dates back barely seventy years, and no country in the world presents a more wonderful story of pioneering and of nation-building, From an almost unknown country of cannibal savages New Zealand has become a British Dominion of great wealth, studded with cities and towns and farms. It is peopled by a strong and virile race, who possess the highest average wealth per head of any people in the world; it is noted for its great natural resources, its gold mines, its pastoral industries, the meat and wool and other products which it exports in great quantities, and yet it has a white population of only a million souls, whereas there is room for fifteen or twenty millions. The aggregate production of the Dominion, including manufactured goods, is something like $210,000,000, of which amount about $115,000,000 represents the product of the soil in the shape of wool, frozen meat, butter and cheese, grain, etc. Very nearly half the total production is exported, the value of exports having risen to over $100,000,000, New Zealand's gold mines yield over $10,000,000 per annum, and since their discovery have produced gold to the value of $350,000,000. There are four large cities -Auckland, Wellington, Christchurch, and Dunedin-whose population ranges from fifty thousand to nearly one hundred thousand, and there are hundreds of fine towns and villages. On the State railway system over $125,000,000 has been spent. There are nearly two thousand State schools for primary education, and there is a New Zealand University, with colleges in each large center. It is interesting to note in this connection that Miss Anna C. Hedges has just resigned her position as Principal of the Hebrew Technical School for Girls in New York in order to fill the chair of Household Economy which has been established by the University of New Zealand. Something like $3,750,000 is spent annually on the education of the children. The amount of private wealth per head of popu lation is about $1,700; judged by the test of accumulated wealth, the New Zealanders are in a more prosperous condition than any other civilized people on the earth. The country's one great need is population. Australia labors under the same disadvantage.

W. FARMER WHYTE.

[Mr. Whyte is a well-known Australian journalist, and has made special and thorough study of economic and industrial conditions in New Zealand.—THE EDITORS.]

THE TAXATION OF PRIVILEGE

Mr Everett P. Wheeler, in his criticism of my article published in The Outlook for February 5, appears to be not without one misapprehension of his own. He says that in New York City "taxation is already at a much higher rate than 20 per cent of the gross ground rent."

My statement was that Boston now takes

In

in taxation about 20 per cent of its ground rent; not that Boston's total taxes amount to only 20 per cent of its ground rent. fact, they amount to nearly 50 per cent. Greater New York now takes in taxation about 25 per cent of its ground rent. total taxes, like Boston's, amount to something less than 50 per cent of its gross ground rent. Following is a careful estimate of the ground rent of Greater New York:

The assessed valuation of land, includ-
ing franchises as "land," is..........
Five per cent of the above amount, or...
is what remains of gross ground rent
to the landowners after taking in tax-
ation, as is already done, the sum of..

Making the gross ground rent of Greater
New York....

Its

$4,200,000,000

$210,000,000

70,000.000

$280,000,000

The blasting and grading of Manhattan Island are improvement values, and as such would be exempt from taxation. But the cost of these improvements is so inconsiderable as compared with the nearly twentyeight hundred million dollars site value of the land of Manhattan Island that they fade from view as part of that inevitable margin that must lie between the valuation set by the assessors and the actual land value. Still more is the above true of the filling and bulkheads of the North and East Rivers, as of all other "values created by industry and

skill."

As to a system that should put all taxes upon "real estate," the one grave objection is its inequality. Under it the landlord of a new building would be paying the taxes of an adjoining landlord who might have old buildings or none at all. For illustration, take the case of three men who, as owners each of a $1,000 lot of land, have equally at command the benefits arising from the expenditure of their taxes (presupposing the tax rate to be $20 per thousand):

If Smith owns land with worthless buildings or none at all, he will pay, for each $1,000 of land, taxes upon........

If Jones owns land and buildings in equal amount, he will pay, for each $1,000 of land, taxes upon.....

