If all preachers would seek this same inspiration, would "throw themselves in the grandeur of a sublime solitariness on God," and demand great things of the Spirit, would speak out fearlessly for the rights of man, would insist upon the truth at any cost, would demand that Christianity should claim for its credentials, not submission to a creed dictated by the church, not a hope of final absolution and a home in a future heaven, but a noble life, an irreproachable character, honesty in business, and righteousness in politics; if preachers would insist that to vote is a sacred duty, and that the question how to vote is one of the deepest moral import, the ballot "a freeman's dearest offering"; if they would themselves earnestly seek light on every ques tion that affects the welfare of mankind and then let their light shine, there would be no danger of retrogression. Genuine Christianity applied is the hope of the world.

A recreant clergy, afraid of investigation, preaching halftruths, presenting a narrow gospel, unwilling to humbly confess error, clinging to dogma, uttering cant, bowing the knee to Baal, with "creeds of iron, and lives of ease," is our greatest danger, the chief obstacle in the way of progress. I cannot close this article better than by another brief quotation from the "Inspired Preacher":

Now see what a Christian is drawn by the hand of Christ. He is a man on whose clear and open brow God has set the stamp of truth; one whose very eye beams bright with honor; in whose very look and bearing you may see freedom, manliness, veracity; a brave man, a noble man, frank, generous, true, with it may be many faults; whose freedom may take the form of impetuosity or rashness, but the form of meanness, never,

REPRESENTATIVE WOMEN ON THE VITAL

SOCIAL PROBLEMS.

IS THE SINGLE TAX ENOUGH?

HENRY GEORGE AND NEHEMIAH.

In Henry George's book, called "The Land Question," on page 16, I find the following:

In the very centres of civilization, where the machinery of production and exchange is at the highest point of efficiency, where bankvaults hold millions, and show-windows flash with more than a prince's ransom, where elevators and warehouses are gorged with grain, and markets are piled with all things succulent and toothsome, where the dinners of Lucullus are eaten every day, and, if it be but cool, the very greyhounds wear dainty blankets-in these centres of wealth and power and refinement, there are always hungry men and women and little children. Never the sun goes down but on human beings prowling like wolves for food, or huddling together like vermin for shelter and warmth.

On page 73 are these words:

It is the year of grace 1881, and of the republic the 105th. The girl who has brought in coal for my fire is twenty years old. She was born in New York, and can neither read nor write. To me, when I heard it, this seemed sin and shame, and I got her a spellingbook. She is trying what she can, but it is uphill work. She has really no time. Last night when I came in, at eleven, she was not through scrubbing the halls. She gets four dollars a month. Her shoes cost two dollars a pair. She says she can sew; but I guess it is about as I can. In the natural course of things this girl will be a mother of citizens of the republic.

Underneath are girls who can sew; they run sewing-machines with their feet all day. I have seen girls in Asia carrying waterjugs on their heads and young women in South America bearing burdens. They were lithe and strong and symmetrical; but to turn a young woman into motive power for a sewing-machine is to weaken and injure her physically. And these girls are to rear, or ought to rear, citizens of the republic.

But there is worse and worse than this. Go out into the streets at night, and you will find them filled with girls who will never be mothers. To the man who has known the love of mother, of sister, of sweetheart, wife, and daughter, this is the saddest sight of all.

In different language we find a similar state of affairs told in the fifth chapter of Nehemiah-history, I believe, of a condition which existed among the Jews about 2400 years ago:

1 And there was a great cry of the people and of their wives against their brethren the Jews.

2 For there were that said, We, our sons, and our daughters are many; therefore we take up corn for them that we may eat, and live. 3 Some also there were that said, We have mortgaged our lands, vineyards, and houses, that we might buy corn because of the dearth.

4 There were also that said, We have borrowed money for the king's tribute, and that upon our lands and vineyards.

5 Yet now our flesh is as the flesh of our brethren, our children as their children; and, lo, we bring into bondage our sons and daughters to be servants, and some of our daughters are brought unto bondage already, neither is it in our power to redeem them; for other men have our lands and vineyards.

You see the similarity between the two pictures as drawn by Henry George and by Nehemiah.

But at this point I imagine a look of triumph on the face of any single-taxer who may chance to read thus far, and he exclaims: "See what's the trouble? Land monopoly. 'Other men have our lands and vineyards.' Under the single tax it is probable that there would have been no need to borrow money for the king's tribute."

In a leaflet by Henry George called "Causes of Business Depression" he says:

There is but one cure for recurring business depression. There is no other. That is the single tax-the abolition of all taxes on the employments and products of labor and the taking of economic or ground rent for the use of the community by taxes levied on the value of land, irrespective of improvement. . . That the monopoly

of land-the exclusion of labor from land by the high price demanded for it is the cause of scarcity of employment and business depressions is as clear as the sun at noonday.

