A CORRECTION I am indebted to one of your readers for calling my attention to an error in my article "Can Labor be Capitalized?" in the April 2 number of The Outlook, which should be corrected. In figuring the net increase in dividends and in wages for the eight-year period prior to 1909 I overlooked the fact that, while the dividends were on a fixed par value, the increase and decrease in wages were on a fluctuating basis, so that the net increase in wages for that period should be only 8.24 per cent instead of 13.56 per cent. The letters received reveal a widespread interest in this important question. The adoption of the principle suggested would largely remove the speculative elements from such investments. WILLIAM SHAW. Boston, Massachusetts. THE COST OF LIVING I have read with particular interest the article by Mr. Herbert D. Miles, who is identified with the provision trade of Chicago, on "Animal Foods and the Cost of Living," in a recent number of The Outlook. Mr. Miles admits the co-operative organization of the packing and cold storage interests, but attributes the rise in prices of the products dealt in to the fact that these shrewd business men "have during the past ten years been innocently engaged in steadily bidding up upon themselves the products entering into their freezers, the net result of which was wholly for the benefit of the farmer." Now, if Mr. Miles will supplement this remarkable statement with the assurance that during this period of ten years it has not been the practice of the buyers for the packing and storage interests to agree among themselves concerning the market values to be observed by buyers at the purchasing stations and terminals, it will help out his reasoning. In any event, Mr. Miles's reasoning carries with it the unavoidable conclusion that between the packer and the farmer the consumer is squeezed. If the profit is excessive, and is the result of speculative combination, it matters little where it lodges, whether in the pockets of packers or farmers. The real milk in the cocoanut for the consumer is to discover a way whereby the combination, whatever it may be, innocent or otherwise, which produces such results may be dissolved. Minneapolis, Minnesota. C. E. FAULKNER. A VERDICT I chanced to be reading your issue of April9 yesterday afternoon, and, following your suggestion, I submitted "The Migration of Dan" to a jury consisting of my two sons aged eleven and twelve, with the unexpected result that they both pronounced in favor of the King James version. The verdict represented their own opinion, without suggestion on my part. After reading the two versions, I cannot say that their verdict surprised me. The quaint, archaic form of expression of the King James version appeals, I believe, to the child mind, and I think it would be unfortunate if the growing generation were to tire of this matchless style and to require its presentation in more modern form. The trouble in the past has been in presenting the Bible to the child in an unreal way, in holding it before him as a sacred and inspired work, not to be read as other books. This has caused the boy or girl to have an abnormal attitude towards it, and is as responsible, if not more so, for the children's lack of appreciation of it as the quaintness of its expression. The child should be brought up to view it as any other work of literature or story-book. Where in literature can be found anything more likely to entrance the child mind than the story of Joseph? If this normal attitude could be cultivated, the child would then be more likely to appreciate and cherish the Bible's inimitable stories and its beautiful poetry. What matters it if he is not troubled about problems of its being inspired and if he places it in the category of his nursery fairy stories? With mature years will or should come the dawning of its spiritual meaning upon him, and his acquaintance with it as secular literature or as a good story-book would not detract from its spiritual reality to him. SEEBER EDWARDS. Providence, Rhode Island. A GOOD STORY BUT UNAUTHENTIC I have at least seventeen objections to the use made of my name by Mr. Frank Marshall White in his article about "Mr. Edison and the Electric Light." The first is that what he states about me is untrue; the second, that it could not be true; and the third is that, true or false, "it's of no consequence" to the public, as the late Mr. Toots might have said. The other fourteen objections I withhold in mercy to your readers. But I must add that all of them are based on the certainty that Mr. White's misinformation was an emanation from the atrabilarious brain of some disgruntled reporter or city editor of times of yore. I use that strange and formidable-looking adjective atrabilarious, because I want to overwhelm Mr. White's informant by the biggest and most horrid-looking word in the lexicon of wrath. In December, 1879, no American newspaper, not even the New York" Daily Graphic" (sometime defunct), possessed the mechanical facilities for the preparation of such an abundantly illustrated article as that which appeared in the "Herald" about Edison's electric light in that year and month, within the hours indicated by Mr. White; that is to say, between the hour of the departure 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 unimportant 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. 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. The 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 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. In fact, they amount to nearly 50 per cent. Greater New York now takes in taxation about 25 per cent of its ground rent. Its 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, including franchises as “land," is.... Five per cent of the above amount, or... Making the gross ground rent of Greater Of which $70,000,000, the present tax on land, amounts to about And the total taxes ($123,000,000) amount to...... $4,200,000,000 $210,000,000 70,000,000 $280,000,000 25% 44% 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....... $1,000 $20 $2,000 $40 If Jones owns land and buildings in equal amount, he will pay, for each $1,000 of land, taxes upon... 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 is the reluctance to face the consequences of American (and, we might say, human) nature our acts. Over twenty-five years ago Congress passed acts the avowed purpose of which was to make ranching difficult and compel the subdivision of public lands into 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 And now the raise the price of live stock, 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. |