$1,000 $20

$2,000 $40

If Brown owns his own house, worth three times as much as his land, he will pay, for each $1,000 of land, taxes upon...... $4,000 $80

As between the three men, Smith will be paying one-seventh, Jones two-sevenths, and Brown four-sevenths of the total tax of $140, instead of each paying one-third, or $46.67.

The lesson of Mr. Wheeler's illustration

of a house and lot that have trebled in value, immediate or potential, in thirty years, but whose worth for use to the original occupant has not changed in that time, is that the lot, being worth three times as much, will yield three times the rental if suitably improved, and may no longer be an appropriate site for the home of the owner. A heavier tax on the site will hasten the time when the lot will be put to the best economic use. The expense of each estate to the city, being in proportion to the area of the land, rather than in proportion to the extent of the improvement, would not be increased by a new apartment-house or store. The greater the improvement, the better it is for the community. Public welfare does and must override any individual "sentiment" involved, else where would be the New York that is above Canal Street to-day?

Will Mr. Wheeler please pardon and ponder this tentative obiter dictum: While the single tax is harmful only to the business of land speculation, land speculation alone is harmful to every other business. C. B. FILLEBROWN.

Boston, Massachusetts.

THE RANCHING QUESTION

One of the most curious characteristics of American (and, we might say, human) nature is the reluctance to face the consequences of our acts. Over twenty-five years ago Congress passed acts the avowed purpose of compel the subdivision of public lands into which was to make ranching difficult and small tracts. The fencing of large tracts of public land, by which the raising of great herds of cattle is made easy, was prohibited. These laws were not at first enforced strictly. Ranchmen procured various persons to buy separate sections from the Government. This was done for the benefit of the ranchmen, who took conveyances of the separate sections and threw them into one great ranch where cattle could be cheaply fed and cared for. The Government has determined to break up this practice, and some of the most enterprising owners of cattle are now sentenced to fine and imprisonment for doing this very thing. Many have been driven out of business. The natural result has been to raise the price of live stock. And now the people complain.

Would it not be well to change our land laws so as to enable the Commissioner of Public Lands to lease lands specially adapted for grazing, in large tracts? There is land enough specially suited for tillage. Give the ranchmen a fair share.

New York City.

EVERETT P. WHEELER.

DEFENDS HIMSELF

For the greater part SECRETARY BALLINGER of three days last week the Congressional Committee investigating the Interior Department and the Forest Service listened to Secretary Ballinger testify under direct examination in his own behalf. Beginning on April 29, Mr. Ballinger answered the questions of his counsel and the Committee, and set forth his version of the matters that have been presented before the Committee ever since it began its sessions early in the year. He told of his achievements as a judge in compiling the code of the State of Washington, of his achievements as Mayor of Seattle, which he declared was, under his administion put into a decent and orderly condi tion and of his reluctant acceptance, after being urged by Senator Piles, Secretary Garfield, and President Roosevelt, of the position of Commissioner of the General Land Office. He introduced letters to show the confidence and approval of President Roosevelt in him. He recounted the programme of reforms which he proposed. These included a plan to separate the right to mine from title in the soil, so as to prevent coal lands from falling into the hands of speculators, and changes in the land laws to prevent monopolization by fraud or cunning. Early in his testimony he presented his version of the case of the Cunningham coal claims. Mr. Ballinger several times emphatically denied statements made by Mr. H. T. Jones, a special agent, and Mr. Glavis, a former official in the Land Office, who protested to the President over Mr. Ballinger's head and was discharged for bringing charges on mere suspicion. He declared that conversations which Mr. Glavis and Mr. Jones had testified to never

