past to the present would gradually become less and less, in proportion to the remoteness of his period of observation from the present day; that the existing distribution of mountains and plains, of rivers and seas, would show itself to be the product of a slow process of natural change operating upon more and more widely different antecedent conditions of the mineral framework of the earth; until, at length, in place of that framework, he would behold only a vast nebulous mass, representing the constituents of the sun and of the planetary bodies. Preceding the forms of life which now exist, our observer would see animals and plants, not identical with them, but like them, increasing their differences with their antiquity and, at the same time, becoming simpler and simpler; until, finally, the world of life would present nothing but that undifferentiated protoplasmic matter which, so far as our present knowledge goes, is the common foundation of all vital activity.

The hypothesis of evolution supposes that in all this vast progression there would be no breach of continuity, no point at which we could say "This is a natural process," and "This is not a natural process"; but that the whole might be compared to that wonderful operation of development which may be seen going on every day under our eyes, in virtue of which there arises, out of the semi-fluid comparatively homogeneous substance which we call an egg, the complicated organization of one of the higher animals. That, in a few words, is what is meant by the hypothesis of evolution.

I have already suggested that, in dealing with these three hypotheses, in endeavoring to form a judgment as to which of them is the more worthy of belief in which case our condition of mind should be that suspension of judgment which is so difficult to all but trained intellects - we should be indifferent to all a priori considerations. The question is a question of historical fact. The universe has come into existence somehow or other, and the problem is, whether it came into existence in one fashion, or whether it came into existence in another.

LETTER TO GENERAL MCCLELLAN

EXECUTIVE MANSION, WASHINGTON, FEBRUARY 3, 1862.

MAJOR-GENERAL MCCLELLAN.

MY DEAR SIR: You and I have distinct and different plans for a movement of the army of the Potomac yours to be down the Chesapeake, up the Rappahannock to Urbana, across land to the terminus of the railroad on the York river; mine to move directly to a point southwest of Manassas.

If you will give me satisfactory answers to the following questions, I shall gladly yield my plan to yours.

First. Does not your plan involve a greatly larger expenditure of time and money than mine?

Second. Wherein is a victory more certain by your plan than mine?

Third. Wherein is a victory more valuable by your plan than mine?

Fourth. In fact, would it not be less valuable in this, that it would break no great line of the enemy's communications, while mine would?

Fifth. In case of a disaster, would not a retreat be more difficult by your plan than mine?

Yours truly,

ABRAHAM LINCOLN.

THE CASE AGAINST THE SINGLE TAX1

ALVIN SAUNDERS JOHNSON

THE Single-Tax programme - it is almost superfluous to state contemplates the substitution of a land-tax for all the miscellaneous taxes and imposts now existing. As interpreted by most Single-Taxers, the project implies the abolition of pro

1 From The Atlantic Monthly, January, 1914. Reprinted by permission.

tective as well as revenue duties, and of excises such as those levied upon tobacco and alcoholic beverages.

It would be unfair to the Single-Taxers, however, to hold them strictly to this narrow interpretation. There is no reason why one might not be a Single-Taxer in principle, and still support the policies of protection and of sumptuary taxation. All that is essential to the system is that no tax other than that upon land shall be levied mainly for revenue purposes.

A tax upon land-rent or land value, according to the accepted theory, rests upon the owner of the land. He cannot shift it to the consumer by raising the price of his products. He is forced to accept it as a net deduction from the rent of his land. And since the value of land is ultimately dependent upon its rent, the adoption of the Single Tax would necessarily result in a great depreciation of land values. If the tax is made so heavy as to absorb the entire net income from land- and this is the express object of the Single-Taxers- the value of the land will utterly disappear. The individual may retain the husk of ownership, but the value kernel of landed property will have been seized by the state.

The Single-Tax movement would, therefore, be aptly designated as a propaganda for the universal confiscation of land. And this designation the Single-Taxers themselves would accept without reservation. If they prefer to call themselves SingleTaxers instead of Land-Confiscationists, it is solely on the ground of euphony. Confiscation is an ugly word; but the SingleTaxers are "intellectuals," and it is not characteristic of their type to stick at mere words.

The confiscation of land, as every one recognizes, would result in the ruin of many individuals, and, presumably, in the enrichment of others. The same thing, however, is true of any other sweeping economic reform. It was true, for example, of the abolition of slavery. Whether an economic reform can be justified or not depends, not so much upon whether it despoils certain individuals, as upon whether the individuals so sacrificed form a class that may advantageously be despoiled. The slaveowners formed such a class, since their essential function was

the oppression of their fellow-men. The landowners, according to the Single-Taxers, form a similar class: they are regarded as typical monopolists and men of great wealth, an unacknowledged landed aristocracy. Furthermore, whether the landowner is rich or poor, he is, in Single-Tax theory, a social parasite. All social economic functions, it is urged, would be exercised as well if he were eliminated.

It is upon these two contentions of the Single-Taxers that the whole issue turns. If they are valid, we are forced to accept the Single-Tax programme, unless we possess private interests that we prefer to the public interest. If they are not valid, we must either reject the Single-Tax programme, or accept it as a step in the direction of the confiscation of all private property. Accordingly, as impartial students of the Single Tax, we are required, in the first place, to form an estimate as to the actual distribution of land values in the United States; and, in the second place, to determine the relation of such values to our productive mechanism. There are many other points of subsidiary importance, but these alone are vital.

2. Evidence

COUNCIL GOVERNMENT VERSUS MAYOR GOVERNMENT 1

1

E. DANA DURAND

We are told that the American city council has proved itself in practice unfit to be trusted. Its powers have been taken away only because it has abused them. Whatever methods of election or of organization have been tried, it has been found impossible to secure good councilmen. The system of council rule worked well enough in the early days, with simple administrative problems and a comparatively high qualification for the electorate. But with the introduction of universal suffrage, the influx of foreign immigrants, the intrusion of party politics, and

1 From Political Science Quarterly, Vol. XV. Reprinted by permission.

R

the growth of municipal functions, the system broke down completely. These statements are usually made as if they were self-evident commonplaces of history. Seldom is any detailed study brought to their support. But historical evidence must be handled with the greatest care in order to be conclusive. Failure rightly to analyze causes and effects and to take account of differences in conditions is apt to vitiate our reasoning. Not yet have we sufficient knowledge of municipal history or sufficient outlook into the future to justify dogmatic conclusions as to the relative success of council rule and mayor rule. A few considerations may be presented, however, which show how comparatively weak is this argument in favor of the mayor system from our experience in city government.

It is very generally admitted, nor need we stop to prove, that up to the end of the third or fourth decade of this century American cities, which were then usually under the practically absolute control of the council, were more honestly and, in proportion to the technical advancement of the time, more efficiently governed than they are to-day. Indeed, the influence of the example of our federal Constitution must be looked upon as probably the chief explanation of the movement to withdraw executive powers from the council. In 1829 New York was already a very considerable city, having a population of more than 200,000 inhabitants. The city convention which met at that time was unable to advance charges against the municipal administration in the faintest degree comparable to those which are made every day against the government of our present cities possessing equal population. Nevertheless, some evils were found; and the natural remedy seemed to the charter framers, imbued with the principles of our national and state constitutions, to separate the executive from the legislative powers. But we have not the slightest proof that they correctly diagnosed the disease or prescribed the right remedy. From that time on, in fact, both council and administrative officers degenerated rapidly; and while this may be partly explained by the general lowering of the tone of politics and by the great influx of foreigners, no small share in the demoralization of the council, at