Here is Henry George's cause of hard times, such as he and Nehemiah 2400 years apart depict so similarly and graphically. But the cure? Henry George says "There is but one cure the single tax." But now hear what Nehemiah says as to the cause and cure of this terrible condition:

6 And I was very angry when I heard their cry and these words. 7 Then I consulted with myself, and I rebuked the nobles, and the rulers, and said unto them, Ye exact usury, every one of his brother. And I set a great assembly against them.

8 And I said unto them, We after our ability have redeemed our brethren the Jews, which were sold unto the heathen; and will ye even sell your brethren? or shall they be sold unto us? Then held they their peace and found nothing to answer.

9 Also I said. It is not good that ye do: ought ye not to walk in the fear of our God because of the reproach of the heathen our enemies? 10 I likewise, and my brethren and my servants, might exact of them money and corn: I pray you let us leave off this usury.

11 Restore I pray you to them, even this day, their lands, their vineyards, their oliveyards, and their houses, also the hundredth part of the money, and of the corn, the wine, and the oil, that ye exact of them.

12 Then said they, We will restore them and will require nothing of them; so will we do as thou sayest. Then I called the priests, and took an oath of them, that they should do according to this promise.

13 Also I shook out my lap, and said, "So God shake out every man from his house, and from his labor, that performeth not this promise, even thus be he shaken out and emptied. And all the congregation said Amen, and praised the Lord. And the people did according to this promise.

Henry George says, "There is but one cure the single tax." Nehemiah says, "I pray you let us leave off this usury." Which is right? I vote for Nehemiah. When I was a little girl we (my father's family) used to say, "It's as true as the Bible." We had no stronger or more solemn phrase for affirming the veracity of a statement. But it is not in this spirit that I accept Nehemiah's verdict instead of Henry George's. It appeals to my reason; and I can but believe that "blindness in part hath happened unto those" who advocate land reform and declare that usury (Christian name, interest) is right and the money question of no consequence. Further than this, as nearly as I can learn there is no common understanding of the money question among the advocates of the single tax. One of thei not long ago in a private letter to me said, "The money of the world is for sale the same as any other production of human labor," and spoke of "fighting the windmill, money." In the same letter he enclosed two essays, one by Henry George, "The Causes of Business Depression," before quoted from, and one by H. F. Ring, "The Case Plainly Stated."

Mr. George says, "Land and labor-these are the two primary factors that produce all wealth." Alluding to money, he says, "It is only an intermediate, performing in exchange the same office that poker chips do in a game." Mr. Ring in his essays says: "Three factors enter into the creation of every conceivable kind of wealth. These factors are land, labor, and capital." I think Mr. Ring does not use the word money in his whole essay, so I must conclude that money is included in his term "capital," as he says "Labor does the work, capital loans the tools, and land furnishes the natural elements."

I cannot attempt in any brief space to review these essays as I would like to. I have alluded to them to show what seems to me a large lack of appreciation and understanding regarding the money question.

A strong point made by single-taxers is that no man created land, therefore no man has a right to charge any other man for the use of it. They also affirm that as the community creates land values, therefore the community

has a right to these and may take them in the form of a tax. (I have tried to state the positions fairly.) But are not these propositions true of money? My friend alludes to money as "a product of human labor," but if he will stop to think he must see that it is not so. No individual can create money, let him labor never so long and hard. Some try it and succeed in producing a fair counterfeit which often answers the purpose, but even the most contemptuous single-taxer will not claim, when he knows how it was produced, that it is really money. God does not make money, it does not grow on trees, it is not dug out of the ground, it is not produced by labor; how then does it come into existence? Jesus of Galilee acknowledged its source when he took the coin and asked, "Whose is this image and superscription? They say unto him, Cæsar's. Then saith he unto them, Render therefore unto Cæsar the things that are Cæsar's, and unto God the things that are God's."

Money is a creation of law. Cæsar as an individual could not make money. As the representative of the Roman government he did. Money, in this country, is a manifestation of a universal agreement. Probably Mr. George was right in comparing it to the chips in poker, but as I do not understand that game I am not sure.

But of one thing I do feel sure, and while I do not wish to be dogmatic or discourteous I have no hesitation in saying that no one who understands the history of finance in this country since 1859, to say nothing of the time before that and of the world's history, will speak lightly of the money question. To simply study the moves of the banking fraternity for the last three years ought to open anyone's eyes to the importance of the currency question. Bankers produce no wealth. All that they get then is at somebody's else expense. How do they get it? By usury. Who pays usury? Only somebody who is in debt. This being the case, is it not for their interest to keep people in debt? Yes, up to a point beyond which they cannot pay the usury. And even beyond that it's "Heads I win, tails you lose"; for as a rule money is loaned only on good security, and if the debtor cannot pay his interest the creditor gets the security, which is usually worth more than the amount secured. In this way men in Nehemiah's time got possession of other men's land. In this way in Christ's time the Pharisees "devoured widow's houses." In this way now I believe the monopoly of the land goes on.

Henry George says, "Seasons of business depression come and go without change in tariff and monetary regulations."