took place. Several times he accused Mr. Glavis of deliberate and malicious lying. Indeed, he did not conceal his anger at what he called attempts to besmirch his character. On a report furnished by an agent named Love, these claims were "clear-listed" for entry-that is, they were removed from the division that was investigating them in the field-on Mr. Ballinger's orders. He declared that he would do this again on the same record that was before him then. He regarded that record as favorable. Mr. Glavis was notified, and telegraphed that they should not be clear-listed and that he was writing. So Mr. Ballinger took the papers out of the course toward being patented. He said that he thought these claims were the only ones pending while he was Commissioner. He said, however, that he did not know at the time who were in this group. After that Mr. Glavis had the investigation of these claims in charge. Mr. Ballinger said that throughout Mr. Glavis was never hampered, but was pampered." Just before his retirement as Commissioner Mr. Ballinger appeared at a hearing of a Committee of Congress and advocated a coal bill called the Cale Bill. In telling of this hearing, Mr. Ballinger denied that, as has been asserted, this bill would have benefited these claimants. sentence in the report of that hearing which seems to record him as saying that this bill might validate entries not made in good faith he said contained an error which was not corrected by the subordinate who revised it for him. After ceasing to be Commissioner he helped several claimants to present their claims before officials. Among the claimants he thus aided were the Cunningham claimants, for whom he prepared an affidavit which

A

he presented to Mr. Garfield and from whom he received a fee of $200 or $250, which, as he understood, was simply for traveling expenses. He denied Mr. Glavis's statements about political contributions. The other claims he urged in letters to his former subordinate and successor, Mr. Dennett, as a matter of accommodation. He understood that the law which forbade any person to act as agent in any case of a claim against the Government within two years of being an employee of the Department did not apply to land claims. He told, however, how he took pains to avoid having anything to do with these cases after being Secretary of the Interior. He denied that he had any interests in Alaska, and said he had known nothing of his First Assistant Secretary's opinion which, it is asserted, would have allowed these claims to be paiented. He said he knew nothing of Mr. Glavis's attack on him until he received the President's letter informing him of it. Later in his testimony he asserted emphatically that the statements in the letter of Judge Ronald to the Editor-in-Chief of The Outlook were true. Mr. Ballinger explained these statements by saying that Special Agent Jones had sent simply two affidavits about the Cunningham claims; that Mr. Glavis's telegram was not in the nature of a protest; and that the Cale Bill was not beneficial to the Cunningham claimants.

SECRETARY BALLINGER EXPLAINS HIS VIEWS

Secretary Ballinger repeatedly made evident his lack of confidence in his subordinate, the Director of the Reclamation Service, Mr. Newell. Under questioning by the Committee he suggested that Mr. Newell might be considered responsible for the reclamation projects even while he was yet the chief engineer of a branch of the Geologic Survey.

Mr. Newell distinctly said as much. He also expressed dissatisfaction with some of the work of the Service; at the same time he pointed out that a part of this work must be judged as the experiments of pioneers. He did not think the law gave authority for reclamation of private lands except as incidental to that of public lands. He explained the action of

one subordinate as the result of mistaking an order for a mere suggestion, and the action of another as the result of mis taking a suggestion for an order. He denied that he had ordered the Reclamation Service officials to recommend to him that certain withdrawn lands be restored to entry, but he made plain that he had expressed to them unmistakably his strong opinion that such lands had been withdrawn illegally and should be restored. He referred to correspond

ence to sustain this view. He repeated what he has said on other occasions, that he could find no warrant for supervisory power of the executive. He declared that he could find no statutory power to withdraw water power sites or forest ranger stations, and no legal power even to withdraw lands temporarily so as to call the attention of Congress to the need of new laws. He admitted, however, that he had not restored all lands so withdrawn, and even had made" expediency withdrawals" on no better legal basis. In opposition to judicial opinions quoted in favor of the President's power of withdrawal, Mr. Ballinger introduced in evidence a brief prepared by the Assistant AttorneyGeneral assigned to his department. garding the co-operative certificates, he reiterated the view that they were illegal, but objected principally because they did not allow accurate estimates to be made of final cost. These certificates were a bookkeeping arrangement by which the people to be benefited by irrigation could help the Government construct the channels and thus help to pay for the cost of the work. Mr. Ballinger said that in his opinion the contract system was not only the one legal way of constructing these great works but the only businesslike

way.

Re

He held to his proposed plan of reorganizing the Reclamation Service which would have made the Director one of three officials reporting to him, instead of the single chief of the bureau. As to the case of the engineer of the service who received from a railway with which as a Government official he had dealings a regular monthly check of five hundred dollars for lecturing, Mr. Ballinger said that he had not only not removed him but had given him larger powers. He

did not explain this further except to say that he did it on the report of investigators. He expressed his anger at the Director of the Service for receiving and filing without reference to him a report of a previous investigation which he felt reflected on him as head of the Department. To demonstrate his practical acquaintance with the affairs of his Department, Mr. Ballinger said: "I traveled something over 20,000 miles this last summer, visiting reclamation projects, Indian agencies and Indian reservations, and National parks, to familiarize myself with the conditions in the field. I think I visited more than half of the reclamation projects. Some of the time I was with the Irrigation Committee of the Senate, and some of the time I was accompanied by Mr. Davis, and part of the time Mr. Newell accompanied me in my investigations; and some of the projects I visited neither Mr. Davis nor Mr. Newell were present, as, for instance, the Sun River project in Arizona and the Truckee-Carson project in Nevada." He expressed his opposition to establishing forest reserves where there are no trees, though upon questioning from the Committee he qualified that statement by saying that he believed in reforestation. His last words on that subject, however, were skeptical; particularly about planting trees on the treeless plains of the Middle West. He criticised the Forestry Service for what he regarded as attempts to misrepresent him publicly; and explained that his silence and the silence of his subordinates in regard to these attempts were due to his obedience of instructions from his superiors, specifically instructions from the President. He contradicted two or three statements made by Mr. Garfield, his predecessor, and told how he had praised Mr. Garfield's administration. Perhaps most important of all, he told of his vindication by the Department of Agriculture. He stated that since Mr. Pinchot's retirement there had been a big change in the forestry policy; that he himself had that day (Thursday of last week) signed orders restoring several hundred thousand acres of land to entry; and that in the last two months four million acres had been thrown out of the forest

reserves.

MR. GLAVIS AND

The Pinchot-Ballin

THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL ger Investigating Committee has denied to Mr. Brandeis, counsel for Mr. L. R. Glavis, his request that the Committee ask the Attorney-General to produce certain documents regarding Mr. Glavis's dismissal. Briefly, the situation is this: Mr. Glavis, finding, as he thought, matters going wrong in the Land Office, of which he was an employee, submitted a statement of facts to the President. It was referred to the Attorney-General. After consideration, the President dismissed Mr. Glavis on the ground that he had brought unfounded charges against his superior. Mr. Glavis's counsel has been assiduous in seeking for the evidence on which the Attorney-General based his report adverse to Mr. Glavis. This report was not made public at the time of Mr. Glavis's dismissal. Mr. Brandeis has asked that the Attorney-General be requested to furnish the Committee with such memoranda as he had in the preparation of his report, so that Mr. Glavis may know the details of the charges against him, and so that he may know their source. This request the Committee has denied. It has furthermore denied Mr. Brandeis's request that Secretary Ballinger be requested to furnish such memoranda. The only request concerning these data granted is that certain subordinates be asked for such memoranda

as they may have. The reason given for the denial-a reason expressed with some impatience by Senator Root-is that it is not the function of this Committee to investigate the Attorney-General's office. The Committee by this action has put Mr. Ballinger in the unfortunate position of taking refuge in the Attorney-General's immunity. Mr. Glavis has a right to know the sources of all charges against him. It does not seem fair that Mr. Ballinger's administration should escape any scrutiny by virtue of the fact that some of its affairs have been submitted to the Attorney-General for consideration. The suspicion, raised by Mr. Brandeis, that the Attorney-General's opinion contains material that could not have been obtained until after the day it was dated does not affect the duty of the investigating com